1. News & Issues

Discuss in my forum

David Emery

Health Care Bill Page 425 - The Truth

By July 27, 2009

Follow me on:

Update: The posting below and some 1,200+ user comments following it refer to an outdated version of the House health care bill as proposed in July 2009. For the full text of the legislation actually passed by the House and Senate and signed into law by President Obama in March 2010 (H.R. 3590), click here. For a non-partisan evaluation of many of the claims and counter-claims about what the new law will actually do, see FactCheck.org.

1. Text of hysterical rumor:

On Page 425 of Obama's health care bill, the Federal Government will require EVERYONE who is on Social Security to undergo a counseling session every 5 years with the objective being that they will explain to them just how to end their own life earlier. Yes... They are going to push SUICIDE to cut Medicare spending!!! And no, I am NOT KIDDING YOU! So those of you who voted for Obama have now put yourself and your own parents in dire straights... Congratulations!


2. Text of Section 1233 (pp. 425-430) of the actual health care reform bill (2009 version of House Bill 3200), which, as far as I can tell after wading through several pages of legalese, merely amends Title 18 of the Social Security Act to stipulate that Medicare will pay for -- not mandate -- "advance care planning consultations" between individuals and physicians every five years, during which a spectrum of end-of-life options can be explained and discussed so said individuals can knowledgeably choose their own treatment preferences in advance:

Page 424, Line 15:

SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION.

(a) MEDICARE.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--Section 1861 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended--

(A) in subsection (s)(2)--

(i) by striking "and" at the end of subparagraph (DD);

(ii) by adding "and" at the end of subparagraph (EE); and

(iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

Page 425:

"(FF) advance care planning consultation (as defined in subsection (hhh)(1));"; and

(B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

"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,

Page 426:

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 services 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

Page 427:

unable to communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decisionmaker (also known as a healthcare 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;

Page 428:

"(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 physcians 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).

Page 429:

"(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;

Page 430:

"(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."

Poll: Does it seem plausible to you that this health care plan would push people to undergo euthanasia?

1) Yes, absolutely.
2) I think it could be true.
3) I don't know.
4) Pretty sure it's not true.
5) Absolutely not.

Read more:
Full text of the version of the health care bill currently under discussion (H.R. 3200)
Audio of health care bill opponent Betsy McCaughey misrepresenting the contents of page 425 of the health care bill on Fred Thompson's radio talk show
Impartial analysis of page 425 of the health care bill by St. Petersburg Times reporters on Politifact.com

Comments

July 27, 2009 at 6:48 pm
(1) reality doesn't exist for some of us says:

My girlfriend received this today and being the good little repub she is brought it up as soon as she got home to me… her progressive atheist :)

I swatted that meme down with a quickness.

July 27, 2009 at 9:20 pm
(2) constitutionalist says:

Why do so many people in America refuse to provide for themselves? Instead they want to suck the tit of the government and accomplish nothing for themselves. If this is what you want, Russia will be glad to have you.

June 20, 2011 at 3:16 pm
(3) red blooded says:

Did you go to public schools?
Do you like your fire and police dept?
The gov hands that out.

What would Jesus do, let people suffer or give them care?

August 13, 2011 at 2:54 pm
(4) Vicki says:

Red-Blooded, sorry, but public schools, fire, and police are not “handed out” by the government. WE, AS TAXPAYERS, PAY DEARLY FOR THOSE SERVICES . . . and as far as schools go, sometimes the curriculum is MUCH against our will, as you probably know. Social Security for the elderly is also NOT a hand-out or entitlement. Those people have paid into it their whole working lives — it’s their money, they should get it back whent hey retire!

July 27, 2009 at 9:35 pm
(5) connie w says:

This bill is horrible! I don’t care if this end of life crap is not required! The feds HAVE NO BUSINESS BEING IN THE HEALTH CARE BUSINESS!!!!!!!!

February 9, 2011 at 3:14 am
(6) Elliot says:

They are not in “the business” because the government is not selling insurance.

Also, didn’t you not know that we have had socialized medicine, where the govt actually is in “the business,” for decades for members of the military and congress?

July 27, 2009 at 10:42 pm
(7) P Walters says:

Ditto to #3 comment. 1017 pages of gobbligook to complicate, instead of improve the healthcare system in America. This is an obvious bill to appease leftists that some Congressmen “owe” things to. Wake up, insane America!!

July 28, 2009 at 12:11 am
(8) cheryl s says:

Be sure your Congressman knows how you feel! That is the only mouthpiece we have!! Help!

July 28, 2009 at 12:12 am
(9) dottie says:

Even through I have ensurence coverage now, I remember being along with my three young children, I remember going with out food to feed them because they really needed to see a doctor, and it was let them suffer in pain, or with out eating for a week to pay the doctor bills. We have right here in Hawaii several clinics that will not even look at you if you can not pay the bill right them. I wander how many of our congressman and people in the goverment have been with out insurence for them selves or their children. This articel 425, is not as bad as every body says, we have already talked to our doctor about a living will and etc. Do you want to live when your 90 with no quality of life and be kept alive by machines, and costing the govermwnt and your family thousands of dollars.
think about it!!!

July 28, 2009 at 2:08 am
(10) John says:

What part of (hhh) suggests the “Advance Care Planning Consultation” is not mandatory, especially the part about “end-of-life services”? Did you read paragraph 3, which goes out of the way to close a possible loop hole? Here’s paragraph (3):

“(3)(A) An initial preventive physical examination
21 under subsection (WW), including any related discussion
22 during such examination, shall not be considered an ad23
vance care planning consultation for purposes of applying
24 the 5-year limitation under paragraph”

July 28, 2009 at 2:46 am
(11) John says:

Oh, and government mandated and provided health care is NOT the only possible solution, and not the best because historically (and today is no exception):
1. Bureaucracy has always been known to be expensive and restrictive, and no one has ever known it to be otherwise. Mandatory health care will be expensive and restrictive as well.
2. There is a laundry list of scandals readily available from countries that provide government provided health already. (I live with a Canadian.)
3. A quick reminder that “The grass is always greener”. The sun doesn’t automatically shine when the Government dirties its hands the way the media portrays it.
4. Think about the vast history of government spending scandals, and then incidences where the government has been applauded for its frugal spending, which is more numerous? Is the answer significant?
5. “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time”: the press has the ability to create a temporary ‘mob mentality’ with people who don’t take the time to think through the problems themselves when they run away with an idea. Just because it sounds ‘humanitarian’ doesn’t make it so, good, or even the ‘right thing’.
6. Our country came to be precisely in order to limit government control and so prevent abuses by government imposed on its citizens. That has historically been the source of our countries greatness, and this bill is in direct contradiction to that rule.
7. Each of these points can be easily supported against attack, and there are many more strong arguments that can made concerning this bill.

A quick note: We Americans like change. “Change is good”, or so the adage says, right? But isn’t it more true that Change is neither good nor bad? Change can happen for better or for worse, and it takes a discerning eye to tell the difference between the two – not a passing glance at some text and trust in other’s opinions. You have to look at the stuff yourself, or risk adding to the problem.

July 28, 2009 at 3:03 am
(12) Gregg's Health Insurance News says:

The Senate Finance Committee bill may be a bit more palatable than Obamacare. Obamacare really is a cruel joke. I’d be furious if I voted for the guy.

July 28, 2009 at 11:12 am
(13) Tom says:

Look. I am not a socialist, but one of the reasons we have government, is to protect the people. We need to hold them accountable but we do need government because of corruption. (It’s more like one corruption cancelling out another!)

October 31, 2011 at 3:08 pm
(14) jennifer says:

do you feel safe
do you feel that your government is protecting you

i know i dont

July 28, 2009 at 11:22 am
(15) You go constitutionalist! says:

In reply to the constitutionalist, I bet you’re a good Christian too. Is your favorite gospel verse where Jesus says “every man for himself,” “not my problem,” “charity is for suckers” or “move to Russia”. Just wondering what a good Christian would do. Can you teach me?

July 28, 2009 at 2:19 pm
(16) Fred says:

People say that they don’t want the government involved in the nation’s health care. Excuse me, but they already are. The military has government provided health care, veterans have government provided health care, members of Congress and their staffs participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program along with active and retired federal employees. So, be aware that the government is, and has been for some time, involved in providing health care.

July 28, 2009 at 2:27 pm
(17) George Adams says:

If we have to pay for mothers to have their babies killed, I guess there’s no reason we shouldn’t have to pay for people to learn how to kill themselves.

July 28, 2009 at 2:58 pm
(18) MamaG says:

You go constitutionalist! says:
In reply to the constitutionalist, I bet you’re a good Christian too. Is your favorite gospel verse where Jesus says “every man for himself,” “not my problem,” “charity is for suckers” or “move to Russia”. Just wondering what a good Christian would do. Can you teach me?

WHY do you automatically ASSume that constitutionalist is a christian? If you will reach the scriptures carefully for yourself, you will see that Jesus did not come to this world to change governments, but to save people. Come on!! don’t make this discussion about something that it’s not.

July 28, 2009 at 3:18 pm
(19) w says:

Having been to government seminars devoted to nationalized health care back when Hilary was chairing the process, all I can report is that any universal health care system MUST ration health care and deny care. All of the big thinkers in this know that must be the case.

OK, accepting that, I mostly worry about the effect on medical research, progress and innovation. A system run to contain costs won’t gamble on new and better methods to save lives. Without a profit motive, there is no drive to excellence. Yes, individual doctors will do their utmost best, but I fear that our progress in medicine will be stalled.

There are other alternatives, none are perfect. I like what Clark Howard proposes.

July 30, 2011 at 9:55 am
(20) Fudgie says:

Without a profit motive, there is no drive to excellence.

So why is China whooping our ass?

July 28, 2009 at 3:35 pm
(21) judefolly says:

indeed, opponents to healthcare reform are throwing the kitchen sink. if you have to lie for your cause, really, how moral can it be?

July 28, 2009 at 6:26 pm
(22) Mikee says:

Okay. Private insurers deny people with preexisting conditions because they cost a lot more to insure. The government will take these expensive people and somehow do it cheaper? Someone give me a calculator.

The simple fact re: page 425 is that if the President is right and prevention works, it will just result in more old people who need the most expensive care and costs will skyrocket.

July 28, 2009 at 6:32 pm
(23) oi812 says:

regarding the post about Jesus–I think Jesus wants a cheerful giver not one where the government puts a gun to your head and says since you have been blessed more than others we can now steal your money and give it to others- I do not think Jesus wanted his followers to give their money to Rome and let Rome decide who gets help by buying votes using ACORN. I like taking the middle man out and give directly to those in need.

July 28, 2009 at 7:16 pm
(24) Kristen says:

Well said, John.

July 28, 2009 at 8:04 pm
(25) K Miller says:

Hey, you missed the part about opting for your own health care…. that’s part of the “legend” and you left it out. Where’s the answer for that??

July 28, 2009 at 8:18 pm
(26) urbanlegends says:

K Miller –

Individuals would still be able to opt for their own health care coverage:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=333069697522201

July 28, 2009 at 11:56 pm
(27) Georgia says:

John…Your points make more sense than anybody’s! Our illustious, “professional” media has regressed over the years to not much more than sensationalisitc, fear-mongerers. But they wouldn’t still be doing business that way unless the American people kept biting the carrots they lay out. So many seem so anxious to glom onto a short piece of the whole truth and take off w/ it, spewing their own form of negativity and arrogance w/ it….as long as it supports “their” view!
The healthcare reform bill doesn’t sit well w/ me either on several levels but I’ve been around long enough to know the truth lies somewhere in the middle on most things and this is no different. For anyone to come out with the statement that it is encouraging suicide among the elderly is so rediculous it’s pitiful.
Having worked in hospice care for 5 years, I can tell you that until the hospice concept finally got here, the word “death” was not up for much discussion. Yet, 100 years ago, people died in their homes, surrounded by loved ones. It was viewed as a natural part of the cycle of life. As technology grew, the personal side of the dying process declined. Many people are resusitated against their will or because of poorly laid out communication, only to live w/ more pain, suffering and no quality of life. It’s not done “for their own good”. It’s done as protocol because of the fear the medical institutions have of lawsuits. Does anyone remember Terri Shivo? How many of us would answer “yes” if we were asked if we wanted to remain in a constant, vegetative state? When you’re being resusitated isn’t the time to figure that out. If information is correct, it’s power and the elderly have every right to have it explained to them. The bureaucratic, red tape of the healthcare system is confusing enough in general but esp. for them.
It would sure be an amazing change to see everyone actually take the time to study BOTH sides of an issue before they go spouting off. It’s definately not helping the situation and we’re better than that. COME ON PEOPLE….USE YOUR HEADS!

July 29, 2009 at 12:37 am
(28) Jon says:

Can anyone believe the brain-dead person who suggested that Jesus Christ would be in favor of centralized government and national health care? I think it possible that all socialist-leaning people have a mental illness – They think it’s the governments job to do good things for people. BULL SH**! Their only job is to protect each citizens self-evident rights and mediate grievences when offences occur. When spiritual leaders tell believers to “love one another, and give sacrificially” it encourages voluntary morality – Nothing wrong with that! But, it is neither love nor sacrifice nor moral when a Government forces their own brand of social morality upon its people. Stupid, short-sighted people annoy me.

July 29, 2009 at 1:22 am
(29) Jon says:

Oh, and by the way, This country is full of stupid people.

As for the person who suggests we look at BOTH SIDES of the issue – You have fallen prey to a socialist mind game – Progressives, liberals and socialists do not believe in absolute truth of any kind, they only believe in outcomes. To them, truth and goodness are beneficial outcomes they create from their ever-evolving good intentions. Their beliefs are summarized phrases like, “Oh Universal Healthcare – that’s a great idea – it would certainly help a lot of people! So, how do we get from here to there?”

On the other hand, an intelligent, principled thinker summarizes his thoughts much differently, saying things like: “It makes no difference whether a lot of people will be helped or not, that’s not the issue… The only question is whether or not it is the self-evident responsibility of government to get involved in such an issue.”

It is the classic misguided conflict between pragmatism and principle. Pragmatists cannot grasp deep seated principle… they don’t have the mental capacity to do so. Their only intrest is in implementing whatever beneficial outcomes that excite them – and they are happy to use the largess of government to facilitate their aims. It’s not that they don’t care about the philosophical self-evident truths articulated in the constitution and other sound and sacred documents; they do not have the mental capactiy to comprehend such things.

When I hear a person listen to a political debate and say something like, “Oh, let’s step back and look at BOTH SIDES of the issue before passing judgment” – I roll my eyes, know that person is about to sacrifice their principled intellect at the altar of pragmatic blindness.

The pragmatic politicial always says, “Since we can’t agree on principle, we can at least agree on outcome; right?” – The correct answer is “WRONG!” – There is never a mandate to agree on an outcome if the principle is wrong. Political debate is not supposed to have TWO SIDES… It only has ONE… Self Evident Truth.

The purpose of writing a constitution is to require every political debate throughout all generations to reach back and prove it’s unarguable connection to the self-evident princples outlined in its pages.

I have never met an intelligent, philosophical liberal progressive, and I doubt I ever will. I have yet to meet one who has the brain skills to comprehend the concept of self-evident, absolute truth. All they want is feel-good outcomes no matter what the cost.

Don’t drink the kool-aid they offer you, my friends.

July 29, 2009 at 1:26 am
(30) Another John says:

John (6):
The bill says that one “Advance Care Planning Consultation” every five years will be covered. Nowhere it states that such a consultation is mandatory. That’s how laws work, it’s about what they say, not what they don’t say. Example: The bill requires everyone to own a pink elephant! Where does it say that? Well, where does it say that you DON’T have to own a pink elephant?

And regarding paragraph (3), that just says that you can’t be denied an “Advance Care Planning Consultation” just because your physician talked to you about some of that stuff during a preventive physical examination. That would not count towards your once-in-five-years limit.
It’s amazing how certain political forces twist and intentionally misunderstand sections of this bill.

July 29, 2009 at 2:51 am
(31) In response to you go constitutionalist #10 says:

The bible says if a man will not work then he should not eat 2nd Thessalonians 3:10. The key is “will not”–it doesn’t say cannot. There is a difference between people expecting a free lunch for nothing and people who cannot help themselves and are truly in need. God knows your heart and your intentions. To answer your question, a good Christian will help those in need as God leads them to that need. Its in obedience to the call of Christ on that persons life that he shall walk–not what you think he should do.

July 29, 2009 at 5:28 am
(32) carrie says:

I was horrified when I first stumbled on this sight, but proceeded to send my urgent message of NOT voting for the health care bill. It is so encouraging to see so many of you level headed people out there that are against it. Please contact all of your officials and let them know how you feel. They are all in fear of next year’s election outcome. If they don’t go with the will of the people, then vote them out. By the way, my family and many wonderful people I know, give to many charities, by their choice, not by force. There will be no wealth to spread around, when this administration is finished with us, and therefore willful giving will also go away. The numbers of people uninsured has been falsified, but that is no surprise. Many lies to reach a goal, is a goal we must avoid! No one is turned away from emergency care, but that is not told of in the media. Canadians, and British have been desperately trying to warn us to stay away from nationalized health care, but their messages have certainly not gotten far. Please call, write, email your senators and congressman, especially the blue dog democrats, who are on the fence! They may be our only hope.

July 29, 2009 at 8:46 am
(33) LR says:

Carrie says “Canadians, and British have been desperately trying to warn us to stay away from nationalized health care” this seems strange, most of the surveys taken in our little backward country say that the majority of Brits are proud of our “socalist” health service and would hate to see it heading down the profit before care, insurance company dominated American route.
But hey, each to their own…

July 29, 2009 at 9:54 am
(34) Pure Energy says:

Long-term strategies to address the cost of health care and uninsureds need to be proposed. However, shoving a half-baked piece of legislation through without appropriate discussion, debate, and modifications is irresponsible.

I believe those opposing this plan do themselves a disservice by raising the specter of non-existent bogeymen. There are enough REAL gremlins in the bill including the proposal(s) to pay for it to make us mere mortals (Chuck Norris excluded of course) extremely concerned and worried.

July 29, 2009 at 11:59 am
(35) katablog.com says:

I trained and then worked for 10 years as a Paralegal. We were always taught that “shall” in legal terms was a mandatory statement. The counseling is mandatory.

And while it is not mandatory that patients refuse care, you better bet your last dollar that under a government controlled health care system, they will 1) be encouraged to forgo life saving care by being counseled about “resources” and 2) they’ll be in line long enough that they won’t have the ability to get life saving care.

July 29, 2009 at 4:39 pm
(36) Ahoyt05 says:

I am a Christian and I think Jesus would say “if your brother falls down help him up, if he cannot walk on his own let him lean on you, if he cannot stand carry him, if he doesn’t want to walk leave him where he is”. After all its his choice. I don’t make much $$ I work for the Salvation Army, but I give about 20-40% of my take home pay, whether it be tithes the child I sponsor in Bangladesh or the guy that’s holding a sign at a red light. The Bible says if someone asks-give, doesn’t leave much to discussion, that is the way we take care of people. If this goes through I will have a lot less money to give as I choose from my heart and the leading of the spirit and may even come to resent the people that are benefiting from the money the govt. takes from me. I already struggle with the people on welfare that could easily work if they went looking for work, why should they support themselves when the govt. will take care of them with the money I earned with my sweat. If people work and pay into the “system” for their latter years I have no problem with them getting the help they need, or if they aren’t able to work give them what they need. that’s what social security and Medicare is for. If they put in give them what they deserve, if not likewise, if they truly weren’t able then give them what they need, but don’t make those choices for me. The job of the Federal
Govt. is to protect our nation from foreign invaders (where I classify ILLEGAL immigrants), to protect the individual rights of the states, and to uphold the Constitution. NOT to take care of the individual citizens or regulate morality. This country was founded as a republic for a reason, if you don’t know the difference between a democracy and a republic here it is in short. In a republic the people (by popular vote) elect representatives into govt. to do the will of their constituents. In a democracy the people elect into power politicians to do what they think is best for the people (not always by popular vote ie. the electoral college) This nation was founded as a republic, meaning the founding fathers believed that the individual citizens were smart enough to make their own decisions and govt. would have very little to do with their lives on a day to day basis. Now we have a democracy where a minority of elites think they know better than I do how I should run my life, and they are better qualified to make decisions for me than I am. I don’t know but if you ask me even though their elected it sounds like the aristocracy of Europe before the people got tired of it and revolted.

July 29, 2009 at 5:35 pm
(37) Oh, Brothers says:

To all of you Christians out there preaching about helping out your fellow man when they ask… Teach a man to fish…!!!!

It is more cruel to make someone, or allow someone, to be dependant than to help them help themselves. Certainly, give them aid when needed, but dont let them continue to be a victim. This healthcare bill will allow people to continually take advantage of the system, and suppress those of us who are ambitious enough to take care of ourselves.

July 29, 2009 at 7:42 pm
(38) ahoht05 says:

If you actually read what I wrote, that’s exactly what i was saying. I work at an adult rehab center where part of the program is “work therapy”. Everybody in the program works 40 hrs a week in our warehouse processing, or helping on our donation trucks, that way they pay for their program and get work experience they can put on a resume.

July 29, 2009 at 9:50 pm
(39) Memory says:

We have as strong a reason to be upset by all this junk, concerning health care, government mandated caps have bean used before, why not in this category too? why dose a hospital need 500 or more a night, why dose the doctor have to have millions in malpractice insurance, why do we have to spend 500 for an ambulance ride, why must we have to spend such large amounts for script when other countries get it for less from the same company! I am a vet and have a week heart, now down to twenty five percent, yet at sixty one do you think I will get a transplant? Think not why would that happen and give me ten more years, thats probably my life expectancy any how. That will be the view awaiting everyone. remember it will come, some young buck will cut you out. Thats your new life!

July 29, 2009 at 11:09 pm
(40) the Doctor says:

firstly, well said John.

secondly, Obama is a bully and I don’t play with Bullies. I am a doctor and I will not have a gun put to my head. I am already receiving less than 1/3 of my billing from medicare and all insurances follow, yet I provide free or reduced rate care to many including weekends and nights (try to get a plumber to come out in an emergency for a hundred bucks, yet medicaid expects me to do my work at 2 am for $20.) most of us refuse to take another pay cut-not a penny less!

I, among many other relatively silent docs, will just say no! no more pay cuts after 13 years post grad education, 120 hour work weeks, 250,000 dollars in debt. I wouldn’t send my kids through all that, only to become targets for the lawyers lottery, would you?

if healthcare was Obamas “top domestic priority”, he shouldn’t have already blown 3 generations of future earnings bailing out his pet projects and paying off his debt to the unions (who are just figuring out they’re getting screwed, by the way)…

healthcare solved:
FIRST allow doctor’s and other providers to deduct directly (no tricks) the difference from government pay or no pay and the 80th percentile of the charged amount. sure, docs who provide charity would pay virtually nothing in taxes but you’d be getting what you want for it with an army of willing providers!
SECOND: eliminate malpractice- don’t just cap awards- cancel the reverse lottery of which lawyers take 30%. it never corrects bad doctors anyway. instead allow complaints heard by boards who suspend specific privileges until reeducation is proven.
THIRD: if you want a policy for unexpected outcomes, pay for one, or provide a clear policy.
FOURTH: regulate profiteering by insurance companies and wall street- they do nothing to advance care and only suck it dry. I don’t think the free market theory holds water when the payments to providers are regulated, methods of practice are governed, and the gov’t already tells/regulates how profits can be made (OIG)

but real healthcare reform isn’t on the table!

July 30, 2009 at 1:15 am
(41) ahoyt05 says:

Thanks doc. nice to hear from your side of the street. For memory, the reason they have to have all that malpractice ins. is due to “ambulance chasers” lawyers that make all their money by convincing people that they can score big on a suit for something, and don’t get me wrong I believe if there is a gross negligence case that the injured party or their survivors should be compensated, but a large number are frivolous. And that is one thing that drives up the cost of healthcare is the cost of the ins., just like prices in a dept. store. A lady fell and broke her leg in a Target (if I remember right) and was awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars in a lawsuit, way more than I think med. bills and “suffering” should have been anyway, the kicker is that she tripped over her own child!!! Who pays for the suit, all the customers that shop there after the fact, and the ins. premiums go up and all the other stores get ins. to cover the same thing and their prices go up and so on. Its the same with healthcare

July 30, 2009 at 2:00 am
(42) Mike from Chicago says:

Great, let’s all allow “Big Brother” to encourge grandad and granma to commit suicide.
How wonderful…Something evil is happening to America. Wake up!

July 30, 2009 at 8:33 am
(43) Joe S. from Wilkes-Barre says:

The following is text from my constant battle with my good friend who is a right wing hate monger that loves to spread the lies.

Now you are really going insane. Read the questions asked and tell me what your answer would be? They are trying to help people that need health care, the ones that don’t have it. Get your head out of the clouds and STOP listening to the hate mongers.

I will give you 3 exampleS of questions with answers because I know you are noT capable of answering honestly.

1. Mr. President, you are building low income housing to help the poor. ARE YOU AND YOUR FAMILY GOING TO MOVE INTO THEM? NO, WE ARE BUILDING THEM TO IMPROVE LIVING STANDARDS FOR THEM.

2. Mr. President, the minimum wage is going yo be 7.25, will you and your staff work for minimum wage? NO, WE ARE DOING THIS TO HELP PEOPLE THAT ARE STRUGGLING.

3. Mr. President, You really want health care reform. If Universal health care is passed are you and your family and congress going to drop theirs and enroll in the new one. AGAIN, NO, NO, NO,. EVERYTHING THAT IS DONE TO HELP THE NEEDY IS DONE TO IMPROVE THEIR LIVES. IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT EVERYONE ELSE SHOULD STEP BACK.

July 30, 2009 at 9:37 am
(44) Anna says:

I am guessing not too many of you have ever been in THE position of NOT having coverage for a dying child.

Go easy.
One day that child might be yours.

July 30, 2009 at 9:56 am
(45) Hoyt McCachren says:

So all of those opposed to “government healthcare” are ready to drop social security and medicare??

July 30, 2009 at 10:04 am
(46) Darlene says:

If government health care is so great, why is it so hard to find a physician who will take medicare patients???????

July 30, 2009 at 10:36 am
(47) blackcat725 says:

Does anyone here know what “Advanced Care Planning” means? It means a Living Will, telling people what your wishes are should you be unable to. (remember Terry Schaivo?) If any one of you had every had to deal with the health care system and a loved one who was in a vegetative state, you’d be happy that they were including this. It has nothing to do with ending your life.

July 30, 2009 at 11:26 am
(48) Doctor What? says:

I’ve read all these comments and most of you I am guessing didn’t read what this is about and are just grandstanding.
“Shall” in legal terms does not mean mandatory, “will” in legal terms means mandatory
Doctor says he works 120 hrs a week I’m guessing you don’t golf, or are an intern we are still trying to get those hrs lower for you guys and gals, or heaven forbid you are lying; for the $250,000 you say you owe you might try that government plan that pays off you loans if you work in a rural area.
Urban Legions is just says that this bill is not going to push suicide on seniors, and I’m surprised that anyone who says they are intelligent would believe that Congress would push a bill that does. The scare tactics are at work paid for by private for profit health care insurance Corporations, Big Pharma, and private for profit Hospitals, don’t fall for it, its a line of crap.

July 30, 2009 at 11:57 am
(49) Simply Jim says:

With regards to the health care bill, I just recently listened to a very insightful interview conducted by, former US Senator, Fred Thompson and his guest Betsy McCoy[former Lt. Governor for New York]as they closely examined this bill and especially page 425. I am finding serious discrepancies between the facts, and the seemingly leftist liberal views of this supposed unbiased website that I once respected, and known as Snopes.com. It would be wonderful if we could get back to presenting the facts and not putting on own political biased spins upon them. Thank you very much!

July 30, 2009 at 12:18 pm
(50) Dennis says:

“This bill is horrible! I don’t care if this end of life crap is not required! The feds HAVE NO BUSINESS BEING IN THE HEALTH CARE BUSINESS!!!!!!!!”

Thank God for the socialized medicine programs provided by the goverment.

My mother’s suffering at the end of her life was greatly lessened by the assistance of Medicare. Without it, insurance would have been too expensive and she would have suffered far more than she did.

In my own case, I thank God for the nation’s socialized medicine programs. You see, without the VA, I could not afford to buy the medicine I need (no generic is avaliable). (Or didn’t you know that the VA was a socialized medicine program)? I get excellent care through the VA.

The bills’ working through congress don’t replace the insurance we now have, they will only cover those who don’t have nor can afford insurace. (Wouldn’t be wonderful if it brought all of our health insurance costs down)?

My company’s costs for employee health insurance is a growing concern. At this point, we pay a fixed amount each month and the employee pays the rest. Some are paying several hundred a month. I don’t know how they are making it. What are they going to do in future years?

If we don’t do something soon, only a few of us, including most of you against it, will be able to afford to buy only a basic, minimal policy. So don’t be too quick to take the line being force-fed by the pharmaceutical industries. They are one of THE MOST profitable profitable sector in the United States. And don’t let them tell you that they will lose money if new legistation is enacted. After the new Medicare drug program went into effect in 2006, their profits increased by 8 BILLION.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m tired of paying for other peoples greed. It’s time we do something good for everyone.

July 30, 2009 at 12:31 pm
(51) Marlene Koerner says:

I knew it was bogus but needed some proof to send on to all to whom the original email had been sent. Put this with the black helicopters and Obama being an alien, probably an illegal one since there is no proof he ever got a visa or acquired citizenship.

July 30, 2009 at 12:33 pm
(52) dd greer says:

To Constitutionalist: What a cold-hearted, uncaring person you are. Certainly glad I don’t have to associate with you.And you have no understanding of how government works or is supposed to work. And the Russia comment was idiotic. Do you have any compassion for anyone?
What happened in your upbringing to make you such an insensitive, cruel person?

July 30, 2009 at 12:34 pm
(53) VICTORIA SALLESE says:

the part of the bill that allows for citizens to set up their own advanced directives is a good idea. It does not tell us how you want to die. So stop that stupid argument. When you claim this is the purpose of this, it shows how truly stupid and mean-spirited you are. My advance directive allows me to pick 2 people who can speak for me and make my medical decisions for me when I cannot speak for myself. THAT IS ALL. So stop being stupid.

July 30, 2009 at 3:38 pm
(54) uninsured in America says:

We are a family of three, with a good income, and yet, while my husband’s employer offers health insurance, we could not afford it and still be able to pay for rent, food, clothing, etc. Why is it that, should we have chosen to have more children or for my husband to lay about and not work, that we would be assured of proper medical care, should we need it. At this very moment, my eight year old daughter is on our couch with a fevrr over 102, which she has had for two days, and we can’t take her to the doctor. The movie ‘swing vote’ has a line in it, in which a man asks, ‘how is it that we kive in the richest country in the world, and some of us can’t afford to live here?’ Such true statements make you think, or at least they should.
A simple solution would be to allow families such as ours to buy into the Medicaid system and pay according to a scale, taking into account the average family’s monthly expenses, and adjust the rates, premiums, and co-pays accordingly…food for thought…

July 30, 2009 at 4:41 pm
(55) Irritated & FED UP! says:

I applaud the comments made by John #7 and Jon #22 & 23!

July 30, 2009 at 5:39 pm
(56) Diane says:

My husband and I are both retired military; we have excellent benefits through Tri-Care and also through Medicare.

Early on, we both drew up living wills; supplied the information to our doctors, and have designed two individuals who should be contacted in addition to our own names, to discuss carrying out our wishes.

If more people WERE counseled on a periodic basis; more encouraged to get these directives in place, it would help cut down on both the confusion and costs when a critical illness and end of life is now evident.

My doctors have thanked us for volunteering this information because they say it will help them not only adhere to them, but minimize any potential law-suits that might come from a family member that might disagree with the course of action.

If the insurance companies were held to a ‘cap’ on profit, so they weren’t gouging the people they’re insuring, it would surely help cut the cost of health-care.

My daughter-in-law is a doctor; she’s spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to get her degree to practice medicine. We should remember the liability insurance doctors have to carry; mal-practice insurance fees, and the heavy investment these people make, just to make certain there is health-care available to start with.

I’m grateful for every doctor; nurse, technician, and medical research individual who has devoted their lives to serve the rest of us.

July 30, 2009 at 7:30 pm
(57) Charles Owens says:

How do these people think all of this will be paid for. The only money this government has is the money they take from us as taxes.
The Senate and House of Representative body should be included as participants in this plan if it goes through.
Senator Ted Kennedy has put an exclusion clause in this bill for all of our congressman. What a bunch of jerks we’ve chosen to represent us.

July 30, 2009 at 7:43 pm
(58) ahoht05 says:

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never
failed a single student before,
but had once failed an entire class.

——————————————–

That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would
be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on
Obama’s plan”.

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no
one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.
The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little
were happy.

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had
studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free
ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D!
No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted
in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that
socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the
effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no
one will try or want to succeed.

Could not be any simpler than that

July 30, 2009 at 7:43 pm
(59) Oscar Buzz says:

What a laugh, gee I love this site! Seriously though, many of us in other countries are very concerned about the wellbeing of our American friends.

Personally, I think you’re in good hands now, although the damage has already been done and it will take time and patience for you to recover.

Try to stay positive, $ave what you can, only buy what you really need for the time being and care more for your children, know where they are and what they’re up to; eat less rubish, exercise more (try walking to the local shops for a change, leave the car at home) and don’t forget those who made your life possible. Love your parents and grandparents, your family and friends… stick together, be there for one-another.

Don’t worry about Paris, Britney and others you don’t even know, concern yourself with how much better your own life is going to be when you get your act together. What have you done to help someone else lately?
With love from the land of Oz. xx

July 30, 2009 at 11:17 pm
(60) SYS says:

I have never seen a dumber bunch of wingnuts in my life. Hide, quick, the Martians will be landing shortly.

Why don’t you all go back and read what’s being said in the article about what the bill REALLY says, instead of what professional liars like Fred Thompson and Betsy McCaughey (NOT McCoy) have to say. They should be ashamed.

I’m sick of hearing people throw around that word “Socialism” when they don’t have a clue what it really means. Socialism must be anything you don’t like. You don’t want socialized medicine? Then don’t ever take social security and Medicare, and if you already are, give it back! If you’re a veteran, don’t take VA care! If you’re disabled, sorry about your luck, just get over it! And be sure to look forward to the day when machines will keep you alive artificially for as long as they can wring one more tortured breath out of you, because you think it’s socialism to sit down with experts (if YOU choose!) and learn about your RIGHTS regarding end-of-life directives. Check it on FactCheck.org also, but I guess they’re evil liberal socialists too because they don’t just swallow whole what the talk radio club belches up. Why are you people even here if you’ve already got your tiny little minds made up?

October 27, 2011 at 4:07 pm
(61) Gypsy says:

SYS, please look at what you just said. What do you mean don’t tak Social Security and Medicare? I pay into it with my own money every single paycheck, and my company is required to pay a portion just to have me as an employee. Why wouldn’t I want to receive my own SS money back when I retire? Just because I don’t want to have my medical run by the government or mandated doesn’t mean I wouldn’t be entitled to my own retirement I personally pay into. I agree we need to fix the health care system but it should not be mandated by the government for anyone.

July 31, 2009 at 12:13 am
(62) paul says:

So glad I live in a different country where my taxes pay for my health care. Health Care should not be a business – its a right of every resident in every country. It’s what taxes should be spent on, not millitary infrastructure.

July 31, 2009 at 1:20 am
(63) RADGIRL says:

The first thing to do with all our politicians is for them to take a mandatory 10% pay decrease like my husband had to to keep his company he worked at for 14 years but this still didn’t his company.
Imagine all the tax money saved by all politicians taking a 10 % decrease.
As far as going to someone to counsel you on advanced directives that should be up to your family doctor and family members not to just walk in an office and sit down with someone you don’t know that says well this is what you need to do. HOW COLD!!!! THE EXCLUSION THAT THE POLITICIANS PUT IN THE HEALTHCARE BILL IS WRONG. WE ARE PAYING FOR THEM WITH OUR TAXES SO THEY SHOULD BE ON THE RECIEVING END OF THE PLAN THAT THE THINK IS WONDERFUL. NO MORE PRIVATE MEDICAL INSURANCE FOR THEM. OBAMA’S HEALTH CARE REFORM FOR ALL POLITICIANS!!!!!!

July 31, 2009 at 2:25 am
(64) Larry says:

I’m just dying for the government to take over my healthcare.

July 31, 2009 at 5:07 am
(65) UP says:

SYS, your comment nails it on the the head. My biggest fear is that the furture of the USA is dependent on it’s people to be fully informed and educated on the issues. The majority of the comments I’ve read tonight are from human “lemmings” that depend on someone telling them how to think. I pray that these people will begin speaking and thinking without being brain washed by the fake neocons.

July 31, 2009 at 8:54 am
(66) Bob says:

If this health bill is so GREAT, why doesn’t Congress make all its members switch to it immediately when it is passed???

July 31, 2009 at 7:43 pm
(67) lostartisan says:

This provision, to me, does NOT advocate assissted suicide in any way. I think it’s horribly cruel to THINK that religious people would equate end-of-life education and having a living will with committing suicide! If it was up to some religious people, we’d all have feeding tubes up our noses until we’re nothing but bones! The senseless portion of the religious population want people to be born in pain, live in pain, and die in pain! I hope they each get what they want for others themselves!!!

August 1, 2009 at 12:25 am
(68) Mark says:

49 million people in the U.S. don’t have health insurance. And not because they’re all too lazy to take care of themselves. My 54 year old wife has a pre-existing condition and has been turned down five times by insurance companies. We’ve asked to have her condition excepted (we don’t expect it to actually require anymore care) but the companies say they can’t. I’m self-employed and pay for my own insurance. If the government doesn’t step in, we remain a car accident away from bankruptcy. Remember, it’s one out of six Americans without insurance. And it could be you next, or your kids or parents.

August 1, 2009 at 12:49 am
(69) Jeanne Barnett says:

There are many solutions to health care costs in America and one of the is NOT to totally enact a complete government run system (especially seeing how the government has run Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security etc.) One way is to revamp the frivilous law suits to reduce the liability insurance that Doctors need. Another way is to limit the money someone can collect with a medical mal-practice suit (how can a common person be paid millions of dollars for an injury or even death by a Doctor?) A life is PRICELESS…. so why would a judge order a multi million settlement to an average person? Limit the amount of money awarded in law suits!!!! Of course most people who sue say, “it’s not for the money, it’s so no one else has to suffer the way we have.” That’s bull! Another way is to revamp Insurance Companies!
See….there are OTHER SOLUTIONS.

jb

August 1, 2009 at 12:52 am
(70) Jeanne says:

Bob,

Politicians are NOT people! We The People are subjects to the elite (ya right) Politicians that don’t have to lower themselves to peasants health care, and don’t have to pay Social Security, and don’t have to follow the Constitution of the United States, etc. etc. Guess what Bob? We The People WILL HAVE THE FINAL SAY!!!!

August 1, 2009 at 1:00 am
(71) Gym2 says:

Mark,

Sounds like you would agree that the Insurance Companies need to be re-done not the entire health care system!

JB

August 1, 2009 at 1:05 am
(72) Jeanne says:

Hey SYS -

Have YOU looked at Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security lately? The Government sure has taken good care of “OUR” money haven’t they? Just wait! If they pass a Government Run Healthcare package, you won’t even be able to afford a computer to put your ridiculous ideas on! Wake Up Wingnut (what ever that is supposed to mean).

JB

August 1, 2009 at 11:42 am
(73) Larry says:

Choice is what freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is all about. The corporate USA has messed up every corner of society that it has stuck it nose into (interloper) and has used the 14th amendment to usurp powers of the states and the people.

This whole plan is wrong and I can but think there are devious minds that wrote.

August 1, 2009 at 11:45 am
(74) bruce says:

It doesn’t seem anyone understands the real fact. It doesn’t matter what we think anymore. This government is going to pass whatever bill it wants.
We the people were against the ‘bail out’ and the ‘stimulus’. Did our government representatives listen to us then? What makes you think they will now?

August 1, 2009 at 1:50 pm
(75) Nancy says:

private profit does NOT belong in the health care business.

August 1, 2009 at 2:01 pm
(76) S KIDD says:

I’m not that smart, but I DO know that PHYSICIANS – NOT the patient – will have the FINAL say in end of life planning. This bill helps to get people USED to the IDEA of a possible time they may have to take steps to end their life.

There is only ONE who can end life rightly – GOD.

The NEXT STEP in this process of getting people used to the idea of ending their OWN LIFE when they “feel” there is no other way. The FINAL step is for the GOVERNEMNT to dictate what will happen to you.

I don’t believe in life support if you are brain dead – maybe, if it is your wish, even when you are close to death. Again, God knows what plans HE has.

This health care plan SMELLS BAD in that it covers the evil intent with “good intentions.”

THINK – People, PLEASE USE YOUR MIND and REASON. Think of those you KNOW who had a PHYSICIAN tell the patient they HAD to go to a nursing home or have help at home (a good idea, sometimes, but not ALWAYS).

THINK – You are not feeling well. You think you will NEVER AGAIN feel well. But somehow you pull through to see great days, even years. BUT, while you were in your weakened state a physician tells you you should THINK about ending your life, you may just be weak-minded IN THAT MOMENT to agree.

JUST THINK!! The Government hasn’t done ANYTHING completely right YET – IRA’s Medicare, Social Security, LACK OF HELP FOR VETERANS – to name a FEW.

And what right does a President have who can’t even PROVE – through a birth certificate, college enrollment forms, etc. etc. etc. to even BE our leader?

August 1, 2009 at 2:37 pm
(77) Ferdinand Gajewski says:

I’s like to see the language of the entire bill gone over with a fine-tooth comb by competent devil’s advocates. We need to keep a constant eye on our “representatives” in Washington.

August 1, 2009 at 6:18 pm
(78) Ron says:

Your are reading more into page 425 than is actually there. This section refers to the extension of a 1999 bill that allows the medical profession to inform a patient their right to have a living will. Such a document allows a patient to request that should the patient become severely ill the medical caregiver is not to use extreme measures to keep the patient alive in a vegative state.

August 1, 2009 at 10:29 pm
(79) Ferdinand Gajewski says:

. . . and whence, pray, will the physicians, nurses, hospitals, etc., needed to support universal health care, come from?

August 2, 2009 at 4:12 am
(80) ehs says:

(24) Another John says:

“And regarding paragraph (3), that just says that you can’t be denied an “Advance Care Planning Consultation” just because your physician talked to you about some of that stuff during a preventive physical examination…

It’s amazing how certain political forces twist and intentionally misunderstand sections of this bill.”

Another John –

You may be doing some misunderstanding yourself.

Where does it say “your physician” will counsel you? That’s your erroneous assumption.

Directly above your citation, you’ll find this:

‘‘(2) A practitioner described in this paragraph is—
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.”

You’re not going to be counseled by a doctor you trust.

You’re going to be counseled by a doctor (or even an “assistant”) the government approves and/or appoints.

I have no problem (and I’m sure most others wouldn’t either), having my personal physician counsel me. But that’s not what the case will be.

Please show us where it says it’s “your physician” and “your choice”?

August 2, 2009 at 8:26 am
(81) marianne says:

I think this bill would be the worst thing for people who already has health problems they will never get the same treatment. VOTE NO PEOPLE HELP US STOP THIS BILL NOW

August 2, 2009 at 9:54 am
(82) Surreal says:

Yes, I’m a Republican, but hear me out.

I read the section of the Social Security Act that is mentioned in “Health Care Bill” and here is my understanding:

No, page 425 does not require an end of life or advanced care discussion every five years. It appears to me that it DOES require an end of care discussion based on cost.

For example, if I read the bill correctly, it refers to paragraph 2, 3 and 4 of SSA 1861, which discuss the cost of long-term care and so forth. Basically, if Social Security deems that you do not need long term care in the hospital, they will pay for cheaper care in home. If you qualify.

I believe the Health Care Bill is stating that if you haven’t had an advanced care discussion with your physician, when you hit the point of needing long term care you WILL have that discussion with a physician.

Call me crazy, but that is what I understand the bill to be saying.

August 2, 2009 at 9:58 am
(83) Kelly B. says:

re: #52 ahoht05

It wasn’t a socialist mentality that doomed that class; it was the mean-spirited, spiteful individuals who said “screw-it, I’m not doing it anymore”. Instead of staying on the path they knew to be the right thing and continuing to achieve as they always had, they took their ball and went home.

Ask me who I have less respect for? The bottom of the class who will never amount to anything anyway (just like that same segment of our society), or the high achievers who decided out of spite to quit? The real losers are those in the middle, those who did the best they could, those who would have succeeded if not for just a little bit of help from those in a position to provide it.

August 2, 2009 at 12:32 pm
(84) R Johns says:

I have a 12 yr old grandson who is 100% pacemaker dependent. He has two check-ups a year (just checking the generator), every couple of years an echogram. What is his future in this new health care plan. Will he have to BEG for a pacemaker. When he reaches 65 (assuming the government ALLOWS him to do so) will he be able to get a new pacemaker then? He is old enough to know what his future is without a pacemaker and he hears the news and is scared to death.

August 2, 2009 at 1:20 pm
(85) Marchell says:

I never thought our country could be so gullable as to even consider such a devistating healrh care plan that would hurt so many people. I hope Americans will wake up and at least read the bill itself to see the facts staring in their faces. I have read it and I am sraced to death that American legislators will not see through the camoflage this bill posseses that will take away our rights under The constitution!!!!!
OUR BASIC FREDOM TO LIFE will NO LONGER EXIXT!!!!

August 2, 2009 at 4:56 pm
(86) Surreal says:

Who up there said that Medicare was wonderful for their mother? I’m glad your mother had an easy time with Medicare because I’ve dealt with them numerous times for friends, family and patients (I used to work in a chiropractor’s office) and I can tell you that getting Medicare to pay for anything is like pulling teeth.

Medicaid is even worse.

And I know that it’s difficult to get VA benefits too because my father and my friend’s father are both vets and they’ve had a heck of a time signing up and receiving health care.

Are you sure you’re telling the truth about the VA and Medicare or are you just trying to make it sound cozy and nice so that you can try to convince someone that the health care bill is a great idea.

By the way, in case all of you who support this dreadful bill missed it, Massachusetts has a similar health care plan to this bill here…and they are in constant danger of not having enough money. In fact, they just dropped 30k LEGAL immigrants from their health care because they can’t afford to pay for everyone.

If this so-called health care fails in one single state, what do you think is going to happen if the whole country gets on the same plan?

I can tell you it’s not going to be sunshine and rainbows and ponies and nobody dies anymore. Go ahead and Google “Massachusetts Health Care Plan” and see what pops up.

The top articles are all about how they are running out of money…and the stupid thing has only been up since 2006. It’s failing there and it will fail nationwide.

August 2, 2009 at 5:29 pm
(87) WeMadeAmistake says:

If you don’t sign on to the government health care plan, you, as a tax paying law abiding U.S. citizen are fined $2,500 but if you are a non-U.S non–law abiding Mexican who jumps the border fence, you get free health care……the costs of which could have been appropriated for elderly U.S. citizens who spent their lives paying taxes and who now are relegated to what amounts to financial euthanasia!!! I am now questioning if I even want to be an American anymore. My God….how can you as fellow Americans elect people who even consider such laws!? God help us.

August 2, 2009 at 5:33 pm
(88) WeMadeAmistake says:

Leave it liberals in government to destroy what works for 80% in order to build something that doesn’t work for 96%. My God people, they are going to mandate health care for illegals in our country. Mexicans will be jumping the border by the millions and because of people like Obama, Rangal, Pelosi and the rest of these Marxists, we are going to be leaving a bankrupt country to our children and grandchildren. Some change.

August 2, 2009 at 6:12 pm
(89) patriot Jan says:

I was not aware that if you do not sign up for the National Health Care you would be fined 2,500. I have read some of the things on this bill, but not that part. I understand that you can keep the healthcare that you have, but if you drop out for any reason, then you would have to sign up for the National Health Care. I am a person on Medicare, but I also pay monthly for a plan thru my employer that I retired from under COBRA. This plan is my primary insurer, in addition to the amount they deduct from my Social Security for Medicare. It is also a HMO plan. So far I get good coverage. But if I move to a state that does not honor my insurance, then I would have to drop my Secured Horizons. Would that mean I would have to take the National Health Care. I HOPE NOT!!! Even though my medical is managed thru a Health Care Company (HMO) I have never been denied any operation or procedure,and have a small copay to doctors and for prescriptions. I HOPE THE BILL DOES NOT PASS BECAUSE I DO NOT WHAT A GOVERNMENT AGENCY TELLING MY DOCTORS CARE I CAN HAVE AND WHEN I SHOULD DIE.
GOD WILL DECIDE WHEN I WILL DIE!!!!

August 2, 2009 at 9:10 pm
(90) Mimi says:

Funny is nota word to express anythin in my life anymore. November 5th 2008 I was ask to sever my ties with the company I work for, but since they had to sever ties with 17 other employees they had no one to do my job, so they kept me for 20 hours a week. I lost all my bennifits, vacation, and health care. Here it is 9 months later still no full time work, or health carefor my 2 children or myself. I refuse to take hand outs, no WELFARE, no free lunches, no loans fo my sons college. If they pass this UHC bill I’m told that if I do not have an insurance program I will be charged $2,500.00 for each person in my family. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA hA HA HA! Take me to jail. For the first time in my life I will be a martyer. I raise my own children, and my own fruits and veggies. But I’ll be damned if I am going to pay even more to raise some lazy parents scruff balls.
Oh don’t forget to ask the questions of:
(1) who pays for the people that die or get a nasty infection from the doctors bad diagnosis or operate on the wrong person or do the wrong operation?
(2) is the government going to pay the hospitals and doctors all of the money owed to them that they can’t even pay now?
There are so many questions that will never be answered.

August 2, 2009 at 10:55 pm
(91) Surreal says:

I don’t know that the fine is actually $2,500. I am horrible at math, but the “fine” for not having the “government mandated healthcare” is 2.5% of your income, I believe.

I’ll have to double check the wording in the bill. Also, all companies will now be forced to offer health care to their employees, including part time. Not only will the part time employees get health insurance but so will their families. If the business doesn’t carry health insurance, they will be fined at 8% of their payroll.

Why don’t we just demand that businesses hand over exactly 90% of their profits to the government, while we’re at it.

It’s not like the money would ever be used to research and develop newer and better products, right?

Money is evil! ~EVIL~!!!!!

…that was sarcasm, guys, in case anyone was wondering. ^.^

August 3, 2009 at 12:05 pm
(92) John Smith says:

The “Constitutionalist” comment number 2 is correct. Survival of the fittest. Everyone needs to be able to take care of themselves. It has nothing to do with any religious principals, but using the ability that each of us has to educate ourselves, and actually work. It is not my job to support anyone other than myself, my family, and those who are truly in need of assistance. That does not include uneducated lazy losercrat socialist begging for money on the corner. I for one, and not going to take care of you.

August 3, 2009 at 1:22 pm
(93) sara says:

Well this is what we get, a country that does not want God looks for people to save them and they think Obama
is the one. Well they shall see! but probably to late

August 3, 2009 at 1:31 pm
(94) Johnnie says:

When you lose your job and exhaust your unemployment benifits,Tell you Congressman how big of a fool you both were

August 3, 2009 at 3:20 pm
(95) IntheMiddle says:

to #76

I think you missed the point or the story, and it really doesn’t matter who you respect or do not respect in this case. It is a matter of just compensation for achievement.

You say you have less respect for those at the top who “took their ball and went home”, but why should they work for A’s that they cannot actually get?

If I were to hire you at my business, and then tell you that you were required to work 40 hrs a week, but I’m only going to pay you for 30 hrs of work, and that you’re going to be taxed and all of your benefits are going to be taken out as normal…would you work the extra ten hours? Would you work as hard for those 10 hours if you did work them? Why would you put that effort into something you aren’t being compensated for? I’m sure you wouldn’t.

So yes, socialism did fail the class…because it fails to give due compensation for effort.

August 3, 2009 at 3:53 pm
(96) anywho says:

‘‘(iv) the use of artificially administered nutri-
tion and hydration.’’. (Page 430, line 23) Who “defines” the word “artificially administered”? Terri Schiavo was alive until the usual suspects defined “artificially administered” for her.

August 3, 2009 at 5:06 pm
(97) Bonnie says:

This is America and we should be able to decide not the government what healthcare we have. We have the power of choice and we should have that choice. If the government wants to put into place something so all Americans have health care then great but don’t make make it so that is all we have. If we can pay for the medical insurance for the coverage we want then we should have it. I am on medicare because of a work injury. 5 yrs is too long for a consultation to be paid for. Things change and If I need one to change my long term plans then I need it and should have it. If they decided not to pay for a procedure that I need the pain alone might kill me, the procedures I have are for quality of life not just about pain control. If I could not have them because the government decided that they didn’t want to pay for it then yes it could be a horrible life. Govenment should not have this power of choice each individual should.The power of choice is what disquinishes us from animals.

August 3, 2009 at 5:55 pm
(98) Pat Gault says:

We ALL should have listened to the answer that Obama gave Joe the plumber. He told us all what he was right then, a socialist. Nuff’ said.

August 3, 2009 at 5:58 pm
(99) Eyvonne says:

When Congress and the President and his family give up the health care they now have and sign on to what they are ramming down our throats…they I’ll stop bitching!

August 3, 2009 at 6:29 pm
(100) Esther Schomp says:

Why can’t we have the same coverage that the Senators enjoy???? And ,while they are sharing their health care, maybe we can share their retirement plan too. IT’s a hell of a deal compared to what we get and we’re paying the bill !!

August 3, 2009 at 7:50 pm
(101) Ferdinand Gajewski says:
August 3, 2009 at 7:56 pm
(102) Ferdinand Gajewski says:

A watering down of Medicare is (secretly–shh) in the cards. The wherewithal (physicians, nurses, hospital space, etc.) doesn’t exist to service the entire population.

As things now stand, the medical establishment has to use young residents as slave labor to make ends meet. Twenty-four hour (or more) hospital shifts. Mon dieu. Don’t think I would want to be treated by a young and inexperienced physician in the 23rd hour of his/her shift.

O tempora, o mores.

August 4, 2009 at 2:00 am
(103) Keith says:

“Can anyone believe the brain-dead person who suggested that Jesus Christ would be in favor of centralized government and national health care?”

Uhh, you should go back to reading the Bible. Jesus shunned those who kept for themselves and the early church would stone you if you kept anything for yourself.

September 29, 2011 at 10:07 am
(104) 666 says:

Render to Caesar what is Caesars

August 4, 2009 at 8:14 am
(105) Peggie says:

Health-care must change. I do not see anything in this bill that suggests “suicide”. As a heathcare professional we have been mandated for years to educate/counsel all who come into a hospital, clinic, and medical office. It is extremely wise for all persons to plan in advance how they want to be treated when their life is terminal.
Healthcare has always been rationed. Our tax dollars should go to those “in need” and not neccessarily those “in want”. I am not in favor of all parts of the bill, BUT I am in favor of educating/counseling people to know they have choices in planning their end-of-life care. Peggie

August 4, 2009 at 8:27 am
(106) common sense says:

Dottie… You’re the problem with America. Your lack of intelligence and misinformation is exactly what got us into this mess. Do us all a favor and keep watching your American idol on your satellite dish that is paid for by the working class tax dollar and for goodness sake, in 2010 and 2012, DON’T VOTE!

August 4, 2009 at 8:31 am
(107) common sense says:

Hey Keith… Dust off your Bible a little bit more. Of course we should help the sick and disabled. But not the lazy and unwilling. Read 2 Thessalonians 3:10.
“For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.”

August 4, 2009 at 8:56 am
(108) Debra John says:

I would rather see the government and the nation as a whole focus more on preventative medicine through education about diet and exercise. Most of the health issues in this country as I see it are self-inflicted and a direct result of unhealthy life styles.

August 4, 2009 at 9:10 am
(109) Jo says:

It’s not what “UL” is telling you — it’s what they are NOT telling you, or leaving out of this discussion.

READ pages 425-430 — Consultation can and will result in a ORDER regarding life sustaining treatment — in other words the government CAN ORDER YOUR DEATH – in the event of a life threatening injury/illness.

Wake up America!

August 4, 2009 at 9:25 am
(110) urbanlegends says:

Dear Jo,

Do us all a very big favor and give us the EXACT page and quote the EXACT passage where it says what you claim (“that consultation can and will result in a ORDER regarding life sustaining treatment — in other words the government CAN ORDER YOUR DEATH – in the event of a life threatening injury/illness”).

Thanks.

August 4, 2009 at 10:02 am
(111) Jo says:

To Urbanlegends:

I DID give you the exact pages, 425-430. One must read it in it’s entirety not cherry pick from ONE page. Here is the link for your convenience:

http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

As all bills, it is written in legalese and cross reference other parts of the bill so one must read it in it’s entirety. Here is part (one must read subparagraph 12):

‘‘(B) The level of treatment indicated under subpara12
graph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treat13
ment to an indication to limit some or all or specified
14 interventions.”

Limiting (some or all) interventions by government order — is limiting life.

It cannot be spun any other way.

August 4, 2009 at 10:16 am
(112) Jo says:

Page 430:
‘An advance care planning consultation with respect to an individual may be conducted more frequently than provided under paragraph (4)

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.

A consultation under this subsection may include the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining treatment or a similar order.’

——————————-

Formation of a government ORDER – regarding life sustaining treatment.

The GOVERNMENT can decide who lives and who dies if the patient is terminally ill or injured.

I had a Aunt that was given 3 months to live – she lived for 12 MORE years. Think about the implications of this bill.

Please read it – don’t listen to me or anyone else — just read it.

August 4, 2009 at 10:21 am
(113) urbanlegends says:

Jo,

You’re the one doing the cherry-picking.

Your quote:

“(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.”

Your interpretation:

“Limiting (some or all) interventions by government order — is limiting life.”

The truth:

The paragraph refers to the “level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii)” — so here’s subparagraph (A)(ii) (emphasis added):

“(ii) effectively communicates THE INDIVIDUAL’S PREFERENCES regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care DESIRED BY THE INDIVIDUAL”

August 4, 2009 at 10:26 am
(114) urbanlegends says:

Jo writes:

“Please read it – don’t listen to me or anyone else — just read it.”

Given Jo’s misrepresentations above, I must wholeheartedly agree.

It’s not always easy to parse one’s way through the legal and technical mumbo-jumbo, but everyone really SHOULD attempt to do so and come to their own understanding of the bill.

There are links to the full text in my posting above.

August 4, 2009 at 1:20 pm
(115) Susan says:

As a lawyer who has helped many people write advance health care directives, also known as “living wills”, I think I’m reasonably qualified to state that that is what this portion of the bill is about — making sure that people are aware of their right to have a say in their health care even if they’re incapacitated, and then checking periodically to make sure they haven’t changed their minds.

What I’m wondering is who else has their ferrety little teeth clenched in the mysterious “page 425″. I’ve gotten crank e-mails saying that it requires everything from forced abortion to “homosexuality training” in kindergarten. Did Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity just pick a number that they figured no one would ever read down to?

August 4, 2009 at 2:03 pm
(116) TEABAG says:

If all the congressmen/women and all other federal employees have to enroll in the same health plans and go on medicare when they turn 65 just as the average citizen, then I will support this bill. I think that will happen when hell freezes over.

August 4, 2009 at 2:43 pm
(117) Jo says:

Urbanlegend you are willfully and shamelessly misrepresenting this bill, not I.

“INDIVIDUAL” preferences — is just that, a PREFERENCE.

Preferences are requests and subject to funding. Funding at the DECISION of government.

We have multiple failed government programs, there is not ONE that has worked well. Intelligent people would be wary of another. Especially one, that can dictate who lives or dies if terminally ill or injured.

And it’s not just this bill – BHO himself admits that perhaps we ought to take about alternatives to a operation; “maybe your better off not having the surgery – and taking the pain killer” IN HIS OWN WORDS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo

This in tandem with BHO’s Science Czars affinity for Mass sterilization. A “Planetary Regime” with the power of life and death over American citizens. as he wrote in his 1977 book.

This isn’t about party or pundit – it’s about the power of government over your very life. Please do read the bill, and make sure to cross reference — I’m not the one taking this out of context — but many here are.

August 4, 2009 at 2:53 pm
(118) Glen T. Rosengrant Jr. says:

Seriously… they picked through the whole bill and this is what they found… this is the worst part of the bill…

All it says is that the government will pay for -not mandate- an appointment with a doctor, designated to discuss your wishes and treatment preferences in the event that you become gravely ill at an elderly age. This is not a bad thing… provides options to people who would otherwise probably not have a medical proxy or any ideas as to how to treat the situation…

find a real gripe and write about that, stop fearmongering!! you make it sound like the President himself is mandating a visit to Dr. Kevorkian… I guess they didn’t teach Critical Reading where you went to school… or did they just teach Critical Propaganda instead?…

Sorry… try again

August 4, 2009 at 2:59 pm
(119) Glen T. Rosengrant says:

oh… and for Jo… who cited pg. 430… in a previous post…

the aforementioned “order” that you speak of… is one that is agreed upon by you and your doctor… not an order designated by the government… holy crap… you guys will believe anything!

take the time to look up words that you don’t know… especially if they are in a foreign context… stop scaring people!!! especially if you don’t have a clue…

August 4, 2009 at 3:12 pm
(120) urbanlegends says:

Jo,

You wrote:

“Urbanlegend you are willfully and shamelessly misrepresenting this bill, not I.”

And you’ve got a lot of nerve. There’s only one of us taking an advocacy position for or against this bill, and that’s you.

I’m all for people, including you and everyone who reads this, opposing the legislation on any reasonable grounds. But you must STOP misrepresenting what it says.

You specifically wrote:

“READ pages 425-430 — Consultation can and will result in a ORDER regarding life sustaining treatment — in other words the government CAN ORDER YOUR DEATH – in the event of a life threatening injury/illness.”

I proved you absolutely wrong on this. I proved, by quoting the referenced subparagraph that you left out in your quote (while complaining of “cherry-picking by others!), that the “order” spoken of in pages 425-430 consists of the patient’s own stated wishes, not any requirement or set of requirements imposed by the government.

Nothing in the entire bill, let alone pages 425-430, says the government can “order your death.” I defy you to prove otherwise.

Again, if you are afraid of this bill, if you don’t like the changes it proposes, if you’re worried on reasonable grounds that it will change health care for the worse, please DO ask your representatives in Congress not to pass it.

But please STOP misrepresenting what it says.

August 4, 2009 at 4:50 pm
(121) Jo says:

Oh wow Glen — this IS a GOVERNMENT bill.

Sorry but only a IDIOT (or the gullible) would think that an “order” in a GOVERNMENT bill will be at the sole discretion of a doctor. That’s like saying I can choose to invest my OWN FICA or SS with no government intrusion.

Won’t happen.

Urbanlegend:
You choose a position when you defend the indefensable. I posted the relevant sections for brevity, and I asked the viewer to read it and decide for themselves. Clearly, I have been honest. You on the other hand, either cannot comprehend the language, or are unwilling to.

I reiterate — if the government has the power over *individual* medical procedures for life threatening illness or accidents — that means they have the ability to DENY coverage.

What would be the result of government denial of coverage concerning a life threatening health issue??

Death.

Follow this time?

August 4, 2009 at 5:00 pm
(122) Jo says:

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-in-03-id-like-to-see-a-single-payer-health-care-plan/

Obama:
“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”

August 4, 2009 at 5:35 pm
(123) urbanlegends says:

Jo,

You seem to be the one unable or unwilling to comprehend.

Your original argument was NOT that the government can impose a death sentence on the patient by denying coverage. You have changed the subject.

Your original argument, which I proved wrong but you won’t acknowledge it, was that specific language which you cited from pages 425-430 provides for the creation of a “GOVERNMENT order” regarding end-of-life treatment. IT DOES NOT. It provides for the creation of an individual PATIENT’S order as to what kind of end-of-life care they do or do not want.

You can rave all you want about the government killing people by denying coverage (which is also bogus, but that’s a separate argument), but it has NOTHING to do with the passages YOU quoted from pp 425-430.

August 4, 2009 at 11:24 pm
(124) Jo says:

Urbanlegend’s utter BS….
Wrong, wrong, wrong. (as usual)

My original post of 9:10 am said:
“READ pages 425-430 — Consultation can and will result in a ORDER regarding life sustaining treatment — in other words the government CAN ORDER YOUR DEATH – in the event of a life threatening injury/illness.”

I stand by it, until you prove otherwise — which you have not.

But PLEASE keep at me with the trivial semantics — it will attract more people to actually READ the bill — and for that I DO THANK you!

August 5, 2009 at 1:09 am
(125) Amy says:

Did anyone read further? Did you notice the part on page 430 something that talked about physician performance reports regarding end of life care and state advisory panels to formulate standards for end of life care? How will that not lead to rationing? Anyone familiar with formularies for prescription drugs whereby the doctors are advised (coerced?)to prescribe only drugs on the formulary? Doctors are pressured by performance reports and formularies.
Obama in a NYT interview talks about very similar sounding panels making “difficult” decisions about who should receive care and that care for the very old and sick represent 80% of health care costs. My mother died a few weeks ago at home without any medical intervention, which I am grateful for. I know that she wouldn’t have wanted to kept alive on a respirator but I never would have agreed to withhold hydration or pain relief. I am very familiar with HCPs, living wills, DNR orders because I work in a public health care setting. They are beneficial in many cases but they can be abused, misused and misinterpreted. We need to be careful. I do not believe that our government should create another huge health care program that we cannot afford when the Medicare and Medicaid systems function so poorly.They provide services to many but the misuse and abuse of public funds in these programs is unbelievable. Fix them first.

August 5, 2009 at 1:52 am
(126) urbanlegends says:

Jo, you’re a piece of work. It’s impossible to get you to stick with a single point or answer for your own claims. You dismiss counter-arguments as “trivial semantics.” I don’t have time to play games with you.

Amazingly, we do COMPLETELY agree on one point: everyone needs to at least attempt to read as much of the actual text of the bill as they possibly can, inform themselves as best they can, and formulate their OWN opinions.

When seeking out the analysis and opinion of others, I would warn folks never to rely on one single source alone (including urban legends websites) or one single viewpoint alone. Listen in good faith to all sides. Beware of scare tactics.

Then make up your own mind and inform your elected representatives accordingly.

August 5, 2009 at 8:28 am
(127) Jo says:

Urbanlegend,

You and I both know contrary to your rhetoric, I have stuck to my point, you just don’t like the ugly facts in this bill.

Try not to shoot the messenger next time.

August 5, 2009 at 8:43 am
(128) urbanlegends says:

Jo,

Anybody who has read this exchange and studied pp. 425-430 themselves knows you don’t have a case. You’re here for one purpose and one purpose only, and that’s to scare people.

There’s a lot wrong with this health care bill. It’s fair game for criticism, and people have a right to say “I don’t want this!!!”

But spreading these lies about how it’s some kind of plot to kill old people by denying them care is unconscionable.

August 5, 2009 at 8:58 am
(129) D. Wilson says:

My fear is that we as a nation have forgotten how to have a conversation without lying. Whether it was WMDs, “mushroom clouds over New York,” lying about using torture or lying about surveillance of American citizens, the end game seems to be to use whatever it takes to mislead the people. The currents false attacks on health reform, when a majority of people favor it and a majority want a public health option is just one more example of having our democracy slip away. Who ever can yell the loudest is not informed discussion. It is the method used Hitler’s Brown Shirts.

August 5, 2009 at 9:06 am
(130) D. Wilson says:

Urban Legends, I have read and re-read the exchange between you and Jo and I have gone back and read the bill again. I have to say I agree with your interpretation. I think what happens is people either have an ulterior motive or they are naturally suspicious of an administration they did not vote for, then along comes someone spreading really scary stories. Then they read the bill on “red alert.” Suddenly an innocuous word like “order” that is used in medical settings a thousand times a day to make sure patients get the proper care becomes instead the government lining us up for concentration camps. I am with you. It will help when people of intelligence read this bill.

August 5, 2009 at 9:22 am
(131) Jo says:

Urbanlegend,

I didn’t write the bill, therefor it is Congress who is “scaring people” with Obamacare — not me, I am just citing the legislation.

This blog does not give the WHOLE story. Page 425 alone does not potentially limit life through government end of life counseling — the language in the following pages of the bill potentially DOES.

To the readers, it isn’t what you ARE being told — it is what you ARE NOT being told.

Don’t allow the lies, smears and character assassinations (directed at me or others)or projection, of this blog stop you from obtaining the truth. Read 425 – 430, and decide for yourself.

http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

August 5, 2009 at 10:01 am
(132) urbanlegends says:

As Jo says, “Read 425 – 430, and decide for yourself.”

To make that easier I’ve gone back and included the entire text of pp. 425-430 in the grey box above.

Also, you can click any of the several links above to access the 1,018-page document in its entirety.

August 5, 2009 at 3:24 pm
(133) Jo says:

Thank you for posting 425-430, however there’s much much more in this bill that leads up to that point:

Pg 30 Sec 123 – Government committee that decides what treatments/benefits you get.

Pg 29 Lines 4-16 – Health care rationed. You get limited “care” per year.

Pg 42 – The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC Benefits for you. No individual choice.

PG 85 Line 7 – Specs for Benefit Levels for Plans – The Govt will ration your Health care according to station in life.

PG 85 Line 7 – Specs of Benefit Levels for Plans. AARP members – note your Health care WILL be rationed.

Pg 167 Lines 18-23 – 2.5% tax imposed on those who do not have acceptable HC – according to government standards.

Pg 239 Line 14-24 – Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor will be most affected.

PG 253 Line 10-18 – Govt sets value of Doctor’s time, professional judgments, etc. Literally sets value of human life.

PG 268 Sec 1141 – Fed Govt regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs.

PG 272 Sec 1145 – Cancer Hospitals re-evaluated. Welcome to rationing…

Page 280 Sec 1151 – The Govt will penalize hospitals for “preventable readmissions”.

Pg335 Lines 16-25 Pg 336-339 – Government dictate HC – “measuring care”. Rationing.

Pg 354 Sec 1177 – Government will restrict enrollment of Special needs.

These parts in the bill, leads us up to the reality of 425-430:

PG 425 Lines 4-12 – Govt mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life. Seniors will be interviewed at least every 5 years, for health issues and decisions.

Pg 425 Lines 17-19 – Govt will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney. Mandatory!

PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 – Govt provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in death.

PG 427 Lines 15-24 – Govt mandates program for orders for end of life. The Govt has a say in how your life ends.

Pg 428, 429 Lines 17-25, 1-9 – An “advanced care planning consult” will be used frequently as patients health deteriorates.

PG 429 Lines 10-12 – “Advanced care planning consultation” may include an ORDER for end of life plans. An ORDER from the government. (Congress should define “advanced care options” if they do not want speculation. So, why haven’t they done so?)

Pg 429 Lines 13-25 – The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.

PG 430 Lines 11-15 – The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life.

August 5, 2009 at 4:18 pm
(134) urbanlegends says:

Say Jo, did you verify each of those claims against the actual language of the bill before posting?

Because, again, they’re mostly — not entirely, but mostly — crass, politically motivated misrepresentations.

See the sources below (St. Petersburg Times, Associated Press, and health care consultant Linda Bergthold on Huffington Post) for rebuttals:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/jul/30/e-mail-analysis-health-bill-needs-check-/

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090802/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_fact_check

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-bergthold/and-so-it-begins—-the-a_b_249354.html

August 5, 2009 at 5:09 pm
(135) Ross says:

The pending bill is gobbledygook, and if you can make enough sense out of it to draw any valid conclusions, you’re at the head of the class. The first sign of trouble is in the very beginning of Section 1233, which deletes “and” at the end of Section 1861(s)(2)(DD). I followed your link to the bill and found there isn’t an “and” at the end of (DD). Every section of both the Social Security Act and the current version of the healthcare bill has so many tentacles and cross-references that no one can rightly say they understand it unless they’ve invested several days of intensive research and have consulted with subject-matter experts.

August 5, 2009 at 5:51 pm
(136) Jo says:

Sorry, I don’t allow MSM, leftist-blog cheerleaders or right-wing sites, to tell me what or how to think — I actually have been READING the bill.

I advise anyone reading here (left or right), to do the same, then decide for themselves.

There are legitimate questions – why doesn’t the administration or congress define the terminology?

It is apparent, this congress can’t answer simple questions that have been asked in town halls, which should be very telling to the American people. Instead the left who has the power of the media, the Presidency and congress, have tried to reduce reasonable dissent of the people into “hysterics”. It is shameful.

This discussion is best without party lines or slanted media. Our founders warned against an all approving un-journalistic, lap-dog, media, and of factions. They encouraged us all to be apprised and vigilant of our governments business on a individual basis.

It would do well to learn this lesson.

August 5, 2009 at 6:06 pm
(137) urbanlegends says:

Jo wrote:

“This discussion is best without party lines…”

Um, so you actually believe that list of distortions (which resembles several such lists currently circulating online) came from an unbiased source? Give us a break!

If you exclude the mainstream media AND left-wing sources AND right-wing sources, you’ve pretty much eliminated all possible avenues of helpful information.

Wouldn’t it be smarter to avail oneself of various viewpoints, keeping in mind of course that you may encounter bias anywhere?

Like you, I’ve been trying to plow away at the bill page-by-page myself, and it’s nigh impossible to make heads or tails of some of it without seeking expert opinions and analysis.

August 5, 2009 at 6:35 pm
(138) urbanlegends says:

Jo,

I didn’t even have to look at your list for 30 seconds before finding several lies.

You wrote:

“PG 425 Lines 4-12 – Govt mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life. Seniors will be interviewed at least every 5 years, for health issues and decisions.”

Remember, the full contents of pp. 425-430 are posted above for all to see.

NOWHERE does the text say advance care planning consultations are mandatory. This section of the bill merely adds advance care planning consultations to the list of health services Medicare will PAY for.

Oops! Here’s another lie:

“Pg 425 Lines 17-19 – Govt will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney. Mandatory!”

False. It does not say the government instruct & consult, nor (as I’ve already pointed out a gazillion times) does it say such consultations are mandatory. The actual language (I quoted it all verbatim above, remember) allows the government (i.e. Medicare) to PAY for consultations between an individual and a physician on those subjects as often as once every 5 years.

And then yet another lie:

“PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 – Govt provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in death.”

It does NOT say the government will provide such a list. It says the practitioner (i.e. a physician or other qualified health professional) will provide “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).”

The bill does NOT say these resources are for the purpose of “guiding you in death.” It DOES say these resources are for the purpose of helping the individual patient decide in advance what sorts of treatment they do and do not want in terms of end-of-life care, and helping them specify those choices in the form of a living will and/or advance directive.

Nor does the actual language stipulate an “approved list” of advance care planning resources.

Doing great, and we’re just getting started!

August 5, 2009 at 9:20 pm
(139) Mimi says:

Why do we need a new health plan? The one the Senate and House uses would be fine with me!!

August 5, 2009 at 9:22 pm
(140) Glenn says:

I am amazed at how fixated people are on the hysterical mistruths and cannot read. Minds are made up, not to be cluttered by facts.

To those who think government shouldn’t be involved in health care. does that mean you want Medicare abolished?

August 5, 2009 at 10:15 pm
(141) AZITDad says:

“(11) Fred says:
People say that they don’t want the government involved in the nation’s health care. Excuse me, but they already are. The military has government provided health care, veterans have government provided health care, members of Congress and their staffs participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program along with active and retired federal employees. So, be aware that the government is, and has been for some time, involved in providing health care.”

I don’t think I will excuse you, Fred. I am a Veteran who has the option of going to the VA for my health care services. On behalf of all Veterans let me assure you that the VA is a last resort to health care.

I’ll tell you what, you can come with me the next time I go to the VA and spend four hours waiting to refill a prescription, which requires me to take a day off work just to go get it filled.

Also, did you know that VA doctors don’t need Malpractice Insurance? That’s because, if they screw something up or kill me, my family has no right to Due Process, which as you may or may not know, is guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. Obama care offers the same protection to doctors and removes that pesky CONSTITUIONAL RIGHT as a condition of receiving government health care… idiot.

August 5, 2009 at 11:09 pm
(142) Jo says:

This bill has tentacles.
I have tried to make sense out of the pigs ear, while others wallow in it and call it a silk purse.

Urbanlegend do you think our government wrote a bill that makes aforementioned statements because they are NOT intending them to become law?

Of course not! Mandatory they will become, in light of BHO desire for a “single payer option” (which I posted by his own words). They clearly will be dictated by the current government. You have to be willfully ignorant, blind and/or stupid not to see the writing on the wall.

Here’s more on end of life — enjoy.

http://www.ahrq.gov/research/endliferia/endria.htm

August 6, 2009 at 1:31 am
(143) urbanlegends says:

Jo writes:

“Urbanlegend do you think our government wrote a bill that makes aforementioned statements because they are NOT intending them to become law? Of course not! Mandatory they will become. . .”

Wow. Please don’t waste any more of our time. Thank you.

August 6, 2009 at 4:25 am
(144) no wonder says:

It is truly no wonder why so many Americans are confused by what this bill is actually proposing to do… The wording of any bill can be, and is, confusing to someone that isn’t accustomed to reading things like this… So naturally a person could get confused over what it is actually saying. This bill is not saying that you will be demanded to change your plan to the public one, or that it will make your doctor tell you to commit suicide. This section is saying that every 5 years, if you have not already, you will have the chance to talk to a professional about what you would like to happen if you are diagnosed with a deadly illness or morally wounded.

I only have one problem with how President Obama is handling this, and that is that he wants everyone to read this piece of legislature when the general public does not have that high of a reading level. I am not saying that the general public is stupid… I know plenty of people that are very smart but would not be able to even comprehend what this is saying, but when you don’t understand what the document actually says, you are likely to believe someone you trust to explain it to you when they may be confused on it themselves.

But, really? If this bill passes my grandparents are going to be killed, I will have to pay for other peoples abortions, (even though we already do to a certain extent) and if I am ever injured I will die in a waiting line for the emergency room? I am sorry but this is out right retardation. I beg all of you that say this will cause us to become a socialist country (even though you are confused on what “socialist” means) or believe any other nonsense the media is trying to say about this bill, to go out and do your own research. Find the facts for yourself. Don’t let either side of the isle tell you what this bill means in its entirety, go to legitimate sources and figure it out for yourself. I did my research and you have read what my conclusion is, it may not be the one that you come to but please, if you don’t know what your talking about… for all our sakes…

Shut up and stop getting in the way of real debates.

I would love to talk about section (5)(A)(iii) where it says quote “is uniquely identifiable and standardized within a given locality, region, or State (as identified by the Secretary)” but if you keep getting in the way with all this nonsense talk, that debate will never take place. Nor will the hundreds of other debates people would like to have.

So once again. Please. If you do not know what you are talking about, shut up until you do your research. Then I’m sure we would be happy to talk to you.

August 6, 2009 at 5:12 am
(145) no wonder says:

Correcting a spelling error in last statement. In the last sentence of the first paragraph, I meant to say mortally not morally.

August 6, 2009 at 8:44 am
(146) H says:

And “isle” should be “aisle,” but thanks for an intelligent, thoughtful reply. Unfortunately, there are a goodly number of people who are not merely retarded, but are smart enough to know how to lead those folks around by the nose, and they are gleefully MISleading them at every turn.

THIS is why your tax dollars fund public education. I say we should all demand better results – or a refund. Reading skills and critical thinking skills have all but vanished.

August 6, 2009 at 9:25 am
(147) Nurse says:

Should the government not be allowed to defend itself from overburdening costs to Medicare, Medicaid and other govt support programs that irresponsible health care is creating. No bill is going to be perfect. This bill does not aim to take over health care! It is providing a safety net for those that do NOT have access to basic health care. Its aim is to reduce waste and unnessary spending that is encountered with over ordering and duplicate ordering of tests and procedures, to reduce use of unnecessary expensive drugs and to promote prevention and responsibility about one’s own individual health. Half of people against doing anything with healthcare do not know much about it and if they do they are more worried about their own paycheck. Healthcare is about taking care of people and populations NOT about lining your own checking account with waste money!!!

August 6, 2009 at 9:53 am
(148) Jo says:

The ignorance on this blog, is astounding.

Do any of you here really think that private insurance (limited funding) can compete with government insurance(unlimited funding)? It takes only a basic grasp of economics, to know they can’t compete.

So when you are told “you’ll have a choice” – it’s true. But only untill the private insurance companies go under, by a more affordable gov’t HC system.

This has been OPENLY discussed, Obama and other democrats have been telling us this plan for years.

The Obama plan was created by a man named Jacob Hacker — he ADMITS that this will eliminate private insurance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ-6ebku3_E&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.heritage.org%2F2009%2F06%2F15%2Fwhos-telling-the-truth-about-health-care%2F&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk

Once the government obtains single payer HC — YOU — will be told by government, when you get health care, where to get it, by what physician, and how much you are allowed to have. They have already set yearly limited rationed HC, in this VERY bill. (Pg.29 – lines 4-16)

Government run HC always results in LIMITED services. (See Canada/Europe)

This bill will ration HC.

This is not hard to understand. Example; government run “cash for clunkers” — giving $4500 created demand, and that demand crashed the system.

Giving HC to the public, will result in the same. High demand of this system will result in long waits, less doctors (after all what’s the incentive go to school to be a doc?), less specialized medicine, less equipment, and less scientific discovery, which will result in badly run RATIONED HC system.

It has been done before, and it has failed before. Yet brilliant urban legend posters who claim superior understanding of this bill think it’s a good idea to copy failure?

Time to leave the liberal talking point sheep mentality behind, and THINK on your own.

We need to reform HC, but giving government all the power over our personal HC, is not the way to do it.

August 6, 2009 at 10:06 am
(149) Nurse says:

To address the end of life planning scare..the government is not out to get your or end your life any faster than its natural course. It is offering an option for elders to receive counseling on their options. Everyone should have access to information about options and should be able to make a choice about what constitutes suffering and futile attempts of revival for them in a given set of circumstances. Since many individuals do not know what treatments entail(often time prolonged and painful) they should receiving counseling from experienced experts.

Why should someone be made to live paralyzed, debilitated via heroic measures if they have determined through sound judgment years before that they don’t want this for themselves. Seems many people are equating such decisions to suicide? End of life planning is about preserving dignity and allowing the natural processes of death to occur for futile and/or unbearable circumstances, determined by patient values and informed decision.

I have seen much needless suffering on the path to death. Suffering which non of us would opt for. Don’t you want a choice for how much is enough? Do you want your family members deciding how much suffering you should bare? Your physician who wants to get paid? It is simply a matter of being proactive for ones self.

Finally, it seems like many people do not want to be taxed to pay for Medicare and Medicaid services to the extent that is necessary to provide for this overly abundant and many times futile care that is demanded. Before getting hot and spewing propaganda people should take the time to: educate themselves on issues and evaluate their own logic.

August 6, 2009 at 10:14 am
(150) Jo says:

urbanlegend said:
Please don’t waste our time.

Oh, I see, you speak for everyone here?

nowonder said: “Shut up.”

History lesson for the fool and the fool cheerleaders: In America there’s a little thing called the first amendment.

You know — freedom of speech??

I know the liberally minded often silence disagreement. Huff-Po, Daily Kos etc… you know the ones that are afraid of opposing views or factual truth.

Is this blog like them? If so, then I’ll expect you will delete my posts out of fear.

Would show the intolerance of the liberal-tolerance crowd however.

August 6, 2009 at 10:39 am
(151) Gary W. Bradley says:

Look, it is not up to the Government or even the individual to determin when to die. That is up to God almighty. I know it doesn’t seem like very many of the democrat leadership believe in God, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t real. This is just another way for government to take over and rule our lives. People will be sorry that they put Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Franks and the rest of them in charge. God help us all!!!

August 6, 2009 at 10:41 am
(152) urbanlegends says:

Jo,

I said please stop wasting our time. You can’t (or won’t) argue coherently. You can’t (or won’t) defend the garbage you post.

ANY view is welcome here if it’s sincerely meant to inform the discussion.

Liberal intolerance? You don’t know me. Save your insults for elsewhere.

August 6, 2009 at 10:44 am
(153) Jo says:

Urbanledgend said:

NOWHERE does the text say advance care planning consultations are mandatory.

Jo says: Where does it say they ARE NOT mandatory? This is a BILL — which cites “orders”, As per most insurance, if you do not meet the stated criteria you may not be eligible for coverage.

Jo said: “Pg 425 Lines 17-19 – Govt will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney. Mandatory!”

UL said: False. It does not say the government instruct & consult, ‘

Jo: This is EXACTLY what it says:
‘(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable
powers of attorney, and their uses.

The explanation by practitioner does not specify to WHOM he practitioner speaks. Presumably it would be to the patient and the government. Just as in private care, it would it be to patient and private insurer. Private insurance decides coverage eligibility by policy — so would government. They will have to be informed.

BTW, no where does it say in this part of the bill (425-430) that “consultations are paid by medicaid” as you claim, this is the REAL lie.

And then yet another lie:

Jo said: “PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 – Govt provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in death.”

UL said: It does NOT say the government will provide such a list. It says the practitioner …

See last comment on private/government policy.
It is absurd to believe that government will not be involved in the health care they provide.

Tell me do you believe that government HC will insist on end-of-life saving medical treatment over pain killers? Because if you do — then Obama is lying to us all.

Obama said himself: “…maybe your better off not having the surgery – and taking the pain killer…”
I posted this before — did you watch it?

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

August 6, 2009 at 10:50 am
(154) Jo says:

UL: said Liberal intolerance? You don’t know me.

I know you gave Huff-Po and other liberal media sites to make your argument in favor of this HC bill. Why would you do this if you didn’t lean left?

You ignore facts I send then call me incoherent, which is also very liberal of you.

Watch Obama tell our elderly to take a pill instead of the surgery then tell me again who is incoherent concerning this bill, BIG clue – it’s not me.

August 6, 2009 at 11:01 am
(155) Jo says:

Gary W Bradley — thank you for being a voice of reason.

You’re correct death should not be determined by government or private insurance. BHO has told the elderly perhaps they should take a pill instead of the operation. Please see the youtube I posted.

For the record I can understand why some people would want to take the pill and not the surgery, however this is a individuals choice and should not be left up to the government (or private health care) to decide.

This bill is chilling citing “actionable medical orders” and later saying on pg 430:
(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.

The word LIMIT should wake people up, but I doubt it will it’s like they are blind to what this bill is saying.

August 6, 2009 at 11:28 am
(156) Shirl says:

It would be helpful/interesting if each commenter would state whether or not he/she has health insurance or is receiving some sort of health care from a state or federal agency. For the record, I have excellent health insurance and am FOR a national plan.

August 6, 2009 at 11:31 am
(157) urbanlegends says:

Jo,

Your more recent post re p. 425 specifically is MUCH better. You actually responded directly to my points, which I appreciate. Response from me will take awhile. Very busy today.

As for the political BS. You don’t get it.

This is an urban legends website. We do folklore and factchecking. The point of this discussion is not to defend (or attack) this bill.

I repeat: The point of this discussion is not to defend (or attack) this bill.

The point is to evaluate the validity of a rumor alleging that page 425 of the bill “will require EVERYONE who is on Social Security to undergo a counseling session every 5 years with the objective being that they will explain to them just how to end their own life earlier.

If people wish to express general views for OR against the health care bill in general, I’m not going to pitch a big fuss — especially if they can state good reasons and contribute to an understanding of the issues — but the best-case scenario is that the majority of us stick to the subject at hand.

My problem with YOU is that when you debate you switch grounds in the middle, and it makes it impossible to have a coherent argument.

If you say “The bill says XYZ is mandated on page 425, line 15,” and I respond by saying “There is no such language saying XYZ is mandated,” then you respond by saying, in effect, “Are you kidding? It’s the GOVERNMENT. Of COURSE it’s mandated!” then you have changed the subject and made the debate incoherent.

THAT’S what I mean by wasting our time. And I will continue to ask you (and everyone else) not to do it.

If that makes me some sort of “Liberal” in your eyes, well, more power to you. The rest of us are scratching our heads.

Thank you.

August 6, 2009 at 12:10 pm
(158) Jo says:

I have much less respect for UL. UL — claims to be moderate and entertain all views, but you billed the alleged “rumor” as:

“Text of hysterical rumor” and only posted one page (425) of over 1000, at fist. I do thank you for eventually posting 425-430, however this bill is large, and it is disingenuous to claim the ‘rumor” debunked when reading other parts of the bill that may confirm rationing and limits on HC, which could be referred to for end-of-life issues. The bill is vague at best, and has connections/ties with other legislation such as SS, medicaid/care, and ongoing end of life health studies.

This bill neither proves the e-mail legitimate nor does it confirm it.

It is clear that BHO himself and other democrats working on this legislation believe in single payer government HC, as well as permitting the elderly to choose to end their lives.

The question remains will the government deny coverage for the terminally ill, or terminally accident stricken?

History of other countries who have HC similar to this plan, demonstrates that age and terminal medical conditions result in rationing or denial of coverage.(Example UK limits eend-of-life expenditures to about $40,000 PP: http://www.nice.org.uk/)

Why would this NOT happen here? And what part of this bill proves conclusively that rationing/denial will not happen to American citizens?

(Side note to UL: If one produces evidence to support past government debacles, or future intentions, is not incoherency. It is providing evidence to support the current argument.)

August 6, 2009 at 12:19 pm
(159) Jo says:

Shirl — I have private coverage – catastrophic coverage – 10,000 deductible. Nat’l health care would be cheaper for me by all means, but I don’t believe it would be better. Somethings we simply shouldn’t buy cheap.

Why do you want national HC, if you already have good coverage?

BTW no one goes without HC in the USA, medicaid covers all if needed. No emergency room is denied, so since we have government HC in the form of the safety net — medicaid (which BTW is broke) why would we want to put another program into play? Why not just fix medicaid and put more on this existing program?

August 6, 2009 at 12:26 pm
(160) urbanlegends says:

Jo writes: “If one produces evidence to support past government debacles, or future intentions, is not incoherency. It is providing evidence to support the current argument.”

Not if the current argument begins with the statement “Page 425 says XYZ.”

Please, please, please: If you want to make the argument that the health care bill is bad because the government always screws things up; or because it’s dangerous to give the government too much power; or socialism is bad; MAKE THOSE ARGUMENTS.

But don’t waste our time by pretending they prove that page 425 mandates suicide.

August 6, 2009 at 12:31 pm
(161) Christopher Matchell says:

Politics has finally taken its toll.. The ugly truth is that there is no winning side with this issue of Health Care Reform. Both sides have made very good points to fight for what they believe in is right. but the fact of the matter is this… Most if not all protestors against this bill have never had the stress of having to afford their own health care, they havent lived the hell of having to apply for medicaid through a Dept of children and families, or go through the embarrassment of not being able to provide quality health care for their families… Such is the same for those of which are for the health care reform bill, who have never seen the amazing benefits of having quality health care, who have not and possibly will have never in their lives gotten the chance to do so. But in my opinion it boils down to one factor – SAVING LIVES!!!! I MEAN GOD DAMN IT!!! DONT PEOPLE SEE THAT THERE ARE CHILDREN AND ADULT AMERICANS WHO ARE BEING TURNED AWAY AND DENIED MEDICAL ATTENTION… PEOPLE ARE DYING!!! AND THAT SHOULD CONSTITUTE OVER ANY POLITAL AGENDA OR LIBERTIES THAT ARE IN EFFECT AT THIS TIME. PEOPLE ARGUE THAT THE UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE DOESNT WORK IN CANADA OR IN BRITIAN… WHAT KIND OF ARGUEMENT IS THAT!!! WE ARE AMERICA!!! WE DO THINGS BETTER, AND WE LEARN FROM OURS AND OTHERS MISTAKES- WE WOULDNT BE SO DUMB TO FOLLOW THE EXACT SAME FOOTSTEPS OF THOSE TAKEN BY THE CANADIANS OR THE BRITS. AGAIN — PEOPLE ARE DYING!!!!!— PLEASE PEOPLE I KNOW THAT CHANGE IS CAN BE SCARY, ESPECIALLY WHEN ANYTHING YOU KNOW OF THE SUBJECT SHOWS DOOM. BUT REMEMBER THE UNITED STATES HISTORY AND EVERYTHING WE HAVE OVER COME IN THE SHORT TIME SPAN OF OUR YOUNG EMPIRE, WE ARE THE WORLD LEADERS WE CAN DO THIS AND IT WILL BE DONE RIGHT— HAVE FAITH IN THE ELECTED OFFICIALS, HAVE FAITH THAT ALTHOUGH IT MIGHT BE IFFY AT FIRST, EVERYTHING WILL SETTLE INTO ITS PLACE THE ADJUSTMENTS WILL BE MADE AND WE WILL AS AMERICANS ONCE AGAIN BE THE TEACHERS TO OTHER NATIONS ON HOW TO MAKE THE HUMAN WAY OF LIFE MORE LIVABLE.

August 6, 2009 at 12:39 pm
(162) urbanlegends says:

Jo writes:

UL — claims to be moderate and entertain all views, but you billed the alleged “rumor” as:

“Text of hysterical rumor” and only posted one page (425) of over 1000, at first.

1. My God, what about the claim that this health care bill mandates suicide ISN’T hysterical?

2. From day one I posted the text of the first page of the section AND a link to the text of the entire bill, both at the top and at the bottom of the page. Added the rest of the section when it became clear it would help debate the points.

3. The more time you spend here trying to paint me as a liberal shill, the less credibility you will have.

August 6, 2009 at 12:48 pm
(163) Jo says:

Now there is hysterics for you.

August 6, 2009 at 12:49 pm
(164) Ross says:

Government regulation is one thing, but government control is a disaster waiting to happen. Proponents of government-controlled healthcare claim that 30-40% of healthcare costs under our current system go to administrative overhead instead of delivery of services, and that the system embodied in the pending bill will greatly reduce those administrative costs. I’ve been a Federal employee for almost 40 years, and if you believe that deeper government involvement makes any program more efficient and less costly, you just haven’t been paying attention.

August 6, 2009 at 1:24 pm
(165) SHERRY BRISCOE says:

This is a crock ok here goes you obviously haven’t been to the doctor since 2005 when your fabulious bush was president because every since then every time you enter a hospital or a post procedure situtation they are already doing this . with or with out insurace hospitals and doctors have doing this for 4 years , it is a choice and we all know god forbid you radicals don’t want us to have choice .

August 6, 2009 at 1:28 pm
(166) Jo says:

FYI readers — congress writes legislation and democrats have been in control of congress since 2006.

August 6, 2009 at 2:20 pm
(167) Jeff Baymiller says:

This consultation most certainly is mandatory because it states that if you have not a consultation in the previous 5 years one must be scheduled.

August 6, 2009 at 2:39 pm
(168) urbanlegends says:

Jo writes:

“Discussion of this vague bill, must be considered with all available information, do you disagree?”

No, I don’t disagree. What I’ve said that it’s not worth my time to try to argue what the text actually says with someone who consistently switches the subject to the dangers of government control or politicians’ hidden motives.

Yet again, I will say: nobody’s stopping you from bringing those issues up. Just don’t expect ME to sustain a debate with you if you switch subjects in the middle of it.

Jo writes:

“Look, if Democrats want to ration and limit end-of-life health care, they should just write it in the bill. If they do not, then make it clear it will not be tolerated. Then let’s discuss it.”

You’re welcome to discuss it. I won’t. This posting was, and is still supposed to be, about what p. 425 of the bill actually says.

Jo writes:

“I find it interesting that you UL, ignore loony hysterics, telling posters to just shut up, go away, you don’t know, not smart enough to read the bill, etc… these people are the ones who aren’t discussing the bill. Yet you accuse me of it??”

No, I accused you of not sticking to the specific subject you and I were debating. How many times to I have to say this? You, like everyone else, are welcome to talk about any aspect of health care reform you like. Just don’t expect ME to continue a debate with you if you don’t stick to the topic at hand.

At present the only topics I want to ban from this discussion are 1) me, and 2) you.

What people are interested in is what the bill says, not you and me.

August 6, 2009 at 2:41 pm
(169) urbanlegends says:

Jeff,

Can you quote for us the EXACT language in the bill that says if you have not had a consultation in the previous 5 years one must be scheduled?

Thanks.

August 6, 2009 at 2:48 pm
(170) Jeff Baymiller says:

The shall in the health care bill in Section 425 refers to what the consultation shall include not whether there will be one or not.

August 6, 2009 at 3:33 pm
(171) Jo says:

Jeff you are right – UL will deny what can be easily read:

(3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following: (topics of consultations skipped…)

SHALL – means you WILL. It doesn’t read “at the request” or “perhaps” — it says SHALL.

Shall by definition:

SHALL\
Function:
verb
verbal auxiliary1archaic a: will have to : must b: will be able to : can2 a—used to express a command or exhortation b—used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory

SHALL means MANDATORY in law.

August 6, 2009 at 3:46 pm
(172) urbanlegends says:

Jeff Baymiller writes:

“The shall in the health care bill in Section 425 refers to what the consultation shall include not whether there will be one or not.”

You’re correct.

1. It doesn’t follow from that that the consultations are mandatory.

2. As people keep pointing out, you have to spend some time following the “tentacles” of the bill to understand it.

In this case you have to start at the top (and what follows is also in response to Jo, who says, in effect, “Prove that the consultations AREN’T mandatory”).

Translating the gobbledygook of the language in the bill, the section on Advance Care Planning Consultation amends the Social Security Act by adding everything beginning on p. 425 through the end of the section, to the end of Title 18, Section 1861, subsection (s)(2).

Here’s a link to SSA Section 1861 so you can see the context:

http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title18/1861.htm

Title 18 is titled “Health Insurance for the Aged and Disabled.” It defines what Medicare is and what it covers.

Section 1861 appears under “Part A: Miscellaneous Provisions.” The title of section 1861 is “Definitions of services, institutions, etc.” It lists the services covered by Medicare and defines them. Here are some examples of the services listed in subsection (s)(2):

(A) services and supplies (including drugs and biologicals which are not usually self-administered by the patient) furnished as an incident to a physician’s professional service…
(B) hospital services
(C) diagnostic services
(D) outpatient physical therapy services
(E) rural health clinic services
(F) home dialysis supplies and equipment
(G) antigens

And skipping ahead…

(W) an initial preventive physical examination
(X) cardiovascular screening blood tests
(Y) diabetes screening tests
(Z) intravenous immune globulin for the treatment of primary immune deficiency diseases in the home
(AA) ultrasound screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm
(BB) additional preventive services
(CC) items and services furnished under a cardiac rehabilitation program
(DD) items and services furnished under an intensive cardiac rehabilitation program
(EE) kidney disease education services

And here is where p. 425 of the health care bill comes in.

Under the bill, Title 18, section 1861, subsection (s)(2) would be amended so that the NEXT item in the list after (EE) is:

(FF) advance care planning consultation [and all the explanatory verbiage that follows]

So. Please look at Title 18 yourself. Look at where (FF) fits into it and answer this question: Does it fall into a list of MANDATED Medicare services, or does it fall into a list of COVERED Medicare services?

Unless I’ve missed something (PLEASE point it out if I have), the answer is quite obviously the latter.

August 6, 2009 at 3:48 pm
(173) Jo says:

UL said: No, I accused you of not sticking to the specific subject you and I were debating.

You only want to discuss ONE page – page 425??

Kind of limits the discussion, now doesn’t it?
I read the “topic” from above as:

Health Care Bill Page 425 – The Truth
Monday July 27, 2009
1. Text of hysterical rumor: (then the text…etc…)

Page 425 “truth” cannot exist if it is not in context with the entire bill, and the drafters stated intentions. (as the youtube videos)

That is like taking part of the first amendment “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” then intentionally leaving out the second part “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

True, it happens.

But it still doesn’t make it correct information.

August 6, 2009 at 3:56 pm
(174) urbanlegends says:

Jo writes:

eff you are right – UL will deny what can be easily read:

(3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following: (topics of consultations skipped…)

SHALL – means you WILL. It doesn’t read “at the request” or “perhaps” — it says SHALL. … SHALL means MANDATORY in law.

You’re exactly right. But PLEASE think about this and answer in good faith. Do you REALLY find it valid to interpret “such consultation shall include” to mean “patients shall have such consultation whether they want it or not”?

“Such consultation shall include” DOES mandate something: it mandates what a consultation must consist of.

Nowhere does it say patients MUST have such consultations.

August 6, 2009 at 4:00 pm
(175) Holly says:

You’re so full of it…That’s not what is says…their not talking about suicide they’re speaking of planning what will happen in the event of your death and planning, so it doesn’t get dumped in the laps of your family!!!

August 6, 2009 at 4:28 pm
(176) Ross says:

I’ll say it again. Government is inherently incapable of cost-effective and efficient management of ANY program, much less something as monstrous as health care for 300 million people. It doesn’t matter one whit what the bill says or doesn’t say. Simply put, a government-managed healthcare system in any form, along with the gargantuan bureaucracy established to run it, will very soon prove to be a Frankenstein. I can’t believe so many of you are so eager to flip the switch and jolt the dead body to life.

August 6, 2009 at 4:30 pm
(177) Sid says:

Health care is not even the issue. This is about the federal government having controll over every aspect of our lives taking away freedom and liberty the concept is straight out communism.socialism,marxist Idealogy (not only no but hell no to any government health care program and a socialist government)
I want America back, I am sick of Obamanation
Sid

August 6, 2009 at 4:33 pm
(178) Jo says:

UL — Section 1861 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x)

I believe this is the link you want – http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/1395x.html

I don’t have time now to wallow through it, may be revealing.

I still maintain (as 425 reads) – BY LAW (government) the practitioner has to inform the patient every 5 years.

Again is reads SHALL — and shall in law is Mandatory.

August 6, 2009 at 4:46 pm
(179) Jo says:

UL I think we agree on the 5 years. This is about end-of-life care, once a patient see’s the doc they have to be informed about end of care options of the gov’t run program. The question remains what are those options? And will the Gov’t limit those options for terminally ill??

As I said I had an aunt who was given 3 months to live, yet she lived 12 years because of private medical options. Under Obama would she of been cared for or given medication to help her in death?

According to Obama if there is no hope, she may have been given pain medication.

August 6, 2009 at 4:57 pm
(180) Ross says:

Jo

Don’t waste time and effort arguing over 1 line, 1 page, or 100 pages of this 1400-page horror story. Debating the meaning of words and phrases draws attention from the immensely greater issue of a government-managed system. I love this country and am a long-time Federal employee, but my government. . .God love ‘em. . .simply cannot pull this off no matter how it’s structured. Instead of a healthcare system that admittedly needs improvement, we’ll end up with one that’s permanently broken and we’ll all be bankrupt. Once the Feds take it over, we’ll never get it back regardless of how bad it is.

August 6, 2009 at 5:17 pm
(181) Rod Sullivan says:

Note: The following are pages 425-427 of HR 3200
Officially known as America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009

Page 424

Advance Care Planning Consultation

(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner [A DOCTOR, NURSE PRACTITIONER OR PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANT] described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning [PLANNING FOR DEATH], 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:

[Translation: the Federal Government directs that Every five years (age 18, 23, 28, 33, 38.....), or when a person is diagnosed with a chronic or life-limiting disease like arthritis, diabetes, or heart disease, every Person must meet with a nurse practitioner, physician’s assistant, or a doctor, and discuss with them the benefits of determining how one is going to die.]

(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.

[Translation: the Federal Government will ask you to appoint someone to decide how you will die, in the event you are unable to express your wishes.]

(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).

[Translation: the Federal Government will give you an 800 number to dial if you want to discuss how to die.]

(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.

[Translation: the Federal Government will discuss with you the benefits of taking drugs to ease you through the process of dying.]
(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;

[Translation: the Federal Government will advise you of why it’s better for you decide how you die, rather than leaving that decision to your family.]

(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 indi1idual will be carried out if the individual is unable to communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decision-maker (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).

[Translation: the Federal Government will permit your state to set up a similar program with standardized forms to fill out and complete.]

(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.

[Translation: the Federal Government will require that your state have a committee of governmental employees, hospitals, nursing home providers, and lawyers to review the standardized forms.]

(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).

[Translation: the Federal Government says that talking with your doctor about it during a physical exam doesn’t count. You need to have a special meeting to talk about your instructions.]

(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.t

(4) A consultation under this subsection may include the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining treatment or a similar order.

[At the end of the meeting, Each American will be asked to sign a form, approved by the Federal Government, which says “this is how I want my life to end” and, absent a sudden accident, violent death, or suicide, that is how it will end.]

(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;

[Translation: After you sign the form, the PA, Nurse, or Doctor will sign it. That will be a contract. Your contract on how you are to die. the form will stay with you for the rest of your life unless you change it. Until you fill out a new form, it can be relied upon by any health care provider, any insurer, or any governmental entity.]

(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—

[Translation: you can opt for full treatment, but the nurse, PA or Doctor is going to counsel you against it.]

(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac or pulmonary problems;

[Translation: the form can include a “DNR” meaning a “do not resuscitate order” or an order that you be permitted to die at home if you have a heart attack, stop breathing, or have a lung problems.]

(ii) the individual’s desire regarding transfer to a hospital or remaining at the current care setting;

[Translation: the form will ask you if you want to die at home instead of going to the hospital.]

(iii) the use of antibiotics; and

[Translation: the form will ask you if you want antibiotics to quell any infections or pneumonia, or if you’d rather have the infection kill you.]

(iv) the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.

[Translation: the form should ask you whether, if you are unable to communicate your wishes, medical personnel can remove your iv’s and permit you to die of kidney failure.]

August 6, 2009 at 5:30 pm
(182) Alura says:

I’m sick of arguments dealing feeling – yes, I FEEL bad that there are people without health care. I feel bad there are people without shoes – is Big Brother going to give them shoes, too? If people are correct in basing arguments on “feelings”, then all the wackos who insist that admitted child molesters and serial killers are deserving of freedom and sympathy must be right, so let them move in next to you. How about my feeling that I deserve a pizza right now? Should I appeal to the better nature of the rest of the world to get it?

People used to be able to pay for health care on a basis decided between them and their doctors – even if that meant the doctor was being paid in chickens or produce. No one believed health care was a “right”. “Health care” is available for most people showing up in an ER, spouting blood, with broken bones and the like – “health insurance,” is unfortunately not free, as someone somewhere DOES pay for everyone’s health care. I’m paying for some one else’s free lunch. I pay into Medicare and Social Security – which won’t even be helpful for my generation by the time I’m old enough to claim it – yay for Federal run programs.

I have no problem helping support the older generation with my contributions, even if I am somewhat bitter knowing that the mismanagement of the funds and the programs will leave me high and dry in the future. I’m happy with my current health insurance through my employer – I don’t want the Federal Government meddling in it because they have proven over and over since the Great Depression they don’t know jack about money – who else is allowed to spend money on an over-drawn bank account?

Also, has it occured to anyone that part of these “consultations” will be to tell older people that certain treatments are not avaialbe to them? Why should only older people be planning wills? I could get his by a car tonight – where’s my consultation? The very fact that this is targeting seniors to plan for “end of life care” tells me exactly what it’s about – END OF LIFE care.

“Ezekiel Emanuel, whose brother is the President’s chief of staff, describes in the article his method of “Complete Lives System”: It “produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.” This may be justified by public opinion, since “broad consensus favors adolescents over very young infants, and young adults over very elderly people.” He goes on to explain cold-bloodedly why the “death of a 20-year-old woman is intuitively worse than that of a 2-month-old girl,” etc., in a clinical exercise of psywar.”

“Dr. Emanuel’s June 2008 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association criticized the Hippocratic Oath as an unwelcome “imperative [for physicians] to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others.”"

Based on these ideals, can you tell me that these “consultations” would not over the years be to tell grandma that she’s too pricey for the Government to keep alive, so she’d do her grandkids a favor by letting herself die by not receiving her heart pills/diabetes medicines/whatever she might need? That she should ask to be let to die when she has that stroke after being denied her blood thinners? She could be an otherwise healthy lady, but she needs one item to function well, but as she is no longer “needed” by society as a whole, and does not directly contribute anymore, she is denied care.

Geez – old-school science fiction warned about all this, not to mention Bradbury, Rand, Orwell, Heinlein and score of others. Heck, even Star Trek has addressed these issues. It’s not about caring too little on the basis of we who are opposed – I care TOO MUCH to let an incompetent, heartless arbitrary body tell me or my relatives what care they can have or when.

August 6, 2009 at 5:41 pm
(183) seeker says:

I agree that healthcare here in the US needs a major overhaul to put it lightly. But I have to ask this question. Are we wanting to take the decision making power out of the hands of the profit motivated healthcare providers and place it in the hands of politicians who lie with every breath they can muster? I am not saying that I am totaly against national healthcare nor am I totaly for it. I have looked at the current draft of the bill and see things I do like, and things I do not like. I guess the question is what is the lesser of the two evils and which one will not infringe on my freedom of choice.

August 6, 2009 at 6:09 pm
(184) urbanlegends says:

Right, then. The last several posts by various people have tended in the direction of painting the Advance Care Planning Consultation section of the bill as a covert effort to have the government start telling older people how and when to die.

I just want to add a few thoughts.

First, remember, this entire section is an amendment to Medicare. On any fair reading of the text, all it does is add Advance Care Planning Consultations to the services covered by Medicare.

Second, Advance Care Planning and the preparation of health care directives is already a standard feature of most health insurance programs. Blue Cross recommends advance health care directives to its members. Kaiser Permenente conducts classes to guide members in creating their own advance health care directives.

And so I put it to you. The language in this section of the bill allows for a Medicare patient to consult with a physician every five years and discuss “the continuum of options” for the purpose of preparing a health care directive which, to quote the bill, “effectively communicates the individual’s preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual.”

Why shouldn’t Medicare cover this?

August 6, 2009 at 6:24 pm
(185) Seeker says:

This bill stands for everything we stand against. Expect unforeseen consequences in the even of it’s passing. We do not stand against all people having healthcare, we do not stand against the rights of the people. We stand against slavery. If you side with them, you side against us. We have issued a no quarter, no surrender referendum on this matter. Good Day.

August 6, 2009 at 6:48 pm
(186) Chanel says:

Guys! My insurance company droped me at 65 and I had to go on Medicare and I will tell you it sucks. Don’t you remember when Germany wanted something better and that is how Hitler came into power. I think that the govenment should stay out of our buiness, look what a mess that the govenment did with cash for clunkers. I think that the govenment hires all the low IQ people in the US.

August 6, 2009 at 7:26 pm
(187) Ferdinand Gajewski says:

Most of you know by now that the Senate Version 20 (at least) of the “Stimulus” Bill includes provisions for extensive rationing of health care for senior citizens. The author of this part of the bill, former senator and tax evader, Tom Daschle was credited today by Bloomberg with the following statement:

“health-care reform will not be pain free. Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them.”

He can say that because he would not be subject to the same healthcare system. Just remember that our esteemed Senators and Congressmen, those sons of bitches, have their own healthcare plan that is first dollar or very low co-pay which they are guaranteed for the remainder of their lives and are not subject to this new law if it passes.

August 6, 2009 at 7:36 pm
(188) urbanlegends says:

Ferdinand wrote:

Tom Daschle was credited today by Bloomberg with the following statement:

“health-care reform will not be pain free. Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them.”

If Bloomberg actually quoted Daschle that way, they need to issue a correction.

He did once say: “health-care reform will not be pain free.”

He never said: “Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them.”

Source: Politifact.com

August 6, 2009 at 8:26 pm
(189) Jo says:

Ross, I agree with you — anything government runs is a complete DISASTER.

But if they happen to cram this through, I want people to understand that a government big enough to *give* you health care — is also a government big enough to TAKE it away.

August 6, 2009 at 9:19 pm
(190) Miranda says:

You know what I hate? People who aren’t religious criticizing those of us who are for not wanting to fund health care for every American. You use the Bible against us, but when we try to mention our core values or beliefs, you scream “separation of Church and State.” Give me a break. Of course we care about people. We are given the directive in the Scriptures to care for the poor, the widows, the orphans. Christ gives that mandate to individual Christians, NOT FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS!

August 6, 2009 at 10:30 pm
(191) Mike says:

Skyrocketing health care costs are increasingly putting a financial drag on our businesses. Insurance companies decide what they will cover and seek to deny/cap care. The recordkeeping and billing systems are extremely inefficient. The cost increases of the status quo are unsustainable. We need constructive ideas about resolving these situations. Distortion of the facts and scare tactics are counterproductive. I want conservative people at the table to make sure that we come up with a plan that is level headed…but I am concerned that so many conservatives seem to be boycotting the discussion by trying to focus on sabotaging the reform efforts altogether instead.

August 6, 2009 at 11:38 pm
(192) Bob says:

The healthcare in the USA does NOT need a
MAJOR overhaul! Yes the insurance co.’s caused healthcare cost to rise the years following WII
However that hit a plateau, what continued the rise in cost was & is frivolous law suits &
Illegal immigration with a percentage of fraud helping.

Just think what a gynecologist pay’s on average for His/Her insurance to practice.
Average= about $300,000 per year
You won’t see this group atack these problems!
Ther not about solving problems there about
gaining absolute control.
B.L.

August 7, 2009 at 12:23 am
(193) urbanlegends says:

Mike wrote:

“Distortion of the facts and scare tactics are counterproductive. I want conservative people at the table to make sure that we come up with a plan that is level headed … but I am concerned that so many conservatives seem to be boycotting the discussion by trying to focus on sabotaging the reform efforts altogether instead.”

Makes ya wonder, doesn’t it.

August 7, 2009 at 7:15 am
(194) Ted says:

Health care can not be left alone to the free market. Health care is an inelastic commodity, meaning it does not respond to the laws of supply and demand. If you need a procedure, you will do what ever you can to get it done (insurance or not, money or not). As long as we live in a civilized nation, hospitals will be excepting the poor and uninsured and they will be treated.

August 7, 2009 at 9:07 am
(195) Lomax_Lamat says:

This sounds like Carousel, straight out of Logan’s Run.

August 7, 2009 at 10:57 am
(196) GOP Junkie says:

I don’t see any copy of the “SECRETARY” having the power to do anything they want to do in this report.

August 7, 2009 at 12:25 pm
(197) mary says:

Medicare is government healthcare. Let’s just expand it to cover everyone, not just the elderly.

August 7, 2009 at 2:25 pm
(198) Bill Graham says:

The problem with provisions in bills such as “death counseling” is they open the door for abuse. There are lots of examples in our history that show the excesses that can occur. For example, when the constitutional amendment giving the govt. the power to tax peoples incomes was being debated it was argued that it would never go above 5% of a persons income, look where we are now. I also doubt that anybody forsaw the abusive power the IRS would have over us all either.

Another example is Social Security. When it was passed during the Great Depression people were told it would be self-sufficient but later generations kept adding to the people that were eligible to receive benifits until it is now near bankruptcy.

I am very opposed to giving buareacrats this kind of power that could someday degenerate into denying people care because they are too old. Instead of a bill like this, that is so long no one can read it let alone understand it all, why not pass some simple things. If people and lawyers that bring frivolous law suits against care givers had to pay the other sides legal bills if they lost it would cost us less for health care. Or how about writing legislation governing the “I don’t care about the individual” practices of the insurance industry that drive costs up each year and infuriate us all.

I don’t want more govt. intrusion in my life. Nor do I want my grandchildren to be straped with paying for these socialist programs that get passed by playing on the fears and emotions of the good people of America.

August 7, 2009 at 2:30 pm
(199) Kristin says:

What’s so wrong about killing old people? The world is too overpopulated as it is. Survival of the fittest!

August 7, 2009 at 2:34 pm
(200) Mom Is Mad! says:

Constitutional, a good christian is one who does what God wants them to do. They do not give there money to someone else to do it for them. We adopted two abused and neglected children because we felt God was calling us to do something for these children. We did not just count on the State to take care of it through the use of our tax dollars. It is not the governments job to solve all our societal woes for us. We need to as individuals stand up and take action to effectively make change in the world. We Americans like change. “Change is good”, or so the adage says, right? But isn’t it more true that Change is neither good nor bad? Did you read this post? “Change can happen for better or for worse, and it takes a discerning eye to tell the difference between the two – not a passing glance at some text and trust in other’s opinions. You have to look at the stuff yourself, or risk adding to the problem. “

August 7, 2009 at 3:13 pm
(201) Vote Republican it's better than thinking says:

Wow! This incredible loser attitude from Republicans is amazing! After 8 years of shear HELL with BUSH as president they can’t stand to lose for awhile? I just received a bill from the hospital for 3 broken ribs for a total of $2,745 after my CRAPPY employer paid insurance went thru. I love private insurance running me into poverty over and over again for doing absolutely nothing. For God’s sake you rich Republican scum stop investing in your money making schemes w/ the insurance co. and their ripoff artist pharmacy brands and let the poor have some insurance. It’s
not like you have to have the public offered insurance. If you make over $280K/year then pay more in taxes YOU WHINERS! Try making an honest living with an income of $30K/yr and see what ya think…

August 7, 2009 at 4:04 pm
(202) to: you go Constitutionalist... says:

it is NOT an option for you to arbitrarily and incorrectly choose to bastardize scripture so it fits your agenda. pay attention now – it is presumed in scripture that your love of christ will naturally reveal an outpouring of actions showing the love christ has for us (james). this reponse to faith it NOT a “heaven-earning” action. this response to faith has NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING to do with forcefully taking from people groups to help other people groups through legislation or otherwise. what you have done is you have taken your skewed view (this truley is not meant to belittle, but to reveal and teach) of the christian faith and manipulate it inside a few sentences, sarcastically, to fit your agenda. the fact is that scripture has no expectation of taking from one to give to another – democrats know this as “robin hood-ism”. problem with using robin hood – the story is that robin hood stole from the sheriff of notingham (government) who had stolen from the people of the kingdom. this is covered in the book of amos (old testament if you aren’t familiar – genuinely no sarcasm intended – seriously). what also we see in amos is that the jews had an explicit covenant with god that they were to serve him and, to steal a NT word but definitely an idea ever-present in the OT, the jews were to evangelize the nations! what is interesting in amos yet not at all unique to amos is that the non-jews, aka “the nations”, WERE 100% RESPONSIBLE TO YAHWEH AS WELL THROUGH AN IMPLICIT COVENANT (amos, chapters 1 and 2))!!!!! this is where you come in “you go Constitutionalist…”

you are responsible JUST AS CHRISTIANS to give of yourself – NOT to elect a congress and president who will take from all and decrease the quality of life for everyone, in the name of equality. equality is NOT an american ideal and is a concept absolutely and completely foreign to biblical context as well. also, “fairness” is foreign to american foundation and is ONLY ONLY ONLY present in the bible in the context of Yahweh’s just impartial judicial administration (this last part, not to offend, you may not understand. many think god 1. doesn’t exist, 2. is mean/hateful, 3. ?, based on their personal life experience. faulty logic – to base belief in god on your personal experience alone. also, so you know, when grown folks talk like that they sound like 7th grade kids – ie. everything Green Day sings about or most rock bands for that matter. i pray some day you do understand).

i hope this helps you understand that if you want to help someone – save and buy them insurance yourself, for example. know that the bible DOES NOT support what is being attempted by this administration, quite unfortunately set up by the previous administration. as for me and my family, we shall fight for ourselves and for the few outside our family that we can come up with a way to fight for. help yourself AND folks you know and meet on your own, and my family and i will continue to do the same.

August 7, 2009 at 4:13 pm
(203) Jo says:

In THIS country we have the pursuit of happiness, not illegal confiscation thereof.

Health care is not the job of *federal* government — if you want HC in your state then address the issue with your state. The federal government is limited by the constitution — see 9th and 10th amendments.

As for taxation — the rich already foot the bill, continue to chase their money out of the US economy then the middle class and eventually poor, will have to bear the tax burden, oops, that’s right — it’s already being considered by THIS administration.

Why do you think NY, CA, MI etc… are in the crapper? They are run by liberal democrats who have chased wealth and jobs out of state. That’s why.

August 7, 2009 at 4:35 pm
(204) Purrsephanie says:

I don’t see anything about suicide, I want to know why Repubs are so afraid of this bill, I think you are more afraid that it is going to work and then oopps there goes Obama doing exactly what he promisied and then getting reelected in 2012.

August 7, 2009 at 5:06 pm
(205) Jo says:

Obama openly admits he supports elderly end-of lifeers to be medicated and not have surgery.

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

The question is would it be eventually limited or mandated through government rationing of HC as other countries have had to do?

Do you want to risk it?

August 7, 2009 at 6:34 pm
(206) urbanlegends says:

Jo writes:

“Obama openly admits he supports elderly end-of lifers to be medicated and not have surgery.”

All I can say, folks, is listen to Obama’s full answer to the question in this unedited version of the video and decide for yourselves if that’s what he really said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJYvaLS-xOw&NR=1

August 7, 2009 at 7:08 pm
(207) Vote Rebublican it's better than thinking says:

The Repubs in this forum STILL haven’t answered if they were only making 30K/yr what they would think…it’s so OBVIOUS they are the whining rich who would move away because of their selfish interests of saving more money than God rather than helping others in need. Put all your money off shores then you “patriots”. “helping others” = assisting the veterans w/ a good government run (god forbid) health care system. Scratch your heads on that one. Pay up a PORTION of your fortunes or leave this country!!! I’m certain my Swiss friends would welcome you in their country!!!!

August 7, 2009 at 8:17 pm
(208) P Talamo says:

Stop the madness…No one is forcing seniors to kill themselves earlier to save money..To my understanding, The bill is giving you the option on what to do with your own life, if and when the time comes for you to die..Stop speading the madness.. No one is pushing Suicide to anyone..I believe it’s your own personal decision on what to do with your life..Stop spreading wrong info..Remember what happen to Teri Shivo..Everyone got involved in her and family’s personal life who doesnt have the business of getting involved…The bottom line is her decision and her husband decision. Not the so called rightious people who think they know what is right for her. Stop the madness…

August 7, 2009 at 8:49 pm
(209) Nik without a c Kripalani says:

Stop harassing Democracy. I can File for Harassment in CA, I am a good Democrat, We Demos (Democrats) get a bad Rep. You lucky for now. But if you said it in my state. I can Sue for harassment and drowing out Senators (Democrats especially in their home state) I was taught early, if you don’t have nothing nice to say, don’t say it at all. Democrats Rally NOW! GET YOUR REARS IN GEAR

August 7, 2009 at 8:51 pm
(210) Nik without a c Kripalani says:

NO VOTE DEMOCRATIC! NO REPUBLICANS

August 7, 2009 at 9:38 pm
(211) Shelley says:

I certainly hope people start to realize that the Health insurance and Pharmaceutical industries are the ones spreading these lies. This has got to stop, before someone really gets hurt!! These people at the town hall meetings are seriously flawed,and I’m afraid someone’s going to get carried away!!

August 8, 2009 at 12:15 am
(212) to: vote republican blah blah blah says:

I am a Republican, and I make 30K a year. Do I look forward to Nationalized HC? NO. There. Happy?

August 8, 2009 at 1:24 am
(213) Vote Republican it's better than thinking says:

Another Wow! I am truly blessed you responded w/ little to no solution to this huge problem. You must be well covered then huh?

August 8, 2009 at 8:38 am
(214) sperk says:

Don’t we already face rationing of healthcare now? Insurance companies make decisions for you already. Everyone is arguing that the government will be deciding your fate at end of life or whatever…it already happens with the insurance companies.

August 8, 2009 at 9:41 am
(215) ROBDEBO89 says:

Sounds like he said that could be an option (painkiller versus surgery).

That is part of the problem. I read pages 425 – 435, and listened to the You tube clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJYvaLS-xOw&NR=1

I came away with the understanding that the 5 year counseling sessions were mandatory, and that it could be decided that the choices you made would not be honored (page 430 and 432).

Many here are reading this the same way I am, and many here are reading the same thing and drawing a different conclusion.

some on the right will dismiss those on the left as socialists, some on the left will dismiss dissenting opinions on the right as lunatic fringe, but at the end of the day, most people are reading this and arriving at (for them) an honest conclusion.

I think the real questions are…..

Why is it so ambiguous?
How can so many people read the same thing and draw different conclusions?

August 8, 2009 at 10:29 am
(216) urbanlegends says:

ROBDEBO89 wrote:

“Why is it so ambiguous? How can so many people read the same thing and draw different conclusions?”

I think we’re all wondering the same thing.

Personally, I think it’s because the wording is in fact too ambiguous, because the bill was in fact written too hastily, because legalese is hard to understand under the best of circumstances, and because people — all people — tend to interpret words and deeds through the lens of their own experiences and beliefs.

And because there’s too much propaganda ringing in our ears.

August 8, 2009 at 2:03 pm
(217) Joan Knopp says:

Leave it to the Republicans to go with the scare tactics if they really believed that a health care program run by the government is so wrong let them work to repeal Medicare and see how far that gets them. The is no end of life requirement there is a counseling benefit that will be paid for by the government should a individual want to exercise the option no one has too do anything, Governor Palin needs to learn how to read !

August 8, 2009 at 2:18 pm
(218) honey says:

This is great no one can figure this bill out. No wonder the politicans don’t want to read it. But the fact is they are going to vote on it anyway. My opinion. Vote NO. Everything they get involved with the screw up anyway. The government should not be involved in my PRIVATE DOCTOR PATIENT RELATIONSHIP period,end of story!!!!!!!

August 8, 2009 at 2:21 pm
(219) Trisha says:

It’s amazing how some people here repeatedly distort the contents of this bill despite being shown irrefutable proof that their claims are false.

Apparently it’s easier to parrot the rantings and ravings of right-wing politicians and pundits as fact than to actually read the document–not just small sections of it–and form an independent opinion.

No wonder we ended up with eight years of Bush. People are too lazy to actually think for themselves.

I haven’t read the entire bill yet, and I definitely do have some questions about what I have read so far. I think that Congress should delay voting on this for a few months, so all citizens will have time to read it. Printed copies should be available in public libraries for those who don’t have computer access.

I’d like to see REAL public discussion of this bill, not just mobs of people bent on doing nothing but yelling and screaming and disrupting town hall meetings because some radio talk show host told them to do so.

An aside to Jo: as a CA resident, I think you should know that this state is being incompetently governed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, a REPUBLICAN.

August 8, 2009 at 2:29 pm
(220) nomore says:

You are a very misinformed person. Are you talking about advance directives? Every Hospital does this every time you visit them. They are not trying to get old people to commit suicide. Either you are trying to stir the pot or you just don’t understand.

August 8, 2009 at 4:58 pm
(221) Mo says:

Jo,

Please direct yourself to page 429 – 430 of the bill.

“(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—

(ii) effectively communicates the individual’s preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual;”

The term ORDER you are so scared of – is a term used by healthcare professionals to indicate what is to be done/given to any given patient.

When your doctor gives you a prescription for a certain medication, he/she is actually giving you an ORDER.

The term ORDER also indicates a patients wishes for what kind of treatment he or she wishes to receive. If you have an advanced directive, you should know that that document is an ORDER to the doctors that lets them know what you want done in case you are unable to make decisions for yourself (say, after an car accident and you are unconscious or in a coma)

Please read the bill and rather than scare people by saying the government will ORDER doctors to provide (or not provide) care to those in need. The government will not order any sick person to die. Those ORDERS have to come from the patients themselves.

August 8, 2009 at 5:02 pm
(222) Jo says:

Amazing so many misinformed can read plain English and misconstrue it. Ambiguous as it may be — this line is PLAIN English:

“(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.
(…example indications)
(A) (ii) – is adding the word “and” at the end of subparagraph EE
——————————–
This clearly says FULL treatment or LIMITED.

No country that has public HC has UNLIMITED care – NONE.

They all have limits and most ration care.

Maybe you want your grandma to be limited but most people want all options for their loved ones.

August 8, 2009 at 5:11 pm
(223) Mo says:

Jo,

Please refer back to the original document. The level of treatment that is indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) is the “individual’s preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual”

When you are reading a legal document, make sure to refer back to any subsections they indicate.

When you write an advance directive, you can state that in case you cannot make decisions for yourself, you want doctors to do everything they can to save you. You can also ask that you not be put on a respirator or you can indicate that you want a DNR order – a “DO NOT RESUSCITATE” order.

And doctors MUST follow these orders – these order that you indicate on your advanced directive (your wishes for treatment options)

The government is not writing your advanced directive. YOU ARE!!

August 8, 2009 at 5:40 pm
(224) HoldOntoTheUSA says:

The FAMILY is the basic building block of society.

From there it expands to include your neighbors, then your community, city, county, state and lastly, the federal government. We are almost completely UPSIDE DOWN.

We HAVE evolved into a system where the federal government is heavily involved in areas they don’t have the authority to be involved in. When the federal government becomes the basic building block of society and the family is the last piece of the puzzle . . . well, T I L T ! Down the toilet we go.

Our elected officials don’t know up from down. Our elected officials don’t know right from wrong. The programs they currently run are riddled with waste and financial favors to friends and allies – at a tremendous cost to “we the people”. Imagine the tax break everyone would get if our government acted responsibly. Thousands back to everyone.

We need to elect new leaders to represent us. They should spend their time reigning in any of the bad legislation they have created over the last 50 years.

Instead of creating 1,000 plus page laws that they don’t even read, they should work tirelessly to get the federal government back into good standing with the constitution. A byproduct of this will be a much smaller and less expensive government.

Imagine a system where a corrupt government isn’t run by special interest groups, big business, or lobbyists. A government for the people by the people.

In all of Earths history, no other society has been as great as this nation. It will take effort to hold onto that.

Government Should Fear The People.

If the people fear the government, then the government is BROKEN.

Our government is broken folks.

Let’s repair it!

August 8, 2009 at 5:40 pm
(225) disgusted with govt says:

If this health plan is so great, all union members, federal employees, especially members of Congress, should be mandated to participate in it. No exemptions! That’s right — instead of their cushy, top of the line, multi-choice insurance plans that they now have! That’s the bottom line as far as I’m concerned.

August 8, 2009 at 6:19 pm
(226) WeNeedToWorkTogether says:

Arnold is as much of a dEMOCRAT as a rEPUBLICAN.

We need to stop fighting between the D’s and R’s.

The dolts in Washington have had horribly low approval ratings for years. We need to kick them all out and start over.

“Politicians are like diapers. They both need changing often, and for the same reason!” – Mark Twain

http://www.kickthemallout.com/

August 9, 2009 at 1:18 am
(227) Vote Republican it's better than thinking says:

I still find it interesting that our veterans have a damn good GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE and no one uses it as an example. They truely deserve the BEST!
I agree that govt> employees and the elected should have the govt. care provided instead of a private option(which everyone else will have the choice). IT WILL STILL BE A CHOICE OF PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PPL!!!

August 9, 2009 at 6:37 am
(228) Jason says:

the government doesnt get in the way of VA recipients or Medicare recipeints right now, why would Big Brother start telling my Dr how to treat me with a public option? This is so rediculous that these lies keep being spread because insurance companies would lose their ability to generate profits by denying me coverage (which happens all the time)

August 9, 2009 at 10:45 am
(229) Girard says:

Jesus was a socialist.

August 9, 2009 at 11:35 am
(230) derek says:

Anyone who says universal healthcare doesn’t work lives in a hole and believes only what they hear in the media. I have used the public systems in London and Japan which are better than the privatized hospitals here in the city. Not only that I have first hand experience with the U.S.’s universal health system … it’s called the V.A. which is by far the best healthcare system I’ve ever seen. People pay attention the sound bites on 24hr news. But the reality is every single veteran gets life time healthcare, with the best doctors and nurses. This country needs to stop shouting and going off on a hair trigger and engage in intelligent, thoughtful debate.

August 9, 2009 at 11:48 am
(231) Honey says:

The people I know that use v.a. health care aren’t exactly happy with it. There are long wait times to see doctors, they don’t always get to see the same doctor,and can’t switch primary doctors easily if they don’t like the one they have. Not everything is covered either. Just a thought, why don’t our service members have the same health care as our elected officals? They are deciding something for us that they are not willing to except themselves and yet they expect us to keep footing the bill for their cushy health care on top of it all. This is just one insult after another coming from our government. HOLD ON TO THE USA has it right we are almost upside down,and WE THE PEOPLE have to stop it before we loose our rights to.

August 9, 2009 at 4:03 pm
(232) Chris K. says:

If, as Connie W. stated on July 27, “The feds HAVE NO BUSINESS BEING IN THE HEALTH CARE BUSINESS!!!!!!!!”, then why the heck do we have Medicare/Medicaid?!?!?!?!?!?!

August 9, 2009 at 4:20 pm
(233) Jimv says:

Does it not strike as absurd that Nancy and her friends (and staffs) are micromanaging to the extent of saying just which conversations between Doctor and Patient they will or will not pay for?

The anti-Palin position is that the government bill simply says it will pay for a certain kind of consultation. Why does the government need to do this if it is already good medical practice.

What bothers me is the sight of Washing deciding just what should and what should not be done in the practice. It may be necessary to do this, I don’t know. But it nonetheless is worrisome.

BTW–Palin likes to say things in a provocative way. Perhaps she is merely another hysterical woman. But the fact that a hysterical woman yells “Fire” doesn’t mean there is no fire. Better check it out for yourself.

August 9, 2009 at 4:31 pm
(234) Jimv says:

BTW–it is perfectly correct that the bill as quoted here says that the patient’s wishes shall have the force of a medical order. The word “actionable” seems to give the lawyers scope here.

However, should we arrive at the case where the doctor’s livelihood depends on an entity with a known preference….

At least now I can pit the government against industry. Take industry out of the picture. Do I have more or less control of outcomes?

August 9, 2009 at 4:49 pm
(235) MB says:

Jason hit the nail on the head VA and Medicare recipients don’t have govt telling them what will and won’t be paid for… hold on … that’s the current private health-care system that denies care. Hummmm, lets reflect in that for a moment.

August 9, 2009 at 8:05 pm
(236) DeaththeKid says:

“‘‘(FF) advance care planning consultation (as
2 defined in subsection (hhh)(1));’’; and
3 (B) by adding at the end the following new
4 subsection:
5 ‘‘Advance Care Planning Consultation
6 ‘‘(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the
7 term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a con8
sultation between the individual and a practitioner de9
scribed in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning,
10 if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has
11 not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such
12 consultation shall include the following:
13 ‘‘(A) An explanation by the practitioner of ad14
vance care planning, including key questions and
15 considerations, important steps, and suggested peo16
ple to talk to.
17 ‘‘(B) An explanation by the practitioner of ad18
vance directives, including living wills and durable
19 powers of attorney, and their uses.
20 ‘‘(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the
21 role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.
22 ‘‘(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list
23 of national and State-specific resources to assist con24
sumers and their families with advance care plan25
ning, including the national toll-free hotline, the ad-”
VerDate Nov
Where on this page does it say that “the Federal Government will require EVERYONE who is on Social Security to undergo a counseling session every 5 years with the objective being that they will explain to them just how to end their own life earlier.” You idiots need to get your eyes checked. There is NO mention of a REQUIREMENT for you to do this nor is there one of suicide counseling. Once again people take things out of proportion like the “Obama isn’t really President because he wasn’t born here” crap. Why don’t you people say what you really mean…”I hate Obama because he’s BLACK.” To me that sounds more honest comming from right-wing, back-asswards people like yourselves. There’s your truth!

August 9, 2009 at 8:49 pm
(237) geoff says:

The truth will not get in the way of a good story any time soon.

August 9, 2009 at 9:10 pm
(238) Bety says:

I don’t care if Pres. Obama is green with purple polka dots, if you read his books (I have)he is a Socialist and I don’t want America to be Socialist. It (Socialism) is the bedfellow of Communism. And, if a veteran fights for my freedom, he can have all the free health care he wants. I say, GOD BLESS THEM.

August 9, 2009 at 9:52 pm
(239) Greg says:

To the earlier comment- government is NOT here to protect the people. Our government was created to ensure our freedom. Aren’t government programs like HMO’s what got us into this mess? If there was no government intervention and an actual free market, wouldn’t better healthcare almost have to occur at better prices simply because of competitiveness?
People would no longer need insurance to pay for simple checkups, and insurance prices would also go down simply because those companies would only be covering the much less frequent complicated procedures. I’m just a simpleton, I could be wrong.

Oh and I’m sorry I voted for Obama, there.

August 10, 2009 at 3:12 am
(240) Annette says:

If the government healthcare they are planning to provide is anything like the VA hospital we have here in Miami, Fl, we are in big trouble. Just earlier this year, they discovered that the equipment used during Colonoscopies was not being properly sanitized. They had to call a large amount of Vets to get checked for HIV, Hepatitis, and many other diseases. A couple of them I believe tested positive for HIV!! Besides the fact that we are not a SOCIALIST country, and the White House should not be getting involved with our healthcare, our soldiers should be treated with better respect and honor than this. If the men and women who have risked their lives for us are being treated this way, what can we expect for us????

August 10, 2009 at 4:58 am
(241) Joseph says:

I own a small business goin on 4 years now. I employ 4 people. I do not have a benefit plan for my workers. Ive tried reafing this bill 2 different times. both times it took, me 4 days to read. Im so confused!!!!!!!. I need a lawyer to help me read this. There has to be at least 25+ other documents you need to read just to understand each section, subsection, subparagraph, etc.

I’ve come to the conclusion 95% of everyone on this blog is as confused or more.

“Get ahold of your Congressman” I called my Congrassman. I was put on hold for 30 minutes, untill someone hung the phone up on me. The next day i tried again. Almost imediately i got an answer, and someone was gonna answer my questions, got hung up on again,I called right back and was put on hold for almost an hour,I gave up. I didnt want to see what was going on and swore they would answer me or I would be able to talk to someone. 5 more calls and 3 hang-ups and multiple hours on hold and i still havn’t talked to my congressman.

Is this what our government has come to.What ever happened to “Of the people, by the people, for the people.”

I think what is most hated about this bill is the thought of being made to do something, “TAX IMPOSED-In the case of an individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d), (another subsection!!),at any time during the taxable year, there is HEREBY IMPOSED a tax equal to 2.5% of the excess of-
“(1) the taxpayers 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.
In my opinion what I get from that is if u dont meet the requirements of subsection (d), you will have to PAY a tax. !!WHERE DO YOU FIND SUBSECTION (D) AND WHAT DOES IT SAY??

Sec.324. ADDITIONAL RULES RELATING TO HEALTH COVERAGE PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS. (I never thought I would see participation and requirement in the same sentence).(2)”coordination of policies realting to enforcing the same requirements through such officers in order to have a coordinated enforcement stategy that avoids duplication of enforcemnet efforts and assigns priorities in enforcement.” Sounds like a war strategy

Im a republican, but I am an American first. I know for a fact that everyone thinks they know whats going on and know exactly what needs to be done. I read the blogs. I listen to the news and the radio, and I’m sick of it. AMERICANS quit fighting. Instead of this your wrong no your wrong crap, come together, put both ideas down and go from there. This bill is the wrong way to do this.

I dont know or claim to know all the answers.I will say we need to fight this, our childrens future can be at stake!!

Thank you and have a great day

August 10, 2009 at 7:39 am
(242) TopAssistant says:

If I remember correctly, killing ones self gets you a place in Hell. My nephew killed himself and that is where I believe he is now. AMERICA IS BEYOND BROKE! We owe $100 trillion to social security, Medicaid, Medicare, including SCHIP. How are we going to pay for the promises made? What our useless politicians are doing is promising the same dollar (OURS) to advance other programs so they can claim they are “bringing home the bacon” so they can get more votes. We need to name the Obama Gang members and I have named mine, “Useless Bob, The Rat” Etheridge D-NC).

August 10, 2009 at 9:47 am
(243) gweduck says:

Let’s face it, the bill is flawed. And no matter what the congress puts forth, some people will have problems with it. My main objection, is that the legislators putting forth this bill are not ready to live by it. Remember our government employees do not – repeat – do not fall under Social Security. The government has their own “retirement” plan and health care option.
As soon as every government employee – elected or otherwise – is willing to jump on the bandwagon for this health care, I’m in. Until, I will fight it tooth and nail. Better yet, I think we should have I trial run of the bill on some of our elected officials.

August 10, 2009 at 10:33 am
(244) Tom says:

Most of the comments on this indicate very little thoughtful analysis and no concern for the costs we will incur if we don’t find a solution to the health care financial problem. We certainly need to debate and find the pros and cons of proposed solutions. But, yelling at townhall meetings and not doing your homework on the issue won’t get us out of the mess. I’m 68 years old. I’ve taken the time to plan for my older age. I see many people my age trying to ignore the fact that, so far, nobody gets to live forever. And, their choice to ignore reality puts an incredible burden on their relatives and friends. Their are a lot of possibilities, decisions, etc. that come with getting old. A failure to plan for those times is selfish and irresponsible behavior.

August 10, 2009 at 11:35 am
(245) Kathry says:

Great comment Tom (238)! I agree 100%.

August 10, 2009 at 11:47 am
(246) AFaye says:

Healthcare by the government probably will be as successful as… the Post Office, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, as the bail out programs for Auto Makers and Banks… Ask yourself and your representatives why they won’t be sharing the same healthcare? Wake up America! Our forefathers established a government that was meant to be accountable to the people, not the other way around. The government shouldn’t be getting lifelong pensions, nor healthcare on our dime. It is meant to be a position of servitude, in order that they may make laws that not only effect us, but them. What a concept! Until we push the reset button we are going to see more crazy schemes against our well-being than for it. SEIU going to Town Hall Meetings is the equivalent of Brown Shirts who began Hitler’s nightmare… Wake up smell the coffee it is on fire!

August 10, 2009 at 12:02 pm
(247) Jo says:

Mo #217 You are wrong. Read the entire bill.

Pg 30 Sec 123 – Government committee that decides what treatments/benefits you get.

Pg 29 Lines 4-16 – Health care rationed. You get limited “care” per year.

Pg 42 – The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC Benefits for you. No individual choice.

PG 85 Line 7 – Specs for Benefit Levels for Plans – The Govt will ration your Health care according to station in life.

PG 85 Line 7 – Specs of Benefit Levels for Plans. AARP members – note your Health care WILL be rationed.

Pg 167 Lines 18-23 – 2.5% tax imposed on those who do not have acceptable HC – according to government standards.

Pg 239 Line 14-24 – Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor will be most affected.

PG 253 Line 10-18 – Govt sets value of Doctor’s time, professional judgments, etc. Literally sets value of human life.

PG 268 Sec 1141 – Fed Govt regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs.

PG 272 Sec 1145 – Cancer Hospitals re-evaluated. Welcome to rationing…

Page 280 Sec 1151 – The Govt will penalize hospitals for “preventable readmissions”.

Pg335 Lines 16-25 Pg 336-339 – Government dictate HC – “measuring care”. Rationing.

Pg 354 Sec 1177 – Government will restrict enrollment of Special needs.

These parts in the bill, leads us up to 425-430.

Tell me do you REALLY believe that our government will give unlimited coverage? Name one country that has universal *unlimited* HC coverage?

August 10, 2009 at 1:10 pm
(248) urbanlegends says:

Jo has posted another list of distortions. Again I strongly encourage everyone to look at the bill itself and read what it actually says.

Pg 30 Sec 123 – Government committee that decides what treatments/benefits you get.

No, page 30 sets up a panel of health care experts chaired by the Surgeon General, with public input, to standardize benefits in each of three levels of insurance plans: essential, enhanced, and premium. They will not decide what benefits YOU get.

Pg 29 Lines 4-16 – Health care rationed. You get limited “care” per year.

Nothing on this page rations health care. It does set limits — to the out-of-pocket expenses families will incur if they are insured at the “essential” level.

Pg 42 – The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC Benefits for you. No individual choice.

False. Page 42 says the Commissioner is responsbile for establishing standards for health insurance benefits.

PG 85 Line 7 – Specs for Benefit Levels for Plans – The Govt will ration your Health care according to station in life.

Says Commissioner will set standards for the three levels of insurance plans. Has nothing to do with rationing anything.

PG 85 Line 7 – Specs of Benefit Levels for Plans. AARP members – note your Health care WILL be rationed.

AARP statement: “Our staff has read all of the legislation circulating in Congress and there are no provisions in these bills that would ration care for our members. None. If any ever did, we would vigorously fight to stop that legislation.”

http://blog.aarp.org/shaarpsession/2009/08/must_read_dont_believe_them.html

Pg 167 Lines 18-23 – 2.5% tax imposed on those who do not have acceptable HC – according to government standards.

True. This is the only accurate statement in the list so far.

Pg 239 Line 14-24 – Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor will be most affected.

Does NOT reduce physician services for ANYONE. It limits what services are to be considered when the gov’t computes target growth rate.

More later if I have time. Anybody else with a mind of their own is welcome to contribute their own line readings.

What we don’t need more of is people posting these email texts that mostly distort what the bill says without verifying their accuracy first.

Thanks.

August 10, 2009 at 1:59 pm
(249) Greg says:

urbanlegends: Thanks for refuting Jo’s ridiculous misreading of the text. The only weapons those screaming “SOCIALISM!!” have at their disposal is distortion, distraction, and outright falsehood. If they based their arguments on truth alone, they would wither away because they don’t know how to argue honestly any more.

In fact, the only honest argument I’ve seen in this thread from a conservative POV has been from those, like constitutionalist, who make no bones about their belief that our government has no business providing services that directly benefit the citizens. How much the government should provide for the general welfare is the underlying issue in this debate. The other stuff is smoke and mirrors.

So quit regurgitating talking points. We’ve all heard them and they contribute nothing; they only serve to cloud the issues (which, incidentally, is the whole point). Come up with some ideas of your own and approach this debate honestly, or else you’re just wasting everyone’s time and looking a fool in the process.

August 10, 2009 at 2:31 pm
(250) Dianna Johnson says:

In response to Carrie. Are you kidding me???? Do you watch the news? Surely you must know someone who has been recently unemployed. Unemployment is at an all time high and guess what…. These people are also uninsured so your comment about the reports of the number of the uninsured has been falsified is FALSE!!! What a greedy uncaring selfish country we have become. When will we ever learn? This “it’s all about me” attitude is what got us in our present situation.

August 10, 2009 at 3:23 pm
(251) Rita says:

I can see why Dottie has been in need of help from the government in the past….she needs to go back to school and learn how to spell and use proper grammar. I am not trying to put her down, nor am I a bigot, but I counted at least 8 misspelled words/misused grammar errors in her comment. How can you be taken seriously when you do not have command of the English language?

August 10, 2009 at 3:38 pm
(252) Anne says:

I am still trying to digest all of this information. What I do know is in our small business cost is out of hand. Will this help? I do not know. I would like to understand it better, but I have enough trouble understanding everything the insurance companies throw at me also.

August 10, 2009 at 5:10 pm
(253) IdentityCrisis says:

The problem I’m having with this bill ~ It is incomprehensible. One would need a print out, as well as other law, referred to, a lot of flipping back and forth between several documents and a translator. The bill should make sense, it is mostly gible-de-garb. If it is soooo great, why is it sooooo difficult to decipher? Also, did anyone read the sections relating to fines for non-compliance for employers around page 179?! I’ve been trying to decipher this thing, I think I need other legal documents that it refers to. Paragraph after paragraph, making reference to deletion and addition of words like “and”, WHAT? Like I said, translation ~ PLEASE! How could anyone agree to this? It makes no sense.

August 10, 2009 at 5:30 pm
(254) Gina says:

I find it really sad to see so many lies posted here and all the hysteria to go with those lies. It’s clear from the posts that those freaking out about this bill either have not read it or simply cannot understand the legalize in which it is being drafted. Sarah “death panel” Palin and her ilk sure has done a good job of making sure people don’t hear the truth.

August 10, 2009 at 5:37 pm
(255) Stephen Potts says:

1500 pages and growing. Written by lawyers so that the average college graduate couldn’t begin to understand it. Make it big. Overwhelm the voters. Push it and push it FAST. NOT IN MY AMERICA!!!!

August 10, 2009 at 6:07 pm
(256) CanadianInUS says:

This discussion about Healthcare reform just gets uglier every passing day. Special interest groups and media outlets with a totally different agenda are trying to use fear mongering to prey on the (sad) ignorance of SOME Americans to steer away from positive debate that will help Americans. I should not even spend time talking to these absurd insinuations by right wing extremists whose motives I still don’t understand. These ridiculous misinformation distracts citizenry from intelligent and legitimate debates that could prove more positive to the outcome of healthcare in America, questions like:
1. Why are we proposing healthcare reform?
2. What is wrong with the current system and why is it not acceptable
3. How will the proposed reform be paid for?
4. What are the major cost runners and what are possible solutions to mitigating these costs
True leadership will get past these political bickering and work for the people, not use messy tactics, misinformation, and lies to distract people from a healthy discourse and improve people’s lives.
Oh and by the way I’m of the opinion that Bills are always written in legal language so this is not new, perhaps it is lengthy but healthcare is not a small issue either.

August 10, 2009 at 6:22 pm
(257) Merl Humphrey says:

I went to the house bill and read pages 426 thrugh 430 but didn’t find the paragraph on assisted suicide. Maybe you could give closere direction.

August 10, 2009 at 7:00 pm
(258) Bear says:

This is a lie. The patient consultation will be paid for once every five years IF the patient desires such a consultation. What a lie for those who are too lazy to look for themselves.

August 10, 2009 at 7:25 pm
(259) Ralph G says:

It means that Medicare will pay for a living will every 5 years, if you want it. Nothing is mandatory. This is a good thing.
If Terry Chaivo had a living will the Republicans would not have been able to try to impose their will on her and that spectacle could have been averted.

August 10, 2009 at 7:38 pm
(260) Tim says:

Economicy speaking, IF the plan is put through and lets say that 25% of the population that already has insurance switches to the gov.s health care. Wouldnt that mean that 25% of all income from EVERY SINGLE insurance company would then be lost. Meaning millions of workers would lose tons of money extremly fast which would then cause those millions to need to look for different jobs, then adding to the growing number of people jobless in our country, (which by the way didnt we spend BILLIONS of dollars to fix about a year ago?) Thats at least what i forsee happing if this plan goes through, correct me if im wrong on this point.

As for a question, anyone know where i can find the entire plan written out? theres tons of things that i hear said and want to check them out myself so i know if there a load of crap or not.

August 10, 2009 at 8:42 pm
(261) boboh says:
August 10, 2009 at 8:51 pm
(262) boboh says:

not so urban legend…

how aobut this one 40 year study uncovered in 1972, now what political parties ruled during this 40 year experiment on blacks??????

In 1932, PHS initiated the Tuskegee Syphilis Study to document the natural history of syphilis. The research subjects were 399 poor African American male sharecroppers from Macon County, Alabama, with latent syphilis and 201 men without the disease who served as controls. Researchers did not disclose the nature of the study to the participants (no informed consent); subjects were deceived by investigators as they were told that they were being treated for “bad blood.” In addition, subjects were coerced to participate through inducements of free transportation, free meals, free medical treatment for minor ailments, and burial insurance. Subjects were given a thorough medical exam and were to be followed for six to eight months during which time their disease would not be treated. Initially, there was no intent to deny anyone treatment on a long-term basis.

August 10, 2009 at 10:43 pm
(263) Rob in Michigan says:

Hold it….HOLD IT!
Elections have consequences. We won and He (the President) campaigned on this bill. So, if you voted Democratic and you are now supprised about this bill, then you were not paying attention…. were you?
And for all supposed “constutionalists” out there… If what the Democratic Party is doing is unconstitutional, the conserative Supreme Court (It is you know 5-4) will strike it down. So, no harm no foul.

“Socialized medicine” I hear these words alot. If you don’t want it you can keep your own insurance. By the way, Medicare and Medicaide is “socialized medicine”.

Am I getting through to any of the knuckleheads out there?

August 10, 2009 at 11:09 pm
(264) Grant S says:

The thing that many of the opponents of this bill fail to take into account when fearing a communist takeover is that the public government healthcare is optional. If you read even the first ten pages of the bill this becomes apparent. In paragraph (3)(B), on page 5 it states: “This division creates a new Health Insurance Exchange, with a public health insurance option alongside private plans;”

August 10, 2009 at 11:16 pm
(265) Grant S says:

Tim, as to what you said about the insurance companies losing 25% of their income, that is highly unlikely. Public healthcare will mainly appeal to poorer people who either don’t have healthcare now because they can’t afford it or who do have healthcare but would benefit substantially from getting cheaper healthcare.

Aside from that, people who can afford private healthcare will likely keep it because many of the anti-healthcare advocates are right about one thing: bureaucracy will probably make public healthcare much less desirable than private healthcare.

You can read the full healthcare bill here:

August 10, 2009 at 11:50 pm
(266) Rich in H-town says:

What a bunch of ignorant or misleading statements we are seeing on the evils of the healthcare bill.

The bill requires euthanasia counselling…BS…The bill says you can not receive counseling more often than every 5 years unless their is a significant change in your personal situation. Get it, they don’t want to pay for yearly counseling. Believe it or not, end of life planning is a good thing. Have you ever heard of an advance directive for healthcare? i.e., if you become a veggie but they can keep your heart beating, would you want that, or not. If you are old and your health is declining, would you want to let your preferences be known, i.e., do everything possible to keep me alive a long as possible or, if I am in a coma with know hope of waking and clearly in pain, maybe I would like to die naturally.

On other topics, insurance plans are by state. So say, you come down with cancer as a 50 year old but would like to move from Texas to NC for whatever reason. Right now, you might have a great big problem getting your cancer covered in NC because it is a preexisting condition. Guess what, without the changes in this bill, you’re stuck and can’t afford to move because you’d have to cover all your cancer treatments out of pocket.

OK, you’re self employed and have private medical insurance for your family of five. It costs you $1200 a month for a comprehensive plan, but you have to deal with a 5k per person annual deductible just to keep the monthly cost within reach. Well guess, what, your premium is going up 15% a year. Why, is it because the cost of medical care is going up. A little, but look at insurance company profits and you’ll see they aren’t hurting. So what’s wrong with a little competition from a government run plan. We all “know” the government can’t do anything right or efficiently, so what are the insurance companies worried about? Surely, it’s not about giving up their obscene profts…

August 11, 2009 at 12:00 am
(267) Joseph says:

WOW!!! I’m reading through this, trying to figure some of this dribble out and what do i see. WHAT the heck does Sarah Palin have to do with this????. The election is over , get over it. If you think you need to keep up the name calling this, then you are what is wrong with this country. Give me something with some sort of truath in it that Sarah Palin did to make all of this happen and maybe i will listen. If you can only think of what is said on the news, then STOP. Nobody wants to hear it.

August 11, 2009 at 12:15 am
(268) Paul says:

Ok, first of all I am a christain and love my country and love all people no matter there background or color etc etc. However it is the greed of man that has caused this terrible situation that we are in and it is well known and documented that big health care insurence companies find every way they can to not pay claims. So how do you right wing jerks propose to fix the issue. If the rich were not so greedy and gave to charity and took care of the poor as JESUS did, oh and as a side note he healed the sick. It is the responsabilty of those who have to take care of those who don’t if you believe in the bilble that is heaven mandated. I currently don’t have healthcare and I don’t live in an area that I can get a good paying job so that I can have health care, but yet I still take care of my parents who are over 80. Well at least they have heath care wish I did.

August 11, 2009 at 12:27 am
(269) Joseph says:

“IF THE RICH WEREN’T SO GREEDY”, “GAVE MORE TO CHARITY”. Where do you live?. The rich pay more taxes, and give millions of dollars to needy charities. What do you do? You take, thats what you do. Then you get on here and spout out that the rich are the whole problem. If Jesus was so great, what happened to him? He was killed, for going against the government. I’m a christian as well, but as a christian your job is to read and interpret the gospal, not blame.

August 11, 2009 at 1:55 am
(270) me says:

after reading part of this bill,im as confused as some of the people who have to vote on it, this bill also looks like the government will tell private insurance companies what to do, please stay out of my life, if the government wants to cover people who dont have insurance then write a bill to do that and leave people who have insurance alone,

August 11, 2009 at 2:05 am
(271) skipping-rock-jack-jones-Boston says:

This is what Universal HC gives you in Massachusetts. It is Bankrupting the City Hospital, http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/02/mass_healthcare_reform_is_failing_us/?page=full read this!!

August 11, 2009 at 2:21 am
(272) Martin says:

To the person who said the comment about Russia was idiotic…have you ever been to Russia? Have you ever seen a Russian hospital? We have been to Russia many times and have seen the conditions, not only of hospitals, but other services. Some of us are involved in bringing children to the US to have operations that they can’t or won’t do in Russia.

August 11, 2009 at 3:37 am
(273) Scott says:

Who is John Galt?

August 11, 2009 at 10:46 am
(274) Mark Z says:

Type HOSPICE FOOD WATER into Google and understand what is occurring TODAY in the industry. My mother was encouraged to transfer my father from nursing care to hospice promising great care. They proceeded to stop all food and water once he arrived. No one in the family knew until we noticed it. One sentence in the papers she signed gave the doctor the right to make decisions, no clear explanation given of what would happen! The staff drugged him up so much that he couldn’t communicate. Please, stay out of hospital run hospices unless you want to be put on starvation. We got him out and back to nursing care where he could die with food, water and love. He had 5 more weeks of life and the entire family was able to converse with dad again before passing on peacefully and comfortably.

August 11, 2009 at 11:03 am
(275) Stan says:

Let’s just stop this JackA$$ debate. It’s obvious that people on this site that have health care and can afford it want nothing to do with helping the less fortunate. The majority of the people in this country are all about “me” and to he!! with you. We will never fix anything in this country because the majority of the people here are self centered and greedy. Honesty, civility, integrity has all collapsed in America. The rich control mostly everything and that’s the way they want it. So, stop this jacka$$ debate and move on to screwing each other over.

August 11, 2009 at 12:33 pm
(276) WB says:

If you buy this you most likely still think Obama is a “Muuslimmm” and not legally a citizen….

August 11, 2009 at 1:45 pm
(277) Brian Pride says:

At least I’ve seen some better arguments on this page as compared to Fox. There are some real nincompoops at Fox. I liked what one person said in here about the government already being involved in Health care. I just don’t understand how some people can’t see that, if and when we all pay the same for health care there will be no more haves and have nots. And as for people saying that they’re happy with their health care, let me ask you this. “Do you like the fact that your insurance rates are climbing faster than your pay increases?”

August 11, 2009 at 1:45 pm
(278) Bill Fisher says:

Forget all the discussion about health care for one minute and think about this instead…..Currently, government spending is 45.19% of Gross Domestic Product. Attached is the link for confirmation. Now add health care which is 17% of GDP. That brings the total percent of government spending to more than 62% of GDP or almost two-thirds of our entire economy. I don’t care if you’re liberal, conservative or just plain stupid, this has to start raising some red flags somewhere. Wake up folks. This in not sustainable.

August 11, 2009 at 1:48 pm
(279) Bill Fisher says:

Forgot to leave the link to back up my previous comment. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html

August 11, 2009 at 3:25 pm
(280) michele says:

I have read the bill and page 425 does not state they are going to provide service for suicide. I wish you people would stop twisting words around. The only thing that is evil is the fact that since Obama was put in office you have been judging him. The man has been in office for 7 months and you expect perfection. How about you all judge the idiot who got us in this mess in the first place.

August 11, 2009 at 4:33 pm
(281) Doug says:

Some good comments from many. But I continue to be amused (and, frankly, disgusted) by those like Jo who will adhere to a wrong-headed position no matter how much evidence is presented. I assume to the Jo’s of the world that evolution is a theory, the world is 6,000 years old, climate change is a sham, we can drill ourselves to energy independence, aliens landed in Area 51, and George Bush was a wonderful president.

August 11, 2009 at 5:18 pm
(282) AP says:

It’s amazing how people are soooo scared of this health care plan, I am more scared of the stupid insurance companies that can take your coverage away anytime they want, and if you have an HMO be more scared, since they can say whether you need treatment or not even if your doctor says you need it.

Capitalism is about choices, and we really never choose to be sick. Government needs to step in, it really needs to happen and provide choices to people.

August 11, 2009 at 5:31 pm
(283) disgusted says:

Medicare is a total rip-off now. You HAVE to take it. On a $125.00 bill for a pap smear, breast exam, etc., Medicare allows $28.00 to be paid to the Dr. Then that $28.00 goes to your deductible. Unless you have huge medical expenses, Medicare never pays for anything cause the tiny amounts they allow go to your deductible. You have to have other insurance from an insurance co. Thank God for our BC/BS which only costs slightly more than the worthless Medicare that they deduct from your SS check. Do you think dr.’s should go to college and then have to treat you for free. How many who don’t get health insurance have cell phones, ipods, huge TV’s, cable etc? Wake up The government is not going to help make things better——–they never have.

August 11, 2009 at 5:37 pm
(284) Real Expert on Insurance & Government says:

I also read the provisions of the 1018 page document. I am a professional risk manager and retired government administrator. Unlike Emery I do have actual experience. The issues is these kind of laws set the minimum and mandates an administrative process which is usually compulsive. This absolutely is the frame work for governmental controlled euthanasia.

August 11, 2009 at 6:12 pm
(285) Bill says:

1. The USA has the BEST health care on the planet
2. Health Care and excessive spending by the government leads to Government Control of YOUR LIFE!

Debt WILL require higher taxes = less free agency of the public, more money and power to the government. The US government is overrun by lifetime politicians, including the Presidency. Do you really want lifetime career politicians running your life vs. a true civil servants who come from the private sector and have the best interest of the people at heart and not the success of their ” gov. business”. Obama is like any other businessman. He wants his business to be as big and as powerful as possible…he knows nothing else. The problem is that what made the USA the greatest country is our freedom and a government that focused on protecting our freedoms, not controlling our freedoms.

Gov. Health care = government now controls the solution to a basic human fear, pain & death = less free agency of the public

If I control your money and your health. I own you.

A few people have made religious comments here and strictly from an objective perspective wasn’t it Satan’s plan to take away man’s free agency and force us all to be good. It’s a compelling proposition. I’ll take care of you. All you have to do is…do exactly what I tell you to.

Then Jesus says, “No, we’ll do it the right way and give everyone free agency.” You have the right to be a loser, you have the right to have charity, you have the right to study and be smart, you have the right to blow your mind on video games. It’s your human right to live how you choose. Hopefully you choose to be a productive and positive influence on humanity; but still, it’s your choice. Anything else is slavery. Wasn’t it a huge step in history because the US just had their half black president because, even though it was unrelated to Obama, ancestors of Black American’s suffered the lack of free agency and now they are voting for policies that will take it away again.

Like I said. It’s a compelling offer; but, at the end of the day the government can’t deliver and taking more taxes and controlling your health care will only take away more of American’s free agency.

The bill-of-rights and The Constitution were put in place to protect our God given right to freedom, it now hangs by a thread and most American’s don’t even get it.

Government can not fix health care.

August 11, 2009 at 6:21 pm
(286) Bill says:

This bill is NOT about providing competition for private sector health care.

It is about removing it completely. Obama has said this himself repeatedly. This is a process to move to a single payer (i.e. tax paid government run) health care system.

I keep seeing comments about how it’s fair to pass this bill because private insurance rates are high and the insurance companies need competition. Pass this bill and there won’t be any competition or choices in health care.

August 11, 2009 at 6:58 pm
(287) Xeneth says:

This is bull. It’s not saying that it’s to promote people to commit suicide. it’s to keep other people from artificially keeping you alive against your will.

Gives the elderly the chance to sign a “Do Not resuscitate” ahead of time.

August 11, 2009 at 7:18 pm
(288) FutureAmerica says:

I’m 18 years old, so automatically my opinion is null and void, right? Because of lack of experience, right? Wrong. This bill is going to use tax money to justify and encourage euthanasia. My money, my parents’ money, and my GRANDPARENTS money. My grandparents are WWII veterans, they’re the greatest generation, they’re why we’re hear arguing about this crap, and you’re (Government Legislation in General) going to make a bill that exempts the officials while endangering my grandparents, after some years my parents, and, GOD FORBID, myself to be coerced into “legal murder for a price because you’re sick and costing us to much money.” (Note: Yes I used the word GOD, sue me or discredit my opinion quickly!)

Unbelievable. I promise on all the honor and dignity of America’s forefathers and veterans that I WILL NOT LIVE IN THE US when I have the means to escape. Socialism is speeding towards us: Gov’t owned banking system, Gov’t owned automotive industry, soon to be Gov’t owned and operated healthcare…I”M NOT RANTING, I will –GLADLY– give up some of my freedoms to another country than have them bought out, signed away, or outsourced by our government.

NO MATTER WHAT YOUR OPINION IS ON THIS MATTER, IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE REALITY THAT THIS IS ANOTHER MOVE TOWARDS A SOCIALISTIC AMERICA.

Shalom.

August 11, 2009 at 7:20 pm
(289) ebolo114 says:

I’ve worked 29 years in the medical fields and I can’t remember a week going by when I had to watch families/next of kin scrambling around near the last minutes of life of a love one, trying to get a living will signed. These people who are talking about this Bill proposing suicide for patients….how many liars can I call you. If you oppse this bill do so….you don’t have to make up stuff you hear from talking heads on TV.

August 11, 2009 at 8:02 pm
(290) Mo says:

To continue urbanlegend’s refutation of Jo’s claims:

PG 253 Line 10-18 – Govt sets value of Doctor’s time, professional judgments, etc. Literally sets value of human life.

Insurance companies and the government already set values for a doctor’s time, professional judgements, etc. Insurance companies pay physicians based using several different schemes. Some use diagnosis related groups (a system used to classify hospital cases in to over 500 different groups based on diagnoses, the kind of procedures, age, sex, discharge summaries, and any complications. Others pay doctors for the number of procedures they perform and what type they are. For example, if a primary care doctor gives you a flu shot, they will get X amount and if a surgeon performs a 5 hours surgery on you, they will get Z amount. The amount paid are different based on the type of procedure, length, amount of knowledge and training the doctor may have had, etc). I could go on at length about different insurance plans, but time is short.

Even you yourself have already set a value to your life. THINK. When you buy insurance, what plan did you buy? Did you buy the bare-minimum plan that covers basic medical care or did you buy the Cadillac of health plans?

PG 268 Sec 1141 – Fed Govt regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs.

Wow. Why did you even pick this one? The government already regulates rentals and purchases of wheelchairs. This is an amendment to the Social Security Act that changes the phrase ‘‘power-driven wheel chair’’ to ‘‘complex rehabilitative power-driven wheelchair recognized by the Secretary as classified within group 3 or higher’’

PG 272 Sec 1145 – Cancer Hospitals re-evaluated. Welcome to rationing…

This is another amendment to the Social Security Act. All this will do is let cancer hospitals know if they spend more or less than other cancer hospitals and suggest ways they can either cut costs or spend more.

Page 280 Sec 1151 – The Govt will penalize hospitals for “preventable readmissions”.

This is already happening. And this is a good thing. This will make hospitals more accountable for mistakes done BY the hospital. This measure will not pay hospitals for screwing up. Say your aunt gets admitted to the hospital for a simple procedure (appendectomy, say). If, while in the hospital, your aunt comes down with hospital acquired pneumonia, this section tells the hospitals that the government will not pay for the treatment your aunt gets to treat her pneumonia. This makes hospitals accountable for their mistakes and makes them strive to be better providers for everyone.

Pg335 Lines 16-25 Pg 336-339 – Government dictate HC – “measuring care”. Rationing.

This is yet another amendment to the Social Security Act. This section states that the government will measure the hospital care and its outcomes. Hospitals will be required to report the quality of care it provides to its patients. With this information, they will then compare the hospitals reported quality of care to the quality of care those who have Medicare receive. This will set the bar for the quality of care you receive (in other words – it means that the government is saying to the hospitals “you must be able to provide AT LEAST this level of care, or we will penalize you or recommend ways to improve) . It will not ration health care.

Pg 354 Sec 1177 – Government will restrict enrollment of Special needs.

Yet another amendment to the Social Security Act. Specifically, Section 1858(f)(1). This section of the Social Security Act allows special Medicare plans that have been set up for people disabilities to be able to restrict their enrollment to specifically one type of disability. For example, if there is a special Medicare fund for people with a specific disability, ONLY people WITH that disability are able to enroll. This amendment to the act simply extends the ability of these special needs plans to restrict their enrollment to only one specific disability.

Jo, your comments are passionate (that, or you’re the best troll I’ve encounterd – and if so – kudos to you), but many times, it is wise to use some logic and reasoning before reacting. Please take a moment and read the bill for yourself. And when you see a word like ‘restrict’ or ‘limit’ or ‘manage’ or ‘mandate’, don’t think right away the government is taking away your liberties immediately. Be rational and continue reading. Most times, it is imposing these restrictions and limits on and setting standards forhospitals for OUR safety.

August 11, 2009 at 8:08 pm
(291) Mo says:

FutureAmerica,

I hope you realize that your grandparents generation was the generation that set America on a path towards a larger government. The Social Security Act was passed in 1935.

Secondly, the government is already heavily involved in health care. Medicare (which I am sure both your grandparents receive) ring a bell?

Yea, Medicare is a government program. And those Social Security Checks you’re grandparents are getting – the signatory – Uncle Sam.

Dude, I am about your age. Go and read the material for yourself and learn something. Don’t follow what pundits on TV tell you.

August 11, 2009 at 9:06 pm
(292) EW says:

My grandmother is dying of Alzheimers. Discussions we had long before she became ill were hard but absolutely SHOULD be required. I know HER wishes, and no they were not in any way pushed on her by a doctor or lawyer. All that matters in the decisions we have to make is what we know SHE wants. Noone should have any say in end of life issues until they have had to watch someone they love live in pain and agony, unable to function, move, or communicate. That is not life.

Just because we can keep people alive, doesn’t mean we should.

PS. Dealing with medicare has been SO FRIGGIN EASY compared to private insurance. I would kill to have coverage that good.

August 11, 2009 at 9:22 pm
(293) FutureAmerica says:

Mo,

As an aware denizen I fully understand the Medicare viewpoint of this issue. I’m not sure if I understand the comment of my grandparents generation setting America on a path to a larger gov’t…it was inevitable, yes, but the Socialist system it will inevitably become (or already has become) was not their fault.

My biggest problem is that the lack of character in modern America, something that in our grandparents’ generation hardly existed, has destroyed our economy and now is trying to leak into every part of everyday life. Besides the myriad of banks, car companies, and miscellaneous institutions that are all owned by the government, we have a national debt that will NEVER be rectified.

How does this correlate with the Healthcare issue? Now not only do we have a decimated economy, but our quality of life will plummet if this new system is implemented.

Look up the numbers and facts at the quality of life, the horrific queuing times for treatment, the rampant rejection of severe cases, the higher mortality rate of those countries, and the overall insufficiency of the UK system, for one example. The reality and facts are cruel.

NOTE: I appreciate the tone of this discussion, it is surprising non-hostile: THE WAY IT SHOULD BE. It’s pleasant to have a mature conversation about the issues with others, regardless of varying opinion. Thank You.

August 11, 2009 at 9:30 pm
(294) requesting sanity says:

Christmas many years ago, visiting my mother’s beloved bachelor brother in the home he and my mother had grown up in, I caught a glimpse of scrawled instructions on his bedside table: should I be found in a debilitaing condition I do not wish to be rescusitated. I was profoundly touched by this simple wish of this man. My uncle was a religious man, lived his entire life in the house in which he was born, cared for his parents when they grew old and died in that house, appreciated science and medicine, he was contented with the life he had lived but feared the prolonged suffering of a debilitating disease. Within a couple of months, my poor uncle did have a stroke, was found and rushed to a hospital; with no one to speak for him, he was given a series of ineffective treatments, suffered several additional debilitating strokes that left him completely incapacitated and then spent the next 6 years of his life in a dismal nursing home, never able to recover, never returning to his home, never again being able to communicate with his loved ones. My mother and her siblings watched him suffer while they fought for the right to manage his care, because of course the system assumes relatives only have the worst intentions. Really too bad that my uncle didn’t have the benefit of a discussion with his doctor about how he wanted the end of his life to unfold. And of course if the republicans have their way, neither will the rest of us.

August 11, 2009 at 9:48 pm
(295) another story says:

another story. I’ve heard all my life and even more so lately how terrible the english system is. But my husband is english and I’ve been visiting that country for 20 years. I’ve never seen or been told anything by his relatives or friends, or by the many ordinary people I’ve met that compares with the complaints I hear from my american relatives, friends and co-workers about their health care. My English mother-in-law lived to be 94 and I was amazed at how many basic services she received to keep her healthy and living independently while she could that no american insurance company would cover. In her last few years, she lived with my brother and sister-in-law and they were given support to help bathe her, and “respite” which was someone to care for mum so they could take a few weeks vacation a year. Of course keeping mother-in law out of a nursing home saved the “socialist state” a lot of money and its likely their humanitatian approach is what allows the system to survive. On the other hand, my father died 4 years ago after a prolonged illness and my siblings and I still can’t figure out how much is owed for medical bills or what they were for. I’m sure there are issues and complaints about the English system, but as I said they don’t hold a candle to the complaints I hear from americans about their insurance companies not covering procedures, the restrictions to people’s job mobility, the fear of what will happen if they lose their jobs, the reams of non-intelligible paperwork and notifications about charges that look like you’re reading a foreign language. Please give us healthcare reform and give it to us now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

August 11, 2009 at 11:02 pm
(296) Ovangeline says:

I agree with canada. The way people are handeling this situation can be veiwed even on this forum. The “debate” has resorted to meger namecalling and insults against the parties. The stereotypes are also evident as in the cases like constitutionalist’s catholisism. We shouldn’t be participating in such child’s play and we should be READING the constitution, the bill, and some research. With the way party politics has polluted everything from votes to the media, the only way to form an unbiased oppinion is to actually LOOK into things.

August 11, 2009 at 11:38 pm
(297) FutureAmerica says:

Ovangeline,

DITO.

Everyone blames the other party…missing what’s important. THE ISSUES.

Knowledge (of the bill and its meaning) is the only way to debate reasonably and without partisan biases.

The pathetic part is: almost everyone, from Congress to Main Street, will continue to act immaturely and in the end, all that will be left is THE REALITY of the bill and whether or not it has been passed…and the aftershock of those great decisions.

August 11, 2009 at 11:43 pm
(298) Jon E says:

as an attorney, I write end of life documents, and the only thing this thing says is that every five years the patient is given the option of writing or updating his/her living will, durable health care power of attorney, etc. I am also an extreme right wing conservative fundamental Christian, and I say, here and now, if you think this supports euthanasia, you are stupid.

August 11, 2009 at 11:44 pm
(299) steege says:

I may not know much, but I one thing I know for certain is that I don’t want to be on the same side of any issue as all of the crazy, irrational, screaming, demented sounding old people. I didn’t vote for Obama, but these people are freaks and I want nothing to do with their politics or their fascistic vision of America.

August 12, 2009 at 12:06 am
(300) Sue Lewis MD says:

I am a physician and this bill scares the crap out of me. All I can say is, the people putting this together do NOT have an MD after their names. For god’s sake, these are POLITICIANS, NOT doctors. Why don’t they ask US how to take care of people? I don’t trust the government to run the post office, let alone run health care!

August 12, 2009 at 12:27 am
(301) History Buff says:

Please “Constitutionalist”, read the constitution! By the way, have you ever been to Russia?

August 12, 2009 at 12:31 am
(302) eve stuart says:

I find that liberals are only too eager to take what they are being spoon fed by other liberals and this(obvious) liberal site. I have been obtaining these Advanced Directives for client/patients for 25 years, and I can tell you that every SENIOR who has Medicare/Medicaid and ever been in a hospital, a home-health agency, hospice or other medical care ALREADY has an opportunity to get a Living Will, Durable Power of Attorney (called something else in New York).

This is the part that concerns me: “(III) provides TRAINING for health care professionals across the continuum of care about the GOALS AND USE OF ORDERS for life sustaining treatment;”

No training is needed on this issue. I’ve been doing this for 25 years. Why does the Government have TO TRAIN SOMEONE ABOUT THE CONTINUUM OF CARE AND GOALS? They are already pretty d.a.m.n.e.d clear………unless the Government wants to tinker with them AND TRAIN PEOPLE ON HOW TO REACH GOALS, which are provided by who? “The Secretary.” BTW, I’m a masters level social worker and this is a regular part of any medical social worker’s work load. No need for special training (the instructions are included on the FREE forms, if the family wants to do this by themselves). It’s actually a pretty cut-dried procedure. What now do we need to get TRAINING to reach GOALS?

August 12, 2009 at 12:46 am
(303) eve stuart says:

I forgot to say that when I worked in a private and VA hospital, my MAIN DUTY was to get Advanced Directives on each and every patient IF THERE WERE NONE ON THEIR CHARTS, as well as when I was working in home-health. First order of business.

August 12, 2009 at 12:51 am
(304) Mo says:

FutureAmerica,

I only bring up the point that our grandparent’s generation brought up the initial movement towards a more socialized culture. After the Great Depression and WWI, people were desperate for some kind of ‘social insurance” to protect them from poverty and unemployment and something to care for and provide for the elderly. And the government proposed that it should be the government’s duty to do these things.

With regard to your comment about socialized systems in Europe, I can only comment on impressions from my cousins who live in London. They really enjoy the luxury of seeing a physician when they need to and not have to pay for it. The lines aren’t as problem as they make it out to be (according to them).

I do know that they use cost-benefit analysis for the services like drugs – so if a drug has little or nor proven benefit to the patient, and is yet insanely expensive, the government won’t pay for it – but that doesn’t mean it is not privately available.

With regard to the rationing of the care – it is rationed on the grounds of clinical need. So if you’re having a stroke or a heart attack, you won’t have to wait. But say you surgery on your sinuses because you have terrible sinus headaches a few times a week. Well you may need to wait a few weeks before getting treatment. Not a bad payoff in my opinion – for free care for everyone.

August 12, 2009 at 1:00 am
(305) jan says:

I have had hard times in life and good times. Insurance threw my work and insurance threw the gov. When i was insured threw the gov. I didnt get as good of care. It makes me question the gov insurance as well as the docs.

p.s. not everyone who gets help from the gov. is just looking 4 a hand out. Perhaps some really need the help. It should be a short term thing though, until u can get back on your feet.

August 12, 2009 at 1:06 am
(306) Linda says:

The people yelling the most, about finding a solution to the nations health care crisis, are mainly the people that get the best of the best health insurance, paid for with taxpayer dollars. The health industry needs reform, so that all American’s can afford basic health care and care in emergencies. If these same yelling people want the extras, like their special prescription riders, PT, OT, sleep studies, or other non-life threatening services, they should pay for those services out of their own pockets. Just because they negotiated for free health insurance for life, and want all the perks they can get, it does not mean the money grows on trees. Once these problems are corrected, the taxpayer may find he is not paying out so much for socialize medicine. New rules in health care should not include every pampered care treatment you can get and and driving the cost of premiums to these unaffortable rates. Today, some people are spoiled with what they have. And now it has to be fixed! There is not enough money to give these special interest groups free health insurance for life while others do without. All Americans have the right to try to stay healthy.

August 12, 2009 at 1:07 am
(307) Mo says:

Sue Lewis MD,

As a medical student, I would like to know why this bill ‘scares the crap out of [you]“.

Most bills related to healthcare are not put together by doctors (though at times they should be). Most people are not doctors. But everyone has been or will be a patient. It only seems fair to have equal say in the matter.

August 12, 2009 at 2:06 am
(308) Carl says:

In answer to the person that asked if I would give up my social security and medicare. The answer is YES. Both are the exact reason to not trust the government in providing Health Care. Social Security is anything but. It robs people of personal responsibility. It does not make people think for themselves. It enriched the people in power for personal gain (by spending “borrowed” future SS contributions on politically connected projects). Medicare dollars are far below the money spent on services etc. etc.

I do not see the reasoning behind forcibly taking money from people that do not agree on how it is spent.

Example. I do not approve of the manufactured wars. I resent my money being used for bombs and killing.

Why is it now ok to force me to provide for Universal Health Care? For my own good? Isn’t that my decision?

August 12, 2009 at 2:32 am
(309) Open Eyes says:

It is just me or is the government about to just take over every single area of your life!! I don’t care how great this supposed plan is it’s about CONTROL folks. The government is using all the excuses in the book to control everything. The government always dresses up all there savior efforts as something helpful, so that they can be your mother in law. The bail-out to save all the banks.. which I might currently add that they pretty much will run the banks now!! Car companies now owned by the government. It’s obvious… Why did they even come up with this as an issue to handle NOW when folks are broke!!! Because they WANT to appear to be your savior so you can give up your freedom!

Oh and if the government CAN’T even handle the simple food industry. Which I might add that the FDA is the same group of folks that allow companies to put things like sodium hydroxide in your food. How the heck do you think the health care is going to be. Vaccines anyone… probably will be absolutely FORCED!!

August 12, 2009 at 2:46 am
(310) Matthew says:

It would be wise for people on both sides of the fence to do a little more homework on what is(or is not) included in the proposed policies. The majority of the arguments coming from both sides of the political spectrum are accusatory ad hominem. We need to be figuring out what is fact/fiction and making reasonable decisions based on logic and previous performance by those proposing the changes. On a separate note, Jesus is completely irrelevant in this matter, adding religion to a discussion on healthcare is completely pointless.

August 12, 2009 at 4:24 am
(311) Ton says:

(267) Scott says: “Who is John Galt” – Hilarious! I love that book.

August 12, 2009 at 6:52 am
(312) Anne says:

I would like to look closely at the portions of Bill 3200 that have made everyone so angry. The copy I am looking at is 1018 pages long. Can someone who is concerned about the bill PLEASE site the areas by specific reference, so I can go to that language? I really want to understand and make an informed decision for myself. Thanks in advance!

August 12, 2009 at 7:54 am
(313) Jesus says:

What would I do?

August 12, 2009 at 8:31 am
(314) Juwannalive says:

Someone said: “…I mostly worry about the effect on medical research, progress and innovation….Without a profit motive…I fear that our progress in medicine will be stalled.”

This is complete rubbish! The UK has had universal healthcare since 1948. Are we to assume they don’t have access to modern technology, or that UK medicine doesn’t produce research or technology? 1953 Cambridge describe DNA, 1972 a British engineer invented CT scans, 1978 the first test tube baby was born in the UK. That’s three innovations off the top of my head.

For the love of God, stop repeating what you’re being told on conservative talk radio and Fox News 10,000 times over every day and DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH. This is much too important an issue to allow others to dictate what you believe. WAKE UP! Are people denied healthcare in the UK? Yes. Are people denied healthcare in the US? Yes. Do people from Canada come to the US for treatment? Yes. US citizens also travel to India for treatment. It doesn’t mean one system is better than the other. It means it was better for that individual. Stop using facts which are not comparative in any meaningful manner to come to irrational conclusions about the quality of healthcare systems.

August 12, 2009 at 10:28 am
(315) JM says:

This is all political B.S. If a Republican president had come up with this bill, everyone bashing it on here would be loving it, and all of the Democrats would be looking for holes in it.

That’s the problem with politics, people choose their “side” which leads to them forming a conclusion before knowing facts. THEN they go back and find “facts” that support their conclusion.

That goes 100% against the Scientific Method.

August 12, 2009 at 10:50 am
(316) Old Ben Franklin says:

Here is what we must understand:

1. Barack Obama and his gang could really give a big snort if you have health or care. Think about it. They’ve stolen everything out of our Social Security Trust Fund, so they have no way to pay obligations in the future except by borrowing and printing up more currency. It’s too their advantage when Americans die, because it’s just one less person to support.

2. Obama’s gang is out of money (wasted most of it) and now they’re desperate. What Obama and his gang really want is to get their hands on all that loot the medical insurance companies already steal from us. Robbing private industry once again is all that is left to them. It’s still a huge source of funds.

3. Only about 15% of the people will, at any given time be using this gov’t medical insurance (not everyone gets sick at the same time) so that frees up hundreds of billions for Obama and his gang to fretter away elsewhere; on foreign military adventures, foreign aid and welfare, world gov’t donations and of course, their personal luxuries and extravgances. They will indulge themselves in every form of pleasure and excess to the very end.

August 12, 2009 at 12:17 pm
(317) Jo says:

Urban legend said:
Jo has posted another list of distortions.

No I did not. You are distorting this – not me. Here’s is exact wording from the bill, since short and to the point somehow confuses people here.

Pg 30 Sec 123 – Government committee that decides what treatments/benefits you get…

Line 16-17 Exact wording: “Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits…”

Decided by a GOVERNMENT run committee/panel, who will decide the benefits of each level/package — they decide treatments and benefits by virtue of the three gov’t HC plans.

Pg 29 Lines 4-16 – Health care rationed. You get limited “care” per year.

“(A) ANNUAL LIMITATION.—The cost-sharing incurred under the essential benefits pack
age with respect to an individual (or family) for
a year does not exceed the applicable level spec
ified in subparagraph (B).
9 (B) APPLICABLE LEVEL.—The applicable
10 level specified in this subparagraph for Y1 is
11 $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a
12 family.”

It is LIMITED CARE, they SAY it is LIMITED. BTW — “Rationing” by definition is limiting peoples care.

“PG 85 – SEC. 203. BENEFITS PACKAGE LEVELS.
5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner shall specify
the benefits to be made available under Exchange-participating health benefits plans during each plan year, consistent with subtitle C of title I and this section”

The gov’t specifies benefits made available each year (this ALSO obviously means the limits of said benefits and who will receive them.)

PG 85 Line 7 – Specs of Benefit Levels for Plans. AARP members – note your Health care WILL be rationed.

More than just this bill. There is hidden HC provisions in the stimulus bill (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.+1 :) that would apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council.

The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board. (from NICE) This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. In the UK treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly.

Can’t happen in the USA?? Think again.

Pg 239 Line 14-24 – Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid.

(c) LIMITATION ON PHYSICIANS’ SERVICES INCLUDED IN TARGET GROWTH RATE COMPUTATION TO
SERVICES COVERED UNDER PHYSICIAN FEE SCHEDULE.

{goes on about physicians and target growth rates…then provisions for *sustainable* growth rates:}
(ii) in the heading of subsection (f),
19 by inserting ‘‘AND TARGET GROWTH
20 RATE’’ after ‘‘SUSTAINABLE GROWTH
21 RATE’’…

Obviously LIMITS on care and available doctors would be considered to make the HC sustainable according to the growth rate.

Urban legend said: What we don’t need more of is people posting these email texts that mostly distort what the bill says without verifying their accuracy first.

Jo: I did verify their accuracy. I’ve read the bill, I didn’t get this from a e-mail. I’m not from any alleged ‘astro turf” I’m just a citizen reading the bill.

As we have discussed this must be cross referenced it to SS/Medicare legislation, ALSO the stimulus bill and other legislation where the Gov’t is slipping in line items etc…

If you think the current administration is going to come out and TELL you directly about the limits that will result from this HC bill, your naive. Want something to compare to? Go look at Canada with their waiting lists and their 60% tax rate, or NICE in the UK – where they have high tax and RATION HC.

Universal HC doesn’t work. It’s been proven. Do we need HC reform? Yes, but just not this bill.

August 12, 2009 at 12:34 pm
(318) pat says:

Well you at least offer a choice Dottie! (Entry #5) Leave it up to the government and they will elect to put you, your children, parents, friends and anyone else to sleep, they deem a burden on the system. Akin to lethal injection, which I’m sure you’re against! You’re choice was “Do you want to live when your 90 with no quality of life and be kept alive by machines, and costing the govermwnt and your family thousands of dollars think about it!!!” END OF QUOTE! And stop worrying about what it cost the government they don’t.

August 12, 2009 at 12:46 pm
(319) Jo says:

PG 253 Line 10-18 – Govt sets value of Doctor’s time, professional judgments, etc. Literally sets value of human life.

Mo: Insurance companies and the government already set values for a doctor’s time.

Jo: True to an extent, however, a physician can charge as he wishes in a open market — under this plan the physician will be TOLD what he will make by gov’t. This will result in LESS doctors. Why would anyone want to pay hundreds of thousands in student loans to become a doctor, if they are unable to re-pay due to gov’t limits on income?

There is so much more to this bill — the unintended consequences could be devastating.

PG 272 Sec 1145 – Cancer Hospitals re-evaluated. Welcome to rationing…

Mo: All this will do is let cancer hospitals know if they spend more or less than other cancer hospitals and suggest ways they can either cut costs or spend more.

Jo: Tell me do you think gov’t “suggestions” will be only suggestions? Or do you think they will insist on price caps for services? Better yet name a country that has *unlimited* gov’t HC for it’s citizens.

Page 280 Sec 1151 – The Govt will penalize hospitals for “preventable readmissions”.

Mo: This is already happening. And this is a good thing.

Jo: So, if you have to go back to the hospital because they set your broken arm WRONG – getting turned away is a good thing?

Pg335 Lines 16-25 Pg 336-339 – Government dictate HC – “measuring care”. Rationing.

Mo: Hospitals will be required to report the quality of care it provides to its patients. With this information, they will then compare the hospitals reported quality of care to the quality of care those who have Medicare receive.

Jo: You are FOR giving up your 4th amendment rights to privacy??? Wow.
Gov’t has NO BUSINESS discussing our private matters. If the hospitals want to tally nameless faceless data to share, that one thing, but gov’t invasion of privacy is quite another.

Pg 354 Sec 1177 – Government will restrict enrollment of Special needs.

Mo: Yet another amendment to the Social Security Act. Specifically, Section 1858(f)(1). This section of the Social Security Act …

Jo: You miss the point — this is SS/medicare — we all understand that medicare is limited. Private insurance is NOT limited we can pay as much as we like for the coverage we want. If the gov’t plan eliminates private insurance (as planned by the BO administration — see above youtubes/info I’ve posted of them admitting to it.)then we will be at the mercy of gov’t.

Gov’t as the only (single payer) option is a slippery slope to gov’t control of our daily lives.

If having a well thought our opinion of this bill is considered trolling – then so be it.

I have read the bill. I am against gov’t take over of our HC — I am for LESS gov’t intrusion in our daily lives. Gov’t has never run anything well. SS is a mess. Education is a MESS. etc…
Since we already have Medicaid (and it’s BROKE) why do we need more gov’t HC?? Medicaid covers the poorest Americans already.

Do you people really believe that gov’t will not raise taxs **ON YOU** to pay for this? It won’t be just the rich paying. The rich are leaving the USA in droves because of this sort of legislation, who will eventually have to pay if there are no more rich to soak?? YOU WILL, that’s who.

Simple supply and demand dictates this.

August 12, 2009 at 12:50 pm
(320) Jo says:

JM said: This is all political B.S. If a Republican president had come up with this bill, everyone bashing it on here would be loving it, and all of the Democrats would be looking for holes in it.

===========

Wrong, virtually all republicans were against TARP and they are against this as well. They are consistent in their desire to limit government (as our founders intended) – as are libertarians, and constitutionalists.

August 12, 2009 at 12:54 pm
(321) Concerned American says:

Ann
This discussion started about the section starting on page 425 of the bill. People here should really do more research before spouting off.
This bill as with most of Supreme ruler Obama’s plans are described in his book when he outlines how to destroy the U.S.A.
READ HIS BOOK IT TELLS YOU WHAT HIS PLANS ARE FOR OUT NATION

August 12, 2009 at 12:55 pm
(322) FutureAmerica says:

Mo,

There are definitely mixed reports from both TV and internet sources (with considerably different world views) of a very poor socialized healthcare system. I am inclined to dispute those claims that socialized healthcare is significantly increasing the mortality rate and torturing its citizens with egregious queuing times for treatment. These countries are not as advanced as we are and thus, in many aspects, this probably hinders them from providing the best coverage available. But I don’t believe that it’s as bad as the media is making it to be.

There are really two vantage points to this discussion: those who are against it because they have good or even adequate healthcare and insurance, and those who advocate it because they don’t have decent healthcare coverage. (This is not always the case, but more often than not, it is). I believe the real question here is: Would a socialized healthcare system be worth a considerably more socialistic America? No way, in my opinion. However, I have decent healthcare; but that doesn’t mean that a person (not you Mo, just generally) should discredit my viewpoint. Look through history to the countries and city-states that implemented a socialistic society. They -ultimately- failed. Ultimately is emphasized because it did work a while, until moral corruption or personal greed (the reason our economy is destroyed) took over the system.

Am I saying America will fall because of gradual steps toward a socialistic society? No. However, given enough time, I guarantee that it will be the ruination of America when someone or some group (notice a non-partisan stance in that comment) tries to take over a system vital to America’s future. It’s a bold statement, but not a radical or offensive one. I would die for America…until she becomes mostly socialistic, in which case I won’t even be a citizen anymore. The healthcare bill alone (even when added to the banking and automotive industry takeovers) is not going to budge me from American allegiance, but if she continues on this path, well…I’ve already made that point.

August 12, 2009 at 12:57 pm
(323) Jo says:

Urban legend your Poll: Does it seem plausible to you that this health care plan would push people to undergo euthanasia?

Isn’t this a bit disingenuous??

Shouldn’t you be asking if they think end of life planning would include a *option* for euthanasia?

After all most people here have been claiming the gov’t would *never* give this as a option.

….yeah right.

August 12, 2009 at 12:57 pm
(324) Joe Kish says:

See 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.

The source of this evaluation and more information can be found here: http://www.classicalideals.com/HR3200.htm

August 12, 2009 at 1:07 pm
(325) Linda says:

I don’t care what page 425 says, nor page whatever. My health and my health care a my business and not the government’s. They screw up everything they touch and I don’t want them touching me. I was born in a FREE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THAT’S WHERE I WANT TO BE!!! I want 2010 to come and change our government with a change I want to believe in, not this socialist/communist take over we are having right now. If things don’t change then, then we are doomed in 2012.

Bail outs, health care destruction, spy lists…what is happening?

August 12, 2009 at 1:15 pm
(326) Jo says:

Future America (and Mo) — Mo said:
I only bring up the point that our grandparent’s generation brought up the initial movement towards a more socialized culture. After the Great Depression and WWI, people were desperate for some kind of ’social insurance” to protect them from poverty and unemployment and something to care for and provide for the elderly. And the government proposed that it should be the government’s duty to do these things.

============================

You make a vaild point Mo — progressive movement did start when people were desperate for gov’t to “help” them. Since then, we have acquired all sorts of failing expensive gov’t programs and our tax burden has become great. There are now 35 million Americans on welfare. Fairness and equality legislation served as the catalyst for the housing debacle, and now with job losses and the devaluation of the dollar people are asking for even MORE handouts.

The rich moved out of states that soaked them, such as CA, NY, now these states gov’t's face a loss in tax revenue. Guess who will eventually have to pay? The middle class.

Gov’t has proven for 100 years, they can’t run anything effectively. We need less gov’t RUN programs and more gov’t OVERSIGHT of private run solutions. Let the states come up with plans if this is what he people wish, but the *federal* gov’t has no business dictating (constitutionally speaking)HC to the 50 sovereign states.

August 12, 2009 at 1:39 pm
(327) Yvonne says:

End of life service clearly refers to hospice care and this bill seems to simply provide for a consultation; one that would allow patients to decide, were they to become permanently unconscious, whether life should be supported by a machine. The consultations are clearly intended to give people informed choices and an opportunity to write a living will. My mother made a similar living will when she was in hospice care due to cancer; she expressed the wish that she did not want to be kept alive by a machine. Why not allow people the option if that is their wish? It is clearly erroneous to assume this bill will push euthanasia on people in any way.
I feel that people in this country have become very selfish. Those with healthcare are all too willing to dismiss the suffering of those without coverage since they deem it not to be their problem. The short-sightedness of that viewpoint is astounding. When those with healthcare lose their jobs or suffer a serious medical problem that isn’t covered by their plan they end up begging for reform like the rest of those without coverage. We are not talking about poor or lazy people; everyone is negatively affected by this current system. Please don’t get dissuaded by rhetoric and if stick to the facts you will see the benefit of reform.

August 12, 2009 at 1:44 pm
(328) urbanlegends says:

Jo wrote:

Pg 30 Sec 123 – Government committee that decides what treatments/benefits you get…

Line 16-17 Exact wording: “Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits…”

Decided by a GOVERNMENT run committee/panel, who will decide the benefits of each level/package — they decide treatments and benefits by virtue of the three gov’t HC plans.

Based on your longer interpretation, we basically agree on what this page says. Where we disagree is that you say this amounts to “decides what treatments/benefits you get.” That is different from “decides which benefits fall into each level of coverage.” The latter in no sense tells people what coverage they can or can’t choose.

Jo wrote:

Pg 29 Lines 4-16 – Health care rationed. You get limited “care” per year.

“(A) ANNUAL LIMITATION.—The cost-sharing incurred under the essential benefits pack
age with respect to an individual (or family) for
a year does not exceed the applicable level spec
ified in subparagraph (B).
9 (B) APPLICABLE LEVEL.—The applicable
10 level specified in this subparagraph for Y1 is
11 $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a
12 family.”

It is LIMITED CARE, they SAY it is LIMITED. BTW — “Rationing” by definition is limiting peoples care.

Jo, PLEASE read more carefully. (And, for that matter, please read what I said in my earlier posting, because you’re making me repeat all this.) These paragraphs do not limit CARE. They limit COST-SHARING. I.e., they limit how big of a share (co-pay) the insured has to pay for covered medical services.

Nearly everything you say is based on MISreading the actual text.

August 12, 2009 at 1:52 pm
(329) canttakemyrights21 says:

S.O.S S.O.S S.O.S

OBAMA TRY AND TAKE MY RIGHT AWAY!
THIS COUNTRY WAS BUILT ON PROTESTERS.

August 12, 2009 at 2:06 pm
(330) urbanlegends says:

Jo wrote:

Urban legend your Poll: Does it seem plausible to you that this health care plan would push people to undergo euthanasia?

Isn’t this a bit disingenuous??

Shouldn’t you be asking if they think end of life planning would include a *option* for euthanasia?

After all most people here have been claiming the gov’t would *never* give this as a option.

Not disingenuous. I based the poll on the very rumor we’re discussing, which claimed:

“On Page 425 of Obama’s health care bill, the Federal Government will require EVERYONE who is on Social Security to undergo a counseling session every 5 years with the objective being that they will explain to them just how to end their own life earlier. Yes… They are going to push SUICIDE to cut Medicare spending!!! And no, I am NOT KIDDING YOU! So those of you who voted for Obama have now put yourself and your own parents in dire straights… Congratulations!”

Actually, my impression is that the majority of folks posting here are fully against the bill, against the consultations provided for on page 425, and certainly against making euthanasia an advance care option (though there is no explicit mention of such in the actual bill).

Also, since (if I recall correctly) a consultation on advance care planning must comply with the laws or guidelines of the state in which it takes place, I assume it would be illegal to counsel patients on euthanasia except in states that have some form of “right to die” law — Oregon, maybe? Nowhere else I can think of.

It’s interesting that the poll — which is an online poll, hence by no means scientific or conclusive — splits close to 50-50 (if you include those who weakly agree/disagree) on the question of whether people believe the bill “pushes” euthanasia. It’s what I would have predicted based on the ideological divide in this country.

August 12, 2009 at 2:51 pm
(331) urbanlegends says:

This one’s mainly to Jo, but also a few others:

One of your strongest arguments is (I’m paraphrasing) that even if the bill doesn’t say XYZ is mandated, required, limited, etc., in fact XYZ probably WILL end up being mandated, required, or limited because of a) economic contraints, and b) it’s in the nature of government to extend as much control over the populace as the law can be interpreted as allowing.

That’s a classic conservative/libertarian argument, and one with which many people would agree, except you muddy it up by misrepresenting what the text of the bill actually says.

August 12, 2009 at 3:06 pm
(332) reality bites! says:

I’ve got an idea – everyone that thinks that universal healthcare (not the current House Bill, but Universal Healthcare as a whole) is socialist and sucking the tit of the government… then let’s say screw it and start paying per use for police services, fire and rescue services. Because not allowing our police and fire departments to be privately owned and turning a profit is just as socialist!!

Oh, wait. You mean you wouldn’t want a for profit police department? Then why the hell are you against a universal health system? (assuming it was actually done properly – not House Bill 3200)

August 12, 2009 at 3:10 pm
(333) Carri P says:

People should realize that death is inevitable! Everyone catches death at some point in their lives. A living will is a good thing to have in place because if you don’t put your wishes out there, your kids will HAVE to make the painful choice of pulling the plug or not! Just be smart and do a living will and quit acting like it is a crime to have one! People just need to chill out and flow with the new thoughtful, intelligent, and compassionate things happening in our country. I think the progess refreshing and beneficial!

August 12, 2009 at 3:39 pm
(334) urbanlegends says:

Joe Kish wrote:

See pages 284-288, SEC. 1151. REDUCING POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE HOSPITAL READMISSIONS:

Skipping down to…

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. This section amends the Social Security Act

AGREED.

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

AGREED.

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

I DISAGREE. As I read it, the language defines what a “readmission” is for purposes of determining whether a given hospital has an excessive readmission rate. The purpose is to create incentives for said hospitals to provide better care the first time around so fewer patients have to be readmitted for the same condition. I find no language allowing the government determine whether individual patients can or can’t be readmitted to 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.

I DISAGREE. I don’t see where the text says any such thing. Again, as I read it, the determination to be made via statistics is whether a given hospital has an excessive readmission rate. It imposes no restrictions on patients themselves.

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

I DISAGREE. It appears to me to be an effort to create incentives for hospitals to decrease waste by doing a better job of treating patients in the first place so they don’t have to keep coming back for treatment of the same condition.

August 12, 2009 at 3:49 pm
(335) johnny says:

I’m assuming everyones read all 1000 pages of this bill?

There’s other problems besides the government giving you the option to kill yourself.What about Care for illegal aliens? Sure it doesn’t say anything about them getting care, but
It also doesn’t say about them being prohibited abusing the system.

Also, if EVERYONE can get free care, who’s going to pay the bill? That’s 300million people getting free x-rays, MRIS catscans,heart surgery, and kidney transplants. Our governments over 10tril in the hole.

Our government is in such bad shape, that it it went to get private healthcare, they’d ask if it just wanted to end its life!

And they want to give us socialized/nationalized/universalhealthcare? Are you mental?

Pretty soon africa will have to feed us!

August 12, 2009 at 4:24 pm
(336) C Beck says:

while we are in danger of loosing our freedoms in america, our Military are loosing their lives for Iraq and Afgans. so they might have freedom. Our fore-fathers must be rolling in their graves. God help America.

August 12, 2009 at 4:43 pm
(337) Jo says:

UL wrote: Where we disagree is that you say this amounts to “decides what treatments/benefits you get.” That is different from “decides which benefits fall into each level of coverage.” The latter in no sense tells people what coverage they can or can’t choose.

Jo: I never said they didn’t have a “plan” choice, I SAID the *government* chooses by virtue of the plan what coverage the individual receives. Hence – my first claim is accurate:

Pg 30 Sec 123 – Government committee that decides what treatments/benefits you get…

Perhaps I should have added “by plan” at the end — nonetheless they decide the individual does not.

====================================
Jo wrote:

Pg 29 Lines 4-16 – Health care rationed. You get limited “care” per year.

“(A) ANNUAL LIMITATION.—The cost-sharing incurred under the essential benefits pack
age with respect to an individual (or family) for
a year does not exceed the applicable level spec
ified in subparagraph (B).
9 (B) APPLICABLE LEVEL.—The applicable
10 level specified in this subparagraph for Y1 is
11 $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a
12 family.”

It is LIMITED CARE, they SAY it is LIMITED. BTW — “Rationing” by definition is limiting peoples care.

UL said: These paragraphs do not limit CARE. They limit COST-SHARING. I.e., they limit how big of a share (co-pay) the insured has to pay for covered medical services. Nearly everything you say is based on MISreading the actual text.

Jo: I disagree, I believe you may be the one misreading the text. Granted the bill is ambiguous so it is possible I’m wrong, however I don’t think I am – because, the very next paragraph says:

“(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.”***

“***” are my emphasis — They call subparagraph B a *benefits package*, which again, in this case subparagraph B LIMITS coverage. (Rationing)

But for arguments sake, lets say your reading it correct and I’m not. Then according to you, the cost share for the individual is $5,000 and the family a $10,000 per year with a increase every year after.

So that wonderful “free” BHO health care, costs $5,000 upfront before ANY medical service is covered for a single person. Some great plan — for this you can afford to purchase private HC.

August 12, 2009 at 5:02 pm
(338) Jo says:

About the poll UL, I still say that the wording is disingenuious. Plausible means supeficiality by definition, it infers that the question is silly – but your going to ask it anyhow.

Undergo euthanasia sounds forced and calloused compared to assisted suicide.

Words mean something, I’m surprised it’s split considering the clear slant you yourself showed above by labeling the 425 issue “Text of hysterical rumor”.

Should be more people denying that gov’t would encourage assisted suicide, considering how superfluous you made this concern out to be. That alone IMHO is very telling that people are suspicious of gov’t on this issue.

August 12, 2009 at 5:08 pm
(339) urbanlegends says:

Jo writes:

But for arguments sake, lets say your reading it correct and I’m not. Then according to you, the cost share for the individual is $5,000 and the family a $10,000 per year with a increase every year after.

Though there is plenty of abstruse legalese and ambiguity in this bill, this particular subsection is pretty darned clear — if one cares enough about accuracy to give it a fair and careful reading.

So that wonderful “free” BHO health care, costs $5,000 upfront before ANY medical service is covered for a single person. Some great plan — for this you can afford to purchase private HC.

Apparently I missed where BHO promised “free” health care. Thanks for letting us know!

Secondly, the $5,000/$10,0000 amounts are maximums for co-payments, not deductibles. I.e., for an individual, the most he/she would have to co-pay for services in a given year can’t exceed $5,000. It doesn’t say $5,000 up front before any service is covered.

Moreover, you conveniently ignored the opening paragraph of this subsection, which stipulates that families won’t incur any cost-sharing obligation at all for preventive services, including infant and child care.

August 12, 2009 at 5:16 pm
(340) Jo says:

UL:

Page 287 ‘‘(E) READMISSION.—The term ‘readmis15
sion’ means, in the case of an individual who is
16 discharged from an applicable hospital, the ad17
mission of the individual to the same or another
18 applicable hospital within a time period speci19
fied by the Secretary from the date of such dis20
charge. Insofar as the discharge relates to an
21 applicable condition for which there is an en22
dorsed measure described in subparagraph
23 (A)(ii)(I), such time period (such as 30 days)
24 shall be consistent with the time period speci25
fied for such measure.

=============

There are parts of this bill that refer to the hospitals reporting or re-admissions, but as you can see there is individual readmission policy as well.

the ‘secretary’ will decide who is readmitted and who is not, by legislation in the final senate bill if it passes.

August 12, 2009 at 5:24 pm
(341) urbanlegends says:

Jo writes:

There are parts of this bill that refer to the hospitals reporting or re-admissions, but as you can see there is individual readmission policy as well.

the ’secretary’ will decide who is readmitted and who is not, by legislation in the final senate bill if it passes.

Again, you’re not reading carefully enough.

The passage you quote defines “readmission” for purposes of laying out the program for incentivizing hospitals to improve the quality of their care. That definition is the only context in which the word “individual” is used.

The text does NOT say “the ‘secretary’ will decide who is readmitted and who is not.”

August 12, 2009 at 5:40 pm
(342) Hilary says:

Why do people feel that scaring people is the only way to get what they want? Oh wait the truth isn’t on there side so telling people that everyone who voted for Obama that they are killers is a good way to change minds. Isn’t telling a lie wrong?! Learned that in preschool!

August 12, 2009 at 5:41 pm
(343) Bev says:

Nothing that is worth while is Free!

August 12, 2009 at 5:47 pm
(344) urbanlegends says:

Again to Jo,

Continuing on the point above, I see that the sentence that most concerns you is this:

“Insofar as the discharge relates to an applicable condition for which there is an endorsed measure described in subparagraph (A)(ii)(I), such time period (such as 30 days) shall be consistent with the time period specified for such measure.”

This still falls under the definition of “readmission.”

I read it as meaning: For an admission to be counted as a “readmission” (for purposes of measuring hospital quality), that admission must be for an applicable medical condition and must have occurred within a specified time period after the original discharge.

The upshot is this:

You say this language lays out a legal prohibition on who can and who can’t be readmitted to a hospital, and within what time period.

I take this language to be defining what counts as a readmission — i.e., what medical conditions and time periods are applicable — in compiling data to assess whether hospitals are readmitting patients too frequently in cases where better care could have prevented it.

Which interpretation is more true to the text?

August 12, 2009 at 5:57 pm
(345) chris says:

I think this bill just shows how much the Government is in our business and trying so hard to get more involved in it. I agree people need health care but at some point you have to pick yourself up and stop counting on the rest of the people in the country to hold your hand. I understand times are hard but this is nothing new (just a little harder now). The feds getting involved in the health care of others is nothing new, they do provide for congress, senate, and the military. I must say I have experienced the healthcare for the military and it is quite sad and lacking in trained caregivers. And for all of you who will claim I am just another jesus freak, you would be very mistaken.

August 12, 2009 at 5:59 pm
(346) pacian says:

Let’s be very clear.

We have 3 branches of government.

1. Judicial
2. Legislative
3. Executive

The Health Care Reform Bill H.R. 3200 is an House of Representative Bill. It is not an Executive Order, nor a Treaty, nor a Budget.

The President, from his position can ask, maybe demand, maybe suggest a Reform Bill but he can not nor does he create a HR Bill.

Before I launch into how disgraceful this writer is for taking things out of content and making a argument around passages not fully explained, we should back back and really think about what this country is doing.

We need affordable Health care. Not because it’s the right thing to do, not because 40 -45 millions of Americans are un-insured, we need it because it really and honestly zapped our competitiveness in this Global Economy.

We really should talk about what your employer and what you pay for Health Care. I really have to tell you. I really hate socialize Medicine, but as a true capitalist.. I love money. We need to really examine what the United States will do if the people who oppose this bill.

Before jump on a stupid bandwagon think intelligently about what we will do as a country.

Remember someone always pays..
If you have a better suggestion regarding Health Care.. tell the President, don’t be an idiot like this writer and stand behind words and never suggest an alternative. Someone has to do something

Oh and remember the Civics Lesson.

Richard Dennis

World Photographs 360°

August 12, 2009 at 6:02 pm
(347) chris says:

it says the secretary will decide if the time is suitable for re admission.

August 12, 2009 at 6:05 pm
(348) Bev says:

This health care bill is extremely confusing! All Americans including congressmen and senators don’t really understand this health care bill. Because of the confusion, Americans are arguing. Everyone including elected officials “must” be governed by the same health care bill-no acceptations. If not, revise the health care bill until it accommodates All Americans elected or not!

August 12, 2009 at 6:09 pm
(349) chris says:

There are not 40 to 45 million people without healthcare! Many whom don’t have it don’t want it. This being a lot of the younger generation who think they are invincible. All the rest WHO I DON’T BELIEVE are all US citizens can go to any emergency room in this country and get treatment if they need it, that is the federal law of this country. “No person shall be denied medical treatment for lack of financial ability”.

August 12, 2009 at 6:12 pm
(350) James says:

In the early beginnings of our country there was a town called Jamestown.
About half the people just wanted to search for gold rather than plant crops to make it through the cold winter ahead.
They decided if you didn’t work then you couldn’t eat. I say we should return to that philosophy. Today we have too many people wanting gold, and then want to mooch food without earning their right to the table by working for it.It was simple then and we should return to its wisdom. I say Welcome to Jamestown. If you want benefits then work and pay for it! Funny how when you are hungry it makes you more willing to want to earn your own way. For those who say we should provide for all these people who won’t or don’t want to work should open up their home to about 50 freeloaders. Its always so easy to say we should do this or that as long as they don’t pay personally for them. How dare you say anything about Christians who earn and pay their own way. Besides more Christians help the down and outers more than anybody. Sounds like a return to Jamestown is what we need

August 12, 2009 at 6:12 pm
(351) chris says:

I remember civics, Do you remember History? Because those who don’t are doomed to repeat it…..Just ask our neighbors across the big pond.

August 12, 2009 at 6:14 pm
(352) Ginsburg says:

To Mr. Dennis @ 308:

Sir, you write “Before jump on a stupid bandwagon think intelligently about what we will do as a country.”

I agree with you wholeheartedly that this is what people SHOULD do, but the fact of the matter is that one thing our countrymen do very well is, indeed, jumping on the “Stupid Bandwagon.” As much as I wish it weren’t so, independent thought (and the drive to do the research that allows it) isn’t such a common virtue amongst our fellow Americans as it once was. The sad fact is that the “Rational Bandwagon” isn’t nearly as good at attracting potential passengers.

I know I sound incredibly misanthropic, but (alas) I really don’t think I’m wrong here…

August 12, 2009 at 6:16 pm
(353) chris says:

James hit the nail on the head….. I might add the perhaps we should put the freeloaders on the next Mayflower back to England though.

August 12, 2009 at 6:16 pm
(354) Military Man says:

I may get torched for writing by the board however, this is a “Free Country” the last time I checked and I am going to utilize that “God Given Right”. After recently serving in the military for over 21 years and protecting our country from all enemies foreign and domestic, I finally get a chance to weigh in on some of the subjects that have been bothering me for years.
Healthcare reform has been a thorn in the sides of American’s for years (and yes before anyone decides to point a finger at me, I do have healthcare for the rest of my life. My family also shares in that plan to a point. My children have care up to the age of 24 as long as they are in college and my wife will receive the same treatment as I do) without much progress. Why you ask? Money! It is always about money. I pose this question. Why attempt to overhaul the medical system at a time when our economy is basically in the worst shape since the great depression? Wouldn’t you think more time and energy should be focused on getting people back to work and bringing down our national debt? Then start working on programs such as healthcare to enhance quality of life.
You need to get the buy-in from the people who elected you (not saying that I voted for him) in order for change to be successful. In other words, change will be fought if everyone does not fully understand the changes that are being made around them. It would make to much sense for the elected officials in Washington to attempt to explain this bill to the American Tax Payer and Voter. After all, isn’t this going to affect the entire American family?
I have always thought of it to be a great honor to serve this great country for 21 years on active duty. I was forced to retire due to a medical issue that I sustained while doing my job. I would still be serving our great nation today if I had not been injured. My point is, I stood up and fought for what I believed in then and I am doing that now. In my opinion, this bill is flawed and needs to be looked at from every angle before being signed into law. I have parents who took great care of me when I was growing up and I will ensure they to are taken care of in their prime (even though they to have prepared for their elderly years). I too will become elderly one day and am preparing for that day also as all of us should but as a good military man should do, I am always looking out for you to.

August 12, 2009 at 6:16 pm
(355) urbanlegends says:

Chris writes:

“it says the secretary will decide if the time is suitable for re admission.”

With all due respect, no, it says the secretary will specify what time period has to elapse between someone’s discharge from a hospital and subsequent admission to the same or another hospital for treatment of the same condition for it to count as a “readmission.”

Page 287: “(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. Insofar as the discharge relates to an applicable condition for which there is an endorsed measure described in subparagraph (A)(ii)(I), such time period (such as 30 days) shall be consistent with the time period specified for such measure.

August 12, 2009 at 6:18 pm
(356) Ginsburg says:

To James @ 342:

This issue has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion. Period. And so bringing up the subject does nothing but hamper legitimate discourse by inviting religious zealotry (and bigotry) from both sides of that coin. Not good.

Please, leave religion out of this discussion.

August 12, 2009 at 6:23 pm
(357) chris says:

urbanlegends..

You are correct, thanks for the correction.

August 12, 2009 at 6:24 pm
(358) urbanlegends says:

Bev writes:

“This health care bill is extremely confusing!”

Amen. I know we have too many laws already, but how about one that just states that all Congressional bills must be written in plain language, or at the very least a plain-language translation acceptable to both parties must be provided.

Much of the confusion and anger surrounding this issue is due to our inability to simply agree on what the words mean. Think about that.

August 12, 2009 at 6:27 pm
(359) lizzie says:

Why would the government have any interest in the end of my life if they are not planning to save money, control me in some way, etc.? The end of my life is not the business of the government. Anyone who thinks they will get to keep their private insurance is in Wonderland with Alice.

August 12, 2009 at 6:47 pm
(360) urbanlegends says:

Military Man wrote:

“My point is, I stood up and fought for what I believed in then and I am doing that now. In my opinion, this bill is flawed and needs to be looked at from every angle before being signed into law.”

Actually, I think very few people here would disagree with you on that.

One fact that gets lost in the shuffle is that the bill we’re discussing is only one of several introduced in the House and Senate (if I recall correctly, there are 5 versions all told). Before any health care reform bill can be passed all these versions have to be revised, reconciled, and hammered into a single piece of legislation.

Whatever your views, let your Congressional representatives know what you think.

August 12, 2009 at 6:51 pm
(361) wake up America! says:

“Government doesn’t belong in health care”?!

The Government STARTED PRIVATIZED HEALTH CARE! Nixon and Kaiser.

Check your conscience at the door consumers! So long as it’s not your mother being denied treatment for cancer… turn a blind eye. Turn a blind eye.

August 12, 2009 at 7:16 pm
(362) Knuckles (mob name) says:

Page one of the bill tells us it is about cost reduction. The part you bring up (pg 425-430) explains that a government agent will discuss with you the end of life issues associated with Nutrition, hydration and antibiotics.

You want me to believe that a good little minded government bureaucrat will not be incentivized to reduce costs – in a system that will be way too costly in the first place….sorry – it happens in every country where there is socialized medicine used – but you say – not here – no way – our bureaucrats would never do something like that.

I trust insurance companies far more than bureaucrats – any day…..

Sorry fella – this is way too far out for me to buy into. Healthcare needs to be a choice between me and my doctor and not have government bureaucrats messing with it more than they arlread do….that is the real problem but you do not want to address that.

August 12, 2009 at 7:28 pm
(363) urbanlegends says:

Knuckles writes:

“Page one of the bill tells us it is about cost reduction. The part you bring up (pg 425-430) explains that a government agent will discuss with you the end of life issues associated with Nutrition, hydration and antibiotics.”

Knuckles, please show us in the actual text of the bill where it says a “government agent” will discuss end-of-life issues with you.

Knuckles writes:

“Sorry fella – this is way too far out for me to buy into. Healthcare needs to be a choice between me and my doctor and not have government bureaucrats messing with it more than they arlread do….that is the real problem but you do not want to address that.”

No, Knuckles, it seems you do not want to address what this section of the bill actually says. It says that if you are on Medicare and choose to discuss end-of-life care options with a doctor — a doctor you choose — that doctor will be reimbursed.

August 12, 2009 at 7:34 pm
(364) Wallace says:

This is not a Healthcare program. The authors should be ashamed. If I need to hire an attorney to decode this thing, then it is a joke. Why are we wasting money to have the Federal government author something like this. The should be ashamed of themselves.

After many years of selling Healthcare Insuurnace the Federal government should be a shamed of this. They really don’t know how to write a Bill or probably anthing else.

The time has come to only modify existing insurance program and adjust premiums if necessary. Tha is all our country needs.

August 12, 2009 at 8:58 pm
(365) eve stuart says:

Interesting. What’s happened to the last 10-15 comments, including mine where I said this was a leftist site, and said that I’ve been completing Advanced Directives as a social worker for the past 25 years and am worried about the “training” and “goals” that providers must receive as set by “The Secretary” when all these years this FREE service has been provided without training? And, that everyone that’s been in a hospital has been given this opportunity, so why do we need a government sponsored program to “train” providers to reach “goals” set by The Secretary, unless someone is messing around with this service and need to “train” people to accept the NEW way of looking at Advanced Directives?

August 12, 2009 at 9:38 pm
(366) Jo says:

Lizzie at 6:51 said: Why would the government have any interest in the end of my life if they are not planning to save money, control me in some way, etc.?

————-

Exactly. Lizzie has it correct, the mere mention of government controlled HC by way of secretaries, and end of life counselors (among 29+ Czars, union thugs to silence dissent etc…)ought to send shivers up everyone’s spine. This is akin to what Hitler did *for* the benefit of his people, and we saw how that turned out. The people were enslaved and dominated. Good people died because of politics, color and faith.

August 13, 2009 at 2:04 am
(367) urbanlegends says:

Jo wrote:

“Lizzie has it correct, the mere mention of government controlled HC by way of secretaries, and end of life counselors (among 29+ Czars, union thugs to silence dissent etc…) ought to send shivers up everyone’s spine. This is akin to what Hitler did *for* the benefit of his people, and we saw how that turned out.”

Ugh. Am I the only one who feels like someone just puked all over the room?

August 13, 2009 at 2:17 am
(368) urbanlegends says:

Eve wrote:

“Interesting. What’s happened to the last 10-15 comments, including mine where I said this was a leftist site…”

Scroll up to find your postings. Still there.

August 13, 2009 at 7:35 am
(369) Jo says:

UL: If we ignore history we are doomed to repeat it. Why do you think so many Americans are upset with gov’t these days?

We watch in horror as our gov’t spends our tax dollars to bail out private industry, buy private industry, pass cap and trade (despite BO’s own admission it will raise the average Americans electric bill), FORCE a HC plan most people are wary about and then gov’t tells us if we speak out or question any of these unconstitutional acts of power grabbing, that we are part of a “Un-American mob”. Meanwhile, BO goes on a USA world apology tour. Disgraceful and embarrassing to any educated American who, realizes that while we’ve made (Monday morning quarterback) mistakes – we have done far, FAR more good in the world. People come in droves to the US because of our success and freedom.

Yet 50% of Americans have apparently forgotten, or have not learned in history, of what it is like to NOT be American.

Our founders would abhor the HC legislation, cap and trade, buying/bailing out of private industry and world apologies.

Perhaps next time voters, go to vote they ought to ask “What would TJ do? (that would be Thomas Jefferson for the BO voters.)He sure wouldn’t be for aforementioned massive government. Our founders would no longer recognize this nation of gov’t dependent moochers and power hungry politicians.

This is not the nation they planned.

August 13, 2009 at 7:57 am
(370) Jo says:

A bit of Education on AMERICAN government:

“The house of representatives … can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as the great mass of society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interest, and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny.” –Federalist No. 57, February 19, 1788

BTW, to clarify I’m not calling anyone “person” Hitler or Stalin, just pointing out the current political tactics used are eerily similar. It would do Americans good to review that part of history and how the German people effectively voted in their own demise. The tyrants of that time (through propaganda) played on peoples fear, systematically removed their civil rights. For the “good” of the people.

August 13, 2009 at 9:44 am
(371) Harvey says:

I’ve posted videos on YouTube explaining how people like John McCain, who has had government health insurance for 73 years, fights against the little guy from getting a little health insurance coverage.

On YouTube search for John McCain Health Insurance Hypocrite.

August 13, 2009 at 11:00 am
(372) Jo says:

Obama said “you just get into some very difficult moral issues” when considering whether “to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill.

“That’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues,” he said in the April 14 interview. “The chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health- care bill out here.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aGrKbfWkzTqc

– Obama wondering out loud if the cost of health care can be cut by LIMITED (rationed) coverage for terminally ill who need quality of life operations.

August 13, 2009 at 12:02 pm
(373) Jo says:

http://www.youtube.com/user/Ma3lst0rm

Coming to a hospital near you.

August 13, 2009 at 12:05 pm
(374) Carolyn says:

Wow…I read this section of the Bill and I got a totally different impression from writer. To me, it says that the conference is to have an informative discussion about how I want proceed with my healthcare instead of putting the responsibility into the doctor’s hands.

Now my question is: IF you have a doctor that wants to discuss how you should end your life…then it’s time to get another doctor. I just had my yearly check-up and my doctor told me that at my age (47) I needed to start adding calcium to my diet. That’s the kind of consultation that I get with MY doctor. The Bible says at Titus 1:15 that “to the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted.” Let those who have ears, HEAR!!!

August 13, 2009 at 12:09 pm
(375) sensible says:

all these anti reformers sound ignorant and bitter. but it doesn’t really matter, the bill will eventually get passed and we’ll all be better off for it, whether you choose to abmit it or not. so keep spreading your lies and filling your hearts with hate until it creates a cancer in your body that we’ll eventually have to fix with “obamascare”.

August 13, 2009 at 12:25 pm
(376) Grody Jicama says:

‘Founding Fathers’ ‘We the People, etc and don’t we still have the Electoral College, which was begun by some of our Founding Fathers because they didn’t trust ‘the People’ to know what they were doing when they voted. And, guess what, it’s still there. And, by the way, God is a delusion.

August 13, 2009 at 1:13 pm
(377) Virginia says:

Insurance companies are making decisions about people’s health care right now – whether they can have a certain treatment or test. Of course you can have whatever you want if you can pay for it. So the scare that is being spread is really not much different than the statis quo, except more people will be in the mix. This cry for national healthcare came from the people, they are just being given what they have been asking for. Perhaps if not for the greed that has driven costs up, this would not be an issue. You folks that don’t like it – keep what you have.

August 13, 2009 at 1:24 pm
(378) Military Man says:

Sensible writes

“All these anti reformers sound ignorant and bitter but it doesn’t really matter, the bill will eventually get passed and we’ll all be better off for it, whether you choose to abmit it or not. so keep spreading your lies and filling your hearts with hate until it creates a cancer in your body that we’ll eventually have to fix with “obamascare”.

You are mostly correct. The bill will mostly pass and healthcare as America knows it today will “Change” forever. Forums like the internet, allow so-called anti-reformers the chance to utilize this type of medium to foster change, speak their minds, ask questions, and to help others through the process of change. I do believe that a recently elected president revolutionized the use of this type of forum to get to his current post. The individuals that you speak of in your paragraph may be concerned for their future healthcare needs, do not fully understand the bill, or maybe just want to use their Freedom of Speech Rights. Reporters do this type of work all the time. Are they bitter? Are they ignorant? No, because the newspaper they work for is paying them to uncover the truth about the underlying issues. We as American’s are doing that for ourselves on this forum for FREE!

August 13, 2009 at 1:25 pm
(379) louis says:

Their is a reason that “transparency” and a vote by individual voters has not happened, and that is, anyone who thinks that the bill is not going to impact negatively on our health has their head in the sand. Of course, elders, I being one, could be misled into thinking premature life ending would be “best for the state.” And also the infirm, the handicapped, etc. So why not leave us and our children’s {who have no say in any of this} medical faith to the likes of government run plan that has been “so successful” in running other businesses, as Amtrak, Bank and Wall Street Enforcement, and the Post Office, the last of which Obama, just indicated was a failure compared to private run companies. I lived in England when my mother-in-law requied a gall bladder operation under the Socialized Health Plan, and was told “in my presence”, that there were many others younger than her 61 years that were “required to be considered before her.” After waiting almost two painful years, she resorted to a very expensive private surgeon operation. The term “legalized euthanasia,” came into play because it was a means to force old but healthy persons to early death. Much different than the Oxford English Dictionary definition of euthanasia as “the painless killing of a patient who has an incurable disease or who is an irreversible coma. I have no doubts that this present Administration would define and defend the “end of life” consideration for euthanasia because we are “all terminal once we are born.” It is also interesting that President Obama’s Chief of Staff, Ron Emmanuel, has medical docter brother who has often advocated that medical resourses should not be “wasted” on the old or infirm,”( Down’s syndrome, handicapped persons- blind, deaf, mentally challenged, etc.. Additionally, that brother allegedly is playing a role as one of the other medical people in putting this Bill together, and in the climate indicated ,that he could be the Czar in charge of Panel “end of life” decisionmaking . Anyone who has any doubts about the generations to come lifetime impact of this Bill need only to read the disputed words in the Bill and see if something doesn’t raise the hackles on our backs. Of course we all know that the politicians writing this very bad Bill are always honest, always never have a profit motive, and always, never ever insult our intelligence! If ever there was atime to be heard– that time is now–for our sake, and those who follow us– no matter how SOME would make us think we do not matter. Thanks for the voice!

August 13, 2009 at 1:29 pm
(380) Mo says:

Jo: Obama said “you just get into some very difficult moral issues” when considering whether “to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill.

“That’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues,” he said in the April 14 interview. “The chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health- care bill out here.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aGrKbfWkzTqc

– Obama wondering out loud if the cost of health care can be cut by LIMITED (rationed) coverage for terminally ill who need quality of life operations.

Mo: Truer words have not been spoken by Obama. There is an ethical dilemma surrounding whether to provide surgeries like hip-replacements to people who may not live another month.

Obama is completely correct in stating that our healthcare expenditures are drastically high for patients in their last few months of life.

As a medical student, I spend a lot of class time discussing these kinds of ethical dilemmas with classmates and professors. And each and every time, we never come to a conclusion. Because yes – it is easy to say – “No don’t give that surgery to this lady. She’s going to die in a week.” What makes it more difficult is when that lady is your grandmother. Our professors don’t know the answers to these ethical dilemmas (and some have been practicing medicine for decades).

In a 2002 research paper by John Luce, he aims to address whether health care costs can be reduced by reducing the care that terminally ill patients people receive at the end of life.

His first paragraph highlights the economic realities of end of life care.

“Total health care costs in the United States (U.S.) reached $989 billion in 1995 and now exceed $1 trillion, 14% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (1). Of this total, a disproportionate share is attributable to the care of elderly patients shortly before their deaths. According to Lubitz and Prihoda (2) and Lubitz and Riley (3), 6% of Medicare recipients 65 yr of age and older who died in 1978 and 1988 accounted for 28% of all costs of the Medicare program. In the same two years, 77% of the Medicare decedents’ expenditures occurred in the last year of life, 52% of them in the last 2 mo, and 40% in the last month. Inpatient expenses accounted for over 70% of the decedents’ total costs.”

The problem with trying to solve this issue is not whether we can pay for these quality of life functions or whether we should do them. Rather, the main obstacle is how does one identify a terminally ill patients. I currently work with the trauma surgery team. We have had patients who have survived with minimal loss of function even after suffering a bullet wound to the head. And we also know of cases where someone has died from a routine appendectomy.

From an economic stand point, yes – Obama is correct. It does not make any sense to pay for a hip replacement surgery for a ventilator dependent terminally ill patient. But from a scientific stand point, even Dr. Luce admits that there is little evidence to support that terminally ill patients can be readily identified.

And that is where the ethical dilemma comes in. Do we stop ICU care for Mom (and provide her with palliative care) because she has a terminal illness and the chances of her recovering from this are slim to none? Or do we go on a full court press and throw everything in our arsenal at her to try and save her?

What if she dies tomorrow? Or next year? No one can really know.

So Jo, Obama is right in bringing this ethical dilemma to our attention. It is something as a country we must come to terms with. There is no getting around it.

PS: If anyone wants to read the paper, the link is below:

http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/cgi/content/full/165/6/750

August 13, 2009 at 2:06 pm
(381) Mo says:

Apologies for any grammatical errors. Didn’t have time to proof read.

August 13, 2009 at 2:14 pm
(382) urbanlegends says:

Oh my God, another flaming Liberal Commie — oops, I mean Republican senator named Johnny Isakson — claims the advance care planning consultations provided for in the House health care reform bill are completely voluntary and “for an individual to be able to clearly delineate what they want done in various sets of circumstances at the end of their life.”

Quotes from Washington Post interview:

How did this become a question of euthanasia?

I have no idea. I understand — and you have to check this out — I just had a phone call where someone said Sarah Palin’s web site had talked about the House bill having death panels on it where people would be euthanized. How someone could take an end of life directive or a living will as that is nuts. You’re putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don’t know how that got so mixed up.

You’re saying that this is not a question of government. It’s for individuals.

It empowers you to be able to make decisions at a difficult time rather than having the government making them for you.

The policy here as I understand it is that Medicare would cover a counseling session with your doctor on end-of-life options.

Correct. And it’s a voluntary deal.

Trust those Commie Republicans to lie through their teeth. ;)

Full interview: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/08/is_the_government_going_to_eut.html

August 13, 2009 at 2:15 pm
(383) Jo says:

Virginia said:This cry for national healthcare came from the people.

The cry came from Obama, but since you insist on listening to “the cry from the people” then we MUST kill this bill, latest Rasmussen poll says:
42% favor the plan
53% are opposed

Note about founding fathers and the electoral college: It was put in place by our founders to eliminate pure democracy which is mob rule. (A kin to two wolves and a sheep deciding on what’s for dinner.)

For example: There are MILLIONS of people crammed into metropolitan cities whereas, farmers are few but spread out over large parcels of land. Now would you want city people (who know nothing about farming), to make farming decisions on your food supply by pure democratic vote? Of course not, this is one of the many reasons we have the electoral college. Our form of government is a REPUBLIC not a pure democracy, precisely because of situations like this.

In a REPUBLIC we vote for local people (representatives) to speak for us.

Don’t be so quick to dismiss/disrespect our founders, they were very wise men. They created this country and we have had 233 years of growth and wealth. With periodic exceptions of course, when too many socialist cogs are placed in the capitalist wheel. As in all things, we need a balance.

August 13, 2009 at 2:19 pm
(384) Rational Thinker says:

I love how the radical Republicans start throwing out the Hitler references when they can’t scare others with their ridiculous interpretations of the wording of the potential HC bill, but then they back off and say they didn’t mean that any one person was being referred to as Hitler. Really? Why bring up Hitler by name then if you aren’t trying to say someone was acting like him?
And the more ridiculous comments about “Czars”. No where in government is a title of a position with the word Czar in it. That term was made up by the press to reference a position of power, such as the secretaries of Health, Homeland Security, etc. Those positions are only Secretaries, reporting to the President. There are no Czars in American Government, so get over that little hysterical rumour.

August 13, 2009 at 2:20 pm
(385) mitch says:

Why do you people have to make up blatant lies about the health bill. You never complained about how the ins. companies are ripping you off? You think think they are on the up and up with their premiums? Something needs to be done. Our health system costs are astronomical now. If it was a white republican you people would be kissing ass. Why don’t you read the bill, and stop listening to the docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf -link lobyists.

August 13, 2009 at 2:28 pm
(386) urbanlegends says:

Yikes! The AARP supports Section 1233 and advance care planning consultations! Guess they’re a bunch of Constitution-hating, Hitler-loving Nazis who want their elderly members to be forced to discuss euthanasia with government bureaucrats! ;)

AARP Endorsement

“We’ve been hearing concerns from our members that this is a step toward government-mandated euthanasia,” says Jim Dau, a spokesman for the AARP, the advocacy group for people past age 50, which supports health-care reform to help older Americans. “These are baseless scare tactics put out by those who seek to derail health-care reform. The bill would help people find resources to help themselves and their doctors make important decisions about the end of their lives.”

According to Dau, what’s been lost in the small-scale hysteria is that these services are 100% optional: Medicare subscribers can ask for help with living wills if they like, but no end-of-life arrangement will ever be mandated or imposed upon them by doctors or government. “The only new thing about the bill is that Medicare will pay for end-of-life counseling every five years,” Dau says. “If you decide to take one of these consultations, you don’t have to sign any document before you leave—no advance directives, no living will. These are, as they should be, completely optional.”

Source: Business Week

August 13, 2009 at 2:30 pm
(387) Rational Thinker says:

From a news article regarding comments from one of the authors of the bill, Rep. Earl Blumenauer:

In a widely quoted Facebook posting, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin charged that federal bureaucrats would play God, ruling on whether ailing seniors or children with Down syndrome – such as Palin’s son Trig – are worthy of health care. Palin called the proposal “downright evil.”

Many news organizations – including The Associated Press – debunked Palin’s claim. The provision that caused the uproar would authorize Medicare to pay doctors for voluntary counseling about end-of-life care.

But Blumenauer says he is astounded that Palin and other critics have not tempered their bleak descriptions of the health care bill.

“It’s deliberate at this point,” Blumenauer said of Palin’s failure to correct her Aug. 7 Facebook posting. “If she wasn’t deliberately lying at the beginning, she is deliberately allowing a terrible falsehood to be spread with her name.”

Blumenauer said the measure he supports would merely allow Medicare to pay doctors for voluntary counseling sessions that address end-of-life issues. Topics include living wills, designating a close relative or a trusted friend as a health care proxy and information about pain medications for chronic discomfort.

The measure would block funds for counseling that presents suicide or assisted suicide as an option, Blumenauer said, calling references to death panels or euthanasia “mind-numbing.”

“It’s a blatant lie, and everybody who has checked it agrees,” he said.

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski said this week that Palin and other critics were not helping the GOP by throwing out false claims.

“Quite honestly, I’m so offended at that terminology, because it absolutely isn’t” in the bill, Murkowski said. “There is no reason to gin up fear in the American public by saying things that are not included in the bill.”

Georgia Sen. Johnny Isakson, a Republican who co-sponsored a similar measure in the Senate, said it was “nuts” to claim the bill encourages euthanasia.

“You’re putting the authority in the individual rather than the government,” Isakson said. “I don’t know how that got so mixed up.”

Blumenauer said the controversy was helping Democrats in a “perverse way.”

By continuing to spread a widely refuted claim, Republican critics are undercutting their own credibility, he said. The controversy has drawn more attention to the original proposal, which passed largely unnoticed when a health overhaul was approved by three House committees.

“This has taken on an outsized significance and so more people are paying attention to it than ever before,” Blumenauer said. “I think you will see more people use this to say, ‘What will happen to me if I am in an accident? Here’s what I want.’ More people are going to take matters into their own hands.”

If the author of the bill says it doesn’t say the bill will require the government to kill you or talk to you about killing yourself (as the hysterical rumour mongers want you to believe), then why do you think you know more about the bill than him? He says it very plainly.

Some of you will still try to say that even though he says it doesn’t say it, the bill still could say that or be interpreted that way. Wrong.

If it comes out later that the bill could be interpreted that way, the Supreme Court would shoot down the bill as the intent wasn’t to say that (The author is on record as saying it wasn’t meant to be mandatory).

August 13, 2009 at 2:42 pm
(388) Mitch says:

What happened to this country? THIS IS THE U.S.A. HOLY CRAP. You people who believe these lies are ignorant. And I mean ignorant in that you listen to people telling these lies instead of finding out for yourselves. And to say the president is lying? That is ludicrous. Remember “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED”? WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION? Who really are the liars. Don’t be a sheep. Educate yourself.

August 13, 2009 at 2:48 pm
(389) urbanlegends says:

Jeez Louise! Noted Nazi Commie-loving liberal — sorry, did it again; I mean Republican — Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski says the health care bill contains no provisions for “death panels.” Lying fascist wants to push assisted suicide on America’s senior citizens! ;)

U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski on Tuesday told an Anchorage crowd that critics of health care reform, the summer’s hottest political topic, aren’t helping the debate by throwing out highly charged assertions not based in fact.

“It does us no good to incite fear in people by saying that there’s these end-of-life provisions, these death panels,” Murkowski, a Republican, said. “Quite honestly, I’m so offended at that terminology because it absolutely isn’t (in the bill). There is no reason to gin up fear in the American public by saying things that are not included in the bill.”

Source: Alaska Daily News

August 13, 2009 at 2:55 pm
(390) Jo says:

Oh those republican commies you just can’t count on them to keep the same story twice… Or maybe it was the WP blogger who lied? Who knows!

But clearly, Co-sponsering 2007 medicaid end of life act, would have nothing to do with the language in the House bill.

Just this month another report said:
Isakson vehemently opposes the House and Senate health care bills and he played no role in drafting language added to the House bill by House Democrats calling for the government to incentivize doctors by offering them money to conduct “end-of-life counseling” with Medicare patients every five years. Isakson also strongly opposed the House bill language calling for doctors to follow a government-mandated list of topics to discuss with patients during the counseling sessions.

http://www.peachpundit.com/2009/08/11/isakson-blasts-obama-and-us-house-for-misleading-public-misrepresenting-his-association-with-health-care-bill/

—————-

For the record, I don’t believe any politicians word (either party) or bloggers, or any ONE source. I listen to what they consistently say. Example — Obama has a clear record of deceit and lies on this issue as I have previously posted.

August 13, 2009 at 2:59 pm
(391) jgarza says:

To the paralegal who states “shall” means mandatory, you are correct, however the “shall” referenced on this page [ctrl+F to find] refers to what “shall” be included in the DISCUSSION with your medical provider. Nowhere does “shall” reference a mandate for consultation. Try reading more closely (or reading period) next time…and you might look into finding a different line of work.

August 13, 2009 at 3:06 pm
(392) Jo says:

Rational Thinker said:
Really? Why bring up Hitler by name then if you aren’t trying to say someone was acting like him?

I presume this is a reference to me.

I reiterate — our GOVERNMENT (all of them — both parties) have been enacting policies that are reminiscent of Hitler. Bush with terrorism fear tactics, now Obama with power grabs. The party doesn’t matter they BOTH act like the third Reich at times.

Got it now?

As for Czars — all POTUS have Czars most 3 or 4 as I recall, this particular POTUS has 28+ and counting. (Call them what you will – they are people placed to work AROUND congress. This should be a concern for all fair minded Americans.)

1. Herb Allison-TARP Czar
2. Alan Bersin-Border Czar
3. Dennis Blair-Intelligence Czar
4. John Brennan-Terrorism Czar
5. Carol Browner-Energy Czar
6. Adolfo Carrion, Jr-Urban Affairs Czar
7. Ashton Carter-Weapons Czar
8. Aneesh Chopra-Technology Czar
9. Jeffrey Crowley-AIDS Czar
10. Cameron Davis-Great Lakes Czar
11. Nancy-Ann DeParle-Health Czar
12. Earl Devaney-Stimulus Accountability Czar
13. Joshua DuBois-Faith-based Czar
14. Kenneth Feinberg-Pay Czar
15. Danny Fried-Guantanamo Closure Czar
16. J. Scott Gration-Sudan Czar
17. Richard Holbrooke-Afghanistan Czar
18. John Holdren-Science Czar
19. Van Jones Green-Jobs Czar
20. Gil Kerlikowske-Drug Czar
21. Vivek Kundra-Information Czar
22. George Mitchell-Mideast Peace Czar
23. Ed Montgomery-Car Czar
24. Dennis Ross-Mideast Policy Czar
25. Gary Samore-WMD Czar
26. Todd Stern-Climate Czar
27. Cass Sunstein-Regulatory Czar
28. Paul Volcker-Economic Czar

August 13, 2009 at 3:09 pm
(393) urbanlegends says:

Somebody said they never trust just one source for their information. Me neither. For example, I would never rely on the Communists at FactCheck.org alone for information on Section 1233 of the health care bill:

The accepted definition of end-of-life planning means thinking ahead about the care you would like to receive at the end of your life – which may include the choice to reject extraordinary measures of life support, or the choice to embrace them. For instance, the National Library of Medicine describes end-of-life services as “services [that] are available to help patients and their families deal with issues surrounding death.” This can include making decisions about treatment, designating a health care proxy, choosing a hospice program and putting together a living will, all of which the bill mentions explicitly as being part of an advance care planning consultation. In a 2003 study, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality found that “[p]atients who talked with their families or physicians about their preferences for end-of-life care had less fear and anxiety, felt they had more ability to influence and direct their medical care, believed that their physicians had a better understanding of their wishes, and indicated a greater understanding and comfort level than they had before the discussion.”

Furthermore, the bill would not make these sessions mandatory. It modifies section 1861(s)(2) of the Social Security Act, defining what services Medicare will pay for – if these definitions made treatments mandatory, seniors would all be required to get artificial legs and midwife services, too. In other words, this section of H.R. 3200 would require Medicare to pay doctors when they counsel their patients about such things as living wills, but no more frequently than once every five years, unless there’s a significant change in health status. “Both myself and our outside counsel have reviewed section 1233 of the House bill, and neither one of us can reach the conclusion that it is a mandatory consultation for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries,” Jon Keyserling, vice president of public policy at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, told us. “The opportunity for the consultation is not only voluntary but patient-initiated.”

~ Source

Nor would I rely solely on the word of the fascist Nazis at PolitiFact.com:

In no way would these sessions be designed to encourage patients to end their lives, said Jim Dau, national spokeman for AARP, a group that represents people over 50 that has lobbied in support of the advanced planning provision.

McCaughey’s comments are “not just wrong, they are cruel,” said Dau. “We want to make sure people are making the right decision. If some one wants to take every life-saving measure, that’s their call. Others will decide it’s not worth going through this trauma just for themselves and their families, and that’s their decision, too.”

Both Keyserling and Dau were particularly troubled that McCaughey insisted — three times, to be exact — that the sessions would be mandatory, which they are not.

For his part, Keyserling said he and outside counsel read the language carefully to make sure that was not the case.

“Neither of us can come to the conclusion that it’s mandatory.” he said. “This new consultation is just like all in Medicare: it’s voluntary.”

“The only thing mandatory is that Medicare will have to pay for the counseling,” said Dau.

~ Source

And how ’bout that Hitler-loving Associated Press!!! I’d never rely on their word alone:

Former Republican vice presidential candidate 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.

Nothing in the legislation would carry out such a bleak vision. The provision that has caused the uproar would instead authorize Medicare to pay doctors for counseling patients about end-of-life care, if the patient wishes. Here are some questions and answers on the controversy:

Q: Does the health care legislation bill promote “mercy killing,” or euthanasia?

A: No.

Q: Then what’s all the fuss about?

A: A provision in the House bill written by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., would allow Medicare to pay doctors for voluntary counseling sessions that address end-of-life issues. The conversations between doctor and patient would include living wills, making a close relative or a trusted friend your health care proxy, learning about hospice as an option for the terminally ill, and information about pain medications for people suffering chronic discomfort.

The sessions would be covered every five years, more frequently if someone is gravely ill.

Q: Is anything required?

Monsignor Charles Fahey, 76, a Catholic priest who is chairman of the board of the National Council on Aging, a nonprofit service and advocacy group, says no.

“We have to make decisions that are deliberative about our health care at every moment,” Fahey said. “What I have said is that if I cannot say another prayer, if I cannot give or get another hug, and if I cannot have another martini – then let me go.”

Q: Does the bill advocate assisted suicide?

A: No. It would block funds for counseling that presents suicide or assisted suicide as an option.

~ Source

August 13, 2009 at 3:34 pm
(394) fenella says:

perhaps this health care reform bill is not the best way to overhaul the health care system. but i believe something must be done. here are some facts: 46 million people in this country are without health insurance. 37 million of them are employed. of those 37 million, over 40% have the option of participating in employer subsidized health care plans and still can’t afford the premiums. health care costs are estimated to double in the next ten years, but i think we all know the average income will not anywhere near to doubling. the end result will be even more people without insurance.

you can say all you want that the government should not be in the business of health care, but the fact of the matter is they already are and have been for a long time. ever heard of medicaid and medicare? the new health care reform bill is no more socialism than either of those programs. of course, i’m sure those of you shouting the loudest think we should get rid of those too. after all, if we take away coverage for the old, the poor and the minorities, maybe they’ll all suffer and die and we’ll be rid of them for good.

if you want to know what real socialist health care is like, do some research on the scandivanian countries (norway, sweden, denmark and finland). they have both socialized health care and education. they also have the highest per capita incomes in the world, the lowest crime rates, the highest life expectancies, and pretty much the best standards of living in the world. so yeah, so called socialized health care is evil. obviously.

oh, and if you have private insurance now, please don’t tell me that you actually believe that ultimately your health care decisions aren’t made by bureaucrats. who do you think runs HMOs? and they’re bureaucrats that care a heck of a lot more about their bottom line than they do about your kids or your grandma.

August 13, 2009 at 3:45 pm
(395) Jo says:

Just wondering if you know who owns some of these cited sources?? Ever wonder why so many of them repeat essentially the same rhetoric??

Call me all the names you want, for but I’ve looked into some of these.

Let’s see Factcheck is run by the Annenburg foundation… where have I heard that name before?? Hummmm. Oh that’s right Obamas terrorist friend Bill Ayers was a “key founder” of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.

In 1995 Obama was appointed Board Chairman and President of the Annenberg Chicago Challenge, a “branch of the Annenberg Foundation”.

But you go on and TRUST factcheck because of course the fact they have ties to BO, wouldn’t be a CONFLICT of interest now would it?

Or how about moveon.orgs creation by Hillary and funding by George Soros??

And Lord knows the metropolitan news sources like the AP, CNN, NY Times, Washington Post, etc… are so slanted it’s not funny. To seriously say otherwise, is like saying Fox News, Michele Maulkin, and Rush Limbaugh don’t lean right!

My gosh the white house gives them daily talking points! Just flip the channel they are all parroting like good little sheeple.

As for the content of your sources, I personally have never said euthanasia would be “government mandated’ so I don’t know where you get this. i simply have said that it will be mandatory by gov’t, for your doc to have a end of life discussion with you, which it is by the word shall.

Further, I believe it is possible in that this discussion could include options to end ones life voluntarily. The bill neither confirms or denys this possibility.

Also, Obama himself says that perhaps a pill would be best instead of an end life operation.

He said it yet another time, and used his grandmothers hip replacement as example. That a moral decision should be made for terminally ill people. Perhaps they should possibly take a pill and not receive quality of life hip replacement, since they cost too much and 80% of HC cost goes to the elderly.

August 13, 2009 at 4:03 pm
(396) jgarza says:

Jo, you are the unfortunate example of too much mouth, not enough brain. Please stop posting your assumptions, speculations, and confederate colored vitriol. Make a point, cite your source (for credibility), and listen to rebuttal (rinse and repeat). There…you have just been given a valuable lesson in rational discussion and debate. No excuses for the rest of your life. Now go play nice with the others…

August 13, 2009 at 4:05 pm
(397) mitch says:

Terminally ill. Do you know what terminal means? Ok. Would you have your hip fixed if you were terminally ill? Doesn’t make much sense does it. Just like you don’t when you say Obamas terrorist friend. You must be one of those idiots that believes Obama is not a citizen. I can’t get over you discussing an issue that isn’t an issue. THE GOVERNMENT DOESN’T WANT TO KILL YOU.

August 13, 2009 at 4:10 pm
(398) Jo says:

UL I forget to mention the Nazi’s were not communist. So, I’m not sure why you’re claiming communism after some of your Marxist sources. ;)

August 13, 2009 at 4:23 pm
(399) jgarza says:

Jo, once again, you are not directly citing your source regarding “shall”. Now sit quietly and follow along.

You said “it will be mandatory by gov’t, for your doc to have a end of life discussion with you, which it is by the word shall.”

The Bill text states [from this page], “Such consultation shall include the following: …”

Different words in different order = different meaning. Do I need to give you a reading lesson too?! Let’s start with the ABCs – vowels tomorrow.

August 13, 2009 at 4:40 pm
(400) urbanlegends says:

Re the reliability of FactCheck.org: the only thing that passes for a connection between Barack Obama and this organization is that up until 2001 Obama sat on the board of a public school reform think tank funded by the Annenburg Foundation, the same foundation which has also, since 2004, funded FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.

That’s it.

Instead of insinuating bogus connections to give the impression that FactCheck.org is biased, how about coming up with evidence to refute their research? These people are solid, respected journalists and do an incredible job.

Regarding MoveOn.org, who brought them up? I didn’t.

August 13, 2009 at 4:45 pm
(401) Jo says:

Mo said: Mo: Truer words have not been spoken by Obama. There is an ethical dilemma surrounding whether to provide surgeries like hip-replacements to people who may not live another month.

Obama is completely correct in stating that our healthcare expenditures are drastically high for patients in their last few months of life.

=============

I don’t disagree — my problem is gov’t being the solution to the problem. Bo says the elderly costs are at 80% in *medicaid*- which is already broke. Effectivly he is admitting gov’t failure of the system. Why in the world would we want to add more fuel to the fire?

Catastrophic HC coverage in the private sector with gov’t reducing redundant regulations, promoting gov’t based incentives, and tort reform can work far better than gov’t can.

In fact this is how gov’t was supposed to run — to assist the people and the economy not run them.

The elderly would have loads more choices instead of one choice. Yesterday BO said himself how badly the USPS worked compared to privately owned UPS or Fed Ex, thus he makes the argument for private HC.

August 13, 2009 at 4:46 pm
(402) marysrn says:

We have been having these discussions regarding end of life care for many years. As a health care worker, we encourage ALL of our clients to have an Advance Directive handy whenever they go into a hospital or nursing home or whatever facility they go to. This is for all ages, not just those on medicare. An Advance Directive(aka Living Will)will save your family or designated surrogate from having to make a decision whether or not to have YOUR life end on machines and/or artificial nutrition and/or hydration. The counseling would not encourage suicide, or “assisted” suicide, or euthanasia. The rumor mongers are just having a field day over this. And, as for “putting to sleep” any human for whatever reason….it will NOT happen.

August 13, 2009 at 4:55 pm
(403) Bob says:

If you want good healthcare shouldnt you have to work for it and pay for it? Like a nice house? nice car? Am i missing something? Ive always had good insurance, but my father, and then myself, have always been employed. If everyone is suddenly entitled to the same top-notch service do you really think that the hospitals and doctors can keep up? Seems pretty simple to me.

August 13, 2009 at 5:03 pm
(404) Nixk Angelozzi says:

Could it be that the Republican lawmaker who introduced this passed ammendment did so with the fiendish intention and foreknowledge of the chaos it would release. Let him come forward and explain his support of his ammendment or admit his stance.
His name, state and disreict should be widely circulated nation-wide until he comes forward.

August 13, 2009 at 5:04 pm
(405) Jesse says:

Jo – BO said this and that. Please (again) cite your source. Your reading skills have not proven to be very effective, so I have serious doubts about your auditory processing.

I am interested in your statement – “promoting gov’t based incentives, and tort reform can work far better than gov’t can”.

When you want it your way, then government is OK? Hmmmm…I’ll let it slide for now.

Please detail your plan for:
1) tort reform and incentives (blanket statements like the one you made is not allowed),and 2)how this would be better than a public option.

August 13, 2009 at 5:05 pm
(406) Larry R says:

Your interpretation is ridiculous. I work in health care, we already do this “consultation”. We are required already, by law, to ask if people have living wills and such and if not offer them help, usually by social services. Doing it this way seems to offer doctors a way to get paid to have an office visit to DISCUSS the issues when the person in question is of sound mind.

having prepared orders prior to a patient getting sick and ending up in the hospital will help prevent families over riding a patients wishes due to a variety of reasons. As far as I am concerned, this type of overhaul has been needed for years.

people need to read the document on there own and not believe everyones interpretation.

August 13, 2009 at 5:09 pm
(407) mitch says:

Jo,
Obama was saying that the U.S.P.S. didn’t wreck the private postal carriers not how badly it is run. And what do you mean one choice?
And Bob, you miss the point. Our healthcare system is broken. shouldn’t we fix it?. Just because you’ve been employed for your whole life ( who gives a crap) does that make you a better person? You’re not very intelligent either.

August 13, 2009 at 5:09 pm
(408) jgarza says:

Bob – OK Mr. Simple – please educate us on the doctor to patient ratios currently prevalent in the U.S – and how that would be affected by a more inclusive health care system.

I thought we had the best medical system in the world? Prove or disprove…blank statements not allowed.

August 13, 2009 at 5:12 pm
(409) Jo says:

Mo said: From an economic stand point, yes – Obama is correct. It does not make any sense to pay for a hip replacement surgery for a ventilator dependent terminally ill patient. But from a scientific stand point, even Dr. Luce admits that there is little evidence to support that terminally ill patients can be readily identified.

And that is where the ethical dilemma comes in.

—————————-

I forgot to add – On a personal level I am against voluntary assisted suicide, but not on the national level, after all it is a free country. And in a free country one has the right to decide end of life issues for themselves. They have to deal with their God or lack of, not me.

August 13, 2009 at 5:16 pm
(410) jgarza says:

OK – I am very pro-reform, I am now posting a concern that both sides should be knowledgeable of. Paying for this plan. Please go to link and get your book learnin’ on.

CBO Long Term Budget Outlook

(or just go to http://www.cbo.gov)

August 13, 2009 at 5:29 pm
(411) mitch says:

What? Wow you really are simple. Either your dying or not. But who gives a crap about that anyway. Now I can’t stand when religion becomes the basis for stances on government issues. If you believe that some super being created you and me, so be it, but the government shouldn’t be telling people whether they can die or not. That is not a govt. decision, it should be a choice. If you choose pro life because you believe you will end up in a fiery cauldron,(WOW), that is your CHOICE not the govt.s choice. God damn it!

August 13, 2009 at 5:33 pm
(412) Jo says:

Mitch — “One” choice would be government plans.

Several choices would be thousands of HC insurance companies plans all over the country.

(Don’t be a fooled to think private HC could compete with gov’t HC — they won’t. Gov’t can always come in cheaper. People will shop price. Plus it is CLEARLY BO administrations plan there are multiple videos on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk

As for the BO comment on the USPS, this interesting take will save me some typing:

Friday, the New York Times Business Section actually called for the privatization of the post office amid staggering losses, and even said it was in “General Motors territory.” So while the President sells you on his “post office” of health care plans, here are some questions to consider:

1.) The U.S. Post Office is the only entity allowed by federal law to deliver first class mail to your mailbox. In fact, Fedex and UPS are strictly prohibited from delivering “non-urgent” letters. If the government can fairly compete and is setting fair rules, wouldn’t the post office be open to competition at your mailbox?

2.) If Americans were offered “free” postage paid for by massive government spending and tax hikes, would Fedex and UPS still exist?

3.) The Post Office is on track to lose a staggering $7 billion this year alone. How will a government-run health care plan manage taxpayer resources more efficiently?

4.) Postmaster General John Potter says he lacks the “tools” necessary to run the Post Office effectively like a business. Would a government-run health care system have the tools it needs to run as effectively as the private sector entities it is replacing?

5.) On the one hand, the President remarks how great his public health care plan will be. On the other hand, he notes it won’t be good enough to crowd out your private insurance, i.e. the Post Office comparison. So which is it Mr. President? Will it be so great that private insurance disappears or so awful that it isn’t worth creating in the first place?

6.) But the most important question is this: if you have an urgent piece of mail you need delivered, life or death, who are you going to call? Everyone saying the government…please raise your hands. (crickets)

The most frightening line from Joe Nocera’s New York Times piece is this: “As for Mr. Potter himself, while he may want more freedom to run the Postal Service like a real business, he, too, seemed surprisingly wedded to outmoded ideas about mail service in America. ‘This country needs to have and to protect universal service,’ he said.”

Protecting universal service at the expense of cost, innovation, and quality of care. Sound familiar?
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/08/11/obamacare-the-post-office-of-health-care-plans/

August 13, 2009 at 5:38 pm
(413) Jo says:

Mitch are you dense? I SAID it’s a free country and people should have a choice.

MY PERSONAL beliefs – should not dictate YOUR beliefs.

Apparently you get off on bashing religious people as soon as you see a reference before considering the content, very sad.

You must be one of those “all” tolerant liberals.

Hypocrites.

August 13, 2009 at 5:45 pm
(414) mitch says:

No I get off on pissing you off. I wasn’t referencing what you said. I was reading some other things. My apologies. No I am not a liberal nor democrat nor republican. I don’t put all my eggs in one basket, but I’ll tell you the republicans are really acting like a bunch of bitches. You right wing freak.

August 13, 2009 at 5:45 pm
(415) Bob says:

Quote from jgarza:

“Bob – OK Mr. Simple – please educate us on the doctor to patient ratios currently prevalent in the U.S – and how that would be affected by a more inclusive health care system.

I thought we had the best medical system in the world? Prove or disprove…blank statements not allowed.”

It’s called stopping and thinking about it. Do you believe there are enough of the best doctors at the best hospitals for everyone? I don’t. I know it takes me 2 weeks to get an appointment already at some of the doctors I go to. I take some common sense, add to that what other awesome things I’ve seen the government do lately, add to that coverage recently pointing out long waits in other countries with socialized medicine. Then, I figure who do I trust more, myself, or Obama? Or any government official for that matter. I work, I earn the money, I don’t want to share with someone who doesn’t. Sorry. I heard this from a professor recently:

“The biggest problem with a democracy is eventually enough of the stupid people band together and vote themselves rich.”

That pretty much sums it up for me.

August 13, 2009 at 5:50 pm
(416) urbanlegends says:

To All,

In order for this discussion to continue, we’re going to have to set a few ground rules:

1. It’s too late to call for civility, but let’s at least try to back off the ad hominems: “stupid,” “moron,” “lefty,” “right-wing freak,” etc.

2. No more attacking people for their religious beliefs, real or perceived. It’s off-topic and off-limits.

3. No more Hitler/Nazi/Commie/Fascist references or comparisons. I currently hold the record for those and aim to keep it. (And seriously, such comparisons are utterly lacking in historical foundation and an insult not only to decent folks who are being smeared with these epithets, but also to all those who have actually suffered and died under such regimes.)

Thank you.

August 13, 2009 at 5:50 pm
(417) David says:

I find it amazing after the Terry Sheibo hoopla where the president and every “right” thinking idiot in congress was involved with the end of her life.

To plan ahead for one’s death and the terms of whatever I deem as a dignified death is as much my right as anything else. Unfortunately there are people who don’t want me to have a say in my demise, with very few exceptions I can’t make statements about when I want the plug pulled. Here is a simple structure that voluntarily allows you to get help in deciding how you want to die, what measures you want the medical community and your family to take and counselling for each and everyone of us to understand what complications there may be.

I’m a Veteran I go to the VA and every so often they ask me whether or not I have a living will in place. I find that more helpful than hindrance since it is a subject that I am reticent to attack on my own. But, as in the case of Ms Scheibo, I’ll bet that the entire country would have been better off if she had “her” desires in writing than the horrendous dog and pony show that surrounded her and the attacks on her loved ones.

To have a living will in place is probably the kindest thing a person can do for their surviving family. It states in black and white how you want to leave this mortal coil. Not create a battle between your loved ones over how your life will end.

I can not understand how anyone can read this any other way. It is turning a goodness into something evil. All for political and economic continuation of the same old *stuff*. You’re being bought off by idiots people. People with something to gain $. The medical community, insurance and drug companies. Learn to read.

August 13, 2009 at 5:55 pm
(418) mitch says:

Bob have you been in these other countries and did you see a doctor? Hmm! They are getting pretty pissed off at the accusations. I don’t see people rushing here because we are so great with our health care. Open your eyes man, the insurance companies are the evil ones here. Insurance companies already dictate what and how in our medicine.

August 13, 2009 at 6:00 pm
(419) taylor's mom says:

If you don’t want the federal government in healthcare, give up medi-cal and medicare!!!!

August 13, 2009 at 6:03 pm
(420) jgarza says:

Bob – I am not making the point, you are. Please prove your point – saying it doesn’t make it so. I welcome your viewpoint, and would be delighted if you could give me SOME evidence that your statement would occur.
I could say that a Public Option will streamline the system (or anything), it just makes sense…but without some kind of evidence or source – who cares…useless. Please prove your point.

August 13, 2009 at 6:05 pm
(421) taylor's mom says:

First of all, private insurance is BIG business and the first concern is NOT giving people comprehensive healthcare but making money. 2nd, it is NOT always more costly to insure someone with a pre-existing condition. I know of people who were turned down due to a yeast infection. Are you seriously telling me that cost money? What about IBS? All that requires is eating 6 grams of fiber per day. Give me a break.

August 13, 2009 at 6:07 pm
(422) Jo says:

Snide Jesse said: When you want it your way, then government is OK? Hmmmm…I’ll let it slide for now.

What in the world does that mean? I’m for federal gov’t doing what federal gov’t is supposed to do LIMITED by LAW, no more.

Lost Jesse said: Jo – BO said this and that. Please (again) cite your source.

Jo: There is this little thing called scrolling up, try it. I have posted NUMEROUS links. I back up all claims.

Snarky Jesse said: Your reading skills have not proven to be very effective, so I have serious doubts about your auditory processing.

Jo: Auditory prosessing? LOL …. can you hear me NOW? Or was this some sort of lame reference to APD??
My reading skills are just fine, lefty comprehension skills are not so great on “urban legends” however.

I don’t have time tonight to do the homework for the informationaly impaired. There are all sorts of ideas for HC, the ones I laid out are just a few, look them up.

You know, it’s a lot like scrolling up, only this is typing words like “Tort reform” in google. It really is pretty simple stuff.

I won’t be on for a while, so that should give you ample time to attempt comprehension of alternative HC options.

Ciao

August 13, 2009 at 6:12 pm
(423) jgarza says:

Bob – please Google “Wendell Potter” to get a perspective on someone who has been on both sides of this issue. or see Wendell Potter on PBS It takes you 2 weeks to see a doctor as it is? Maybe you are disproving your own point for me.

August 13, 2009 at 6:22 pm
(424) Bob says:

There’s not enough Doctors, Hospitals or money to give it away free to everyone. Period. We don’t give everyone free houses for a reason, even though that shortens their lives also. Do I need to prove a source that shows there’s enough wood and hammers to do so?

August 13, 2009 at 7:11 pm
(425) Mike says:

All of you need to read this and stop reading the trash e-mails and payed advertised slams! If you have ever had elderly partents or grandparents planning their request good sense tells you to plan for the futher. Everyone has herd of LIVING WILLS?

Wish people would not just take every word as truth. READ and STUDY the issues and stop being spoon feed!

August 13, 2009 at 7:32 pm
(426) mitch says:

Bob who said people are getting health care for free? The govt. option isn’t free. Read what Mike. How about reading the bill?

August 13, 2009 at 7:39 pm
(427) jgarza says:

Bob – yes…this is my point exactly. If you say there isn’t enough doctors and hospitals to serve the U.S., then I would LOVE for you to site a source, article, magazine — something that would substantiate that claim – - or just admit that you don’t know for sure…I can admit that, can you?

August 13, 2009 at 8:23 pm
(428) jgarza says:

Jo – many pardons…you did leave several links supporting your ideologies of limited government. You still make some large leaps in logic and haven’t addressed the primary question in this blog, but I do appreciate you trying so very hard.

Here is a source you might want to check out…

http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:JsTU0b81waMJ:www.whitneyforgov.org/articles/pdf/HealthCare.pdf+healthcare+payout+rates+per+dollar&hl=en&gl=us

I think I get you…so even if Public Health Care is more effective and efficient overall, you would rather have government give tax breaks so private insurance could potentially continue to raise rates, lower payouts, and soak up those savings as well. I appreciate you standing by your ideology – maybe if you mixed in a little rationality, just a little, you would certainly then have a powerful message.

You have been a good sport.

August 13, 2009 at 9:16 pm
(429) Jo says:

jgarza (were you Jesse?) said:
Jo – many pardons…you did leave several links supporting your ideologies of limited government.

Jo: Accepted, and I could only wish they were my ideas. They are are the foundation of of American government.

jgarza said: You still make some large leaps in logic and haven’t addressed the primary question in this blog, but I do appreciate you trying so very hard.

Jo: You’ll have to scroll WAY back for that. I, as many Americans, do not agree on some interpretations of this ambiguous bill. However, the point is moot since this bill is not the senate version.

jgarza said: Here is a source you might want to check out…

http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:JsTU0b81waMJ:www.whitneyforgov.org/articles/pdf/HealthCare.pdf+healthcare+payout+rates+per+dollar&hl=en&gl=us

Jo: Thank you, but I do not agree with the premise that we have higher mortality rates, or worse health care than other countries etc… If this were the case then WHY do so many people come here for HC??

jgarza said: I think I get you…so even if Public Health Care is more effective and efficient overall, you would rather have government give tax breaks so private insurance could potentially continue to raise rates, lower payouts, and soak up those savings as well. I appreciate you standing by your ideology – maybe if you mixed in a little rationality, just a little, you would certainly then have a powerful message.

You have been a good sport.

Jo: Well, golly gee thanks.

Look, you and I have two different ideas about freedom. I believe that making money is NOT inherently evil, and you do. The largest problems we have in any industry is government interference. The more gov’t (or judiciary) makes it hard for American business to work, the higher the costs become. (Again tort reform.) Not just in HC — all industry, and as a result our companies MOVE over seas, or quit the unprofitable pursuit of that venture. They shop like any other consumer.

I’m not saying industry shouldn’t be regulated, this is the job of the federal gov’t regarding interstate commerce. But it is the job of the individual state for things that are not sold out of state such as HC. We’ve seen some states try plans, as Romney’s HC plan in MA, and we have learned from it.

In all seriousness, I ask Americans do we want a 50 state single payer costly failure like MA? Or should we proceed with caution and try new ideas STATE by willing STATE first?

Now THAT is a rational idea.

August 13, 2009 at 9:42 pm
(430) Pat says:

As the guarantors of justice and promoters of the general welfare, governments have the unique role of ensuring equitable access to health care for all. This role does not necessarily entail a specific governmental program or one approach to health care coverage. It does mean, however, that governments have the obligation to provide leadership and coordination in balancing competing private and social interests in moving toward the goal of equitable access to health care. In ways that are fair in both process and outcome,
Citizen representatives in government must take on the challenging task of defining the level of health care services to which all persons should have access.
Achieving these obligations of love and justice requires sacrifice, goodwill, fairness, and an abiding commitment to place personal
and social responsibilities of love and justice above narrower individual, institutional, and political self-interests.
For some people, this may mean paying more in taxes or in direct payments to assure that everyone has care. As difficult as this may be, citizens should not shrink from these moral challenges.
I urge all people to advocate for access to basic health care for all and to participate vigorously and responsibly in the public discussion on how best to fulfill this obligation.
The chronic failure of our society to provide its members access to basic health care services is a moral tragedy that should not be tolerated.

August 13, 2009 at 11:05 pm
(431) Kurt says:

This is kind of long but to me it makes a lot of since!! To me this should be The President’s Priorities??

Hello my name is Kurt and I am presently working as a contractor in Iraq for our military. I know that this long but felt that everyone should know from where I am over here in Iraq just about everyone is in agreement of what the priority should be for this administration! I have been over here for almost 10 months now and have had an opportunity to talk to several people from one corner of the USA to the other. Some were military some were civilian contractors. NONE of the people that I have talked with agree about any of the bail outs! If the company goes out of business it is because of BAD business practices. By giving them more money, this isn’t going to help them with their mistakes and it is going to cost us all! They need to fix their own problems. You wouldn’t get help nor would I from the government if we would make bad business decisions so why bail out a bad business? About the health care problem, I do agree with the current administration that the health care system does need to be overhauled but not as one of their Priorities! Most of the people that I have talked too about the problems in the USA fill that the order of priority should be something like this!

1) Our Economy (America First) – What ever happen to America First? We have to fix our own problems before we worry about ANY other countries problems or needs! When we trade with another country it should be dollar for dollar!! The same with oil and wheat, they bump up the price of oil we bump up the wheat but that goes for any country we trade with that tries to bend us over a barrel! Here is a few prices for gas in other countries, Saudi Arabia Riyadh $0.91, Kuwait Kuwait City $0.78, Egypt Cairo $0.65, Nigeria Lagos $0.38, Venezuela Caracas $0.12. We should be getting most of our fuel from Venezuela then at least it would be below $1.75 after transporting it to the USA! It is about business, not whether we like each other our not. The USA can out build any country doing any thing. We just need the CEO’s not to be so greedy and share the wealth! No one deserves a MILLION DOLLAR BONUS no matter what they do! But also you shouldn’t be paid $30 – $35 an
hour straight time to put lug nuts on a truck wheel or put a windshield in a car either! A new Pick Up Truck shouldn’t cost $20,000.00 or more!!

2) Illegal immigration – This was close to being the number one problem but just fell a little short! Illegal is illegal. The illegals are costing our tax payers MILLIONS of dollars and probably Billions a year!! This has to be stopped!! If you don’t come into the country legally, you are here illegally and if a baby is born in the USA from an Illegal person the baby should not be a US citizen. The baby should be a citizen of the country the mother is from! Strengthen our borders no matter what it takes to keep the illegal’s out! Raid the sweat shops and all the other job sites that illegal’s work and get ALL illegal’s out, the ones in jail, after there time is up take them to the border and drop them off! It doesn’t matter where they came from! If they come in the legal way and have their Green card or work visa than that is great, they got here legally just like my ancestors had to do! No exception for ANY Illegal’s, get them out!!

3) Housing Market – There again another bail out, let them fail and another company WILL buy them out! I believe that the main problem was people bought homes that were way out of there price range and wanted to play the game “Keeping up with the Jones” and they failed! It was there own fault they got the loan, no one made them sign on the line for the loan! If you can’t afford it you DO NOT buy it, I don’t blame the banks, I do blame the people that got the loans and now can’t pay there bill!! I sorry but my taxes from my hard earned money should not go out to help pay someone else’s bills! I have my own family to worry able, I didn’t over extend my family, I did what was right, I am sure that there are a few, very few exceptions to this problem though.

4) Our Government – 15 to 20 years ago most people thought that the government was here for the people. Now if you ask the average person walking done the street “Do you trust the government to do the right thing” I would guess that more than 60% would say NO. If you ask “Does the government have the average working man or woman (Middle Class) best interest in mind” and it was yes or no question the answer would be NO! I don’t know of anyone that truly trusts our government to do what is best for the majority of the people any more. If I had things my way I would love to start all over with a NEW Congress and ALL new Senators, the people that are there now are way over paid for what they really do for US as a country! Every position in our government should have a term length of 12 years at the most. Also no retirement or compensation for the job after your term is over. That way we could get good businessmen and women in those positions and would do the job because it is THE RIGHT THING TO DO FOR OUR COUNTRY!! This is not about your political party, it is about the USA!! Then after their term or terms are over All of them could just do a good job for the USA for a few years and when their term or terms are over
go back to there own business. There are several Millionaires out there that could do a lot better job than what we have now, America is a business and that is how we would do so much better but always remember AMERICA FIRST!! It would be a lot better country to live in if they all had term limits and didn’t OWE someone something!! Our Government now is terrible; it’s all about the party that they represent and not the people! This is still the best country in the world to live in because of our people not the Political Parties!!!!

5) All Government assisted programs – Drug testing for Government Assisted programs of any kind like welfare. All checks would not be sent out by the mail or direct deposit, to receive your check you would have to come in to a sight with in 15 miles of your registered home address on one of 2 days that are assigned to the individual every other week and take a drug test. If you come up dirty you don’t get your check for that 2 week period, than you can try again the following scheduled date! If you show up dirty 2 times with in a 12 month span than you lose your assistance.

Finally last but not least
6) Health care – First if this is going to be a Government Supported health care program than I would assume that being as the President wants this so bad and both the Congress and Senate will pass it that they will be at the top of the list to give up what they have and sign up for this Great program?? This is a must for the program to go through!! If they don’t us it than why should they expect anyone else to BUY in to the program? If they are voting on it for the people then they should also be the first to sign up! Health care does need to come under some type of control and I think that the best way to do that would be to have a government system/program like BCBS. That way if you like you can BUY in to the government health care program but nothing is free and it should be based on your family size and income. Also have more government run hospitals just like the military but you would have to buy into the government health care insurance plan to use it just like you do now with your present policies. Government hospitals could accept other insurance polices and bill them too just as you do now. That way our military would always have medical care available and it would be close at hand when they needed the care!

If these problems were taken care of in this order you would see that we are not in as bad of shape as our government wants us to believe with health care! Of course our county has several more problems, a lot more than the items listed above. From over here across the pond and the conversations I have had over the last 10 months these are the biggest problems in the order they are listed! One thing that I would suggest, being as our government is giving all these loans out to all these companies that have made so many mistakes and we really don’t know if we are ever going to see any of it back they should start a credit card division and have a low set rate by your credit score. Have credit cards available from $1000.00 to help get someone’s credit started and then go up to a max of $50,000 a card. That way the government could actually help out the people that have paid the taxes they are giving out to all those large companies! Also the government would make money off of the interest too. Finally no income tax!! Charge a flat tax on everything you buy and that way everyone is paying the same amount in taxes!! Just because your rich you should not have to pay more than the poor but shouldn’t have an accountant for write offs either! The large companies would be paying the same as the small companies. You’re only taxed on what you buy!! That way we all are paying the same percentage in taxes for what we buy.

In closing, I heard a black official from the south stating that most of the military has no problems with gays in the military and want the “Don’t ask Don’t tell ” policy removed or just go away, that is not true! The majority DO NOT think they should be allowed in the military and especially in combat, it does cause problems! I personally would not want a gay dude fighting by my side and MOST if not ALL of the military personal that I spoke to feel the same way!

Feel free to contact me through e-mail, phone service is not too good for incoming calls over here in Iraq!!

Thanks for your time, Kurt

August 13, 2009 at 11:14 pm
(432) Patinak says:

Back to health care, if the House and Senate can get a decent health care bill that contains all of the recommendations of the Obama administration, there would be no reason at all for our elected officials and government employees should have anything but the public option! Why pay profits to insurance executives who are taking billions off the top of their companies from premiums we pay?
There is no place for these kinds of profits in the health care insurance industry.

August 13, 2009 at 11:29 pm
(433) wow says:

Anyone ever think that…I don’t know…maybe capitalism doesn’t work? I know that’s a blasphemous thing to say. I just don’t understand how capitalism somehow became a religion that one is born into and must believe in even if all signs say it isn’t true. Not sure what the answer is but I like the concepts behind Democratic Socialism and so does Obama. Do some research. There are SEVERAL different types of Socialism and it has nothing to do with Fascism. You must be confused with our past regime who you didn’t seem to care passed the Patriot Act. Those freedoms aren’t important though. Let’s fight about giving people healthcare instead!

This whole argument is ridiculous. If you actually read the numbers on how health care is currently being dealt with by the insurance companies, do the math, look at the waste and greed there is NO WAY that you wouldn’t think that they need a reality check themselves. Things cannot continue this way. People get so attached to ideologies without looking at what’s right in front of them. Add that to this capitalism, i’m entitled to, i’ve worked hard for what I got you lazy asses attitude and it’s enough to make me nauseated. I have a F’ing Master’s Degree in Clinical Psychology and am currently considered “low income” by the City of Chicago. The simple reason for this is because I do not create immediate revenue. Therefore, I am not important. That’s capitalism. If you work to help people who starve right along with them BUT if you run an insurance company and you make other people a bunch of money in profits then you will be happily taken care of with millions upon millions of dollars. You deserve it.

August 13, 2009 at 11:36 pm
(434) Jo says:

Pat said: As the guarantors of justice and promoters of the general welfare, governments have the unique role of ensuring equitable access to health care for all.

Jo: WHERE is the “right” to HC in American LAW?? WHAT “governments” are you talking about? Federal? State? Local? Foreign??

August 13, 2009 at 11:56 pm
(435) Jo says:

WOW!! WOW!!

Wow said: maybe capitalism doesn’t work?

Really? Are you serious?? How can you be??

233 years of VERY well fed people, free and at liberty, healthy, who created a super power gov’t, that is a astoundingly successfully diverse country (America, BTW for Obama voters).

All this attained by capitalism, you infer, is JUST an illusion? Are you KIDDING me?

Are some of you psychologically mad? I’m sorry, but I’m really wondering if you REALIZE how very lucky you are to be American?

August 14, 2009 at 12:10 am
(436) Jo says:

Wow said: I have a F’ing Master’s Degree in Clinical Psychology and am currently considered “low income” by the City of Chicago. The simple reason for this is because I do not create immediate revenue.

———-

I don’t profess to know your life, but perhaps you ought to move to a place in the US, where you degree pays? Or perhaps you CHOSE a degree that was not needed?

Not sure, as I said — but if you are a sincere hard worker, you will be successful if you CHOSE well.

Everything in life comes down to choice.

August 14, 2009 at 12:16 am
(437) Vic says:

I’ll tell you this something needs to be done about health care. this bill may not be what we need, but I’m self employed, had a heart attack at 41 and can not get health insurance unless I pay $989.00a month with a $5000.00 deductable 50/50 plan who can afford that. and it will not cover my heart.

August 14, 2009 at 12:27 am
(438) Berry kiss says:

This is what government does to its people. Please read below.

1 Samuel 8

“This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth (more like 50% today) of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day.”

August 14, 2009 at 12:41 am
(439) Jo says:

Mitch said: Terminally ill. Do you know what terminal means? Ok. Would you have your hip fixed if you were terminally ill? Doesn’t make much sense does it.

Jo: You sir, are among the most frightening HC supporters. My aunt was diagnosed as “terminal” given only 3 months to live, yet she LIVED for 12 more years, yet under this plan you would have made her suffer and walk with a bad hip for those 12 years?

Just sickening.

August 14, 2009 at 1:17 am
(440) Mo says:

Jo: I don’t disagree — my problem is gov’t being the solution to the problem. Bo says the elderly costs are at 80% in *medicaid*- which is already broke. Effectivly he is admitting gov’t failure of the system. Why in the world would we want to add more fuel to the fire?

Mo: Obama is not talking about a government program specifically in his assertion that 80% of health care costs arise in the last few months of life.

He is not referring to either Medicaid or Medicare specifically in that sentence.

He is referring to ALL HEALTH CARE SPENDING IN THE COUNTRY!!!!!!!! That means how much you spend + how much I spend + how much your neighbor spends + how much your grandmother spends + how much everyone else in this country spends on healthcare.

He is not referring to a failure in any government run program. He is simply stating that we Americans spend roughly 80% of our total health care costs in the last few months of life. To dumb it down for you – hypothetically, I will spend $100 to pay for healthcare for my entire life. $80 of that $100 will be spent in my last few months.

So if the average lifespan of an average American male is 74 years, (using the numbers from above) that male will spend $20 over 73.5 years to cover the cost of health care. His last 6 months, (from 73.5 to 74) he will spend the remaining $80 to extend his life 6 more months.

On a side note, Jo, I really hope you know the difference between Medicare and Medicaid. Because if you don’t, in my honest opinion, you have NO RIGHT to post the kind of inane drivel I’ve seen you write on this message board.

August 14, 2009 at 1:28 am
(441) Mo says:

Jo: Jo: WHERE is the “right” to HC in American LAW?? WHAT “governments” are you talking about? Federal? State? Local? Foreign??

Mo: When Jefferson wrote “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

In order to have Life, one must have health.

How can one pursue Happiness without one’s health?

A healthy population will only make America and Americans stronger. It will not weaken the foundation of this country.

August 14, 2009 at 2:33 am
(442) Questioning says:

No matter what your stance is do you see how ” these parties” create a barrier between Americans. Doesn’t it seem quite obvious that these tactics of turning each other against each other are just to keep us BUSY!!

Anyway, I don’t care if you are a Republican or a Democrat but the officals are not even listening to the people. What was the whole rushed push to pass this bill?? That is a HUGE red flag. Has anybody ever noticed how the politicians like to use fear as a scare tactic. This system is not working… we need something now or worst things can happen!! There is no need to rush a bill of this magnitude, they need to sit down and read the bill and consider the thoughts of ALL AMERICANS.

So anyway I personally think this bill stinks. No matter how you want to say it this bill, speaks of the government being MORE involved than what they need to be. And I want ALL of you to consider something…. the officals, judges… etc.. HAVE NOT BEEN LISTENING TO THE PEOPLE. THEY will interpret this law as THEY SEE FIT… they like to use obscure language for a reason. And it’s NOT to our benefit.

I don’t understand how people put so much TRUST in the government. Yes, I understand respecting the government and being a law abiding citizen. BUT to think the government IS always free from corruption. That truly scares me. People need to wake up and remember what these officals have been doing!!! It doesn’t matter if your Democrat or Republican THEY have been doing what THEY WANT TO DO!!!

So how about we ignore the parties and just band together as people who WE know are looking out for the welfare of the people. The government has shown that they are not thinking according to the rights and direction of the people.

August 14, 2009 at 4:26 am
(443) Not Russia says:

Stop suggesting that health care reform will turn us into Russia. It has nothing to do with black market Russia, circa today or yesteryear.

August 14, 2009 at 8:40 am
(444) WTF is wrong with you people? says:

The governmet is already providing medicare which is government run, social security which is government run. do you want those to be abolished too?? this bill is not saying to kill your older people .. it is simply making sure they have the ‘choice’ to sit and vegetate or ‘expire’ as requested. To make sure their loved ones are aware of their wishes.. Its people putting the wrong spin on things that cause the confusion.. As far as rushing this bill, if we don’t do something soon, we are going to be paying triple what we are now for health care in 5 years. Anytime anyone tries to do something with the drug companies, everyone gets in an uproar.. the drug companies and unregulated prices are what are killing the old people now.. thye cannot afford it!!! and its out of control!!!!!!!! Should NOTHING be done?

August 14, 2009 at 8:42 am
(445) WTF is wrong with you people says:

How many congressmen, senators etc, would give up their GOVERNMENT run health care that they DO NOT HAVE to pay for the rest of their lives?? they LOVE it! STOP talking about it and showing your ignorance.. something HAS to be done!

August 14, 2009 at 8:56 am
(446) wow JO says:

Jo, Jo, Jo. WAKE UP! Capitalism was built by taking advantage of people! Capitalism works because we are a super power you say? Russia was a super power too and they were Communists. Not a good argument. I’m not a Communist by the way so don’t start telling me to move to Russia.

As far as my services being “not needed”… I give you a huge WOW for that one. There is far more need then there are funds to support it. Community mental health is notoriously underpaid EVERYWHERE. I return to my initial argument that it’s because I don’t produce immediate revenue. Sure, I might keep people from ending up in jail or the hospital down the line which is more expensive but no one cares about that. I don’t want you to think that I think I deserve to be wealthy. I don’t really care about that. I just want to live a day without doing math, trying to figure out how to make it through until I get my next paycheck. I had to take furlough days this summer and have lost 20% of my already small income because of this great capitalist economy. If something doesn’t give I’ll have to get rid of my own health insurance because even though my agency pays 55% of the premium I still have to pay over 200 a month. That may not sound like a lot to you but it’s a lot to me. That, in addition to my student loans (which I’m on forebearance and interest keep racking up) It’s all about greed greed greed. You have a very narrow idea of how people live, Jo.

And Jo, I do realize how lucky I am to be an American. I do BUT that doesn’t mean that we can’t learn from others and be BETTER. Capitalism is not a religion, it’s a THEORY like any other. It’s a system that relies on owners to pay laborers. The owners, in the case of health care, want to make a profit. This is one of many areas where “laborers” get screwed. Before this recession 51% of the world’s largest economies were corporations! Who do you think they care about except their bottom line?

it’s very difficult for me to continue debating with you because you obviously don’t know what it’s like to live outside of your little box. I have to go to work now to help children. What do you do?

August 14, 2009 at 9:00 am
(447) Jo says:

Mo,
Obama said: “I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.”

Out here?? He said this while pitching HR 3200 and that bill edits SS/medicaid. Presumably he was talking about gov’t cost. But either way, no point of getting stuck on BO 80% meaning, it is irrelevant, you are missing the larger point I raised.

To “dumb” it down for you.

Gov’t has NO BUSINESS telling us how much we are “allowed” to spend on HC. (Yes, I know the costs are high, and we must address this problem, however not via gov’t.)

If gov’t is footing the bill, then they have a say. Which is the entire point of this debate. If gov’t has control they clearly plan to place LIMITS on HC coverage. (To believe otherwise is naive.) Every country that has universal HC has yearly limits, lines and rationing.

Obama said this in the NY Times: OBAMA: “Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.”

Granted he doesn’t come right out and detail what he inferring, but the gist of it is — The goal is to save money, not lives. Read the whole exchange (BTW, this is the conversation that sparked the “death panel” debate.)

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/kausfiles/archive/2009/08/12/will-you-won-t-you-be-on-my-death-panel.aspx

Now take this in combination with the many other times he has suggested medication over surgery, Jacob Hackers “un-trojan horse” (he worked on the HC plan for Obama)plan that will kill private care, among other democratic leaders telling us the gov’t plan will kill private HC, and then add this ambiguous bill.

Taking all things into account, no wonder so many people are concerned.

August 14, 2009 at 9:08 am
(448) Jo says:

Mo: When Jefferson wrote “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

In order to have Life, one must have health.

How can one pursue Happiness without one’s health?

===============================

Oh PLEASE this is a silly argument. The founders were for LIMITED gov’t, and open markets. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness was about freedom from gov’t tyranny not HC, don’t be ridiculous.

August 14, 2009 at 9:59 am
(449) Jo says:

WOW says: Jo, Jo, Jo. WAKE UP! Capitalism was built by taking advantage of people!

Jo: Ridiculous. Capitalism — FREE MARKETS — creates wealth for all. No one can be taken advantage of if they don’t ALLOW it. The USA is proof free markets work. Take a look around the world and see if you’d trade places. Even in this recession we are 100% better off than most countries. And BTW the only reason we had THIS recession was GOVERNMENT. They meddled in housing and prolonging the pain by printing cash.

Mo: Capitalism works because we are a super power you say? Russia was a super power too and they were Communists. Not a good argument.

Jo: Geezz — do you remember what happened to the USSR?? Doh!

Mo: As far as my services being “not needed”… I give you a huge WOW for that one. There is far more need then there are funds to support it. Community mental health is notoriously underpaid EVERYWHERE.

Jo: And, as I said apparently you CHOSE you profession unwisely. If you desire more money then pursue a differnt career. And BTW in America you have the freedom of CHOICE to do just that.

Mo: I don’t want you to think that I think I deserve to be wealthy. I don’t really care about that. I just want to live a day without doing math, trying to figure out how to make it through until I get my next paycheck.

Jo: Again you are the master of your own destiny in this free country. Many of us have to live on a budget, I do as well. Some of the richest people I know have to “do the math” especially now because they have lost MILLIONS in the market and real estate, everything is relative. People who have a giant mortgage have the same problems as people who rent. Class envy arises when one thinks they have it worse *because* of another.

Mo: I had to take furlough days this summer and have lost 20% of my already small income because of this great capitalist economy.

Jo: Capitalism is NOT THE BLAME of this economy — politicians are. The housing bubble lead to this economy — and the housing bubble was a direct result of BAD policy that attempted to make housing “fair” and “equal” for all. All penned by unscrupulous politicians who promise handouts in exchange for your vote. Such as this HC bill. It will not make things better in HC, it’ll make things worse.

Mo: If something doesn’t give I’ll have to get rid of my own health insurance because even though my agency pays 55% of the premium I still have to pay over 200 a month. That may not sound like a lot to you but it’s a lot to me.

Jo: We pay $800 a mo. for family coverage, trust me I understand. But gov’t is not the answer.

Mo: That, in addition to my student loans (which I’m on forebearance and interest keep racking up) It’s all about greed greed greed. You have a very narrow idea of how people live, Jo.

Jo: No I don’t Mo, you don’t know how wrong you are about this. I was on my own at 16, living off water and cheese sandwiches in a tiny dumpy one room apartment struggling to pay the rent. Now after many years of self educating myself in real estate,(all from my computer!), and buying one dump after another – fixing them *myself* – I have finally semi-retired at age 45. I built my custom dream home on a 40 acre farm with three barns (horse cows etc..). ALL self made by using my brain and pursuing my happiness. I’m not telling you this by any means to boast. I’m telling you that it is possible to get yourself out of poverty and into wealth in this country, even without formal training.

I am living proof of this possibility.

Mo: it’s very difficult for me to continue debating with you because you obviously don’t know what it’s like to live outside of your little box. I have to go to work now to help children. What do you do?

Jo: I train horses in my new “little box”. :) This summer I have traveled to NC, and I’m off to ME soon, got to get out of that little box you know!I also spend time teaching my acquired knowledge of RE to friends – no charge. Some have listened (one sold their 1/4 acre home, and moved mortgage free to a 10 acre home.) Others are a lot like you and are fearful of taking a risk on something different.

CHANGE is not easy but it is enlightening. No matter how much you WISH your profession would pay more, apparently it won’t. So perhaps, you ought to follow a different dream?

BTW Most “rich” people I know are self made, and became rich by taking RISK, not siting around whining about their circumstances.

August 14, 2009 at 11:34 am
(450) PA nurse says:

WHAT?? Are people losing their minds. For years, hospitals ask everyone (regardless of age) if you have a living will and if not, if you would like counseling on getting one. All this bill does is allow payment to your health care provider for the service, just as has been the case for YEARS by Blue Cross, Aetna and the rest of the companies whose stock holders currently control your health care.

August 14, 2009 at 11:41 am
(451) SCOTT says:

jo- you are correct about “well fed” when I see ALL THE OBESE AMERICANS AND THEIR OVERWEIGHT CHILDREN TAXING OUR MEDICAL CARE SYSTEM TO THE TUNE OF OVER 87 BILLION DOLLARS YEAR!

August 14, 2009 at 11:42 am
(452) mitch says:

you know the people that are up in arms about health care reform, are the same ones that are receiving free health care now. i.e. medicare and medicaid. They are worried they are going to lose it. And the reason our health care premiums are so high is because of the insurance companies trying to expand their bottom lines. there are unneeded tests, when one will do they make you take 5. don’t you get it. the insurance companies are already taking advantage of people all to turn a profit. Free enterprise at the expense of human health is wrong. The govt. is NOT a business. Insurance companies are. who do you think is coming up with these false claims of what the bill says. come on think about it. God forbid you need an operation and your wonderful insurance company won’t pay for it, or try not to. Do you want your health at the hands of free enterprise? It’s just not right. Making profit at the demise of people is fing wrong. just plain wrong.

August 14, 2009 at 11:46 am
(453) mitch says:

Hey JO I bet you didn’t care whether the people who bought your house were able to afford it. I know it’s not the seller who took advantage, but I bet you didn’t care then.. And you care now

August 14, 2009 at 1:08 pm
(454) Nate says:

Where does it say anything about assisted suicide, there going over your end of life health care options & other legal issues, your an idiot, thats scared of progress, regardless what it says, i do believe that some people hang on to long, if your life consists of laying in a hospital bed all day, it might be time to check out.

August 14, 2009 at 1:55 pm
(455) steve battaglia says:

Maybe I missed it…but where does it say that a consultation in REQUIRED….furthermore where does it say the following with regards to the consultation; “the objective being that they will explain to them just how to end their own life earlier”. Sounds to me like our buddy David Emery is just another fear-mongering GOP mouthpiece…..try http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/08/14/blayney.death.discussions/index.html for a more REALISTIC explanation.

August 14, 2009 at 1:59 pm
(456) Steve battaglia says:

with my apologies David….I missed your opening sentence and incorrectly assumed that the shaded text was your point of view….I agree…the rumors are hysterical……

August 14, 2009 at 2:17 pm
(457) Mo says:

I never made any of those comments in your response 441.

August 14, 2009 at 2:29 pm
(458) Donnie says:

This is crap. My grandfather is 92 and he been doing that on his on through VA for years. this is only to ensure their wishes not to committ their own dealt but if they chose not to be resuslated then that his choice. thats because he is sick and his wife my grandmother whom he was married to for 67 years died. I love him but thats his choice not mine or yours to determine his wishes. Its a natural death that he choice to undertake not take overdose, not shoot himself, but if his heart stops becuase of his illness he dont want to be a vegetable becuase of a stoke or something. By stoppping a person chioice to choose the real question is you trying to control whom. Read your bill and stop speading lies and admit that the real reason most WHITES are fighting this is becuase of the social probloms in the united states itself. I fought for 23 years in the miltiary 3 war zones, twice in Bonsia and i still have to put up with this crap to defend my own freedom at home is which i fought to protect outside our borders. Thanks You

August 14, 2009 at 2:59 pm
(459) Jo says:

Mo my apologies, 441 was to WOW.

August 14, 2009 at 3:32 pm
(460) mitch says:

holy f ing crap donnie. the fighting you did had nothing to do with this. wow bud what the hell are you talking about. I see a diverse racial representation in the discussions on this. wow race isn’t an issue pal

August 14, 2009 at 3:51 pm
(461) natalie says:

I personally think the government needs make a list of what is really needed. We need good jobs. And a way for people like me to get back to school if they got a school debt. I would gladly work in exchange to get back in school. What about the volunteer program to help people finish school that Obama promise. I have one housekeeping job that just reduced my hours and I am now trying to seek a 2nd job to help pay off my school debt. And I am in a place with few jobs.So I am trying to make it. I just want to be able to finish school. I think the health care bill is just a way to include the verichip(human tracking device) that is starting to pop up in hospitals.

August 14, 2009 at 4:09 pm
(462) Nic B says:

The question everyone should be asking is, what is the purpose of this ‘consulting business’ if not to assess and decide on whether a person should live or die?

Case in Point:

“(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;

So now a doctor has to provide good reason for sustaining life? WTF??! The big red flag is this- ‘as the health of the individual changes’…this means that the order could be submitted and denied at the onset of a medical problem. This is bad news.

August 14, 2009 at 4:09 pm
(463) Jo says:

Mitch said :Hey JO I bet you didn’t care whether the people who bought your house were able to afford it.

Jo: Ready for a lesson Mitch? Think about it, it is not a matter of caring — privacy laws forbid private sellers from attaining financial records on buyers. I cannot find out if they can afford a house without their express permission to do so.

Now if this was in referring to the housing bubble. Let’s set a few things straight.

In short and dumbed down, it goes like this:

-The government tells the poor “people” they DESERVE to own a a home. It’s only *fair*… and “equal”.
-Government with the stroke of a pen crafts legislation forcing banks to make loans on the behalf of the “poor” with NO money down.
-The poor buy the homes.
-The poor vote the wonderful benevolent government officials that got them FREE stuff – back into office.
-The government knowing this will eventually fail buys back the loans, *bundles* the loans, and sells them in investment vehicles such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack.
-The housing market bubble bursts.
-The poor who have a NO MONEY DOWN loan lose their home. (They lose the home, but no money.)

Stay with me, this is where it gets good!

The government blames the banks and the loan officers that we forced by gov’t law to make the loans.

The government blames *greedy* investors/speculators, some who invested in Fannie and Freddie Mae and lost their investment, when it went from $70+ per share to $.22 a share.

Government blames each other, but the truth is one party has been the champion of housing for the poor starting way back (1930′s) but let’s start with CRA in 1977 by Carter, carried by Clinton, and perpetuated by Waters, Meeks, Dodd, Frank, etc… in the 2000′s.

So in the end the catalyst for the housing bubble, wasn’t greedy RE agents, greedy sellers, evil banks/loan officers, greedy investors, etc.

It was greedy GOVERNMENT.

And guess who had the least loss? The poor who put no money down on the home, that’s who. The evil investors and evil banks took the financial fall for the poor’s irresponsible choices. (Of course now the government is bailing out some of the banks – so WE will be paying for that.)

Adding salt to that wound the main stream media goes on about the evil greedy wealthy in this country – when the reality it is GOVERNMENT who is greedy for votes, sweetheart loans, and kick backs. (As I said this is dumbed down, some business’ of course, DID take advantage — but remember they could NOT have taken advantage if there was no government program forcing the loans!)

This recession was caused by *government* — yet you want more of the same with gov’t HC!?

It is madness.

August 14, 2009 at 4:22 pm
(464) mitch says:

JO, I said I know it isn’t the seller at fault, buddy. All I said is you probably didn’t care. Oh yeah you don’t know how to absorb what you read. And I don’t give a crap that these people lost their homes. They knew going into that they couldn’t afford it. So you still think private insurance companies are okay? Come on man open your eyes. You have health care right? I think you said you pay over 900/mth for your family. If there was health care for all and people weren’t using emergency rooms as their doctors offfice, your premium would be much lower. Oh yeah who paid for the Bush drug bill? NOBODY That is a huge part of our deficit. I can’t believe people like you think that our insurance companies are okay.

August 14, 2009 at 4:25 pm
(465) jgarza says:

Jo: thanks for assuming what I think (making money is inherently evil). Once again, you uncanny knack for reading minds and interpreting all those “hidden” messages in the Bill is quite a skill.

All others on the original point of this blog:
http://mediamatters.org/research/200908130054

August 14, 2009 at 5:09 pm
(466) Jo says:

jgarza — Commenting on a line about making money, is all you got from post 421? Pretty lame.

Do you think trying BO HC plan on all 50 states is a good idea? Or do you think experimenting state by state to find a plan that works, is a better idea?

BTW Readers — Media Matters slants far left and omits information that doesn’t support their claims.

In this case( http://mediamatters.org/research/200908130054) left out that Palins concerns were primarily about Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (and secondary section 1233 of HR 3200,.) a health policy advisor to President Obama and the brother of the President’s chief of staff.

Dr. Emanuel has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens….An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.” Dr. Emanuel has also advocated basing medical decisions on a system which “produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.”

Don’t be fooled there are real concerns outside of this bill.

August 14, 2009 at 5:12 pm
(467) Jo says:

Mitch I don’t think insurance companies are “ok”. I just KNOW gov’t doesn’t make them any cheaper with excessive taxation and regulation.

Let’s send the ILLEGAL aliens using our HC back home, that will save billions alone.

August 14, 2009 at 5:31 pm
(468) wow JO says:

Money is not the most important thing to me, Jo. Being a part of something important is. Helping people lead better lives. Fighting for the well-being of those who don’t have means to fight for themselves. I don’t want to change professions. My question is why should my profession be worth so little in this country? I love what I do. Love it. I’m glad you are semi-retired and are traveling. Congratulations. The way our system works inevitably puts many people on the bottom especially without regulation. Those are just facts. You can say work harder, work harder, work harder. A lot of struggling people work very hard with the cards stacked against them. You have yet to make a comment about why insurance CEOs should make millions off other people’s sickness. You have yet to discuss how when people at the top make a ton of money and tax breaks how that never seems to trickle down to those who work the hardest at the bottom. Our system is broken. Plain and simple. Greed rules. That’s just the way it is. Come visit me in the South Side of Chicago. I’ll show you around and point out some of the realities of the world. LIke the fact that at one schools I work at there is no toilet paper or soap in the bathrooms. Like I said keep on enjoying your holiday travels…while you are enjoying your semi-retirement many people are scared to death about what their future holds. I think government is here to make sure people can survive. To create a system where people can thrive. I get the sense that in your mind you think our system is set up to allow people to thrive but you are sorely mistaken. Our system is built to create a culture of haves and have nots.

August 14, 2009 at 5:32 pm
(469) Kathy says:

The reason so many people are angry and upset is because advanced directive planning has never been a priority in healthcare. Everyone is afraid of it because they think it means they have to, or will be pushed to make unfavorable choices. This is not the case. Advanced care directives gives you the power back. You get to decide not the government. Take a look at an advanced care directive form for yoourself and you will see you have a choice, at any age, to choose what you would like to have done based on your values, morals, religious beliefs, health status, and medical accessability. There needs to be an universal form that is completed that is respected in every state so that we do not have people being kept alive that do not want to be. It is always about the quality of life and not the quantity. Everyone needs a health care proxy to make these decisions for them if they are unable to. People need education about advanced directives.

August 14, 2009 at 5:38 pm
(470) jgarza says:

Jo: Media Matters is left slanted…fine…but they make a better point to show how the end of life provision has been completely distorted. I really don’t care about your unending rant about state’s rights.

Just admit that you are wrong about what was contained in the bill. Even UL has shown you line by line where you were wrong. Admit it, you will feel much better about yourself…

August 14, 2009 at 5:52 pm
(471) jgarza says:

Jo, send me your link(s) on
“Dr. Emanuel has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens….An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”

I heard this statement being made on AM Radio…I would like to check into it. PS – I won’t even judge the slant of the source, just the content.

August 14, 2009 at 6:22 pm
(472) urbanlegends says:

Jo writes:

“BTW Readers — Media Matters slants far left and omits information that doesn’t support their claims.”

You’re correct — this time — that the source, Media Matters, which styles itself a corrector of “conservative misinformation,” can’t really claim to be impartial (though they do stand by their info, for whatever that’s worth).

Here’s the problem, though. You’re being hypocritical.

The rest of us have done you the courtesy of visiting links you’ve posted and checking out what they say without blowing them off as “biased.” And that even includes a link to an article on the conservative Heritage Foundation website (an excellent article, by the way).

Unlike you, some of the rest of us are actually interested to see if these sources, whatever their political orientation, have information or opinions that add to the conversation.

I suggest, therefore, that instead of automatically dismissing other people’s sources as biased (often inaccurately, I might add), you do the rest us the honor of reading them and addressing what they say.

Thanks.

August 14, 2009 at 6:52 pm
(473) Jo says:

Urban legend said: I suggest, therefore, that instead of automatically dismissing other people’s sources as biased (often inaccurately, I might add), you do the rest us the honor of reading them and addressing what they say.

Wow, you call me hypocritical but it is YOU who is thehypocrite. I posted a youtube of Obama saying he wanted single payer, and you said it was off topic and you wouldn’t discuss it. Remember?

But you post the Huffington Post (which IS biased left) and other posters link Media Matters (biased left) — and we should all discuss those?

I see.

BTW — Obviously I did go to Media Matters — if I hadn’t, how else would I know they didn’t have Palins primary concern — which was Dr. Emanuel??

I call them as I see them. II DID read it, and I added what they purposely left out.

Meanwhile

August 14, 2009 at 7:04 pm
(474) jgarza says:

Jo, you addressed my Media Matters link by addressing what the article didn’t address. That’s like me trying to explain to you how good a steak tastes by describing all the things it doesn’t taste like.

Please address the content directly…btw… you are still wrong about the end of life provisions that was contained in the bill…Im still waiting for you to admit your misstep on this specific point.

August 14, 2009 at 7:08 pm
(475) Jo says:

jgarza says:I really don’t care about your unending rant about state’s rights.

Jo: It wasn’t about state rights. It was a simple logical question. Do you think HC various plans would be better experimented state by state, or all 50 at once?

I suspect you can’t answer it, because the rational answer for this experiment is state by state.

jgarza said: Just admit that you are wrong about what was contained in the bill.

Jo: We shall see. You interpreted the bill wrong in my opinion. I can produce just as many web sites debunking the debunkers. No point, I will wait for the details in the senate bill, if they ever produce it.

jgarza says:

Jo, send me your link(s) on
“Dr. Emanuel (snip)

I heard this statement being made on AM Radio…I would like to check into it. PS – I won’t even judge the slant of the source, just the content.

AM radio? I’ve heard it on TV, FM and AM, and read about it in the news. See, you really ought to try some media sources besides media matters and AM radio.

Here straight from Dr. Emanual writings (slanted enough for you?)
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS0140673609601379.pdf

And if you don’t believe his own writings (or if the are too slanted for you) maybe you can compare with what Palin said on face book?

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=116471698434

August 14, 2009 at 7:09 pm
(476) urbanlegends says:

Jo,

Don’t misrepresent this. Nowhere did I dismiss a video link you posted as off-topic. I may well have said (I don’t remember) that it wasn’t relevant to whatever issue you and I were arguing about at that moment.

That’s different from simply dismissing any source anyone else posts out of hand as “biased.” You know you’ve done it more than once. I’m just asking that you play fair.

August 14, 2009 at 7:19 pm
(477) urbanlegends says:

Note to All:

You may find from time to time that a comment you’ve posted doesn’t immediately appear on the page. As I told some folks up above who thought I was censoring them, the reason that happens is that comments containing more than one outside link automatically go into a queue and have to be manually approved. I’m not at the keyboard 24 hours a day, so please be patient if you have a post that isn’t showing up.

Thanks.

August 14, 2009 at 7:30 pm
(478) jgarza says:

Jo,

You assume my answer on state experiment…The issue is off topic, please address the issue of end of life. Then we may move on to implementation…

You also assume that I have limited my pool of news sources.

Once again…your mind reading talents are truly amazing.

I am not interested in Sarah Palin’s hearsay.

The PDF link was a good link to a direct source (finally)

Please send a couple of debunking debunkers links. THIS will help address this topic.

August 14, 2009 at 7:37 pm
(479) Jo says:

Wow said: Money is not the most important thing to me, Jo. Being a part of something important is.

Jo: I am glad you love your job, many people do not, you are very lucky.

Wow: My question is why should my profession be worth so little in this country?

Jo: Because in this country we are free. Freedom of commerce dictates value. Do you work for a government entity? Or private?

Wow said: The way our system works inevitably puts many people on the bottom especially without regulation.

Jo: It is your choice to stay in the profession you love, so you are putting yourself on the bottom. Not society. You chose this job, not us.

Wow: You can say work harder, work harder, work harder. A lot of struggling people work very hard with the cards stacked against them.

Jo: Working hard at a job that will never pay more is not will not restack the deck. s there a off shoot profession that you can make more at and still love? Psychology perhaps?

Wow: You have yet to make a comment about why insurance CEOs should make millions off other people’s sickness.

Jo: You didn’t ask. Perhaps the question should be rephrased. Why should CEO’s (of any company) not make millions if a company is willing to pay them for that value? And who forces people to buy Health care from companies that pay CEO’s making millions? No one of course, you have a choice, seek a different provider. There are some plans out there that you don’t have to go through a employer.

Wow: You have yet to discuss how when people at the top make a ton of money and tax breaks how that never seems to trickle down to those who work the hardest at the bottom.

Jo: I disagree that it doesn’t. How many of your high school friends are still flipping burgers at Micky D’s? Not many I’d wager. They have better jobs as you do now. Their choices dictated how far they went.

Wow: Our system is broken. Plain and simple. Greed rules. That’s just the way it is. Come visit me in the South Side of Chicago.

Jo: Maybe you ought to move, if you don’t like it there?

Wow: I’ll show you around and point out some of the realities of the world. LIke the fact that at one schools I work at there is no toilet paper or soap in the bathrooms.

Jo: Contact your representative and fight for funding.

Wow: Like I said keep on enjoying your holiday travels…while you are enjoying your semi-retirement many people are scared to death about what their future holds.

Jo: If you think I will feel bad because I WORKED and took risk, for what I have, your wrong. Fear can be a good thing if the person who is in fear CGANGES their circumstance.

Wow: I think government is here to make sure people can survive.

Jo: I agree with yoou – only it should be local government that addresses your concerns not federal.

Wow: To create a system where people can thrive. I get the sense that in your mind you think our system is set up to allow people to thrive but you are sorely mistaken. Our system is built to create a culture of haves and have nots.

Jo: Not at all true. The haves – HAVE because they took risk, they changed their circumstance. The have nots sit and complain and do nothing to change their circumstance.

August 14, 2009 at 7:45 pm
(480) urbanlegends says:

Nic B wrote:


“(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;

So now a doctor has to provide good reason for sustaining life? WTF??! The big red flag is this- ‘as the health of the individual changes’…this means that the order could be submitted and denied at the onset of a medical problem. This is bad news.

No, Nic. Read more carefully. The words say the consultations must include an explanation of the reasons why orders regarding life-sustaining treatment are beneficial.

As defined elsewhere in the same section, “orders” means living wills, advance health care directives and the like. These are documents where the patient specifies his or her own wishes regarding end-of-life treatment. The doctor is supposed to explain why it’s beneficial to have such a document.

It doesn’t say the doctor is supposed to provide “good reason for sustaining life.”

August 14, 2009 at 7:45 pm
(481) jgarza says:

Jo,

from you link about Dr. Emanuel. (PDF)

Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions

Govind Persad, Alan Wertheimer, Ezekiel J Emanuel
Department of Ethics

“Allocation of very scarce medical interventions such as organs and vaccines is a persistent ethical challenge. We evaluate eight simple allocation principles that can be classified into four categories: treating people equally, favouring the worst-off , maximising total benefits, and promoting and rewarding social usefulness. No single principle is sufficient to incorporate all morally relevant considerations and therefore individual principles must be combined into multiprinciple allocation systems. We evaluate three systems: the United Network for Organ Sharing points systems, quality-adjusted life-years, and disability-adjusted life-years. We recommend an alternative system—the complete lives system—which prioritises younger people who have not yet lived a complete life, and also incorporates prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value principles.”

This article goes on to compare and contrast several advantages and disadvantages of scarce resource allocation using a scientific outline.

I did a search using YOUR quote “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens” – - > 0 hits.

I also did a search for “dementia” using the find function – - > 0 hits

I cannot find support for YOUR statement in YOUR own listed source. Please shed some light on this.

August 14, 2009 at 7:59 pm
(482) jgarza says:

Jo,

Here is another source –
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jul2009/db20090730_530683.htm

This article outlines conservative “concern” for possible issues in the future, but also states…”According to Dau, what’s been lost in the small-scale hysteria is that these services are 100% optional: Medicare subscribers can ask for help with living wills if they like, but no end-of-life arrangement will ever be mandated or imposed upon them by doctors or government.”

Still waiting … Please send your rock solid evidence that end of life consultation is mandatory – admit it, you are in error

August 14, 2009 at 8:26 pm
(483) urbanlegends says:

Regarding certain statements of Ezekiel Emanuel and their relevance to the “death panel” debate, here are links to a couple of different articles to balance out the debate.

It’s very easy to take the statements of academics out of their, well, academic context and find seeming controversy in them. Especially when the topic is philosophy and ethics — in this case bioethics. It’s very easy to mistake a hypothetical discussion, or the characterization of a philosophical position the author doesn’t necessarily even agree with, for an actual belief.

When Academic Words Become Political Ammunition – Jake Tapper, ABC News

Ezekiel Emanuel, Obama’s ‘Deadly Doctor,’ Strikes Back – Time Magazine

August 14, 2009 at 10:03 pm
(484) Corlena says:

Money is not evil. It’s the LOVE of money that is evil.

August 14, 2009 at 10:13 pm
(485) Jo says:

Just popped in for a second. Wow still accusing me of being “wrong” over a UNFINISHED bill?? Just brilliant.

Then dismiss Palin as a source? I thought you wanted opposing opinion sources? She would be one.

I don’t have time to look up opposing views you LIKE to media matters tonight. There are LOTS of conservative bloggs that have polar opposite views of Media Matters, google them.

Here’s a article I was skimming through earlier. They, as I have – have connected the dots.

http://www.americanthinker.com/
(snipped for brevity)
Sec 1233 under Medicare, Advance Care Planning Consultation requires health care providers to have end-of-life discussions with patients and report to the HHS Secretary “quality measures on end-of-life care and advanced care planning that have been adopted by a consensus based organization.” Why devote over 100 paragraphs and some 500 lines of text to end-of-life consultations, living wills, health care proxies and reporting? To reduce costly end-of-life interventions that extend the life of the elderly. Cost reduction derived from denying medical interventions in favor of more aggressive hospice is the only reason for such a preoccupation in the House bill. There is no other reason for such proposed legislation. None. Connect the dots.

August 14, 2009 at 11:31 pm
(486) glennbecksajackass says:

if any of you morons really think that this bill is going to require old people to be euthenized then read page 424 of the bill the REAL bill at the following OFFICIAL government web site and not some right wing website: http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf this is too easy folks. if you arent capable of getting the facts then do all of us a favor and please consider having that consultation for “end of life” with you doctor sooner rather than later. Idiots!

August 15, 2009 at 9:04 am
(487) Jo says:

jgarza said:I did a search using YOUR quote “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens” – – > 0 hits.

I also did a search for “dementia” using the find function – – > 0 hits
I can’t find….
====================

“Convesley, services provided to individuals
who are irreversibly prevented from being
or becoming participating citizens are not basic and
should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is
not guaranteeing health services to patients with de-mentia.” Bottom of page 13

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_Deliberative_Democracy_Meet.pdf

I had two links up about the same topic (they look the same), in a rush I clicked on the wrong one. Still I googled the first phrase this AM and found it in seconds.

Since this paper, Dr Emanual seeking a position at the white house publicly denies he still thinks this way.

However, in the first link I sent, we see his ideology of rationing and LIMITING government services and benefits *particularly for the elderly* has in fact NOT changed. January 2009 he says:

“Since each life is valuable, this principle seems to need no special justification. It also avoids comparing individual lives.
Other things being equal, we should always save five lives rather than one.
However, other things are rarely equal. Some lives have been shorter than others; 20-year-olds have lived less than 70-year-olds. Similarly, some lives can be extended longer than others. How to weigh these other relevant considerations against saving more lives—whether to save one 20-year-old, who might live another 60 years if saved,
or three 70-year-olds who could only live for 10 years each—is unclear.45 Although insufficient on its own, saving more lives should be part of a multiprinciple allocation system.”

BTW I am NOT objecting to the *discussion* itself. I object to gov’t running HC period.

Especially since several people BO has as Czars or administration think along the same lines, and what a mix they are, some openly embrace communism — Van Jones as “Green Jobs czar” for example.

This is why I said looking at who BO is choosing to oversee some of these programs is alarming.

Take the health issue ideology of BO’s administration, then look at “community organizers” (unions)being bussed in to silence dissent of HC protesters, is in fact reminiscent of tactics the third Reich used. I know that infuriates the left, — and UL wants to silence me in making the comparison (so much for the 1st amendment on UL), but the truth is their are vast similarities.

Most recently, BO appointed a radio Czar Mr Loloyd as “Chief Diversity Officer” (a newly crafted position that never existed with the FCC) now, who’s job it is to silence talk radio by OVER TAXING them. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/52435

That makes 29 BO Czars on my list, and I think I’ve missed a few.

Anyhow, keep in mind Chavez has been at this for years, he has nationalized radio stations, banking, energy, private industry, etc… sound familiar?

It is happening here.

The American people have got to stop cheering for “party” and start looking at hard facts.

Take my test:
HONESTLY ask yourself if this — had been Bush (or a Republican POTUS) would you support of these tactics?

Most democrats will say no, if they are honest with themselves.

Remember the hoopla over the Patriot Act?? Wire Tapping? Spending? ( Obama has spent FAR more than Bush) Gov’t expansion? (Obama take overs of business) The war? (That BO has continued the Bush policy on I might add.)Halliburton? (Obama is very pro-business that benefits his pocket – see the unions), etc…

For the record, I was against most Bush policy as well.

August 15, 2009 at 9:49 am
(488) Jo says:

Obama promise: “you will not be taxed under $250,000 per year”.

Ooops, not so fast …

BRANCACCIO: I thought a component of this was an added tax. What the Europeans call value added tax, sales tax, sort of.

DR. EMANUEL: Right. Well, if the states aren’t paying Medicaid anymore, and employers aren’t paying for insurance, we would have to find the money to pay for this. We wouldn’t add more money, but we’d—you’d have to get basically—recoup somehow how employers are paying for it and how the states are paying for Medicaid. And that would be—we’ve proposed to finance this by a value added tax.

That means that, when you buy something, the added value is taxed. The tax would be about eight to ten of purchases—if you eliminate food and some other items that—poor people disproportionately buy. And, again—it—you’re going to have to pay for this somehow. It is going to be a tax.
http://www.pbs.org/now/news/315.html
4/13/09
========================
8-10% Value Added Tax on purchases other than food to pay for HC. In addition to state sales tax. Will be somewhere in the 16-20% range depending on where you live. Buy a car @ $25,000 and you will owe $4,000 – $5000 more in tax.

I don’t like gov’t in HC – at all. But if is forced down our throats, and they have to find a way to pay for it — I think it’s about time tax cheats, drug dealers, illegals, and welfare recipients paid into the system.

August 15, 2009 at 12:05 pm
(489) urbanlegends says:

Jo wrote:

“Take the health issue ideology of BO’s administration, then look at ‘community organizers’ (unions)being bussed in to silence dissent of HC protesters, is in fact reminiscent of tactics the third Reich used. I know that infuriates the left, — and UL wants to silence me in making the comparison (so much for the 1st amendment on UL), but the truth is their are vast similarities.”

Yeah, yeah. You say the left is busing in demonstrators. The left says the right is busing in demonstrators. Everybody’s holier than thou. Everybody thinks it’s clever to play the “Third Reich” card.

Anyone who cares about their own credibility knows better than to go down that road.

August 15, 2009 at 12:19 pm
(490) American Man says:

This bill is an outrage! Obama is a socialist dictator, and seems to be trying to f— this country up. This bill needs to go, and HE needs to go! ALL you people that voted for CHANGE, have fun when your mom goes to the doctor but is refused treatment because she smokes or is overweight, and then they suggest letting her die, cuz shes gonna die anyways! WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN AND TELL THEM NO!

August 15, 2009 at 12:19 pm
(491) urbanlegends says:

Jo wrote:

“UL wants to silence me in making the comparison (so much for the 1st amendment on UL)”

You do realize how ridiculous you sound saying that, right?

August 15, 2009 at 12:27 pm
(492) urbanlegends says:

glennbecksajackass wrote:

“if any of you morons really think that this bill is going to require old people to be euthenized then read page 424 of the bill the REAL bill at the following OFFICIAL government web site and not some right wing website … if you arent capable of getting the facts then do all of us a favor and please consider having that consultation for “end of life” with you doctor sooner rather than later. Idiots!”

Dude. There are a gazillion other websites out there where epithets pass for debate. I suggest you either come up with a civil way to get your message across or frequent those instead.

Thanks.

August 15, 2009 at 12:38 pm
(493) Jewels says:

Did you read the portion of the bill this man is discussing? It is not about teaching people how to end their life…once again the republican propaganda wheel is turning. So many elderly people don’t have family to assist them with what they want during the last stages of their life. It it every individuals right to choose life support or DNR and this covers all of the levels of care. If we are all smart, you too will put this paperwork together to ensure your level of care that you desire – for example if YOU BECOME BRAIN DEAD – is in order so that you do sit in a nursing home druling for 5-10 years when you could have informed someone what your ture wishes are prior to that. I think some of you should hurry and get that paperwork in order….SOME OF YOU ARE BRAIN DEAD NOW!

August 15, 2009 at 12:47 pm
(494) no one says:

wow if it is so good why is it so bad,helth care needs repair,not replacement,but being good palatics there is more than what needs to be done,,pockets have to be lined NO MATTER WHAT THE COST. THINK ABOUT IT.

August 15, 2009 at 12:58 pm
(495) Jewels says:

Urbanlegend and Glenbecksajackass – Loved your comment. Wish more people would get the facts – not spin the replublican propaganda wheel. My 70+ year old mother was freaking out about the LIES regarding this portion of the bill. I had to pull up the “real” bill and show it to her and explain. She unfortunately comes from an erra where if a “man” said it, it must be true. My dad is passed and was republican. However, I know he would not be believing these LIES and spin. The “spin” should be ashamed of themselves and the people that follow and believe them need to take a step back and reasearch for themselves! STOP BEING FOLLOWERS PEOPLE!. Just had to say hello Urban…thank god Im not the only one here THAT IS NOT BRAIN DEAD!

August 15, 2009 at 1:07 pm
(496) urbanlegends says:

Jewels wrote:

“Just had to say hello Urban…thank god Im not the only one here THAT IS NOT BRAIN DEAD!”

Well, pleased to meet you, but I’d be even more pleased if you hadn’t just called everyone who disagrees with you “brain-dead.” Twice.

Please do hang around and join the debate, but we’re trying to lay off the name-calling. Okay?

Thanks.

August 15, 2009 at 1:11 pm
(497) urbanlegends says:

American Man wrote:

“This bill is an outrage! Obama is a socialist dictator, and seems to be trying to f— this country up. This bill needs to go, and HE needs to go! ALL you people that voted for CHANGE, have fun when your mom goes to the doctor but is refused treatment because she smokes or is overweight, and then they suggest letting her die, cuz shes gonna die anyways!”

Cogently argued.

August 15, 2009 at 1:13 pm
(498) Jewels says:

Your right urban – I guess I deserved that. I am better than such comments and don’t have to express my thoughts on an irrational note. I guess the “spin” got to me a bit.

Sincerely,

Jewels

August 15, 2009 at 1:19 pm
(499) urbanlegends says:

Jewels wrote:

“I guess the “spin” got to me a bit.”

No problem. It’s so refreshing to hear anyone even acknowledge such a thing. Please hang around and contribute to the discussion.

August 15, 2009 at 1:46 pm
(500) Jo says:

UL: Telling me to NOT mention failed historical forms of government, is stifling freedom of speech, call it what you want.

But if you prefer, I can point to liberal hero Hugo Chavez instead, who said:

“Hey, Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors. Comrade Obama! Fidel, careful or we are going to end up to his right,” Chavez joked on a live television broadcast.

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINN0252119420090603?rpc=44

Is that better?

August 15, 2009 at 1:50 pm
(501) urbanlegends says:

Jo wrote:

But if you prefer, I can point to liberal hero Hugo Chavez instead, who said:

“Hey, Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors. Comrade Obama! Fidel, careful or we are going to end up to his right,” Chavez joked on a live television broadcast.

Funny guy! Thanks for the quote.

August 15, 2009 at 1:57 pm
(502) urbanlegends says:

Jo,

The irony of you quoting a tin-pot strong-arm socialist Castro wannabe like Chavez to make any kind of point about American politics is delicious.

It’s okay to quote lefties when they seem to prove YOUR point, is that the deal?

Thanks for clarifying.

August 15, 2009 at 2:12 pm
(503) urbanlegends says:

Jo wrote:

“Telling me to NOT mention failed historical forms of government, is stifling freedom of speech, call it what you want.”

No it isn’t. And you know it isn’t.

You’ve had free reign here to spout off and pontificate in every different direction. You’ve posted more words than anyone else on this page, including me.

Stifled? Yeah, right.

Don’t abuse the privilege.

August 15, 2009 at 2:53 pm
(504) Ralph says:

YOU SIR ARE A LIAR… THERE IS NO, I REPEAT NO PROVISION IN THIS BILL THAT STATES YOU HAVE TO HAVE CONSULTATION ON HOW YOU WANT TO DIE…. THAT IS A FLAT OUT LIE, AND YOU KNOW IT…. PEOPLE DO NOT LISTEN TO THIS LYING SACK OF S—! WHAT IT DOES SAY IS THE IF YOU ARE ON MEDICARE OR MEDICAID AND YOU WANT TO HAVE A CONSULTATION WITH YOUR DOCTOR, ABOUT WHAT STEPS YOU WANT TAKEN IF SOMETHING HAPPENS TO YOU, WHEATHER ITS DO EVERYTHING UNDER THE SUN OR IF YOU WANT THEM NOT TO DO ANYTHING, ITS UP TO YOU TO DECIDE, NOT YOUR FAMILY, OR A DOCTOR, OR ANYONE ELSE, YOU DECIDE… AND IF YOU DO WANT IT THEY WILL PAY FOR IT, BUT THEY WILL ONLY PAY FOR IT EVERY 5 YRS. AND IT YOU DONT WANT THE CONSULTATION THAN YOU DONT HAVE TO HAVE IT… ITS UP TO YOU…. AGAIN THIS MAN IS A LIAR… DO NOT LISTEN TO HIM!

August 15, 2009 at 3:19 pm
(505) doctor ron (yes a real doctor, not a sociology grad student) says:

these bill provisions are definitely going to allow for early death in elderly patients. money will undoubtedly be saved, but money would be saved with NO health care for anyone, too. this is a very bad part of a very bad bill.

August 15, 2009 at 3:40 pm
(506) urbanlegends says:

Ralph shouted:

“YOU SIR ARE A LIAR… THERE IS NO, I REPEAT NO PROVISION IN THIS BILL THAT STATES YOU HAVE TO HAVE CONSULTATION ON HOW YOU WANT TO DIE…. THAT IS A FLAT OUT LIE, AND YOU KNOW IT…. PEOPLE DO NOT LISTEN TO THIS LYING SACK OF S—–!”

Appreciate the passion, but it’s impossible to tell who this was addressed to. Also, you might want to tone down the name-calling. Thank you.

August 15, 2009 at 4:20 pm
(507) DD says:

I worry about what it will mean for my employer based plan. I don’t believe that it will stay the same. I believe the government will dictate what it should be and if it doesn’t meet those standards there will be a price to pay. I also agree that research will suffer and where will the incentive be to become a doctor. The government will say what insurance plans will pay for services and the people that may be able to afford paying themselves will be taxed more because they can pay. The government is so relying on the rich to pay for everything but if they keep taxing them they won’t be rich anymore and then who will pay? The government will take the incentive to work to get more from everyone and they will just expect the government to provide for them. People need to take responsibility for themselves and their actions. Should there be programs to help the needy of course! I believe the government should have to cut back what they spend like all of the big expensive parties and dinners and still receiving a wage after their terms are up and full health coverage for the rest of their lives. If they want to pass this bill I believe they all should have to be on this plan too! They are not above us they work for us and they need to be accountable for every dime they spend. I would like to see reports on how they spent their budgets. They are asking us to cut back but all we see from them is more spending.

August 15, 2009 at 4:29 pm
(508) urbanlegends says:

Jo writes (quoting AmericanThinker.com):

“Why devote over 100 paragraphs and some 500 lines of text to end-of-life consultations, living wills, health care proxies and reporting? To reduce costly end-of-life interventions that extend the life of the elderly. Cost reduction derived from denying medical interventions in favor of more aggressive hospice is the only reason for such a preoccupation in the House bill. There is no other reason for such proposed legislation. None. Connect the dots.”

This is a bad argument. Just plain false. There can be other reasons for the existence of this provision.

E.g., cost reduction resulting from an increase in individuals drawing up living wills and advance care directives which, by clearly stating the patients’ own preferences, would prevent undesired/unnecessary interventions and/or extended life support measures, not to mention prevent costly court battles pitting family member against family member, family members against hospitals, or family members against states in cases where no living will exists and the parties disagree on what level or kind of care is appropriate.

And that’s granting the premise that every single item in the bill must in some way or other pertain to cost reduction, which may not even be the case.

August 15, 2009 at 7:41 pm
(509) Mark Stokols says:

I am a doctor and like any good doctor I encourage my patients to prepare a living well and make their wishes clear to their family/surrogate decision makers. I am delighted that they plan to pay me for providing these services to my patients.

August 15, 2009 at 10:17 pm
(510) John Stossel says:

Has the Govt ever in the entire history of America ran any program they instituted successfully? We’re almost bankrupt as a country yet we’re even considering allowing these Washington clowns and traitors to administer our health care system??? Not just the fact that it’ll cost over 10 trillion, driving us into a desperate depression. But allowing these gangsters to mandate our lives is suicide. The time has come to drive these rats out of our country once and for all.

August 16, 2009 at 12:25 am
(511) tumblweed says:

To all you “the only responsibility the government has is to protect us from invaders and criminals in our midst” types, I assume you are strong advicates for the repeal of all food safety and public health laws, all commerce and finiancing regulations (including comsumer fraud, safety, false advertizing, etc), all laws regulating the pharmacutical industry, all work place safety regulations, all licensing regulations (from a hunting license to the practice of medicine), …. I could go on.

The simple undeniable truth is this: In the United States of America the “government” is, always has been and always will be the people themselves (and dire warnings of pending apocolypse from the right or left end of the political spectrum does NOT mean that has or will change). And the role of the elected representatives of government is to formulate laws and policies that provide for what the people determine to be “the common good”.

What was clearly “the common good” in 1789 when our country was a nearly pure agrarian society of several 100,000 people is not the same as “the common good” of our modern urban society of nearly 300 million.

It’s time we stopped acting like children fighting over one piece of candy and start talking seriously about a major problem this country has been ignoring for too long: spirally health care costs and a system that routinely denies people needed medical services.

If you fear health-care rationing: ask any reasonably sized group of people who have private health care to raise their hand if they have ever been told by their insurer that it would not cover a procedure or treatment they believed they needed. I’ll guarantee you nearly every hand will be in the air.

Then ask the same question of a group of seniors on Medicare or veterans covered by the VA health system and see many hands go up (if any). After you’ve don’t that, then you can talk about how dangerous “government run” health care will be.

August 16, 2009 at 2:15 am
(512) John says:

UL, you must love your work. I’m exhausted reading this one blog! Thanks for spreading logic and critical thinking, and for letting people like Jo entertain us with their close-mindedness. Keep up the good work!

August 16, 2009 at 11:30 am
(513) BA says:

It is nieve to think that by having a public OBTION is going to suck our wallet dry. When in fact I believe it will only help current people like me who already have insurance for my cost to go down. And to recieve better treatment. The number one reason for the loss of wealth in amereica is through health reasons. I.E. serious illness or injury. And it isn’t fare in my eyes if I work my whole life to get to where I am happy and yes still have insurance to lose everything due to an illness.

August 16, 2009 at 1:51 pm
(514) Deb says:

Yes the gov is already in the healthcare business with the military and VA. Now spend a few minutes looking up the quality (or lack thereof) in that system. The understaffed and deteriorating facilities, many veterans waiting for over a year to qualify for care. The naval hospital that gave a woman 7 years of HIV tests after performing surgery with instruments used in a previous operation and not cleaned between procedures. Several VA hospitals where patients have been infected with hep c and HIV after endoscopic and colonoscopy procedures but not cleaning equipment between procedures.

The EXISTING gov run medical systems are poor at best. In our town Navy families will pay out of pocket to avoid the Naval hospital. Gov healthplan is a disaster waiting to happen

August 16, 2009 at 4:33 pm
(515) Jo says:

For the truly closed minded, ready for this?

HR 1388 signed into law. 6104 9-16

9 (6) Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable
10 mandatory service requirement for all able young peo11
ple could be developed, and how such a requirement
12 could be implemented in a manner that would
13 strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and over14
come civic challenges by bringing together people from
15 diverse economic, ethnic, and educational back16
grounds.

Have fun serving Comrade Obama!

August 16, 2009 at 5:32 pm
(516) Legal Begal says:

I have just finished reading about 50 or so of the comments on this site. My first visit here and I have come to the conclusion this is being run by an Obama front organization.

I am a Mayor of a small community in the Midwest. We have a disproportinate amount of “working poor.” One in three of our children here are on Federal Free and Reduced Lunch, so I know about the ability of people to pay for things, including health care.

Did any of you ever stop to think that this debate is really not about the future? Here’s why. Government bureaucrats will be deciding what is done with health care once the bill passes and is signed by the POTUS. That means full-time government employees will be making the decisions and not worrying about the results!

Congress’ efforts are simply a skeleton, if you will. It will be left up to the bureaucracy to “flesh” it out. This has me worried the most. Who, in God’s name, in Washington, D.C. or any other state capitol has the knowledge and experience to decide what the, “3 levels of care” should be?

Those of you on the left supporting health care “reform” would do well to remember that there are those of us out here who understand how the beauracracy works. Unlike many of those who support you, we understand that beauracracy must sustain itself through government mandate.

By making the general public rely on government-sponsored health and medical insuracne, you hope to create “dependence.” That dependence will then be used to garner support from the populace, resulting in votes at the polls.

There are only, IMO, three things we need to do to improve health care. They are what I call the “abilities,” portability, accessability and affordability. Why do we need 1048 pages of government and legal double speak to address just three main issues?

August 16, 2009 at 8:00 pm
(517) urbanlegends says:

Legal Begal wrote:

“I have just finished reading about 50 or so of the comments on this site. My first visit here and I have come to the conclusion this is being run by an Obama front organization.”

Maybe you’d best go back and read a little more carefully then. Thanks.

August 16, 2009 at 9:52 pm
(518) Jo says:

UL on freedom of speech — “Don’t abuse the privilege.”

Well that says it all. Now doesn’t it? Wow

========================================

To Legal Beagle — about being a leftist front, you may be correct, I said the same WAY back when facts presented were dismissed as off topic. (They can’t put information together cognitively.) Clearly, the leftist minions posting are plentiful. They pointlessly and emotionally express themselves with no coherency. Personal attacks, and cheer leading boost for UL — but no substance. They often beg us to do the homework for them. When directed to comparative history, free speech is forbidden.

Meanwhile the left, consistently espouse nonsense, insult, and receive no more than a “darn it you ought to not call names” UL speech. (And the minions quickly slip into subordination and obey.)

The simpleton left, and projecting leader UL are entertaining at first, but intellectually tiresome. I’m posting less here and having real debate with people who can say two sentences without egos, self pity, vulgarity, and emotional breakdowns.

See you later UL, have fun with the self pity simpletons.

Ciao!

August 16, 2009 at 10:28 pm
(519) urbanlegends says:

Jo writes:

“See you later UL, have fun with the self pity simpletons.”

Believe it or not, Jo, anyone who’s actually read these exchanges can very clearly see you for who you are. Nothing else needs to be said.

August 16, 2009 at 11:01 pm
(520) Jo says:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FiseRY063g&feature=related

Almost forgot, here’s a video of SEIU and ACORN bussed into Specter PA town hall. They took the places of PA residents in the TH.

Disgraceful.
============
UL said: BTW anyone who’s actually read these exchanges can very clearly see you for who you are too.

I have stated my ideology from the beginning. I am a constitutionalist. My loyalties are to the constitution. Where do you stand ideologically?

Never mind. You won’t admit ideology, because you pretend not to be left leaning, even after promoting leftist web sites (Huff-PO) as factual sources.

Anyhow, I will be waiting for the bus clips of organized republicans being bussed in at TH meeting, as you claimed happened. I tried but couldn’t find them. Perhaps I missed it.

August 16, 2009 at 11:17 pm
(521) urbanlegends says:

Jo wrote,

“Anyhow, I will be waiting for the bus clips of organized republicans being bussed in at TH meeting, as you claimed happened. I tried but couldn’t find them. Perhaps I missed it.”

Perhaps because I didn’t say it. The only thing I said about busing was:

“Yeah, yeah. You say the left is busing in demonstrators. The left says the right is busing in demonstrators. Everybody’s holier than thou. Everybody thinks it’s clever to play the “Third Reich” card.”

August 16, 2009 at 11:48 pm
(522) Jo says:

UL admits: The left says the right is busing in demonstrators. Everybody’s holier than thou.

Correct, and as I said, I can’t find clips of bussing. So what evidence do you have that this happened?

I did find a group that bussed in the elderly so they could participate. I sure hope these old folks aren’t being compared to SEIU and ACORN thugs.

BTW, I also found a clip for Hitler youth camps (RE my post #507) on youtube, I won’t post it because you forbid comparisons of past government tactics that resemble BO current tactics.

August 17, 2009 at 12:00 am
(523) urbanlegends says:

Jo wrote:

“Never mind. You won’t admit ideology, because you pretend not to be left leaning, even after promoting leftist web sites (Huff-PO) as factual sources.”

You’ve made it abundantly clear that this is how you’re accustomed to arguing — demagoguing, using labels like “Lib” and “Lefty” to pound your opponents, demagoguing, distorting, claiming victory whether you’ve proven a point or not, demagoguing, misrepresenting, bluffing, bluffing, and bluffing.

Check back and see how many times on this page you’ve mentioned that I cited an article from Huffington Post (yes, I did, and everyone knows I did, among the other dozen or so sources I’ve listed) and how that makes me a “Lefty.”

It raises a lot more questions about you, your motives and your methods than it does about me. When I say people can see you for who you are, I’m not talking about your political orientation. I’m talking about your methods.

So you’re used to battling it out on political sites where calling each other names is standard operating procedure. That’s fine. We don’t do politics as bloodsport here. It doesn’t matter if you’re left or right. We try to get at the facts.

This page came into existence to address one question: Per Internet rumors, is it true that the House health care bill contains wording that mandates government counseling sessions for senior citizens in which euthanasia (or assisted suicide, if you prefer) may be pushed on them.

The discussion has ranged far afield, and I’ve let it, because clearly people have a lot to get off their chests on the issue of health care reform. Every conceivable view on the current House bill — pro, con, and in-between — has been expressed here. Over five hundred postings in all. (And mind you, this site does not have a regular coterie of blog commenters.)

Yet, not one person has successfully pointed to language in the bill that actually mandates counseling sessions or pushes early death on seniors.

In fact, the attempted arguments have been downright ridiculous — the silliest one being that because the word “shall” appears anywhere in the text, consultations must therefore be mandated.

Another strategy was to insist that the language is in the bill, but when pressed to show where, to suddenly change the claim to (in effect), “Whether or not it SAYS mandated, once it becomes law and the government gets involved it will END UP being mandated no matter what the bill says.”

On its own, that last sentence isn’t so ridiculous it can’t be defended. But it is in NO sense a valid response to “Prove your claim that the text says ‘mandated’ by showing us precisely where that is.”

There have been a few tense moments above, but for the most part the conversation has been relatively civil and, I hope, instructive enough to justify reading this far.

Personally, I don’t think I could ever make it all the way through 500 comments on a blog posting if it wasn’t part of my job.

August 17, 2009 at 12:13 am
(524) urbanlegends says:

I wrote:

“Yeah, yeah. You say the left is busing in demonstrators. The left says the right is busing in demonstrators. Everybody’s holier than thou. Everybody thinks it’s clever to play the “Third Reich” card.”

Jo wrote:

“Correct, and as I said, I can’t find clips of bussing. So what evidence do you have that this happened?”

You really, truly have a problem with reading comprehension.

Or else your philosophy is to say whatever it takes to make your opponent look wrong, accurate or not.

The folks reading this can decide.

August 17, 2009 at 8:38 am
(525) NC77 says:

The discussion on euthanasia begins on page 438 through 442

SEC. 1236. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM ON USE OF PATTIENT DECISIONS AIDS.

It talks about a demonstration program set up where the patient and the clinician or decision aid provider makes a “shared” decision with the patient and where the clinician is to “engage” the patient in the decisiion making process.

It probably is a moot point now (8/17/09) cause Nobama has caved and it appears the end of life counseling provisions will be removed from the nationalized health care bill. Victory for America. Loss for Marxism.

August 17, 2009 at 9:59 am
(526) urbanlegends says:

NC77 wrote:

The discussion on euthanasia begins on page 438 through 442

SEC. 1236. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM ON USE OF PATTIENT DECISIONS AIDS.

It talks about a demonstration program set up where the patient and the clinician or decision aid provider makes a “shared” decision with the patient and where the clinician is to “engage” the patient in the decisiion making process.

How is the above a discussion on euthanasia?

“Shared decision making” between doctor and patient is already encouraged in Medicare (see Social Security Act section 1866C – http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title18/1866C.htm ).

Such decision making pertains to no particular kind of medical treatment.

“Demonstration programs” are also already a feature of Medicare.

All this section of the health care bill does is add a new demonstration program (involving 30 health care providers, max) that encourages Medicare doctors to use “decision aids” (videos, pamphlets, etc.) in shared decision making and measures the results. This is what it says:

12 SEC. 1236. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM ON USE OF PATIENT DECISIONS AIDS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall establish a shared decision making demonstration program (in this subsection referred to as the “program”) under the Medicare program using patient decision aids to meet the objective of improving the understanding by Medicare beneficiaries of their medical treatment options, as compared to comparable Medicare beneficiaries who do not participate in a shared decision making process using patient decision aids.
(b) SITES.—
(1) ENROLLMENT.—The Secretary shall enroll in the program not more than 30 eligible providers who have experience in implementing, and have invested in the necessary infrastructure to implement, shared decision making using patient decision aids.

Continue reading in actual House bill

August 17, 2009 at 10:50 am
(527) NC77 says:

Ah yes. Nothing like another new government program to add another layer of beauracracy to lower health care costs. LOL

The problem with this is, it states that the providers are responsible to develop the decision aids with no guidelines on how the content of those decision aids might be slanted. It is up to the new shared decsion provider to develop the aids. Paid for by government money of course. The code is so nebulous and open ended that any policy could be implimented once the program is in effect. It is an open door for any one in power to implement policy as they please. Thus the pro-euthanasia crowd, such as a couple of NObama’s Czars who have voiced their opinion on it, have free reign to do as they please. They are accountable to no one except the president.

August 17, 2009 at 10:54 am
(528) md says:

Only a complete idiot would read this bill and think that they are planning to offer euthenasia as an option. You obviously don’t know anything about the medical field if you think that is what “end of life” planning is referring to. End of Life care is allowing a person to plan how they want to be taken care of BEFORE they are unable to make their wishes known. It is not suggesting that people plan to have their life ended.

August 17, 2009 at 10:59 am
(529) urbanlegends says:

NC77 responds:

Ah yes. Nothing like another new government program to add another layer of beauracracy to lower health care costs. LOL

The problem with this is, it states that the providers are responsible to develop the decision aids with no guidelines on how the content of those decision aids might be slanted. It is up to the new shared decsion provider to develop the aids. Paid for by government money of course. The code is so nebulous and open ended that any policy could be implimented once the program is in effect. It is an open door for any one in power to implement policy as they please. Thus the pro-euthanasia crowd, such as a couple of NObama’s Czars who have voiced their opinion on it, have free reign to do as they please. They are accountable to no one except the president.

Wait a minute. Before, you said: “The discussion on euthanasia begins on page 438 through 442.”

Now that I’ve demonstrated there ISN’T a discussion of euthanasia in pp 438-442, you give us a completely different (and not very clear) argument which basically amounts to “there’s nothing to stop them.” And you throw in a token complaint about bureaucracy.

Do you mean a single word of what you say? Do you care what the facts are? I’m asking you sincerely.

August 17, 2009 at 11:59 am
(530) LeftTheBuilding says:

Nice to see that all the zealots stirred up by the previous administration are still at it.
Perhaps all of you should come down with some debilitating illness and see how quickly your current insurance company holds on to you….
One day everyone will actually read and listen to things before making un-educated decisions and opinions about things they have no idea about. But then again, most of the people who speak out on this issue keep reading the same “manual” over and over – sorry folks, the Bible is not a fix all for everything and I don’t remember anything in it that had God or Jesus’s views on Health Care.

August 17, 2009 at 12:42 pm
(531) jarha says:

Government approach to the Health Care is just money. It never was and never will be about your health. It is about Money and 80 Million Baby Boomers.
Here is how they see it. The United States Census Bureau considers a baby boomer to be someone born during the demographic birth boom between 1946 and 1964.
Imagine how much they will cost in Social Security, add to it Medicare expenses /when Hospital is charging $10.00 for one pill of Aspirin/ and you will find that Government is out of money.
If age will be shorter, less they /Government/ will pay. Did you get it?

August 17, 2009 at 8:59 pm
(532) Carl says:

Really? The federal government has no legitimate role in health care? I suppose you are against taking care of our vets and elderly? I never hear of people denouncing “socialized medicine” for them, not do I know of any vets or elderly folks who think these systems should be done away with. Doesn’t sound much like tyranny to me…

Also, this bill gives people another coverage option, it does not provide the government with a mechanism to decide who live and who dies. What it does do is define parameters of what that additional coverage option entails. Private insurance companies do this as well, and just like with private insurance, if the government option wouldnt pay for a procedure, the patient’s family would still have the option of raising the funds.

August 17, 2009 at 9:03 pm
(533) Dennis says:

You know, I started not to post a comment on this blog; however, I have to ask one maybe two questions. Has anyone ever heard of Medicare/Medicaid? If yes, did you know they are both GOVERNMENT FUNDED!!! I’m sure today’s elderly are grateful for it! Oh, question number two, do you have a family member who is a veteran? If yes, I’m sure a larger percentage of them are thankful for that good-ole GOVERNMENT FUNDED program!!! Sorry, but I do have one more question for David Emery. If you read this comment, can you point out to me where page 425 states the Government/Obama’s Healthcare Bill will counsel individuals on suicide? I see where is provides support for end of life planning and advanced care planning. You do know that is merely HOSPICE care, POA/ Guardianship care for people with dementia/Alzheimer’s and other vital care needs for the elderly/not so elderly and their families during what is and will be a very challenging time? You do know that, right?
Thanks for providing the bill, great reading!!! I hope everyone else can read and decipher fact from fiction!!!

August 18, 2009 at 12:31 am
(534) urbanlegends says:

Dennis writes:

“Sorry, but I do have one more question for David Emery. If you read this comment, can you point out to me where page 425 states the Government/Obama’s Healthcare Bill will counsel individuals on suicide?”

Yes, Dennis. Nowhere.

August 18, 2009 at 12:41 am
(535) Jim says:

check out section 1904 on page 838
Here they come to your home and teach you how to raise your children. All their activities are recored and used to determine the “effectiveness of the program”.

August 18, 2009 at 5:24 am
(536) Blake says:

As an Australian who can walk into any hospital and get free healthcare it baffles me that there is so much opposition to this bill. As a Doctor, I don’t believe health should ever be “a business”. If I am going to pay taxes, the first thing I want is free healthcare. This is not socialism, it’s social justice.

The ‘death panels’ outrage also seems to stem from a passage in the bill discussing very similar ideas to Advance Health Directives in Australia regarding patient education about end of life issues and making informed decisions about your future care once you become debilitated.

Stop this madness and at least have a sensible discussion instead of outragous arguements from ignorant parties.

August 18, 2009 at 8:48 am
(537) Jo says:

NC77 (and Jim) — don’t bother UL thinks he “proves” what this bill says, but in fact all his “proof” does is raise more questions than answers. Anyone who says this unfinished extremely vague bill doesn’t leave the door door open to government LIMITING and RATIONING HC is fibbing.

Just read the lefties posting here, they have no coherent argument, just the typical tiresome repetitive,

“You don’t know about end of life planning.”
(This ambiguous bill is open to interpretation, thus the heated debate. So open, it could change the meaning of the current definition of end of life planning.)

“Medicare (etc..) is government run plan.”
(Great example of why we should have gov’t HC?!?To the contrary — Medicaid is already broke.)

“You don’t want to “help” the sick.”
(Again contrarily we do, that’s why we are against *this* bill – it has the potential to LIMIT and ration HC for everyone including the poor and elderly. There are other plans to fix HC.)

“The “zealots” are stirred up.”

Well that clears up the problems in this bill now doesn’t it? GREAT argument.

And so on…

Simpletons believe whatever their Messiah says is the gospel. They refuse to recognize BO by his own admission wants a plan that leads to single payer. Which is synonymous with HC rationing.

Lefties – you don’t think so? Then post a country that has a unlimited, non-rationed (no wait) Gov’t HC plan, thanks in advance.

August 18, 2009 at 9:42 am
(538) urbanlegends says:

Jo writes:

“UL thinks he ‘proves’ what this bill says, but in fact all his ‘proof’ does is raise more questions than answers. Anyone who says this unfinished extremely vague bill doesn’t leave the door open to government LIMITING and RATIONING HC is fibbing.”

Everybody, please read Jo’s response in its entirety, compare it to her earliest postings above, and note the complete shift in argument.

What started out as (words to the effect of), “This section of the bill MANDATES consultations that can result in a DOCTOR’S ORDER TO END YOUR LIFE,” has mysteriously morphed into: “This AMBIGUOUS bill has the POTENTIAL to limit and ration health care.”

I’m just sayin’. . . .

August 18, 2009 at 12:07 pm
(539) No Laughing Matter says:

I have been a temp at my job for almost 2 years. A young lady I work with, pleased about the stall in healthcare reform walked pass my office laughing stating, “haha… you still don’t have health insurance”.

August 18, 2009 at 3:12 pm
(540) Maria says:

Seriously, that is what this nitwit read. Clearly, anyone can put a spin on anything. What an Idiot.

August 18, 2009 at 3:16 pm
(541) Jo says:

UL said: What started out as (words to the effect of), “This section of the bill MANDATES consultations that can result in a DOCTOR’S ORDER TO END YOUR LIFE,” has mysteriously morphed into: “This AMBIGUOUS bill has the POTENTIAL to limit and ration health care.”

I’m just sayin’. . . .

…. but not accurately. Lie to attempt to disqualify my question to the lefties?? Wow.

You need to read more carefully (to coin your over used, condescending phrase) — I haven’t said doctors order to end your life — not once. I have said the gov’t may (note– I said MAY) not cover a surgery if you are of a certain age. I have said all along that this bill is not complete, it is “vague”, “ambiguous”, and I have repeatedly said it will ration and limit HC.

Scroll and look.

BTW this bill suggest HC mandates, and you know it.
(oops — there is another one of those phrases.)

You may sneer at people who actually understand the legal words in this bill. You may sneer for pointing out that THIS bill mirrors this administrations admitted plans of eliminating private care and imposing single payer. You can sneer at us that have the *audacity* to point out the people of this administration working on HC, are Dr. Kevorkian wanna-be’s, etc..

Sneer away – it doesn’t change the facts, and the (very few) intelligent people here know it.

Now… lefties answer my question: What country has unlimited gov’t HC with no waiting (rationing), thanks in advance.

August 18, 2009 at 3:32 pm
(542) Jo says:

Blake said: As an Australian who can walk into any hospital and get free healthcare it baffles me that there is so much opposition to this bill. As a Doctor, I don’t believe health should ever be “a business”. If I am going to pay taxes, the first thing I want is free healthcare. This is not socialism, it’s social justice.

=========================

The “opposition” is to this administrations inconsistencies and outright lies about where this HC plan will take us.

We all want a plan. Just not THIS plan.

Don’t you pay 1.5% consumption tax for HC in Australia, and isn’t your hospitals run by each state? Don’t you still have to pay for private/gov’t insurance payments too? I also heard you (or perhaps it was Singapore?) have Health accounts which are like IRA’s – tax free and used for medical emergencies?

I’m not opposed to a plan, I just don’t want the federal gov’t running it.

August 18, 2009 at 3:52 pm
(543) urbanlegends says:

Jo says I lied when I paraphrased her original position as:

“the bill MANDATES consultations that can result in a DOCTOR’S ORDER TO END YOUR LIFE.”

She says, quote:

“I haven’t said doctors order to end your life — not once. I have said the gov’t may (note– I said MAY) not cover a surgery if you are of a certain age. I have said all along that this bill is not complete, it is ‘vague’, ‘ambiguous’, and I have repeatedly said it will ration and limit HC.

I’m tired of bickering, so everyone please look at her actual words and decide for yourself if I mischaracterized them. If I did, I apologize.

Jo (Comment #101): “Consultation can and will result in a ORDER regarding life sustaining treatment — in other words the government CAN ORDER YOUR DEATH – in the event of a life threatening injury/illness.”

Jo (Comment #125): “PG 425 Lines 4-12 – Govt mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life. Seniors will be interviewed at least every 5 years, for health issues and decisions.”

Jo (Comment #125): “Pg 429 Lines 13-25 – The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.”

Not one of those three statements is true, by the way.

I wasn’t denying you ever said the bill was ambiguous, Jo, or that you said it would ration or limit HC. You did say those things. My point was that you began by making specific allegations which you utterly failed to prove, and now you’re trying to sound all reasonable by saying the bill is “vague” and “leaves the door open” for “potential” health care rationing.

August 18, 2009 at 4:04 pm
(544) urbanlegends says:

Jo wrote:

“BTW this bill suggest HC mandates, and you know it.”

The specific allegation was that the bill mandates advance care planning consultations.

It does not.

August 18, 2009 at 4:49 pm
(545) urbanlegends says:

Jo wrote:

“I’m not opposed to a plan, I just don’t want the federal gov’t running it.”

Others here may disagree with me, but I find that a perfectly reasonable position to hold.

My only real issue with you is the degree to which you’re willing to misrepresent what the bill actually says in order to defeat it.

August 18, 2009 at 6:42 pm
(546) Lori says:

Come on David…if you are going to represent the truth – then represent the truth – otherwise you will lose all credibility! John is correct…paragraph 3 says nothing about being “optional” but rather reads that the “advanced care planning consultation” is mandatory and that discussing “end of life” options is mandatory (see paragraph 3 “Such consultation shall include the following: “(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.”

August 18, 2009 at 7:07 pm
(547) urbanlegends says:

Lori writes:

“John is correct…paragraph 3 says nothing about being ‘optional’ but rather reads that the ‘advanced care planning consultation’ is mandatory and that discussing ‘end of life’ options is mandatory (see paragraph 3 ‘Such consultation shall include the following: ‘(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.’”

Where in there did it say anything like “patients MUST have consultations every five years”?

Sure, it does say things like “such consultation shall include,” etc. but all those “shall” sentences do is mandate what is in the consultations, not that anyone is required to have them.

Again, SHOW me language to the contrary.

The fact is, if you read the section carefully from start to finish, and especially if you examine how it connects up with existing language in the Social Security Act, it is perfectly clear that this is not meant to be a mandated medical service.

You probably missed the lengthy explanation I submitted in a comment above showing exactly where this entire section of the bill does fit into the Social Security Act — a section which lists only OPTIONAL services covered by Medicare (look for Comment #164).

Lastly, you don’t have to take my word for it. Plenty of outside sources, including AARP, Associated Press, Politifact.com, CNN, and FactCheck.org have analyzed this section with the help of experts and ALL concluded it does NOT mandate advance care consultations.

How many times does this have to be repeated?

August 18, 2009 at 10:06 pm
(548) Jo says:

UL you hang on the word “can” vs “may” in a unfinished bill? (Of course you don’t tell UL readers it’s unfinished….)

Ok, then I’ll ploay one last time — Can you tell me by reading the verbiage in this bill they definitely CANNOT enforce mandatory end of life counseling or withhold care??

No?

Didn’t think so. Case and point.

BTW, I see you didn’t include my concession that doctors shall give end of life directives to patients, not gov’t to patients.

It figures. No credit where due.

There has been a lot of chatter between you and I, which you consistently misrepresent. While you nit-pick and are stuck in yesterday, most of us are looking at the new HC co-op attempted coup.

Whatever — the left can stay here and debate trivial wording, on a rapidly outdated HC bill that hasn’t enough votes to pass. The rest of us — the thinking MAJORITY — will debate on reputable sites the new co-op “name change” (misdirection)to HR 3200.

Note to the readers — that is all it is, misdirection. Co-ops (BTW originally based in liberal socialism ideology) needs “partner” companies — who will those partners be? The government of course – partnering with government – Not a bit of difference, just a name change.

Sit, stay — good lefties … let the thinkers find a better solution to the obamination HC bill while you mince words.

August 18, 2009 at 10:18 pm
(549) urbanlegends says:

I say again, Jo, anybody who happened on this page looking for a reasoned discussion about what this section of the bill does and does not say can see you for who you are. ‘Nuff said.

August 18, 2009 at 10:30 pm
(550) Jo says:

A reminder for those new :
—————————
“(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii)

(Jo: (A) (ii) says — communicating the individuals preferences.)

may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions.

(Jo: full treatment or to LIMIT — in other words, it doesn’t really matter what your prefer they decide and can LIMIT.)

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.”

Jo: They decide if you are worth saving, despite your “preferences”.

August 18, 2009 at 10:35 pm
(551) Jo says:

UL: I say again, Jo, anybody who happened on this page looking for a reasoned discussion about what this section of the bill does and does not say can see you for who you are. ‘Nuff said.

Jo: Back at you, and the minions.

August 18, 2009 at 10:40 pm
(552) urbanlegends says:

Jo writes:

“(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii)

(Jo: (A) (ii) says — communicating the individuals preferences.)

may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions.

(Jo: full treatment or to LIMIT — in other words, it doesn’t really matter what your prefer they decide and can LIMIT.)

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.”

Jo: They decide if you are worth saving, despite your “preferences”.

I think it’s about time you went somewhere else to peddle your obfuscations. Thank you.

August 19, 2009 at 2:02 am
(553) Charles says:

As far as specifying limiting preferences, I’ve been through this twice with relatives. Both specified that they did not want to be kept alive by artificial means if there was no possibility that they wouldn’t recover. Both had had massive strokes and had no likelihood of ever recovering any meaningful life. We chose to withhold nutrition and only provide hydration and pain medications, as advised by their physicians, as requested in their advance directives, which they’d prepared after counselling by their physicians. Several friends were appalled at our choice to do that, yet that is what our family members wanted; we merely honoured their choice and accepted it.

The paragraph that is being added and is under contention is part of Medicare (check the cite). After crawling through the comments, several seem to have hit right on the point of the it: cut down on contention and legal action over end-of-life actions by physicians with elderly or severely injured patients by family members who disagree with parent’s or relative’s choices, even though these are choices that they have specified in their own advance directives. One only has to look back at the Terri Schiavo fiasco to see what problems a lack of advance directives will cause.

August 19, 2009 at 2:10 am
(554) Ueno Murakami says:

First point – Obama’s health care plan is not going to kill seniors. It is not going to encourage the killing of seniors. I think it encourages awareness of how to deal with life-ending illnesses humanely. Why not think that Obama is encouraging better treatment for people dealing with terminal illness. Did anyone stop to think that he actually cares because he has experienced such situations?

As far as I have read the mostly widely talked about bill, HR 3200, and the excerpts stated above call for information gathering, not decisive action. And on top of that the people who seem to be giving the information are the physicians and nurses with the expertise to disseminate such information.

Next point – take a look at the Japanese health care system. A great mix of private insurers and a single-payer system. Everyone pays into the system regardless if you have employer-based, private, or government-based. Usually, if you work the company is mandated to provide care. It either uses a private insurer or goes with the national system. Many small businesses that can’t afford a private company use the national system. The national system is also open to individuals. The national health insurance tax is based on your salary. When you go to use it the cut is 70/30. The government pays 70% of the bill, and the citizen pays 30%. Basically it works out pretty well. If serious illness occurs then there are payment options open to the citizen that makes things affordable. No one in Japan goes bankrupt because of healthcare. And the care is excellent, timely, and encourages prevention. Why can’t get it right?

Socialized medicine can work, but we are caught up on terminology and ideology, and unfortunatley greed – people are in health care for the money. If government backs the system, we pay into it through taxes (yes, you can’t get something for nothing), and let the doctors and caregivers make the health decisions – why can’t that work?

Call me nieve, but I just don’t think fixing an inefficient health care system should be as difficult as it seems to have become.

Peace

August 19, 2009 at 9:25 am
(555) Andrea says:

Jo-
I have read and re-read these sections. They just do not say what you are saying. The doctor is not “limiting” anything. It is the patient that is choosing what actions to take or not to take at a critical moment.
I live in another county now(with a socialized system), but when I was in the States, I hated my insurance companies and the medical system. Have things changed so much in 5 years? I doubt that people will be pining for the goold ‘ol days of insurance companies that already decide for many which options are available and which are not.

August 19, 2009 at 9:32 am
(556) Barcar says:

You mentioned that after reading this, you say ” far as I can tell after wading through several pages of legalese, merely amends Title 18 of the Social Security Act to stipulate that Medicare will pay for — not mandate”
My question is did you see where it actually says it does not mandate or is that left open to interpretation?

August 19, 2009 at 10:48 am
(557) urbanlegends says:

Barcar writes:

“My question is did you see where it actually says it does not mandate or is that left open to interpretation?”

The answer is a two-parter.

1. The first several lines of this section state that everything that follows is to be inserted into the Social Security Act, Section 1861, subsection (s)(2), after item (EE). All that does is add it to a list of COVERED Medicare services and their definitions. NONE of the services in the list are government-mandated (if they were, the government could force you to have outpatient physical therapy services and kidney dialysis, etc.). See more detail on this and a link to the pertinent section of the Social Security Act in Comment #164 above.

2. By now I have read this section 100 times, and there is no language in it anywhere that says anyone MUST have advance care planning consultations.

But don’t take my word for it. AARP, Associated Press, Politifact.com, CNN, and FactCheck.org have all analyzed this section with expert input and concluded it does not mandate advance care planning consultations.

August 19, 2009 at 2:15 pm
(558) Jo says:

Andrea & Charles,

I’m not against end-of life plans. I think we all have a duty to our families to have these conversations.

Charles, you make my point. Government didn’t have to hold your hand or demand 5 yr. doctor conferences to make these decisions.

This bill is purposely vague. If this administration told you specifically what they will HAVE to limit, mandate, and ration, Americans would throw them out of office.

This administration and those who have working on the BO HC plan, ADMIT this is the first systematic step to the elimination of private insurance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sTfZJBYo1I

Thankfully enough people are awakening and listening to what they are telling us. Meanwhile Canada is trying to create private insurance companies because the gov’t plan is “imploding”.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jbjzPEY0Y3bvRD335rGu_Z3KXoQw

And the UK atrocities of rationing, limits, and mandates are a frightening example of what we and the elderly can expect here in the USA:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5955840/Patients-forced-to-live-in-agony-after-NHS-refuses-to-pay-for-painkilling-injections.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6401002.ece

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2004/jul/17/longtermcare.money

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3634362/Twisted-priorities-that-let-the-elderly-suffer.html

One on child birth:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1207371/Father-turned-away-hospital-pregnant-wife-delivers-baby-bathroom-floor–saves-daughters-life.html

I ask again what country with gov’t HC has run it successfully unlimited and no rationing??

It is naive to think our gov’t (who created Medicaid and Medicaid that are both BROKE.) will run a HC system better than our allied gov’ts that have already tried it and failed.

Government never creates wealth or successful programs — the *private* sector does.

August 19, 2009 at 3:33 pm
(559) urbanlegends says:

Jo writes:

“Charles, you make my point. Government didn’t have to hold your hand or demand 5 yr. doctor conferences to make these decisions.”

Stop misrepresenting the facts.

This section of the bill neither creates government “hand holders” nor mandates 5-year doctor conferences. You’re being intentionally misleading.

It says that when individuals on Medicare have advance care planning consultations with their doctors (a maximum of once every 5 years) Medicare will pay for it.

August 19, 2009 at 3:56 pm
(560) doug says:

The “unplug grandma” discussions are meant to be a distraction, so the american public can stop hearing about real flaws in the proposed legislation. It is not a dem or rep issue for me, it is more good idea or bad idea. Current plan is a bad idea.

August 19, 2009 at 3:56 pm
(561) Jo says:

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

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

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

Tom McClusky

http://blog.thehill.com/the-big-question-august-12-tom-mcclusky/

August 19, 2009 at 4:23 pm
(562) Jenne says:

People with private (employer-provided) insurance who find this bill confusing might want to try to get a copy of their health care insurance and see if they can figure out what is and is not covered.

Half the time neither I, the health-care provider, nor my HR people can tell ahead of time what is and is not covered, and it took me six months of calling my healthcare ‘insurance’ company to find someone who would tell me that, no, when my baby was born in a covered hospital I *wasn’t* supposed to be charged the deductible on each or in fact any of the non-participating specialists who were on call at the hospital and looked at him. Had I paid the bills as originally dealt with by the insurance company I would have been out more than half of that $2500. The scary thing is that my company can’t tell me what specifically is and isn’t paid for, but since we’re ‘self-insured’ all the costs of my care that the insurance approves are passed directly back to my company.

August 19, 2009 at 4:27 pm
(563) Jacob says:

Wow, I knew it. Reading SYS’s comment, I thought watch this idiot not even go near the definition of socialism because he doesn’t know what it means, sure enough, he didn’t.

August 19, 2009 at 4:37 pm
(564) Jo says:

The following people, some of them liberals, have studied or at least read the provisions and are unable to dismiss them in the manner of Obama and company. And their concerns are based on what is written in HR 3200. Among them:

Charles Lane:

Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren’t quite “purely voluntary,” as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, “purely voluntary” means “not unless the patient requests one.” Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive — money — to do so. Indeed, that’s an incentive to insist.

Wesley Smith, who has studied the language closely and offered revisions that would absolutely rule out a mandatory interpretation. The section was revised but the ambiguity remains. Mr. Smith has written extensively on section 1233 and is the source for factual information and analysis on this subject.

Eugene Robinson:

If the government says it has to control health-care costs and then offers to pay doctors to give advice about hospice care, citizens are not delusional to conclude that the goal is to reduce end-of-life spending.

Charles Grassley:

“In the House bill, there is counseling for end of life,” Grassley said. “You have every right to fear. You shouldn’t have counseling at the end of life, you should have done that 20 years before. Should not have a government run plan to decide when to pull the plug on grandma”

Sandy Szwarc:

More importantly, it is clearly an effort to coerce seniors to sign such an order. There are multiple loopholes that open doors for its misuse, and abuse of the elderly, while also including no protections for these patients.

Betsy McCaughey:

“In so many words, it is [mandatory] — because although it is presented in the bill as a Medicare service, when a doctor or a nurse approaches an elderly person who is in poor health, facing a decline in health, and raises these issues, it is not offering a service. It is pressuring them,” McCaughey said Monday. “I would not want that to occur when I am not at my parents’ bedside.”

Lee Siegel:

This reeks of the Big Brother nightmare of oppressive government that the shrewd propagandists on the right are always blathering on about. Except that this time, they could not be more right.

Herbert London:

Although it does not make reference to euthanasia, it is easy to draw the conclusion that counseling by someone, who is not necessarily equipped to make medical decisions, could be interpreted as euthanasia guidance. Suppose someone of 80 has cancer, a condition that may require aggressive and expensive treatment. What will a counselor suggest? My guess is he will point out that the treatment is discomforting and is unlikely to extend life expectancy significantly. Perhaps the best thing to do is let nature take its course. Is this euthanasia? That depends on perspective, but that conclusion cannot be ruled out.

Armstrong Williams:

You can’t control costs without telling someone they will have to either wait or go without. There’s no getting around that fact. Look to European countries and how they’re assigning “value” to human life and procedures. As morbid as it sounds, how else can you quantify access and enumerate costs? Obama and his staff started this. Democrats just codified it in language that offers Medicare coverage for doctors who want to counsel seniors on end-of-life decisions. Has it been blown out of proportion? Yes, but they’re very real concerns. Conservatives shouldn’t get the blame for what frightens constituents, particularly senior citizens.

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/08/13/obama-ought-to-read-section-1233-of-hr-3200/
=============================

This site quotes both sides of the isles, and should balance those sites posted here, like Media Matters or Huffington Post who do not. The left does not have some *right* to the final analytical conclusion. The debate goes on.

The democrats have the votes to pass this bill without the republicans, they say they may go it alone. If they do, we shall see some real change. I can’t wait for voter backlash 2010.

August 19, 2009 at 4:54 pm
(565) Jo says:

BTW-

It isn’t surprising the AARP is leaning (but not yet endorsing) the HC bill, the CEO is a huge Obama supporter.

http://thehill.com/business–lobby/new-aarp-chief-gave-big-to-obama-2009-03-12.html

August 19, 2009 at 5:08 pm
(566) urbanlegends says:

Jo writes:

“The following people, some of them liberals, have studied or at least read the provisions and are unable to dismiss them in the manner of Obama and company. And their concerns are based on what is written in HR 3200.”

Thank you for these quotes, a refreshing change from fear-mongering and obscurantism.

August 19, 2009 at 5:14 pm
(567) Jo says:

Socialist? No.

BO is more of a Liberation Theologian (based in Marxist, political theory), and by his actions, he may not rule out totalitarianism.

Many republicans/libertarians/constitutionalists use the term “socialist” to be polite.

August 19, 2009 at 5:14 pm
(568) urbanlegends says:

Jo writes:

“It isn’t surprising the AARP is leaning (but not yet endorsing) the HC bill, the CEO is a huge Obama supporter.”

Fair point, but balance that with the recognition that the CEO of AARP serves a huge constituency of the very folks some people claim will be hauled before “death panels” and sent off to an early demise. If he wants to keep his job he is incentivized neither to lie to his constituency nor deliver them up to senior death squads.

August 19, 2009 at 5:15 pm
(569) Mo says:

To those of you who oppose a government plan for health insurance, I have one question.

Do you plan on using any of your Medicare benefits?

August 19, 2009 at 5:15 pm
(570) Jo says:

One man’s view of fear mongering is another mans warning to the public.

August 19, 2009 at 6:53 pm
(571) Scott says:

No, Mo. :)
It’s already going broke. Like Soc Security.
Big Ponzi schemes fail disastrously.

August 19, 2009 at 8:33 pm
(572) Jo says:

To Mo,
Since we are forced to pay Medicare, why wouldn’t we collect our own money?

August 19, 2009 at 8:42 pm
(573) Jo says:

To Mo: That should have been collect *on* our own money?

If I was not MANDATED to pay by ORDER of government, I would re-invest that money for my HC and retirement.

August 19, 2009 at 9:01 pm
(574) Jo says:

UL RE/560: If he {CEO of AARP} wants to keep his job he is incentivized neither to lie to his constituency nor deliver them up to senior death squads.

Jo: OR, he is under pressure from this administration to sell HR 3200 to AARP members (I wouldn’t call them constituents – he is not an elected official) in exchange for stimulus cash, or a blind eye, I suspect.

This is NOT far fetched, follow the money. The stimulus trail has ALREADY paid ACORN.(pages 72-73 of the report — $10 million for the SHOP program)among other community organizers.

August 20, 2009 at 8:59 am
(575) Jo says:

Off topic, but relevant to the HC debate.
===========
In a move some fear is a reprisal for opposing President Obama’s health care plan, Democrats sent 52 letters to health insurers requesting financial records for a House committee’s investigation.

Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Bart Stupak, D-Mich., sent a letter warning health insurers that the House Energy and Commerce Committee is “examining executive compensation and other business practices of the health industry.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/19/health-insurers-fear-probe-house-dems-reprisal-opposing-obamas-plan/

========================

Where does this stop?? Will your industry be the next to be limited on what you personally can earn? Limiting financial success in America is an outrage. Especially after they created the monster via bad regulation.

But this isn’t all about CEO pay — it’s a diversion. The left doesn’t want the HC protests to dominate the media, so they go after the insurance companies. Old political tactic – used by both parties.

If the politicians in Washington really wanted to reduce Insurance companies CEO bonus pay, they would remove government regulations that allows Insurance industry to be a partial monopoly.

Allowing Insurance companies to sell over state lines, would immediately create competition.

The more choice via competition — lowers cost. Lower HC cost — lower CEO bonus potential.

August 20, 2009 at 9:32 am
(576) Jo says:

VA workbook BO has reinstated (Bush had the VA suspend it) discusses depression, wheel chairs, not being able to take care of ones family etc… , as a consideration option: “not worth living”.

—————————————————-

“Your Life, Your Choices.” “Who is the primary author of this workbook? Dr. Robert Pearlman, chief of ethics evaluation for the center, a man who in 1996 advocated for physician-assisted suicide in Vacco v. Quill before the U.S. Supreme Court and is known for his support of health-care rationing”

Here is the rest of the article about it:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204683204574358590107981718.html

—————————————

Or Read it yourself directly from the handbook:
http://www1.va.gov/pugetsound/docs/ylyc.pdf

See page 21.

Does Lebensunwertes Leben ring a bell anyone?

August 20, 2009 at 9:42 am
(577) Jo says:

Section 1233 dictates, at some length, the content of the consultation. The doctor “shall” discuss “advanced care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to”; “an explanation of . . . living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses” (even though these are legal, not medical, instruments); and “a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families.” The doctor “shall” explain that Medicare pays for hospice care (hint, hint).

Admittedly, this script is vague and possibly unenforceable. What are “key questions”? Who belongs on “a list” of helpful “resources”? The Roman Catholic Church? Jack Kevorkian?

Ideally, the delicate decisions about how to manage life’s end would be made in a setting that is neutral in both appearance and fact. Yes, it’s good to have a doctor’s perspective. But Section 1233 goes beyond facilitating doctor input to preferring it. Indeed, the measure would have an interested party — the government — recruit doctors to sell the elderly on living wills, hospice care and their associated providers, professions and organizations. You don’t have to be a right-wing wacko to question that approach.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080703043.html

August 20, 2009 at 9:45 am
(578) Jo says:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090819/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_consultants

“President Barack Obama’s push for a national health care overhaul is providing a financial windfall in the election offseason to Democratic consulting firms that are closely connected to the president and two top advisers.”

Pay for play — the Chicago way.

August 20, 2009 at 10:59 am
(579) Lorn says:

AMERICA WAKE – UP before it too LATE, You are becoming little by little a third world country. This is what happenning! He is a socialist and nothing good happens with his policies. He was against Bush war on iraq, Excuse me i just hear on TV he was talking about We are in war on terrorist, isn’t that what he was apposing in his elections? Well he does the same thins as Bush just in Afganistan, and nobody questions him how much money been spend on this war??? He proposing government healthcare, the worst thing can happened to USA !!! I cannot believe what is wrong with this country??? AMERICA what happened? He is better consintrate on education which is a really big problem big big big!!! may be he should reform that? I am from Russia and the healthcare is horrible there! if you do not give cash in the packet like for having a child it cash to the doctor’s packet $ 10,000.00 usd dollars doctor will not pay any attention to the patient at all because he does not make much money! it just a little example out of 1000′s of them. Why doesn’t Obama first go on his own healthcare program? America, he will be ther only 4 or 8 years, but people will be suffereing forever. Please do not do mistake, This used to be the greatest Country on Earth, he is trashing it very fast I am not surprise, because he is supporting Castro, Shavez, and all of those dictators. HE IS A DICTATOR! We are loosing our freedom fast and going straight down the hill! It hurts i came here for better life and it seems as i came for worst! My heart is broken to see what happening to this strong pwerfull country! Do not let him destroy what left. He needs to rebuild the country not to destroy it. He promis education what happened to that deal? is it off the table ? We are all will be taxed ! Do not believe anything he says! htere is not enought reach people to pay for all his socialistic programms! all the middle class will be taxed. there will not be a middle class, theere will be poor and reach. and thaat what is going to happened.

August 20, 2009 at 12:11 pm
(580) jeff says:

Where in the bill does it mention suicide or assisted suicide…Lighten up you Fear Mongers and Perpetuaters of Lies and Half Truths.

August 20, 2009 at 12:58 pm
(581) Realist says:

I think Jo raps up the debate about page 425. Great post. Also I agree HC needs reform but through procedure/Dr/hosipal/Rx/etc… cost regulation and competition.

Sorry a little off topic but has anyone heard the conference call to the preachers by Obama yestersday?

One of Obama’s comments was that your not a good christian unless you agree with HC reform.

I believe in the good samaritan parable the samaritan was not forced by Rome to help the man in need. It was his will and internal love for his fellow mankind.

The administration is pushing legalism not obedience. We are told to VOLUNTEER our services and gifts to the needy not be forced to care for the needy. Keep the gov’t out of the private industries like health care. Why would we be lectured about religous morales from a man that promotes same sex marriage and abortion which the bible is very clear about.

One more thing during one of Obama’s town hall meetings the question was asked how will private industry compete with a gov’t backed provider? He gave an example of UPS and FedEx. What the hell is he thinking!!!! The USPS is BANKRUPT!!!!!

(U.S. Postal Service Faces $7 Billion Net Loss in 2009. The U.S Postal Service faces a net loss of $7 billion in fiscal year 2009 even if it succeeds in cutting its costs by $6 billion, according to testimony provided to a Senate subcommittee last week by the Government Accountability Office. The Postal Service is expected to end the year with $10.2 billion in outstanding debt. Meanwhile, USPS faces continuing high overhead in the form of employee wages and benefits fixed by collective bargaining agreements, as well as declining use of the service by its customers.)

I guess he wasn’t briefed on this little tid bit of information like he wasn’t briefed before when he made that assinine statement about the cop that arrested that professor which by the way a President has NO right in concerning himself with.

The taxpayers will have to bail the USPS out. I guess Obama calls this competing. Give me a freaking break this guy is insane! He is trying anything he can to push this through. If the public allows any form of gov’t involvement with HC we will ALL pay in more ways than just money!!! Oh the young man who asked our (National Community Organizer “NCO” for short) I’m sorry (don’t report me to the “FLAG.WH”) President was only 23. Maybe he needs to be the ZAR? of Capitalism just to make sure capitalism in the US is performing right! NOT!

August 20, 2009 at 1:17 pm
(582) urbanlegends says:

Jo quotes the Washington Post:

“But Section 1233 goes beyond facilitating doctor input to preferring it. Indeed, the measure would have an interested party — the government — recruit doctors to sell the elderly on living wills, hospice care and their associated providers, professions and organizations. You don’t have to be a right-wing wacko to question that approach.”

It’s true, you don’t have to be a right-wing wacko to question it. But it’s not quite accurate, in my opinion, to say the measure would have the government “recruiting” doctors to sell the elderly on living wills, hospice care, etc. I encourage everyone to read the full article, which is excellent in any case.

That said, I’d like to point out a few things about Jo’s posting.

1. The quoted text is a Washington Post opinion piece by Charles Lane.

2. Apparently Jo would have us accept Mr. Lane’s word as authoritative.

3. Interestingly enough, the Washington Post is a member of what folks like Jo prefer to call “MSM” (mainstream media or “lapdog” media), of which Jo said, after I posted links to sources including the mainstream Associated Press, the scrupulously impartial Politifact.com, and the left-leaning Huffington Post: “Sorry, I don’t allow MSM, leftist-blog cheerleaders or right-wing sites, to tell me what or how to think.”

Interesting! After stating this, and after dismissing my sources outright, Jo went on to post links from Reuters, the Washington Post, Slate.com, HeritageFoundation.org, and AmericanThinker.com, to name but a few. ‘Nuff said.

4. It also seems Jo conveniently left out some of Mr. Lane’s other very interesting observations in the same article:

Enter Section 1233 of the health-care bill drafted in the Democratic-led House, which would pay doctors to give Medicare patients end-of-life counseling every five years — or sooner if the patient gets a terminal diagnosis.

On the far right, this is being portrayed as a plan to force everyone over 65 to sign his or her own death warrant. That’s rubbish. Federal law already bars Medicare from paying for services “the purpose of which is to cause, or assist in causing,” suicide, euthanasia or mercy killing. Nothing in Section 1233 would change that.

Mr. Lane goes on to say the consultations are “not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed.”

5. Compare this to what Jo herself has said:

Jo: “Consultation can and will result in a ORDER regarding life sustaining treatment — in other words the government CAN ORDER YOUR DEATH – in the event of a life threatening injury/illness.”

Jo: “PG 425 Lines 4-12 – Govt mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life.”

6. Up to this point, Jo has dismissed those of us who disagreed with these very statements as biased “Libs,” “Lefties,” the “simpleton left,” misrepresenters, deceivers, Obama mouthpieces, etc.

Will she finally admit she was wrong?

August 20, 2009 at 4:02 pm
(583) Dub says:

Wow. I can’t believe this came up so quick in a google for “the new health care bill”. This is ludicrous.

Doesn’t shame ever kick in with these folks. If your smart enough to post anything on the internet, you should be smart enough to realize that the government is not trying to mandate euthanasia. Fear mongering at it’s finest, but congratulations, it looks like your loud noises and shiny distractions over here on the right are keeping positive from occurring either on the left or any where else. Way to go.

Really, this argument is so “bad sci-fi” it’s comical.

August 20, 2009 at 5:32 pm
(584) Terry says:

I am tired of the Constitutionalists, Republicans, and other supposed Christain groups thinking that they can create conditions in our country and then walk away from their responsibility of supporting the resulting society created by constant competitive greed. Insurance companies are currently the ones that have “death panels” and withhold procedures that can save lives. I guess that’s OK since they are trying to make the ever more sacred dollar? Mammon is your only God. Jesus would be ashamed. Of course if Jesus disagreed with you you would crucify him…. Wait…people like you already did once.

August 20, 2009 at 5:48 pm
(585) Decide4myself says:

Working for a Catholic hospital for 20 years provided me with a valuable education on ethics in health care. No, I’m no Catholic, but I do understand it. Part of my duties in the admissions department was to explain Advanced Directives (the patient has a choice for resussitation and life support) and also Medical Power of Attorney (the patient chooses a family member to make choices for them if they cannot) My sister was terminally ill & she had completed both of these forms, she didn’t want ressuscitated and I had the POA. These forms were on her chart while she was in the hospital during the last few days of her life. This did not stop a doctor from tying her to her bed and shoving a feeding tube down her throat to prolong her suffering while I was absent. When I arrived the next morning, I heard her screaming as soon as I got off of the elevator. It took me about an hour of red tape to get them removed so that she could die with dignity. After they were removed, a sister (nun) prayed with us. My sister was gone 2 days later. Some of you on this forum have a fear of the unknown. It makes you, if you do not understand the wording of the document, rely on what somebody else tells you it means. Being sick sucks, so does dying, and so does the current state of health care. We can’t continue like we are, yet we are terrified of change. I am thankful that most of the folks on here are not my elected officials. Whew!

August 20, 2009 at 10:55 pm
(586) Dr. Ron says:

LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE

I AM A DOCTOR AND I AM DISGUSTED BY THE MISINFORMATION ON THIS SITE ADVOCATED BY CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS, MEDIA, AND CORPORATE INTEREST.

TELL THE TRUTH WHAT HAPPENS NOW TO SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT HAVE A LIVING WILL OF THEIR WISHES SPELLED OUT.

1. Everyone needs to be having these end of life consultations without the goverment common sense requirement. However, if you object to the consultation you can advise your doctor you are not interested in any advice. Consultation DONE!!!!
At least doctors get paid for advising patients when they need advice but refuse it. Do you realize what happens to Grandma or anyone when they do not have a living will. I will tell you. The hospital and doctors are required to resuscitate 80 year old grandma, including chest compression, defibrillate, intubate and then put them on a ventilator. And if he or she does not wake up after a period of time on all kinds of life support with little brain activity on EEG, then the family may decide to discontinue life support. IS THAT REALLY THE WAY YOU WANT TO SPEND YOUR LAST DAYS OF YOUR LIFE?

THE GOVERMENT WILL RATION YOUR HEALTHCARE IS A BIG FAT LIE
Your healthcare is already rationed by insurance companies who decide what to pay doctors, what you pay in premiums, deductibles, and the cost of your medicines. And guess what the insurance companies profit from denying care to those who need it most.
So please explain to me why any individual is trying to increase profits of the insurance companies and limit their options of health care.
JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION, WHY ARE THESE INDIVIDUALS SO CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROFITS OF THE INSURANCE COMPANIES? I KNOW WHY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE AGAINST THE HEALTHCARE BILL. I DONT KNOW WHY THE MEDIA IS FULL OF MISINFORMATION. OH I FORGOT THE MEDIA IS CONTROLLED BY CORPORATE INTEREST.

THE HEALTHCARE PLAN IS SOCIALIZE MEDICINE IS A LIE
If you think this is a plan for socialize medicine then turn in your medicare card or turn in your mother’s or grandmother medicare card. I do not know anyone who will do that. So stop complaining about socialize medicine when everyone expects to use medicare.

THE COST OF HEALTHCARE BY THE GOVERNMENT WILL DRIVE UP THE DEFICIT IS A LIE
WE JUST PAID MORE THAN THAT FOR A WAR IN IRAQ. SUPPOSE WE STOP WASTING THE MONEY IN IRAQ AND PAY FOR OUR HEALTHCARE. NOT A BAD IDEA, HUH???

IF YOU THINK YOUR PREMIUM WILL STAY THE SAME FOR 2010 IF A HEALTHCARE BILL DOES NOT PASS, I HAVE A BRIDGE IN BROOKLYN TO SELL YOU.

IF YOU ARE HAPPY WITH YOUR PRIVATE INSURANCE, MORE POWER TO YOU. I AM GLAD SOME LIKES TO MAKE CORPORATIONS RICHER OR ELSE IT WOULD NOT BE A CAPITALIST SOCIETY. THE HEALTHCARE BILL LETS YOU KEEP THE PRIVATE OPTION TO KEEP INSURANCE COMPANIES IN BUSINESS

IF YOU LOSE YOUR JOB ( WHICH IS NOT UNHEARD OF) MAYBE YOU WILL HAVE A CHANGE OF HEART

IF YOU DONT HAVE INSURANCE. THEN CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES AND LET THE TRUTH BE HEARD OF YOUR HISTORY OF WHY YOU DO NOT HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE

DR. RON

DR. RON

August 20, 2009 at 11:22 pm
(587) Jo says:

Urban Legend — Wow, I have previously posted the Washington Post — a partial quote from Mr. Lane — see post 556.

BTW, you THANKED me for in post 558.

You take (yet again), issue with *me* for supplying facts and sources to back up my claims? But you take no issue with those who are consistently derogatory and have no sources, let alone a POINT?

To the readers the only time UL has a problem with me, is when I’m posting opposing facts that *MAY* support the “hysteria” of the above alleged e-mail…

and…

…. Here’s more (and factual!)

BTW, I’m only posting *part of it* “for brevity” (UL may have to look that word up, but we do it all the time in REAL life)
==================

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/death_panel_is_not_in_the_bill.html

The AP is technically correct in stating that end-of-life counseling is not the same as a death panel. The New York Times is also correct to point out that the health care bill contains no provision setting up such a panel.

(Jo: Uhhh-oh the TRUTH! Could be a Washington Post story so far!)

What both outlets fail to point out is that the panel already exists.

(Jo: In walks Darth Vader…..)

H.R. 1 (more commonly known as the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, even more commonly known as the Stimulus Bill and aptly dubbed the Porkulus Bill) contains a whopping $1.1 billion to fund the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. The Council is the brain child of former Health and Human Services Secretary Nominee Tom Daschle. Before the Porkulus Bill passed, Betsy McCaughey, former Lieutenant governor of New York, wrote in detail about the Council’s purpose.

Daschle’s stated purpose (and therefore President Obama’s purpose) for creating the Council is to empower an unelected bureaucracy to make the hard decisions about health care rationing that elected politicians are politically unable to make. The end result is to slow costly medical advancement and consumption. Daschle argues that Americans ought to be more like Europeans who passively accept “hopeless diagnoses.”

McCaughey goes on to explain:

Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them.

================

The potential for the alleged “death panel” is not in ONE bill.

Our Government is NOT stupid. They spread out legislation, because they know you can NOT easily follow it.

The truth.

The death star committee and end of life committees are among us… (It’s a joke! … or not…?)

August 20, 2009 at 11:39 pm
(588) Tired of the lies and bad mouthing says:

Thank you Dr Ron. I am so tired of all the crap and lies that have been so publicized. Lets all GET TOGETHER TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM. Stop tearing it down and spreading falsehoods. If you had to deal with the lack of insurance or continue to see your insurance go up and up and up for less care, maybe you’ll see something needs to change. The rich don’t give a shit. They can afford to have the “lexus care” and pay a doctor $3,000 per year to have access to the doctor’s cell phone number. They don’t care about those that don’t have care and clog the emergency rooms.

Its time for a change. This may not be perfect, but lets all HELP TO MAKE IT SO.

August 20, 2009 at 11:46 pm
(589) Tired of the Lies says:

Americanthinker.com is no thinker. They are a bunch of one sided idiots who don’t check their facts. In fact if you look any notion of “end of life consultations” came from bills created and sponsored by REPUBLICANS!

Let’s all think though. An “end of life consultation” is NOT ABOUT DEATH. Its about making choices in the options in the sustaining life. However, some people who are old and infirm don’t want to end up on a ventilator and a be a vegetable after having a stroke. That’s not the doctor’s choice. That’s the patient’s choice. Would you also rather have the doctors and nurses all scrambling around not knowing what to do with a patient in their care? With all the current problems, ones we’d like to solve, we have enough of these issues.

August 20, 2009 at 11:51 pm
(590) phintel says:

I think there should be a qualification test before people can comment on these open forums. I propose that the test includes two passages from an existing law that one must explain in their own words, a few IQ type questions that could rate one’s ability to apply critical thinking skills, a ten word spelling test, and a deductive reasoning test. You must also have at least a bachelor’s degree or a high school diploma with a GPA of 3.8 or higher. Once qualified to comment, your comments will be deleted if you include blatantly false information in your comment (e.g. Obama is not a citizen, the health reform bill gives the government the right to terminate old people, Obama is a socialist, etc.) Finally, you must adhere to civilized debating rules. If this proposal were put into effect, most of the stupid remarks would vanish.

August 21, 2009 at 12:12 am
(591) Jo says:

Post 580 should present counter evidence but doesn’t — very telling.

And 581 ought to take their own advice.

August 21, 2009 at 12:19 am
(592) Jo says:

Even Canada GET’S it… (they like liberals)

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13954

Brother O and the New York Times accuse Republicans and conservatives of spreading “false rumors;” and AP Fact Check,Politifact.org and FactCheck.org reject “death panel” claims as “twisted,” “ridiculous,” “lies.”

Obfuscation is a hallmark of Democrat disinformation; therefore, when Brother O and his kindred spirits in the mainstream media and on the Internet insist with dogmatic certainty that the health care bill passed by the House does not include a literal provision to establish a “death panel,” they know they’re right; however, they’re right only in the limited sense of the health care bill itself.

If the “death panel” specter were raised above the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, a.k.a., the Stimulus Bill, which was signed into law February 17, their dogmatic assertions would disappear. In other words, the panel of overseers does not appear in the healthcare bill because it was created in that monstrous $1.1 billion, portentous piece of porkulus spending that lawmakers passed without reading…

(snipped, once again for — brevity)

August 21, 2009 at 12:32 am
(593) Jo says:

Posts 576, 577, 578 — you are stuck by the limited pages of *this* UL topic.

Read my last few posts, and then comment on the FACTS.

August 21, 2009 at 12:38 am
(594) urbanlegends says:

Jo,

I’d rather you didn’t respond to my posts unless you actually read them.

Thank you.

August 21, 2009 at 12:51 am
(595) Smokey Boy says:

Have you ever watched a loved one die? I quit work to stay with my Mom. She did not want to die on machines, she wanted to go in as dignified a manner as we could attain for her. To this day, I thank God for the Hospice Nurses in Massachusetts for their incredible care and expertise in helping my mother die at home as comfortably as possible.

Sometimes there was a family battle about what my Mom wanted, and since she had the foresight to name me to represent her wishes, I got the say when she couldn’t talk. The equipment and intervention that typically is offered and forced on the dying, making them “patients” when they just want to be themselves is very hard to refuse. When things got bad, my Mom’s husband wanted to rush her to the hospital, and later to a nursing home.

Have you ever seen a hospital death? I sincerely hope not. I am not saying nurses and doctors are not kind, but when the patient is too sick and not capable of making decisions, and has stated no preferences, the medical staff is forced to take all measures. “Bringing someone back to life” does not mean they get better, it most often means they linger longer. I have been outraged by surgeries that will not prolong someone’s life but makes the family feel that something is being done for their parent. A 93 year old woman who wanted to go home, and repeated that many times, had bladder surgery and died 2 days later. The terror in her eyes was ignored by her family because they were frightened too. However, the reason they gave to mot take her home even with all the help available was because their mother was incontinent. In a hospital setting, you truly do not get the counseling from staff that will help you, they have so many patients to tend to, they really don’t have the time.

This bill would allow you to have a discussion with your practitioner at least every 5 years, paid for by Medicare and more often if your health circumstances change. This is not forced on you, it is offered. The only role government can play is to pay for this.

There is a biblical edict to give care to all the sick, especially the least of us. I refer you to Matthew 25:31-46, which in part says: I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ ‘Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

If you insist we are a Christian nation, then this is the part of the Bible I wish to follow as a nation.

August 21, 2009 at 1:49 am
(596) urbanlegends says:

Jo wrote:

Posts 576, 577, 578 — you are stuck by the limited pages of *this* UL topic. Read my last few posts, and then comment on the FACTS.

TRANSLATION: Jo wants to divert your attention from the fact that she lied about the content of the health care bill in her earlier postings above.

August 21, 2009 at 8:49 am
(597) Kelly Bigham says:

So after reading many posts, it seems most people posting find it unacceptable for government to be involved in health care. Yet we have about a dozen senators who have recieved over 1 Million Dollars in contributions from Health Care Lobbyists. John McCain had recieved around 1.6 M, so no wonder he doesnt want any changes. I am assuming, none of the posters who are against Health Care reform will be accepting Medicare when they reach retirement age? FYI go to a company and do a coverage search for yourself at age 62 or 65, dependant on when you were born and will be retiring.

August 21, 2009 at 11:41 am
(598) Who is Paying JO? says:

Not to be a Jerk but Jo who is paying you to post or is it allowed on company time at your Insurance Company?

August 21, 2009 at 12:33 pm
(599) Jo says:

You people – like the alleged “DR RON DR RON” have made no counter argument, just parroting hysterical leftist “talking points”. How can you be such naive willing sheep??

Call me names, falsely accuse me, I don’t care. And no I’m not paid, I just care about preserving our republican government. It’s all online to read for yourselves if you would just dare to step out of the HC Bill cheer leading box and LOOK at what the government is doing illegally I might add.

Why do you all support law breaking?

Besides being ILLEGAL, it is underhanded, it is disingenuous, it is dangerous for American freedoms. Those who support the stimulus bill, and support the HC bill — ironically are supporting your own enslavement at the hand of government.

And your either too stupid, unwilling, or intellectually lazy to understand the danger of this.

August 21, 2009 at 12:38 pm
(600) Jo says:

Kelly:

I will gladly not seek Medicaid/Medicare when they stop charging me for it. Until that happens, your argument is superfluous.

August 21, 2009 at 12:49 pm
(601) Jo says:

BTW Kelly, I personally dislike, ANY politician who has received funding by industries that they are CURRENTLY writing legislation for.

How about you? Do you denounce Obama or Axelrod? As you denounce other politicians?

“AP WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s push for a national health care overhaul is providing a financial windfall in the election offseason to Democratic consulting firms that are closely connected to the president and two top advisers.

Coalitions of interest groups running at least $24 million in pro-overhaul ads hired GMMB, which worked for Obama’s 2008 campaign and whose partners include a top Obama campaign strategist. They also hired AKPD Message and Media, which was founded by David Axelrod, a top adviser to Obama’s campaign and now to the White House. AKPD did work for Obama’s campaign, and Axelrod’s son Michael and Obama’s campaign manager David Plouffe work there.”

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hglkoB2YjIJvQTTQkh9vqEKQAiQAD9A666080

Where are the “Halliburton” screamers??

It is so painfully clear what this is REALLY about – yet so many, so clueless.

It is not about helping YOU or grandma, that is just the happy face they paint on the pig, it is about control, power and money.

August 21, 2009 at 12:59 pm
(602) urbanlegends says:

What puzzles me is that Jo utterly dismissed AP as a reliable source when it contradicted her lies about what the health care bill says, and now she’s putting an AP story out there like it’s the word of God. Confused, Jo?

August 21, 2009 at 1:31 pm
(603) Jo says:

Darned if I do, darned if I don’t.

Readers attack right leaning sources, so I started posting left leaning sources, and you still aren’t happy with the AP and Washington Post??

All media has a slant right or left. There is just FAR MORE of them slanted to the left in the MSM.

I mean seriously can you tell me with a straight face CNN or MSNBC are balanced – even in news reporting?? Fox isn’t balanced in their commentary that’s for sure, but I give them credit in their news reporting for balance.

And, some “sources” used here on the web, such as leftist Media Matters are created by politicians and funded by philanthropists for feeding propaganda to their minions.

Quoting Media Matters is comparable to the right quoting Right Wing News.

August 21, 2009 at 1:40 pm
(604) urbanlegends says:

Jo writes:

“Readers attack right leaning sources, so I started posting left leaning sources, and you still aren’t happy with the AP and Washington Post??”

We can only hope you’re pretending to be so obtuse. Nobody except YOU has objected to AP or Washington Post as reliable sources. YOU rejected all “MSM” sources in your early postings. Now YOU’RE citing them. You utterly lack integrity. Give us a break.

August 21, 2009 at 1:44 pm
(605) Jo says:

From the right leaning Washington Times:

“I think early on, a decision was made by the Republican leadership that said, ‘Look, let’s not give him a victory, maybe we can have a replay of 1993, ’94, when Clinton came in, he failed on health care and then we won in the mid-term elections and we got the majority. And I think there are some folks who are taking a page out that playbook,” the president said. Appearing on the Michael Smerconish radio show, Mr. Obama said he would “love to have more Republicans engaged and involved in this process…”

ROFL!

And I bet aforementioned ignorant readers here who support the HC bill ACTUALLY believe the republicans are to blame!

What a liar BO is. As one poster out it “big fat” LIAR.

A clue for the sheeple:

The democrats have a SUPER majority, they have 60 votes. They don’t need ONE republican vote to pass this bill. It’s blue-dog democrats who are against this bill because they fear re-election back-lash. (Yeppers, getting re-elected is more important to them than your health! Yet another example of their desire for power, control and money over the good of the people.)

DEMOCRATS are protesting (along side republican) at the TH meetings. DEMOCRATS are going to kill BO bill.

If this bill dies it is by the lack of DEMOCRATS voting for it.

August 21, 2009 at 3:23 pm
(606) LoverofFREEDOM says:

I agree with both opinions of this being a helpful step to suicide as well as just a end of life transitioning in a comfortable way. Preparing one for passing on. HOWEVER, the fact that the bill states that one needs to determine what is legal in their state has me leaning towards the suicide notion. I have read and am reading again today.
I also agree the government needs to butt out of individual lives and do their job. No where in the constitution does it say the government will “PROVIDE” food, clothing, housing or medical care. This is the place of the church body and family. I have been unemployed for 7 months now and by the Grace of GOD and family and church friends and family, I have maintained my home. People need to read the founding fathers declarations. Study!!! Be informed!!! Where our nation sits today is not the United States of America I grew up in. It is most terrifying to say the least. Can’t wait for election day to roll around.

August 21, 2009 at 5:45 pm
(607) Annoyed Atheist says:

Everyone needs to leave the religious opinions out of the argument, whether you are for or against the health care program it has nothing what-so-ever to do with Jesus.
If you can only formulate an argument based on some religious jargon, then you shouldn’t waste your time.
Its about people, most of which probably don’t share the same religious beliefs you do. Believe whatever you want, but don’t throw it into your political debate.

-Annoyed Atheist

August 21, 2009 at 6:40 pm
(608) Kathy Levesque says:

I know nothing a supporter will say would ever EVER convince people on the other side that they are being lied to. I just read the text online regading this and went two pages futher since McCaughy has pointed to thing on page 432 that are supposed to be about pulling the plug when again…a person with common sense and a good command of the language can see that it not.
We are middle class and my husband works and always worked until we had our second child and realized my pay would not cover the daycare expenses. We have never been on any kind of aid and feel mighty lucky that we have Healthcare Ins. We who are making just enogh to pay most of our bills would be willing to pay a little more in taxes to see that all Americans get access to what we get. No one, no matter their income or employment status should be denied basic health care. I don’t know why people have a problem with people being allowed to buy into Medicaid or VA care or Fed Employee plans on a sliding scale. You pay what you can afford.From what I hear all those folks seem very happy with thier Gov’t run healthcare. There are people out there working longer hrs then most at more then one part time jobs, making more then can to qualify for medicaid and so no one will give them health care. If you just tell them they can buy in i am sure they would love to cover thier families and not sit in ER’s for hrs on end waiting for care.
Allowing for your kids to stay on your plan until they are 26 is also great.

August 21, 2009 at 8:13 pm
(609) Agree with annoyed atheist says:

First of all annoyed atheist is right, religious arguments are way off topic for a health care debate. Trying to apply the bible to this is like discussing apples and oranges.

Second of all as some have pointed out the government does provide health care for military and federal personnel. As someone who has seen this system I know it works.

Third of all if you don’t try to read things between the lines which don’t actually exist you will realize that the actual text of this bill says nothing about suicide or euthanasia or anything like that.

Fourth of all it is important for everyone to realize that are health care system is broken and because of it many fall through the cracks. Fear mongering and misinformation take attention off of the real issue and there are millions out there who are insured who are being hurt by such tactics. Yelling at town meetings just to drown out the other side is unproductive. If we want a solution, one way or the other, the only sane way to deal with it is use logic and reason to see the truths and benefits as well as the possible negative effects of this proposal.

August 21, 2009 at 10:37 pm
(610) Kim says:

Everyone on both sides has some compelling arguments. I have read some, but not all of the proposed bill. So basically, all I can speak from is experience. My father was a vet, but but the VA turned him away. He had private health care and was fine for a long time. He retired and went on medicare and about 7 years later, he died at 71. My mom and dad divorced long before that and she had to go on medicare, she dies at 49. My half brother was a preacher in Henderson, NC and very poor. Gave all his money to church. He was on medicare, died at 35. My sister this year died at 44, yep on medicare. They all got refusal of some treatment or prescription. My sister, half brother and dad were all saveable, but the government plans chose not to do so. I am sorry, but I do not want to subject my kids to goverment health care.

August 22, 2009 at 3:55 am
(611) m. e. cole says:

It’s kind of scary the amount of people that get their information on such an important topic from only fox news. and it is obvious that many many people are doing just that. I myself have downloaded the bill, and am going to read all of it so i know what is going on. I am not going to rely on a “news” opinion show to give me the “facts”.

It seems to me that most people against this bill already have health insurance. They, for some reason *cough*GlennBeck*cough* believe they are going to lose their insurance. From what I have read so far, that is absolutely not the case. If anything, it will probably lower their current prices.

What these people fail to realize in their closed little world, is that the majority of the working class cannot afford health insurance. Of all the people in my life, only one person I know has health insurance. I myself am stuck between a rock and a hard place. I make too much money to get government assistance, but I make too little to afford the payments from an insurance company. The health companies expect me to pay the equivalent of my rent or more every month for health insurance, and that is just not possible. Especially during the times we are in.

My children are lucky at the moment. Because they are of certain age, the state gives them health care because I am unable to get it. but that will only last for so long. so, at the moment i have 2 choices. I can either get health insurance for my family, or I can provide a roof over their head. I cannot do both.

these people that are completely against this bill do not seem to think about the rest of us. They do not even come up with an alternative. if your going to call your representative, at least come up with some alternative to something in the bill. i would say that is a better idea then going to town hall meetings and screaming like a 2 year old over something that you do not understand

August 22, 2009 at 7:42 am
(612) Jason says:

From reading the bill, it seems to say (in a VERY convoluted manner) to say that, once you are in a position to require consultation services and you chose to give orders to sustain your life, that, in the event of a life threatening condition, a panel of specialist can supersede your orders. Sounds like the rumor is not WAY off base here.

August 22, 2009 at 11:06 am
(613) urbanlegends says:

Jason writes:

“From reading the bill, it seems to say (in a VERY convoluted manner) to say that, once you are in a position to require consultation services and you chose to give orders to sustain your life, that, in the event of a life threatening condition, a panel of specialist can supersede your orders.”

Jason, please show us the actual language in the bill where it says a panel of specialists can supersede your order.

August 22, 2009 at 1:38 pm
(614) non-christian says:

stop quoting the bible! it’s terribly annoying!

August 22, 2009 at 1:48 pm
(615) non-christian says:

I didn’t even realize someone just before me wrote about the crazy religious people too! Why is it that every religious person needs to expose their belief system onto everyone else? I am having such a hard time truly understanding this concept? Any “christian” (because that seems to be where most of the bloggers stand in their religious affairs) people want to explain why you feel the need to tell everyone about your religion mixed with politics? Please avoid commenting on the “dollar” and how it says “in god we trust…” that’s overdone and redundant.

August 22, 2009 at 2:57 pm
(616) Brandon says:

look put yourself in a non insurance holders shoes someone who cant afford their meds someone who cant afford proper treatment this bill is for them not for you. we act like were such caring Americans but people die every day from lack of insurance you would support this bill too if you were one of the 40% outside looking in. and besides that this country is going bankrupt because these pharmaceutical companies are charging outrageous prices for their pills not because they cost so much to make but because they think they can get away with charging that much (and they do).And also if you haven’t noticed this whole country and most of its vital services are socialized anyway schools,fire departments,ems,post office and yes about 30% of Americans are on medicare or medicaid so please take you heads out your own asses and see whats going on around you….oh and if any of you have a problem with me feel free to hit me up at Brandon_fenimore@yahoo.com

August 22, 2009 at 3:08 pm
(617) heidi f says:

there is a older women in springfield oregon who was just informed recently ,they will pay for assisted suiside but not the chemo she needs. her DR worked with the drug company to get her the meds at no cost to her. WAKE UP! you think this is impossible. it is already happening. look it up . go ahead and google it.

August 22, 2009 at 5:47 pm
(618) Jo says:

Amazing — it is telling the mere mention of “thanking God” from a previous poster has such an effect on some posters here.

God for some people is RELEVANT and just as important in their eventual decisions of end-of-life HC options, just as your belief in no God is relevant.

Freedom of speech is for opinion you disagree with, not ONLY what you agree with. If you don’t like the thanking of God then simply don’t comment. If you want to keep God in these posts — then keep responding.

August 22, 2009 at 5:55 pm
(619) Jo says:

m. e. cole, you need to watch something besides MSNBC, and CNN.

If you ever watched FOX News or frequented other right leaning sites, you would KNOW there are other plans that don’t involve massive government speanding on HC.

Which BTW, has been proven all over the world to FAIL.

I have asked at least 3 times for the lefties here to tell me where gov’t HC has worked in any other country, with no rationing and no limits.

I’m open to models that do work.

Still waiting…

The silence is deafening, which indicates gov’t HC in every form does NOT work.

August 22, 2009 at 6:22 pm
(620) urbanlegends says:

Jo writes:

“The silence is deafening, which indicates gov’t HC in every form does NOT work.”

No, the silence is deafening because 1) there are (as always) very few repeat commenters here, and 2) although some folks have chosen to discuss the larger issues, this page was never intended to be about anything other than page 425 of the health care bill.

August 22, 2009 at 6:26 pm
(621) urbanlegends says:

Jo writes:

“I have asked at least 3 times for the lefties here to tell me where gov’t HC has worked in any other country, with no rationing and no limits.”

You’ve posed a trick question. NON-government health care in THIS country has rationing and limits.

August 22, 2009 at 7:23 pm
(622) DB says:

Ok, suppose all the horrible things we’ve heard about the bill are untrue. Suppose, in theory, it’s the best plan in the world. Do you really trust the government, the same organization that bankrupt social securty, medicare, medicaid, the postal service, and totally messed up the “cask for clunkers” program, to run your health care? Thanks but no thanks.
Show me where it is written that health care is a Constitutional right to be offered by the government. For example, I know someone who had a job and health care. But is wife wanted to move so she could be near her twin sister. There were no rational reasons for him to leave his job. Just the fact that his wife wanted to move. He found a job when they relocated but it does not offer insurance. So now I’m going to pay for his insurance with MY taxes? So someone screws up, like the banks, mortgage companies,and the auto industry, and we have to bail them out? Again, thanks but no thanks.
There are plenty of ways to improve the healthcare system without hard working Americans paying for it.
All this is just my humble opinion of course…

August 22, 2009 at 7:37 pm
(623) urbanlegends says:

DB writes:

“All this is just my humble opinion of course…”

Your humble opinion is welcome. Many here will agree with you; many won’t.

I can see how all this discussion about what the bill actually does and doesn’t say may seem beside the point given your larger concerns, but this is what we do on this site: weigh rumors against the facts and try to ascertain what is really true. It tends to require a narrow and persistent focus. And a sincere interest in getting at the truth.

August 22, 2009 at 10:08 pm
(624) Jo says:

Jo: “I have asked at least 3 times for the lefties here to tell me where gov’t HC has worked in any other country, with no rationing and no limits.”

UL: You’ve posed a trick question. NON-government health care in THIS country has rationing and limits.

Jo: Rationing of limited resources is a reality in any industry. However, free markets consistently over-come this problem, through innovation and alternative. Which are created by free market *risk takers* who produce — not *politicians* of gov’t that consume.

How can gov’t create quality HC out of consumption and not production? It’s just not possible.

Every advancement, in any industry, has been created by producers (The investor or risk taker). Not consumers as gov’t is. Isn’t this what we all want? Better HC, inventive ideas? Won’t happen with gov’t.

So I’ll re-phrase the question — what gov’t run HC in any other country has made scientific advances, reduced HC costs, made a profit (for the people), and has met ALL the HC requirements promised to the people?

I’m sure I’ll continue to wait. Because the answer is — NONE.

August 22, 2009 at 10:19 pm
(625) Jo says:

BTW UL — Talking about 5 pages of HR 3200 bill — ONLY — is disingenuous and takes HC debate issues out of context.

Anyone paying attention, knows it’s a very minuscule part of this debate. You may WANT to ignore the rest of the story, such as the already passed stimulus HC provisions aka “death panels” to some (not necessarily *me*) the BO Czars who have extreme views on elderly/young life saving and limits, etc.

There is much that goes hand and hand with section 1233.

August 22, 2009 at 10:56 pm
(626) Keith says:

This says nothing about death panels. It simply says that people will talk with their doctors about end of life services. Which could mean, do everything you can to keep me alive, or No advanced care if say I am brain dead. People wake up and stop allowing Fox news to brain wash you!

August 22, 2009 at 11:20 pm
(627) JB says:

Jo says, “You need to watch something besides MSNBC or CNN
If you ever watched fox or other right leaning sites…”

First of all I have seen plenty of fox news because you are right that you have to see both the left and right side of the issues. However, I typically get very angry at any news station that has the audacity to say some of the things that Fox news does. Like for example Glenn Beck who I recently saw a clip of him suggesting that the health care reform wise similar to the medical experiments conducted by Nazi Germany. Its hard to take anyone seriously when they say that, although you have every right to agree with his misguided notions. Just out of curiosity if you heard them say that Obama was an alien from another galaxy would you believe that too? Because that is almost as far fetched as some of the things Fox News says.

You also ask for government run health care that works? First off all ask any military officer who has served his country honorably if he is happy with his government run health care? Most would probably say that they are. Secondly, look at countries like Canada and Britain which, I’ll admit have problems with their health care system but at least everyone gets treated. Or Cuba. According to the World Health Organization Cuba’s system is 39th in the world, only two below ours. They get care they need at a hell of a lot lower coast then we do and if they had access to the high tech medical resources of a country like the U.S then they probably would have a better health care system then us all around. If they had nuclear imaging machines, MRIs, CT machines and all the other diagnostic equipment in every hospital like our nation does then they would have even better health care. How can we think our nation doesn’t need Health care reform when so many people die without being able to afford the basic medical care they need. How can people think our health care is so great with the high infant mortality rate that we have compared to the rest of the world. Just seem irrational to me.

Also, DB. First of all many people would call wanting to move with your wife a hell of a rational reason for leaving his job and getting a new one. No rational reason what so ever would be if he decided to leave his job because his neighbor put a new lawn gnome in his yard or something ridiculous like that. Secondly you ask why hard working American citizens should pay for it through taxes. There are lots of things that you pay for with taxes like police, fire, and medical services. You argue its important that those are there in case you need them but what if you lost your job and need someone to help with medical bills while you find a new one? Or how about public schools. Those are subsidized by money from taxes so the next generation can learn and become productive members of society, but I suppose you would rather they bury themselves with even more debt so that you don’t have to pay as much in taxes. The fact is your taxes go to many different services, many that you probably don’t need or use but other Americans which work just as hard as you do need them. So if your only argument is taxes think a little harder about it because money is very tight for me but I wouldn’t mind taxes going up some if it meant that everyone in our country got health care.

And to everyone that thinks this government is evil and thinking of ways to kill grandma with their new plan: you have every right to make your comments about it, but please take a second to think about what you are saying, maybe I don’t know learn how to critically read the actual Health care bill because I have heard so many outlandish comments, many of which from the right and many of which appear no where in any version of this bill it honestly saddens me that people honestly believe these things.

August 23, 2009 at 12:17 am
(628) doggril says:

What planet are some of these people living on? There already IS government healthcare. It’s called Medicare. And seniors are pretty vocal about wanting to keep it. And there’s documentation all over the place about how its administrative costs are a fraction of the administrative costs of private insurers. So the notion that the private sector is always more efficient than government is simply not based on reality. And if you want to talk about literal government-provided healthcare, that exists too. It’s called the VA. A friend just had a quadruple bypass performed at his local VA. He said it was a great experience. They fixed the problem and treated him very well. Despite the fact that it is perenially underfunded, care at VA hospitals is generally well-regarded.
So, yeah, government does a good job acting as a single payer, and it does a good job acting as a healthcare provider. So, arguing against government-provided healthcare (you know, like all the rest of the Western world already has?) on the notion that the government can’t actually do it is simply ignoring reality.

August 23, 2009 at 12:36 am
(629) m.e. cole says:

It proves my point how ignorant Faux News followers are. I never said that I “only” get my news from one source. That is just retarded. How can a person make an informed decision based on one network? You suggesting that I only get “left” news is both wrong and insulting to my intelligence. I do watch Fox News, and CNN, and MSNBC, and every other organization that I have time for. But I also do not take opinion as news, which is what Fox has been bringing to people as news for years now. They don’t care about facts anymore, only ratings. They drum up all this drama to suck you in. It makes them money. That is all they care about.

Here is a bit of advice that I think fits perfectly in this situation. Think for yourself, question authority. Read the bill for yourself: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text.

Take what everyone tells you with a grain of salt. Read the document yourself. The read it again so you know you understand it. If there is something that you think should be different, make some notes and submit your suggestions for changes. You never know if someone might take them into consideration.

August 23, 2009 at 2:19 am
(630) urbanlegends says:

Jo writes:

“BTW UL — Talking about 5 pages of HR 3200 bill — ONLY — is disingenuous and takes HC debate issues out of context.”

Disingenuous? What YOU call “HC debate” consists of lying about the contents of the House bill, comparing the Obama administration to Nazis, and slapping labels on anyone who disagrees with you. Give us a break.

This page was never intended to address larger issues surrounding health care reform.

August 23, 2009 at 9:25 am
(631) Jeanie says:

When I visited a friend in Japan we went to see her mother who was in the hospital, after having a hip replacement. She was there for three months until she was cured and could walk out on her own. They have National Coverage.
In the last year, my company ( a multi trillion dollar ORG) stopped paying full coverage. I have to pay two weeks salary every quarter to keep my insurance. I have been going without and going into savings to pay my health care.
I don’t believe President Obama is doing anything to hurt America. He is trying his best to straighten out what was left to him.

August 23, 2009 at 11:16 am
(632) Scuba Steve says:

I have health insurance that I pay for myself that accounts for nearly 15% of my income. I have a co-pay of $25.00 an office visit. I still don’t go to the doctor for every sniffle or ache because I really don’t want to spend the $25.00 nor do I have the time since I work for a living. My concern is that if there is no incentive (Charge) to not go to the doctor with every sniffle that we will not be able to administer care, pay for care and most importantly I won’t be able to get care when I REALLY need it.

August 23, 2009 at 12:36 pm
(633) scott says:

You liberal types are such lemmings. Seriously. Do you really think you are the new radicals and progressives? You are falling hook, line and sinker for the wool to be pulled over your eyes. WAKE UP and questions EVERYTHING. BOTH SIDES. They are BOTH working against you. Why? For votes, power, and money. They are the school yard bullies and dropouts now running the government, and coating it with pretty colors and using words that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Even the OP of this article doesn’t seem to understand or be able to read through the legalese.

YES, this is a bill that will SHORTEN the average life span of the average American.

Doesn’t affect you? Are you really that stupid? Universal health care will change ALL of our lives for the worse. EVERYTHING you do will cost more, and once again your pay will not go up. All things being universal (no pun intended) even if pay goes up, it will NOT be conversely related to the cost of Universal health care UNLESS unemployment SOARS while only a choice few are employed.

Catch 22. Why would the few continue to work to have 50% – 75% of the pay taxed when they can side on their asses like so many and get ‘free’ healthcare?

Eventually, even the stupidest of you folks will understand that if you have $1, and have 5 friends forcing you to give .25 each, you will have worse than nothing, you will owe them when YOU are the one with the money.

So what would we call that? A loan, a gift? I bet you would say, a criminal act. While those 5 people (or at least the 4 that actually received the .25 piece) would be happy, what purpose would it serve you to continue to work for the $1 when you know the second you get it, it will be taken from you. Why not just join the thugs and do nothing and get something right?

Eventually, no will will have anything…

Welcome to Nazi Germany 1939.

August 23, 2009 at 12:52 pm
(634) urbanlegends says:

Scott writes:

“Welcome to Nazi Germany 1939.”

Welcome to shallow, uninformed demagoguery 2009.

Scott also says:

“Even the OP of this article doesn’t seem to understand or be able to read through the legalese.”

How about doing us the courtesy of demonstrating that instead of dropping accusations and walking away.

August 23, 2009 at 2:44 pm
(635) Jo says:

JB said: “I typically get very angry at any news station that has the audacity to say some of the things that Fox news does. Like for example Glenn Beck”

Jo: Glenn Beck is opinion, same for O’ Reilly, they are not journalists. I wonder do you have the same contempt for Keith Olberman, Rachal Mardow, or Ed Shultz??

JB said: who I recently saw a clip of him suggesting that the health care reform wise similar to the medical experiments conducted by Nazi Germany.

Jo: Medical experiments? I don’t know if Beck said “experiments” please present the source of this claim. But there are *similarities*. The reforms of the Weimar Republic following the medical crises of World War I included government policies to provide health care services to all citizens. Doctors slowly began to see themselves as more responsible for the public health of the nation than for the individual health of the patient. Which lead to Eugenics, which was prominent in the “Progressive Era”, and became a driving factor of the policies behind Adolf Hitler’s Nazi regime. This lead to “life unworthy of living” or Lebensunwertes Leben. Look it up.

There is along history of HC in Germany (too long to post here) that era — and BO HC plan (and the people who worked on it) are eerily similar. For example – Dr Ezekiel Emanuel(Rahms brother) who has worked in this HC plan has made the same *written* arguments as the Nazi’s did concerning limited life for the weak and sick. BTW, I am NOT saying the discussion shouldn’t be had. I just don’t want the doctor speaking of this in charge of any part of my health coverage. It is fair for Beck to compare the similarities of the actions of BO and the HC topics addressed not only in the HC bill, but also past comments, stimulus bill, and in the HC writers philosophies.

To ignore history’s lessons, is dooming ourselves to repeat it’s mistakes. Perhaps it is best to compare them first then show how they are NOT similar. Instead of hysterical knee jerk reaction towards the messenger that make the mere mention of a similarity.

I wonder were you as adamant against the left’s Hitler comparisons of Bush?? Somehow I doubt it.

JB: ask any military officer who has served his country honorably if he is happy with his government run health care? Most would probably say that they are.

Jo: I have several veteran friends and family, they wait forever to get care, and the doctors are below average.

Wasn’t the left upset about the quality of veteran care under Bush? But now there is a democrat POTUS, it’s a wonderful program?

JB: Secondly, look at countries like Canada and Britain which, I’ll admit have problems with their health care system but at least everyone gets treated.

Jo: No they don’t this is the whole point, many die waiting in line. And they often come to the US to skip the line, if they can afford to.

JB: Or Cuba.

Jo: You ARE kidding right? You do know, Castro went to Madrid for his surgeries? Right?

JB: They get care they need at a hell of a lot lower coast then we do

Jo: You;ll LOVE our gov’t run HC — they will save your money but not your life.

As for “taxation” issues, I’m all for HC plans *state by state* as VOTED in for and by the people — just not federally.

JB: And to everyone that thinks this government is evil and thinking of ways to kill grandma with their new plan:

Jo: You simplify a complex issue. Most of are against giving gov’t the power that can lead to these atrocities — you know the power that Hitler had for the “compassion for the good and well being of the people” sounded great then – as it does now. But it didn’t turn out too well.

JB: you have every right to make your comments about it, but please take a second to think about what you are saying,

Jo: Fair enough — we only ask pro-HC advocates do the same.

JB: maybe I don’t know learn how to critically read the actual Health care bill

Jo: You are not alone even the best annalists are fighting over meanings and interpretations. This alone should tell Americans this is not the bill to pass in it’s current form.

Vague open ended *government* HC bill – not a good idea.

JB: because I have heard so many outlandish comments,

Jo: And I have never seen such willingness to deny facts, and give up HC freedoms we enjoy.

JB: it honestly saddens me that people honestly believe these things.

Jo: It saddens me the left refuses to look at the facts.

August 23, 2009 at 2:59 pm
(636) urbanlegends says:

Jo writes:

“I wonder were you as adamant against the left’s Hitler comparisons of Bush?? Somehow I doubt it.”

Reasonable people abhor these comparisons no matter whom they’re directed at or who is making them, left-wing asses or right-wing asses.

August 23, 2009 at 3:00 pm
(637) Jo says:

Scott: “Even the OP of this article doesn’t seem to understand or be able to read through the legalese.”

UL: How about doing us the courtesy of demonstrating that instead of dropping accusations and walking away.

——————————————

How come you didn’t go after JB for accusing Glen Beck of comparing the “HC reform to medical experiments conducted by Nazi Germany”??

I have searched, all I have found was Becks comparison of the similarities of the plans, which is ovious to those who bother to read history. No mention of experiments by Beck. (From Media matters: http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200908060009)

Consistently you chastise the right for “dropping accusations and walking away” yet when the left does it – it’s fine.

August 23, 2009 at 3:20 pm
(638) Jo says:

UL: Reasonable people abhor these comparisons no matter whom they’re directed at or who is making them, left-wing asses or right-wing asses.

Jo: Reasonable people have adult conversations, and don’t ignore similarities because they are afraid it may make their political-ideology (or idol) look bad. Why are you so afraid to look at the comparisons??

Frankly I was against the Patriot Act, and thought it was a comparable power grab as well. And this was under BUSH. To me any political power grabbing under the guise of “protection or general welfare” can be compared since this is *exactly* what Hitler did.

The left spent 8 years calling Bush Hitler — directly — not necessarily policy comparison. they dressed up and paraded around signs of him depicted as Hitler. But now the left is frowning on comparisons of BO to Hitler?? Blatant hypocrisy.

August 23, 2009 at 3:20 pm
(639) urbanlegends says:

Jo writes:

“How come you didn’t go after JB for accusing Glen Beck of comparing the “HC reform to medical experiments conducted by Nazi Germany”??”

“Consistently you chastise the right for “dropping accusations and walking away” yet when the left does it – it’s fine.”

Actually, it didn’t even occur to me that I was chastising “the right.” I chastised someone who made an unsupported claim about THE issue this page is actually supposed to be about.

If I had to chastise everybody who’s made an unsupported claim of any kind on this page, right OR left, I’d be here the rest of my life.

I don’t know what Glenn Beck said or didn’t say about experiments. If anyone here wants to present evidence to challenge JB’s characterization of what Beck said, knock yourself out.

But let’s be honest. No matter who you are, if what you’re doing is claiming a similarity between Obamacare and Nazicare, how much does it really matter if you throw the word “experiments” in there or not?

August 23, 2009 at 3:28 pm
(640) Jo says:

Oh I forget to point out that the left is still up to the Hitler comparisons. You’d never know it from the leftist media reports, but the woman that Barney frank responded to “as talking to a dinner table” is a Lyndon LaRouche Democrat – not a conservative.

So the left is still out there saying these things, while the right is getting the blame for it.

August 23, 2009 at 3:40 pm
(641) Jo says:

Actually, it didn’t even occur to me that I was chastising “the right.” I chastised someone who made an unsupported claim about THE issue this page is actually supposed to be about.
==================================

Oh come now UL — Becks alleged “Hitler HC experiments compared to the HC BILL” has nothing to do with section 1233 *in* the HC bill?

Please.

It is obvious you tend to chastise those who lean right more often, than those who lean left.

August 23, 2009 at 4:04 pm
(642) urbanlegends says:

Jo writes: “Reasonable people have adult conversations, and don’t ignore similarities because they are afraid it may make their political-ideology (or idol) look bad. Why are you so afraid to look at the comparisons??”

Afraid to look? Come on, Jo. Cut the crap and try to be honest with yourself, and us. Why are YOU so afraid that you feel you need to MAKE these bogus comparisons?

Jo writes: “Frankly I was against the Patriot Act, and thought it was a comparable power grab as well. And this was under BUSH.”

We’re all very proud of you.

Jo writes: “To me any political power grabbing under the guise of ‘protection or general welfare’ can be compared since this is *exactly* what Hitler did.”

Don’t be ridiculous. Regardless of how over-reaching and rights-eroding the Patriot Act was (and still is), it doesn’t warrant being likened to Nazism, nor does Bush warrant being likened to Hitler (nor the Congress that passed it being likened to the Third Reich).

You don’t have to be a Republican or a lover of G.W. Bush to get that, either. You just have to have enough actual knowledge of history and respect for the truth to refrain from misrepresenting it. People who make these kinds of comparisons are either ignorant, irresponsible, or both.

What the hell, add “repugnant” to the list.

Jo writes: “The left spent 8 years calling Bush Hitler — directly — not necessarily policy comparison. they dressed up and paraded around signs of him depicted as Hitler.”

Extremists.

Jo writes: “But now the left is frowning on comparisons of BO to Hitler?? Blatant hypocrisy.”

1. To frown on such comparisons isn’t necessarily to belong to the left.

2. If there are people, left-wing or otherwise, who compared Bush to Hitler and now criticise others for comparing Obama to Hitler, they are indeed hypocrites. On that we agree.

August 23, 2009 at 4:15 pm
(643) urbanlegends says:

Jo writes:

“Oh I forget to point out that the left is still up to the Hitler comparisons. You’d never know it from the leftist media reports, but the woman that Barney frank responded to “as talking to a dinner table” is a Lyndon LaRouche Democrat – not a conservative.”

Absolutely correct that the Obama-as-Hitler sign holders at more than one of these town hall events were NOT Republicans, tea-partiers, or conservatives. They were LaRouche followers.

But read up on Lyndon LaRouche. He’s a wack job. Been doing this kind of stuff for decades. I’m pretty sure that during a previous election his followers were out carrying signs comparing Al Gore to Hitler. LaRouche no more represents Democrats and the left than, say, KKK leader David Duke represented Republicans and the right when he repeatedly ran for office as a GOP candidate.

Ironically for Jo, however, LaRouche and she are in perfect agreement vis-a-vis comparing Barack Obama to Hitler!

From Lyndon LaRouche’s website:

What has to get through the heads of the American people, on the health-care and other issues, is that the President is trying to push through a fascist program, which is a mortal threat to them and to the world as a whole. This fact could not be clearer than it is in the Obama health plan.

The model for the Obama Plan is, quite literally, Hitler’s T4 program, which took its name from its Berlin office, Tiergarten 4. This program began in October 1939, immediately after Adolf Hitler issued his infamous secret order, in his own handwriting, under the title “The Destruction of Lives Unworthy of Life.”

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2009/3628lar_obama_fascist_health.html

August 23, 2009 at 4:31 pm
(644) urbanlegends says:

Jo writes: “Oh come now UL — Becks alleged ‘Hitler HC experiments compared to the HC BILL’ has nothing to do with section 1233 *in* the HC bill?”

Jo, please try to follow this simple thought. From day one, my mission here has been to ascertain what Section 1233 of the House health care bill actually SAYS, as compared to what various rumor-mongers CLAIM it says. That’s it.

Given that, exactly which words Glenn Beck did or didn’t use when he compared Obamacare to Nazism is very much off the point. I don’t frickin’ care. This isn’t a political debate site. This isn’t about health care reform in general. It’s about a specific rumor. Get over it.

Jo writes: “It is obvious you tend to chastise those who lean right more often, than those who lean left.”

Amazing how that happens to coincide with who’s been doing the majority of the obfuscating and misrepresenting here, no?

August 23, 2009 at 6:33 pm
(645) JB says:

First of all Jo you are right about my last paragraph which was directed at people ‘believing that Obama was killing grandma’ a vast oversimplification of a complex issue and I apologize for that.

Second of all my comment about Glenn Beck was regarding him pointing out similarities that he saw. I don’t know if he actually used the word experiments, I was addressing the larger picture of him comparing similarities between the Nazi eugenics program as ridiculous. You say people are simply concerned about giving the government the power to commit such atrocities, and the people should be concerned about that if that was in any way what was happening here. The government isn’t going to force you to go to the doctors and receive treatment you don’t want. It won’t force you to give up your private health care plan if you are happy with it.

As for Britain and Canada, you are correct that there are long waits for health care, which is why the wealthier of those people often come to the United States. Like I said these systems do have problems. However, the care that they do get does not bankrupt them. Also, the medical resources of the United States are greater then many other countries which helps prevent similarly long lines here.

Also, I get equally upset about CNN or MSNBC saying things that aren’t true. Likewise I was equally critical of people who criticized Bush unjustly. For all his faults he had some, not many but some good ideas. For all his good and bad qualities he was in no way as bad as Hitler. Nor was Chaney. I applaud you Jo for being critical of the Patriot Act. I do not ‘deny facts’ nor am I ‘anxious to give up HC freedoms I enjoy.’ By the way Jo you said you searched Glenn Beck but did you search back to January of 2008 when Beck was openly critical of the health care system after his experience of it. He even went as far as to say ‘getting well in this country could almost kill you’ and that our health care, just seems to get people better and out the door as fast as possible. I did agree with Glenn Beck then at least. Before he started saying Obama was a racist and that we have the best health care system in the world.

Another thing, people who attack this idea as another left way of making government bigger and bigger I should point out that one of the biggest increases in the size and control of the federal government in recent history came under the Bush Administration and the Departments of Homeland Security and the USA Patriot Act. I’m not going to discuss the pros and cons of them since this is a health care debate not a national security one I just wanted to make it clear that the right sometimes does things as bad as the left when it come to increasing government size and spending. Just because I consider myself a moderate liberal does not mean I am not critical of the left.

I do thank Jo for voicing your opinions and doing so in a calm rational manner. Regardless of where your opinions may fall you voicing them hopefully will allow others to think critically about this subject and decide for themselves what they do and don’t support, which I think is the ultimate purpose of forums like this one.

August 23, 2009 at 10:49 pm
(646) Patrick says:

Full text of the bill:

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/AAHCA09001xml.pdf

Text of the Social Security Act, which p. 425 amends:

http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title18/1861.htm

So everyone claiming end of life consultation is mandatory needs to read it and stfu. All 425 does is define counseling as a type of medical or health service, and therefore something that CAN be paid for. In the Soc Sec. Act (which is currently the law), section 1861 subsection s(2)(EE), for example, mentions “kidney disease education services (as defined in subsection (ggg));”; does that mean you have to get kidney disease education services every time you go to the doctor if you’re on Soc. Sec.?

August 24, 2009 at 1:59 am
(647) mas says:

Just read this:

Your Life Your Choices

Planning for Future Medical Decisions:
How to Prepare a Personalized Living Will

http://www.rihlp.org/pubs/Your_life_your_choices.pdf

Especially read pages 21-25…a little checklist on how much your life is worth/not worth living.

Not euthanasia, just convince the elderly to give up and quit being a burden on everybody. Take the blue pill, go directly to hospice…

This is presented to veterans…the heroes who helped keep us a free nation.

August 24, 2009 at 2:27 pm
(648) Jo says:

mas-
You’re right about the veteran handbook it clearly suggests Lebensunwertes Leben. Many won’t look at all the information, instead they blindly parrot over and over again — “read the bill”.

Which is of course only part of the story. And the “truth” be darned on UL who is supposed to be giving the “truth of the hysterical rumor”, Which can’t be done without the CONTEXT of the assertion.

August 24, 2009 at 3:27 pm
(649) Jo says:

JB: I was addressing the larger picture of him comparing similarities between the Nazi eugenics program as ridiculous.

Jo: I disagree, lessons of history are “rediculous”. With that said no one is calling BO *himself* Hitler directly — but his HC plan does have similarities to Hitlers HC agenda.

JB: You say people are simply concerned about giving the government the power to commit such atrocities, and the people should be concerned about that if that was in any way what was happening here.

Jo: Look to German history — do you think the people willingly voted in Hitler on a platform of atrocities he intended to commit? No of course not, Hitler lied his way into power. He had charisma, he was a rock star, people loved him, he wrote his first autobiography in his 30′s and a second book on his political ideology, because of this people suspected he suffered from NPD, (sound at all familiar yet??)

Germans like 50% of America thought they’d get a benevolent government that was fair and equal for all. They thought their government was genuinely concerned about their “health” – but they were wrong about him and realized it too late after he was already in power.

This HC bill gives gov’t too much power to the *federal* goverment (all 50 states).We should leave HC to the *individual* states, deregulate state to state insurance policy sales that are imposed by the federal gov’t, have individual state programs for covering illegals, look into tort reform, etc…

JB: The government isn’t going to force you to go to the doctors and receive treatment you don’t want. It won’t force you to give up your private health care plan if you are happy with it.

Jo: Where does it specifically say that in the bill? Like Hitler they aren’t going to be blatent about it.

Do you know supply and demand?? If employers (I know – I am one of them)have a option for a reduced price in gov’t HC, or a more expensive private HC plan for their employees, which do you think they will choose?

The gov’t HC plan of course. A mass exit from private HC – will kill private HC options. This is THE ADMITTED BO plan — Jacob Hacker worked on the plan — particularly on how to eliminate private HC without upsetting Americans:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sTfZJBYo1I

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

All you have to do is listen to their plans – in their own words.

JB: Britain and Canada, … Like I said these systems do have problems. However, the care that they do get does not bankrupt them.

Jo: Tell me how much tax do you think they pay to sustain HC?? And I don’t mean just *income* tax. I mean, consumption tax, fuel tax, liquor tax, cigarette tax, etc… Some countries pay 70-80% of their income to maintain their huge governments. And just last week Canada admitted their HC system is “imploding”. They are begging for a move back to *private* HC.

Anyhow, one tax example: Obama said he wouldn’t raise tax on anyone under $250,000 per year. Well guess what — he’s already raised cigarette tax, and is discussing a consumption tax (a federal state sales tax) to pay for HC. BO KNEW he wouldn’t win if he told you he’d have to tax you. So he packaged his promise of no taxation on the “little” people knowing he could impose a consumption tax later on, and still be able to say he didn’t raise your income tax rate.

Slight of hand.

Our government has been doing this for years, (both sides) and Americans are either to lazy, dense, or self involved to see it happening.

Sorry but it is unbelievably naive to even think “they aren’t going to do” anything — all things are possible with this out of control gov’t.

JB: Also, the medical resources of the United States are greater then many other countries which helps prevent similarly long lines here.

Jo: If every American can go see a doctor, for every little sniffle they have – how long do you think resources will last? Not long. Demand will overwhelm supply, and the gov’t will have to put you on a list.

In addition how many students are going to go into the medical field if their pay is limited and they can’t pay back expensive medical school loans?? Not many which will result in LESS doctors and nurses, adding to the problem of rationing.

JB: By the way Jo you said you searched Glenn Beck but did you search back to January of 2008 when Beck was openly critical of the health care system after his experience of it.

Jo: Openly critical?? How dare he enjoy freedom of speech!

JB: people who attack this idea as another left way of making government bigger and bigger I should point out that one of the biggest increases in the size and control of the federal government in recent history came under the Bush Administration ..

Jo: I agree Bush spent to much, however I disagree he has had the biggest increases — BO in 7-8 months has spent FOUR TIMES more than Bush did in 8 years.

JB: I just wanted to make it clear that the right sometimes does things as bad as the left when it come to increasing government size and spending.

Jo: Amen to that.

JB: Just because I consider myself a moderate liberal does not mean I am not critical of the left.

Jo: Good for you – you are one of the few.

JB: I do thank Jo for voicing your opinions and doing so in a calm rational manner.

Jo: Thanks and back at cha’.

August 24, 2009 at 3:31 pm
(650) urbanlegends says:

Jo writes:

“You’re right about the veteran handbook it clearly suggests Lebensunwertes Leben.”

You’re a sick person. Lebensunwertes Leben — “life unworthy of life” — referred to groups and individuals the Nazis wanted to eliminate from their perfect “Aryan” society. Jews, homosexuals, dissidents, the mentally ill, etc. These people were marked for extinction. Lebensunwertes Leben set the stage for the Holocaust.

What you are plainly stating is that officials of the Bush administration, during most of which this pamphlet was in use, and in the Obama administration, during which we are told it will be used again, were and are bent on the same policy of extermination of “undesirables.”

I repeat: you’re a sick puppy. If you believe this, you need your head examined. If you don’t and are saying it anyway, you’re a cruel and unscrupulous demagogue.

Have you no shame?

August 24, 2009 at 4:04 pm
(651) urbanlegends says:

mas writes:

Just read this:

Your Life Your Choices

Planning for Future Medical Decisions:
How to Prepare a Personalized Living Will

http://www.rihlp.org/pubs/Your_life_your_choices.pdf

Especially read pages 21-25…a little checklist on how much your life is worth/not worth living.

Not euthanasia, just convince the elderly to give up and quit being a burden on everybody. Take the blue pill, go directly to hospice…

1. Everybody, please do read the pamphlet via mas’s link above and judge it on its merits. Don’t take anyone’s word for what it says or advocates.

2. Also, please read the following article from the Wall Street Journal, which strongly condemns the pamphlet and explains why the author is against it:

The Death Book for Veterans

3. Lastly, please also read this article, which defends the pamphlet and explains why the author doesn’t think it’s an evil plot to exterminate veterans:

How Conservatives Got The Facts Wrong On Their Latest Obsession: The “Death Book” For Veterans

Thank you.

August 24, 2009 at 4:58 pm
(652) urbanlegends says:

Jo fibs:

“no one is calling BO *himself* Hitler directly”

And immediately contradicts herself:

“[Hitler] had charisma, he was a rock star, people loved him, he wrote his first autobiography in his 30’s and a second book on his political ideology, because of this people suspected he suffered from NPD, (sound at all familiar yet??)”

How DARE anyone say you’re comparing the two directly. You would never stoop so low!

August 24, 2009 at 6:42 pm
(653) Still sounds very suspicious says:

I appreciate Mr. Emory’s website, but in this case the words speak for themselves- very creepy. This section is clearenough on its own, but taken in the context of the whole bill I believe it becomes very apparent how those who drafted this legislation feel about individual rights. Throughout history legislation like this bill has led to greater tyranny and control. Do we believe that we are an exception?

August 24, 2009 at 10:09 pm
(654) JB says:

Jo, as urbanlegend points out you effectively call Obama Hitler in your response saying, “Look to German history — do you think the people willingly voted in Hitler on a platform of atrocities he intended to commit? No of course not, Hitler lied his way into power. He had charisma, he was a rock star, people loved him, he wrote his first autobiography in his 30’s and a second book on his political ideology, because of this people suspected he suffered from NPD, (sound at all familiar yet??)” If you want to talk about the similarities between Obama and Hitler I should point out that the political atmosphere is completely different. Hitler rose to power because as you correctly said he was charismatic, he was a rock star. However, the reason that worked so well was because Germany was still trying to find their feet after getting ultimately beat up in WWI. Hitler’s charisma worked because he correctly saw that people had lost pride in Germany and he capitalized on that by tricking people into thinking he was the one to bring them back to a level of national pride and power. Everyone wanted to get back to that national pride so no one criticized his policies to that extent that people from both parties are criticizing Obama. With as many people scrutinizing this bill and with as many checks and balances as are in place in the American government do you honestly believe that they are that similar?

Next, you asked me to show where in the bill it specifically says that you aren’t going to be forced to go to doctors. Well I’m not going to lie it doesn’t say in as many words the public will not be forced to go to the doctors. It also does not say in as many words that they shall, under penalty of law, see their doctors for every sniffle and for end of life consultation. It simply allows them to get the care they need with out ending up in the poor house. Furthermore, the portion of the bill this site is trying to deal with says that this is what end of life consultation is so that people can be covered when they see the doctor to set up living wills etc. If you read the bill you also see that covered under these end of life consultation is life sustaining practices. Which means if my grandfather who has had his health problems recently goes in and says that I want you to everything medically possible to save my life he has that right and the doctors respect that right. The bill also says, “‘(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.” Basically if you develop terminal stage 4 cancer you may, not have to, but may go in for more then one consultation and it will be covered under this bill. The reason I like this is it gives people the choice to make and understand decisions rationally when they aren’t actually dying so that emotion doesn’t enter into. For example my father doesn’t want to be kept alive by machines. However, if he were to be in an accident and were on machines it would be a lot harder for me as his medical proxy to say he doesn’t want this knowing that doing so will kill him. However, if I am wrong and you found text saying that everyone has to see their doctor by law then please show me.

Also, you are correct Jo that these countries that already have public health care have higher taxes then we do, in some cases much higher taxes. You are also right that although people under the 250,000 bracket might not be taxed directly there will be taxes on other things like tobacco, fuel etc. However, according to the world health organization both Britain and Canada have longer life expectancy, and a lower probability of dying under the age of five. Obviously their doing something right if they live longer on average then we do and have a lower probability of dying under 5 and quite frankly I’m okay with higher taxes even higher direct taxes if I have a longer life and a lower probability of my future children dying before their 5th birthday.

Next, you say you are in favor of state run health care. However, Massachusetts, where I live is considered a forerunner in health care because it has a law requiring its residents to have health care. The penalty for not having is a penalty on your taxes, except many people who don’t get health care do so because they can’t afford it so taxing them is supposed to help? Yea, the state run example seems like it is great. At least the higher percentage of taxes with the federal plan would include universal health care as opposed to higher taxes as a penalty.

Another thing, you say that the resources would run out and lines would back up if people went to the doctors for every sniffle. However, as I said earlier they wouldn’t be forced to go to the doctors for every sniffle. Also, if they did go to the doctors for every sniffle, like so many hypochondriacs and drug-seekers do today I would expect the doctor treating them to recognize the difference between them and the people who actually need the resources. Because if every person with the sniffles were given treatments and drugs that would risk breeding ‘super-bugs’ resistant to our broad spectrum anti-biotics. That however is a debate for another time.

As for the money issue you’re right companies would switch to a lower cost health care. However, I don’t think that less people would go through medical school because I don’t think their paychecks would be cut so drastically they couldn’t pay back loans.

As for Glenn Beck. I was never saying how dare he exercise his right to speech. I was just trying to say that Beck, someone who is currently one of the biggest opponents of Obama’s plan himself said that it was a nightmare and implied it needed to be reformed. He has every right to say what ever thing pops into his head, crazy or not just like Lou Dobbs and Wolf Blitzer have the right to say what ever they want on CNN crazy or not. In fact I welcome people exercising the right to freedom of speech more if people listen to what they have to say and start to think critically on a subject for themselves and form their own opinion. You Jo are listening to what you hear and forming your own opinion and I applaud you for that. Furthermore people shouldn’t say you as a person are sick like urbanlegends did in his response. He can attack the idea and call it sick, which quite frankly the idea put forth from Lebensunwertes Leben is pretty awful, but there is a difference between attacking the person and the idea . This is particularly true since I’m not sure Jo was saying they agree with Lebensunwertes Leben, but rather they were simply misguidedly comparing Obama’s plan to it. However, I may have misread the post. Jo, regardless of whether you agree with their idea, regardless of whether the logic is sound or not is an individual who I would like to believe is speaking out in this forum because they care deeply about the issue (either that or they just get their kicks out of debating an issue for the sake of debating it because I know people like that as well.) and wants to see that they help America and the people who live in it understand what is going on around them. Quite frankly they strike me as someone who is honestly trying to help which is a nice change to the vast numbers of people in this country who are oblivious to what is happening in D.C. at the moment.

The fact of the matter is our health care system needs some kind of reform, and talking about it is the best way to reach some kind of reform. While Jo’s ideas are misguided at least they have opinions of their own. Look how few people care enough to post to this site more than once. Or look at how few people care enough to even try and figure out what their countries politicians are doing.

August 24, 2009 at 10:26 pm
(655) JB says:

By the way Jo, you point out that Obama has spent more money than Bush. Which is correct. However, did you ever check how the two set up their budgets? The reason Obama has spent more is because he is properly budgeting money to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, something Bush did not do. Just thought I’d mention that. Also, the budget might not be an issue if Bush hadn’t ruined the budget surplus we had under Clinton, but that is a debate for another time as well.

August 25, 2009 at 1:04 am
(656) urbanlegends says:

JB wrote about Jo:

“Furthermore people shouldn’t say you as a person are sick like urbanlegends did in his response. He can attack the idea and call it sick, which quite frankly the idea put forth from Lebensunwertes Leben is pretty awful, but there is a difference between attacking the person and the idea . This is particularly true since I’m not sure Jo was saying they agree with Lebensunwertes Leben, but rather they were simply misguidedly comparing Obama’s plan to it.”

Look again, JB. What Jo meant by her statement is that she truly believes OUR government — hers, yours, and mine — wants to exterminate elderly and disabled people by pushing them to forego life-sustaining medical treatment.

August 25, 2009 at 1:04 am
(657) Rob says:

Is it too late to point out that one of the first mentions of the currently suggested refoms as compared to prewar Germany states that they are similar to those proposed by the Weimar Republic?

Just for the record, Hitler was swept into power over the dead carcass of the Weimar Republic. Many conservatives in 1930′s Germany sided with Hitler for many of the same reasons given by Right leaning pundits and commentators for the current focus. Hitler advocated a recall of the Weimar reforms.

In contrast, I will accept you mention of Lebensunwerte Leben and raise you a Gleichschaltung, meaning “forcible cooperation”. This was a facet of the Enabling Act (I’ll wait while you Google it) which stated, in part, that the executive branch of the ostensibly democratic Weimar Republic had the sole authority to conduct policy without any oversight or input from the legislative.
This is pretty much what the Patriot Act says too, along with the “tradition” of executive comments on signing legislation, so-called Signing Statements.

Therefore, while the left may have some credible comparisons to the fascist elements of the Bush administration, there is nothing “Hitlerian” about HR3200. actually it is something Hitler would have abhorred.

Please take all of your Godwin crap out of healthcare debate and speak peacably about what is in the legislation.

Some good ideas that have come from the Right:

1) allow doctors to write off the difference between standard charges for procedures and the allowed payment from Medicare (usually 80%-85% of the total). This would keep them in the fold as part of National Healthcare.

2) Remove state-by-state restrictions under the constitutional clause of the right of the federal government to regulate commerce (but ONLY IF the Public Option is provided under the Healthcare Exchange, otherwise there is no interstate commerce).

3) Ironclad exceptions for Medicare Beneficiaries over the age of 60 and disabled veterans covered under Tricare (which is already included as an opt-out exception).

In short, there are some good ideas on the right – but there is a lot more hate and pitchforks. william Buckley would be ashamed if he were alive.

August 25, 2009 at 9:41 am
(658) Jo says:

JB:If you want to talk about the similarities between Obama and Hitler I should point out that the political atmosphere is completely different.

Jo: I wouldn’t say *completely* differnt. And I’m not saying BO is as bad as Hitler by any means. For the umpteenth time, I’m saying there are similarities.

JB: Hitler rose to power because as you correctly said he was charismatic, he was a rock star.

Jo: No difference there.

JB: However, the reason that worked so well was because Germany was still trying to find their feet after getting ultimately beat up in WWI.

Jo: It was a different harsher era, exports of raw materials left people with little (like our jobs leaving??), millions were disenchanted with capitalism, and currency depreciated. (similar)
Many voters seeking an outlet for their frustrations, began turning their support towards the far right and far left of the political spectrum, opting for extremist political parties. (Sound familiar??) The people desperate for *hope* and in great need of *change* accepted the Nazi Party. Nazis offered promises of strong authoritarian government, civil peace, radical changes to economic policy (including elimination of unemployment), restored national pride (sound familiar??) and eventually of course racial cleansing — which the current administration has NOT proposed — and no one says they have.

The reasoning is not the same, the degree of lunacy is the same. But the similarities are very much there.

JB: Hitler’s charisma worked because he correctly saw that people had lost pride in Germany and he capitalized on that by tricking people into thinking he was the one to bring them back to a level of national pride and power.

Jo: And the DIFFERENCES are? Isn’t this what the left said?? That Bush has shamed the US around the world?? Hasn’t BO tricked many into believing he’d make things “fair”, create jobs, turn the economy around, spread the wealth, provide single payer HC? (etc…)

JB: Everyone wanted to get back to that national pride so no one criticized his policies to that extent that people from both parties are criticizing Obama.

Jo: The VAST majority did NOT criticized BO on his way to power, he was the media darling, (similar). Those who did/do oppose or question BO relationships, agenda and platform, have been ridiculed and called sick (puppies??), radical, racists, redneck, white supremacists, etc.. etc… effectively being punished for having the audacity to see the flaws in his plans. BO refuses to interview equally on FOX News, or have equal interviews with other right leaning media. But why?? He is the POTUS of all of us, is he not? Then why does he pick and choose primarily leftist friendly media? I will tell you why — because he can’t (or does not want to) answer the hard questions we are asking – that’s why.

Plus, the similarities of limited speech by the third Reich, are ominous with the lefts “hate speech” bill proposals, and most recent with the appointment of Mark Lloyd, a “diversity czar” within the Federal Communications Commission, a brand new position BO created. A Trojan horse for the fairness doctrine, since BO knew using the “fairness doctrine” would have failed yet again. (Free markets ought to stay free — I don’t want CNN or Fox to be forced to run gov’t approved news — yikes! Unfortunately we are slipping that way — the white house, is already sending daily talking points to several news sources.)

JB: With as many people scrutinizing this bill and with as many checks and balances as are in place in the American government do you honestly believe that they are that similar?

Jo: Checks and balances have been compromised with 30+ Czars BO has appointed to work around congress. These Czars are political thugs. They are already strong arming people who do not conform to BO policy.

JB: it doesn’t say in as many words the public will not be forced to go to the doctors. It also does not say in as many words that they shall, under penalty of law, see their doctors for every sniffle and for end of life consultation.

Jo: It won’t be obvious and in your face — they will make it sound reasonable and “for the good of all”. For example: Most would think that it is reasonable for the government to propose that it should be mandatory for “well check ups” – and those who do not comply will not be covered for certain treatments or will be charged for additional coverage. In the name of saving us all money later on – right? (This is already happening with the bad vice tax such as cigarette tax, liquor tax, proposed sugar tax, trans fat outlawed in NY restaurants, etc… etc…)

This effectively would force “poor” people to go to the well treatments, since they couldn’t afford extra, now wouldn’t it? So what is the difference if they force you by gun or by withholding care (black mail)? They achieve them same power over your health.

(BTW I’m not saying people shouldn’t have well check ups, I’m just saying in a FREE country that should be decided by the individual – not gov’t.)

Some will say now — “well the insurance companies already do this” — TRUE! However, currently you have many CHOICES in insurance companies — with gov’t care there will eventually only be one.

JB: the portion of the bill this site is trying to deal with says that this is what end of life consultation is so that people can be covered when they see the doctor to set up living wills etc.

Jo: it about giving doctor incentives. Doctor will be paid for the end-of-life consultations that the gov’t wants people to have.

JB: according to the world health organization both Britain and Canada have longer life expectancy, and a lower probability of dying under the age of five.

Jo: By all means mortality rates should be a part of this discussion. However, it would be unwise to assume that gov’t HC is the entire reason for lower mortality rates in any country. There are multitude of behaviors unrelated to the health care system such as lack of exercise, diet, substance abuse, smoking, obesity etc. – all connected to low birth weight and mortality rates. We must look at the differences in life style. After all, a avid skier doesn’t become less likely to break leg because of gov’t HC. The increased chance of a broken leg is directly related to the life style they choose.

JB:You say you are for state run health care …

Jo: I said I am for state run HC — if it is voted in by the *people*.

JB: Massachusetts, where I live is considered a forerunner in health care because it has a law requiring its residents to have health care.

Jo: While I give credit to Massachusetts for trying to implement a HC system, it is not a forerunner, it is more of a example of how hard it is to implement a HC system run at the hand of gov’t.

You don’t seem happy with the MA model, what makes you think the federal model will be better? This is why I say to allow states to work on the problem individually, allow state to state insurance policies, tort reform, illegals should have work permits and pay into the system etc..

JB: Another thing, you say that the resources would run out and lines would back up if people went to the doctors for every sniffle. However, as I said earlier they wouldn’t be forced to go to the doctors for every sniffle.

Jo: This all comes down to how much they have to pay to been seen for the sniffles. If it’s free, they’ll go (causing waits), if they have to pay they will think twice.

JB: I would expect the doctor treating them to recognize the difference between them and the people who actually need the resources.

Jo: How so? What would be the measuring stick? Gov’t limiting how much you are allowed to see the doc??

JB: As for the money issue you’re right companies would switch to a lower cost health care.

Jo: And, then you must see how this would eliminate private care option. No demand for the private HC option — no supply of private HC options.

BO is being disingenuous on this topic when he says you can keep you plan. Again slight of hand — he knows precisely what will happen to “your plan” if this HC passes. (Did you click on the links in my last post to you??)

JB: I don’t think that less people would go through medical school because I don’t think their paychecks would be cut so drastically they couldn’t pay back loans.

Jo: The gov’t HC option is intended to provide affordable HC to all. Read the bill, it is all about cutting HC costs. Doctors will face cuts. Medical schooling costs in university will not.

Again – if you were heading to college would you opt for an expensive college tuition with income caps regulated by gov’t? Or a profession that is not regulated by gov’t and has unlimited income?

Once student stop opting for the medical field, schools will cut back back on medical science programs. Which will result in less schooling and scientific discoveries, and so forth. All it takes is a basic understanding of supply and demand to see the larger picture.

JB: As for Glenn Beck. I was never saying how dare he exercise his right to speech. I was just trying to say that Beck, someone who is currently one of the biggest opponents of Obama’s plan himself said that it was a nightmare and implied it needed to be reformed.

Jo: But that is just it! We ALL agree HC needs reforming, we just disagree on the cure (pun intended).

BJ: people shouldn’t say you as a person are sick like urbanlegends did in his response. He can attack the idea and call it sick, which quite frankly the idea put forth from Lebensunwertes Leben is pretty awful, but there is a difference between attacking the person and the idea .

Jo: Lebensunwertes Leben (or life unworthy of living) basic concept is IN THE VA handbook. They have a check list that asks such things as if living in a wheel chair or being depressed is worth living or “not worth living”. (Look it up) The POWER we give government over our health choices will dictate how far they take their professed beliefs. Eugenics and other ideologies of who should live or die has been discussed in depth by BO advisers of THIS HC plan. Just facts. Will they implement more drastic measures is an unknown to all of us. Personally, I prefer to not give them that much power.

JB: This is particularly true since I’m not sure Jo was saying they agree with Lebensunwertes Leben, but rather they were simply misguidedly comparing Obama’s plan to it.

Jo: To the degree Hitler did? No. However the philosophy clearly exsists in this administration.

lhttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/magazine/03Obama-t.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.

All we have to do is LISTEN to what BO (and co) is saying.

JB: I would like to believe is speaking out in this forum because they care deeply … about the issue and wants to see that they help America and the people who live in it understand what is going on around them.

Jo: I do care and I am concerned people are being misguided by the LACK of information exchanged here.

JB: Quite frankly they strike me as someone who is honestly trying to help which is a nice change to the vast numbers of people in this country who are oblivious to what is happening in D.C. at the moment.

Jo: Reasonable people can discuss similarities and differences. BOTH sides want the same ending in this debate — reasonable costing HC for all. We just have different ideas of how to get there. I thank you for not reducing into hysterical accusation and name calling.

JB: While Jo’s ideas are misguided at least they have opinions of their own. Look how few people care enough to post to this site more than once. Or look at how few people care enough to even try and figure out what their countries politicians are doing.

Jo: I’m not the one misguided, I’m the realist. Gov’ts through history that have grown too big and have attained to much power always become corrupt, the USA is no different.

(BTW — for those who will now accuse me of “hating gov’t” I am NOT saying we ought not have ANY gov’t. I am saying it should be LIMITED gov’t as our founders intended.)

Ben Franklin, answering a question of a reporter, that asked; “what kind of government are you trying to create?”)

Franklin replied:

“A republic, if you can keep it.”

Keeping it, seems to be the biggest problem we face today. Half of America do not understand our form of gov’t. This HC bill is ILLEGAL.

Why do supporters of gov’t HC ignore this fact?

August 25, 2009 at 9:54 am
(659) Jo says:

BTW JB: Obama promised to end the war, he has not. The budget he has set forth not only spends on the war — but it bought GM, bailed out the banks, cash for clunkers, doling out all sorts of entitlements, etc.

Gov’t should not meddle in the free market. It is not their job.

Programs of entitlements (welfare, food stamps, cash for clunkers etc…) are nothing more that bribes for votes. This is not what our tax dollars should be used for.

Bush was wrong, Obama is wrong — the gov’t MUST be reduced to the founders intentional size and purpose.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8

Read section 8 of the constitution that LIMITS gov’t (Powers of congress), then read the 10th and 9th amendments.

Then tell me why gov’t HC — or even entitlements — are legal.

August 25, 2009 at 10:33 am
(660) Jo says:

Rob said: while the left may have some credible comparisons to the fascist elements of the Bush administration…

See my post 630.

You can bow to the Godwin law if you want, as for me I will call it like a see it.

Nothing Hitlerisk about HR 3200?

Naw, of course not!
Surly an ambiguous bill that leaves open ended power to the administration must not be harmless! Never mind the people that wrote it support the “complete life system”.

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS0140673609601379.pdf

Including but not limited to:

Treating People Equally:
by Lottery
First-come, first served

Prioritarianism:
Sickest first
Youngest first

Utilitarianism:
Saving the most lives
Saving the most life-years
Saving the most socially useful
Reciprocity (paying back people who have ‘contributed’, such as organ donors)

Look at page 428 at the “probability of receiving intervention” chart. The very young and the very old are expendable.

Silly me, who would compare this to Nazi style T-4 HC?? That started with Hitler’s memo of September 1, 1939 to be rid of suffering patients “judged incurably sick, by critical medical examination”.

Look up T-4 and read about it.

August 25, 2009 at 10:59 am
(661) Jo says:

Already happening in Oregon: Note the “All Barack Channel” (ABC) initially reports this travesty as a denial of “her insurance company” — which IS gov’t insurance — Oregon State run HC.
============================
The news from Barbara Wagner’s doctor was bad, but the rejection letter from her insurance company was crushing.
The 64-year-old Oregon woman, whose lung cancer had been in remission, learned the disease had returned and would likely kill her. Her last hope was a $4,000-a-month drug that her doctor prescribed for her, but the insurance company refused to pay.

What the Oregon Health Plan did agree to cover, however, were drugs for a physician-assisted death.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492&page=1

======================================

A preview of your beloved gov’t run HC plan.

Enjoy.

August 25, 2009 at 11:31 am
(662) urbanlegends says:

Jo wrote:

“Reasonable people can discuss similarities and differences. BOTH sides want the same ending in this debate — reasonable costing HC for all. We just have different ideas of how to get there. I thank you for not reducing into hysterical accusation and name calling.”

True, reasonable people can discuss.

But how reasonable a person are YOU, and how reasonable a debate can one have with YOU, if you honestly believe — or at least keep repeating — that the opposing side is equivalent to the Third Reich?

How can you say with a straight face that “both sides want the same ending” when you repeatedly accuse the other side — the “Lefties,” “Socialists,” or “Nazis” — of having all kinds of evil secret agendas, including covertly plotting to send all senior citizens to an early death to cut health care costs?

Sincere question.

August 25, 2009 at 1:26 pm
(663) Jo says:

UL: But how reasonable a person are YOU, and how reasonable a debate can one have with YOU, if you honestly believe — or at least keep repeating — that the opposing side is equivalent to the Third Reich?

Jo: UL stop lying and misconstruing what I have said. I have said there are similarities — not equivalency.

And, I have produced many of these similarities — as well as some things that *are not* similar.

UL: How can you say with a straight face that “both sides want the same ending”

Jo: Because we do. We just have differnt ideas of how to achieve lower cost HC for all.

UL: when you repeatedly accuse the other side — the “Lefties,” “Socialists,” or “Nazis” —

Jo: Please stop lying.

I have not called the *people* on the left Nazis – I have been directing my comments to gov’t actions – not the generality of the opposing view.

Second, I have said I believe that many “Lefties” are willingly or involuntarily ignorant of the situation.

Third, I haven’t claimed socialism. I claim we are heading to fascism, authoritarianism – which could lead to totalitarianism if we are not watchful.

We are on our way to corporatist-style regime, if we do not pay attention.

Would you prefer I pointed to Mussolini? Franco? Peron instead?

My point is the type of government we seem to be heading toward.

You can continue to stick you head in the sand if you want, but I won’t.

August 25, 2009 at 1:56 pm
(664) urbanlegends says:

Jo writes:

“UL stop lying and misconstruing what I have said. I have said there are similarities — not equivalency.”

I’m neither lying nor misconstruing, but for the sake of argument I’ll rephrase the question. How reasonable a discussion can this be if you keep likening the other side to Nazis?

You can quibble over words. Did you say socialism or did you say fascism? Did you say the Obama administration is equivalent, or similar? What’s the difference when either way you are slapping a repugnant — and more importantly, false — label on the other side?

Did you call the authors and proponents of the VA handbook Nazis, or did you draw a direct comparison between the content of the book and the Nazi policy of Lebensunwertes Leben? What’s the difference when the point is that you keep claiming the other side is promulgating a diabolical program comparable to some of the most heinous actions of Nazi Germany?

“I have not called the *people* on the left Nazis – I have been directing my comments to gov’t actions – not the generality of the opposing view.”

Again, what’s the practical difference? If you’re conversing with someone who supports the basic tenets of the House health care bill, and you say it amounts to fascism, what are you saying about the people who are in favor of it (not to mention its authors and backers in the administration and Congress), if not that they support fascism?

And, to remind you and everyone else, you have in fact directly compared Obama to Hitler.

Jo, I haven’t been hammering on you because I like to. (I so wanted to have a reasonable discussion with you myself, if for no other reason than you have been the most prolific and verbose commenter here.) But from day one you persistently spouted misreadings of the health care bill, refused to acknowledge reasonable arguments to the contrary, and refused to even consider other readings from reputable sources that disagreed with you. You dismissed them!

I hope against hope you’ll look honestly at, and admit, how extreme some of your positions are. Because for this to be a reasonable discussion between reasonable people, all parties must credit one another with a modicum of wisdom and good intentions — and I don’t just mean the immediate person you’re conversing with, but even more so the actual authors of the House health care bill, the members of Congress and administration who back it, and the health care experts who contributed their ideas to it, as well.

I’m not asking you to agree with them! It’s all the better of a discussion if you don’t!!! Just stop saying things like they’re driving us into fascism, Obama is like Hitler, etc. THAT’S unreasonable. No sincere discussion can proceed from it! You STIFLE debate when you pull the Hitler card. That’s why I asked you and everyone (unsuccessfully, obviously) not to do it.

Intentionally or not, for example, you completely misrepresent Ezekiel Emanuel’s views. The fact that he has participated in academic discussions and papers in which various paradigms for health care rationing were compared and discussed does NOT mean he advocates those ideas or wants them implemented in a health care reform plan. To pull sentences out of context from these theoretical discussions and attribute belief in the scariest ideas you can find in them to Emanuel personally is a travesty. It goes beyond travesty when you try to connect Emanuel to a notion like Lebensunwertes Leben. This is a decent man who holds no such ideas!

Which brings me back to where I so often land when I read your statements. Do you sincerely not realize that you’re misrepresenting such things, or do you in fact know you’re promulgating falsehoods and do it anyway because the end justifies the means?

I’ve wracked my brain on this because you seem too intelligent not to be able to understand what you’re reading, or to get the context right. Which leads me to suspect you’ll basically just say anything to achieve your desired end. Which is it?

Ironically, there’s nothing wrong with the “too much government intrusion” argument, which is your fundamental case. It’s perfectly good, brilliant, honorable, and NEEDS to be made. And when you stick to it, you make that argument well.

Why must you cross the line into 1) misrepresenting what the bill actually says, and 2) comparing the opposing viewpoint to Nazism, fascism, or what-have-you?

August 25, 2009 at 3:37 pm
(665) Jo says:

Jo – “UL stop lying and misconstruing what I have said. I have said there are similarities — not equivalency.”

UL – I’m neither lying nor misconstruing, but for the sake of argument I’ll rephrase the question. How reasonable a discussion can this be if you keep claiming there are similarities between the other side and Nazis?

Jo — You did lie, I never ever said BO or his administration was *equivalent*. Or socialist for that matter. NEVER.

And here you go *again* misconstruing what I’ve said: I reiterate — BUSH had policies (Patriot Act) that resembled (*similarity*) Third Reich power grabbing AS WELL as BO and the creation of the current HC plan.

I’m comparing our *entire* gov’t not a party, or a side.

With that said — I do think that the current administration has lurched dramatically to the far left, and is embracing MORE of the fascist polices of the past. However, republicans or democrats, will not get a pass from me if they go along with these tactics.

I give blue dog democrats a LOT of credit for standing up and saying no to the HC bill.

UL: You can quibble over words. Did you say socialism or did you say fascism? Did you say the Obama adminstration is equivalent, or similar? What’s the difference when either way you are slapping a repugnant label on the other side.

Jo: Oh come now, words MEAN something, similar does NOT mean equivalent. The context certainly does matter, to those with reading comprehension. You need to read more carefully.

I disagree with your interpretation. And for whatever reason you can’t stand that I disagree. The bill is not specific, we can argue all day long if they can force consultations or not. Until we have specifics we simply do not know – especially when taking into account the many other writings and planning that is NOT in the bill.

UL — I hope against hope you’ll look honestly at, and admit, how extreme some of your positions are.

Jo — Well then I’m in good company because the TH meeting are full of people just like me. And they are NOT the minority.

You won’t even consider or discuss the similarities. Instead you get hysterical and call me names. Whatever – have at it, people reading here can read.

UL – both parties must credit one another with a modicum of wisdom and good intentions —

Jo: Well that’s rich coming from the guy who called me a “sick puppy” that I “need my head examined” – I’m a “cruel and unscrupulous demagogue”

Meanwhile you are silent on the stfu crowd, or the go away crowd. Or the “republicans are so stupid crowd”. (Which even — I — agree with at times!)

I’m not going to think – they way you insist I think. No matter how much you demand me to conform to what YOU think is reasonable and what you think is not.

You tell me to feel free to disagree, which is what I’ve been doing. Then you tell me I stifle debate if I use examples of ruinous past governments that are eerily similar to what ours has been doing.

This is like gagging me — then telling me to speak out.

UL: you completely misrepresent Ezekiel Emanuel’s views. The fact that he has participated in academic discussions and papers in which various paradigms for health care rationing were compared and discussed does NOT mean he advocates those ideas or wants them implemented in a health care reform plan.

Jo: it doesn’t mean they WON’T implement them either. Especially since this bill is full of loop holes. I’m simply pointing out the type of academia that is DESIGNING the HC bill. I think this is very much relevant. Had he NOT been working for BO on the plan — I wouldn’t be concerned.

You don’t know if he is a “decent man” or not — no more than I KNOW he WILL implement his work in the HC plan.

I have made an educated decision (using all available information and empirical evidence) to not take the chance on trusting gov’t with my health.

Did you ever think that perhaps you are the one who is misrepresenting what I’ve said? You do it all the time, or you tell half the story, or misconstrue what I’ve said.

August 25, 2009 at 3:50 pm
(666) urbanlegends says:

Jo writes:

“UL – both parties must credit one another with a modicum of wisdom and good intentions —

Jo: Well that’s rich coming from the guy who called me a ‘sick puppy’ that I ‘need my head examined’ – I’m a ‘cruel and unscrupulous demagogue’”

Guilty as charged. You abandoned reasonableness and made it impossible for me or anyone else to credit you with wisdom and good intentions when you brought the Nazi policy of Lebensunwertes Leben into the discussion. That’s what I reacted to.

You don’t seem to realize how utterly serious such charges are, nor how much they undermine a sincere discussion of health care reform.

There are conservatives and libertarians all over the place making a case against the House health care bill without sinking so low. I wish we had more of ‘em here.

August 25, 2009 at 3:54 pm
(667) urbanlegends says:

Jo wrote:

“I have made an educated decision (using all available information and empirical evidence) to not take the chance on trusting gov’t with my health.”

Succinct, to the point, well said. You are not alone.

August 25, 2009 at 4:09 pm
(668) urbanlegends says:

Regarding Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (nicknamed “Doctor Death” by opponents of the House health care bill), anyone truly interested in what he believes vs. what people say he believes ought to read Ezra Klein’s interview with him in the Washington Post:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/08/an_interview_with_ezekiel_eman.html

See also:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/07/when-academic-words-become-political-ammunition-.html

Jo referenced Emanuel’s paper as follows, beginning, of course, with a reference to Hitler (please read the paper (link below), and the interview, and the article above, and judge for yourself how accurate and appropriate Jo’s characterization really is):

Quoting Jo:

Nothing Hitlerisk about HR 3200?

Naw, of course not!
Surly an ambiguous bill that leaves open ended power to the administration must not be harmless! Never mind the people that wrote it support the “complete life system”.

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS0140673609601379.pdf

Including but not limited to:

Treating People Equally:
by Lottery
First-come, first served

Prioritarianism:
Sickest first
Youngest first

Utilitarianism:
Saving the most lives
Saving the most life-years
Saving the most socially useful
Reciprocity (paying back people who have ‘contributed’, such as organ donors)

Look at page 428 at the “probability of receiving intervention” chart. The very young and the very old are expendable.

Silly me, who would compare this to Nazi style T-4 HC?? That started with Hitler’s memo of September 1, 1939 to be rid of suffering patients “judged incurably sick, by critical medical examination”.

Look up T-4 and read about it.

August 25, 2009 at 5:19 pm
(669) Jo says:

I don’t have much time tonight — business calls.

However, this sums up what I would have said about the Washington Post interview:

First, let’s look at “Where Civic Republicanism and Deliberative Democracy Meet,” The Hastings Center It is true that this article is heavily philosophical and that it presents and evaluates a number of methods of allocating health care resources, but it’s premise is that the United States “has repeatedly failed to enact universal health coverage” because of an ethical defect:

Emanual: “the reason the United States has failed to enact universal health coverage is not primarily political or economic; the real reason is ethical — it is a failure to provide a philosophically defensible and practical mechanism to distinguish basic from discretionary health care services.”

The article attempts to cure that ethical defect by laying out just such “a philosophically defensible and practical mechanism to distinguish basic from discretionary health care services.” After evaluating and dismissing several approaches to separating basic from discretionary health services, Emanuel presents his own “communitarian” or “civic republicanism” solution, which is worth quoting at slightly greater length than his other critics have done:

Emanuel: “This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just allocation of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity — those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations — are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example Is is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason.”

How anyone can read this article with this conclusion and believe Emanuel when he says now that it “wasn’t my view” that limiting health services to those who are not and cannot become “participating citizens,” who do not “promote the continuation of the polity,” is beyond me. Does he really think that his critics are unwilling or unable to read?

=========================

Plus there is another paper he wrote in Jan 2009:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2809%2960137-9/abstract

In short he’s telling the WP, it’s not his ideology, for political reasons.

August 25, 2009 at 7:04 pm
(670) urbanlegends says:

Jo writes:

“How anyone can read this article with this conclusion and believe Emanuel when he says now that it “wasn’t my view” that limiting health services to those who are not and cannot become “participating citizens,” who do not “promote the continuation of the polity,” is beyond me. Does he really think that his critics are unwilling or unable to read?”

I was in the process of typing out a long response when I realized that the paragraph you just quoted doesn’t come from the same Emanuel article you referred to as “Hitlerisk” earlier.

So, for the time being, this is in answer to your misrepresentation of the “Hitlerisk” article:

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS0140673609601379.pdf

You couldn’t possibly be more wrong — or more unfair — to compare what is discussed in this article to Nazi ideology.

The topic is very specific. At present there is no broadly accepted ethical framework for allocating extremely scarce medical resources. I repeat: extremely scarce medical resources, such as organ transplants and limited vaccine supplies. The authors of this article compare and propose ideas for such a framework. That is what bioethicists do.

Say you’ve got a situation where there are five people in need of immediate heart transplants and there are only two transplantable organs available. Treatment has to be denied to someone. How would you decide who gets a heart and who doesn’t? Where would you even begin?

More importantly, isn’t this an ethical dilemma that desperately needs to be pondered and discussed?

This paper, of which Ezekiel Emanuel was one of the authors, addresses that specific kind of ethical dilemma, carefully weighs various theoretical frameworks, and attempts to arrive at the fairest possible solution(s).

Does that really sound like Nazism to you?

August 25, 2009 at 8:24 pm
(671) JB says:

Jo said:
“JB:If you want to talk about the similarities between Obama and Hitler I should point out that the political atmosphere is completely different.

Jo: I wouldn’t say *completely* differnt. And I’m not saying BO is as bad as Hitler by any means. For the umpteenth time, I’m saying there are similarities. ”

Actually I would say completely different. While you are correct that Obama’s campaign idealism of hope and change came during a time of massive uncertainty – job losses, an economic disaster possible worse than any other since the great depression, the continuing wars in the mideast, etc.” That is still not comparable to the state of Germany and moreover the state of the entire world after WWI in the years leading up to the rise of Hitler and the third reich. WWI and the devastation it caused to everyone, particularly Germany was unprecedented in modern history which is why it was originally called the war to end all wars or the great war. No one is calling our economy a “recession to end all recessions”. Just because we as a nation were in a bad situation doesn’t mean it is similar to the bad situation faced by Germany. While I will give you that there may be some similarities existing if only because if you look hard enough at any situation you can draw similarities if you try hard enough. People are not as willing to be swept up by fanaticism and political extremes and for the record I wouldn’t call Obama a political extremist by any definition of the phrase. Comparing Obama and his policies to Hitler does very much take away from a debate as important as this one since I think we all agree something needs to be done about Health care.

If you want to reference history maybe look a little more recent like Clinton who proposed health care reform in 1993 following a campaign in 92 that was heavy on health care reform. Although the plan was defeated it didn’t take away from his popularity as a president seeing as he was re-elected to a second term. They say the true judge of a person is how history judges them. While history has all kind of judgments of Clinton on a personal level, much of his politics are not faulted by history nor does history view him as a socialist or a hitleresque figure much like I am sure history will not view Obama as such a decade or two from now when we all see how this plays out.

Also, there are still a lot of checks and balances in place and I wouldn’t saying anyone from Obama’s camp are ‘strong arming’ anyone.

As for the idea you mention of people being in favor of government mandated ‘wellness check ups’. I have heard it by some but I haven’t actually heard or read it in the bill which is currently being discussed. Just because people are talking about government mandated wellness checks doesn’t it is part of the proposed reform. If you could find references to this idea in the bill directly or some reference for where the idea came from I’d be curious to see it before I comment further on that idea.

Next, you say the portion of the bill on this site (that is section 1233) deals with incentivising doctors for end-of-life consultations that the government wants. It is true it would allow for doctors to get paid for these consultation, consultation which as I mentioned before include parts about life sustaining practices, but that does not make it wrong. Explaining these end-of-life care procedures including palliative and hospice treatments is something people need to understand to make a informed decision. Saying they get paid for something incentivises doctors is faulty logic in the sense that a surgeon by that logic would be incentivised to perform unnecessary procedures on a patient because it creates more billing hours. However, you see doctors recommending other courses of treatments which do not provide as much billing hours for them because it is better for the patient. Recently my father injured his arm, he could still function normally he just had some minimal loss of strength and the orthopedic surgeon he saw said he didn’t want to operate because the likelihood of it fixing the problem was extremely low. I realize you, Jo would probably say the real reason he turned the surgery down was because he didn’t want to risk malpractice, but that wasn’t it since he told my father the risks upfront and would have been covered by a liability form. The reason he turned it down was because it was better for the patient, even though it wasn’t better for a bank account. Thinking that this bill would give doctors incentives to do things and make decisions that aren’t for the best of the patient would be misreading things.

Next, you are correct Jo that there is more then health care working into the stats from Britain and Canada. Life expectancy is a sum of many things such as life style, environmental conditions, diet, exercise, health care quality, etc. Since many would agree that American habits are generally speaking far from healthy in many, not all, but many cases. So Jo I will give you the benefit of the doubt and ignore the life expectancy statistics. However, that still leaves the fact that in the current U.S Health care system a child has a higher probability of dying before age five than Britain and Canada. Now I’m not a pediatrician or a medical doctor of any kind but I didn’t realize morbid obesity and smoking and drug use and all those things that might cause the U.S life expectancy to be lower were such a big problem for children under five years old.

Next arguing over whether or not the public would go to the doctor over every sniffle is a question of price. Yes there would be more unnecessary doctor visits if they were free. But saying that everyone would go to doctors for a sniffle simply because it is free is a gross generalization which holds no water in reality. When I was in college I could go to health services for free when ever I wanted. However, I didn’t. Many of the students I knew well didn’t either. And judging by the consistently under crowded waiting room they had most of the student body didn’t either. You think that because it is free most people will go but in my experience people generally aren’t fans of going to the doctors, with the exception of hypochondriacs and drug seekers most people are smart enough to know that sniffles and colds happen and pass in a few days. Also, most people I know are busy and judging but the latest statistics I’ve seen referring to Americans as workaholics. In other word these are people that would rather be working then wasting their time at the doctors for unnecessary reasons.

By the way you asked what would be the measuring stick for determining sickness? Its called a science for a reason. Our current medical knowledge was gained empirically through science over time which is how doctors currently can tell if a sniffle is a rhino virus (aka the common cold), swine flu, meningitis, or something else all together. Science, things like blood cultures and physical exams would be the “measure stick”

Another thing, you are very correct in saying that this bill is about cutting health care costs. However, I don’t understand why that is a bad thing when there is so much wasteful spending in the current health care system. Do you realize how much it costs a company like Merck or Pfizer to create their medicines? Do you realize how much those same medicines cost when they are put on the market. Simply because this bill cuts health care costs doesn’t mean that medical professionals will be forced out of work. You also say that we would fall behind on scientific advancements but we already are behind since Bush did everything he could to stonewall Stem Cell Research. Why do you think places like Japan have so many discoveries. What kind of Health Care Plan do they have again?

urbanlegends, I hate to break it to you but Jo is right the particular word is important because each have very specific meanings, especially based on their context. Why do you think Eskimos have so many different words for snow. Because the difference in similar words can be very important, especially in a debate as charged as the health care debate.

Also urbanlegends, you counter one of Jo’s arguments by saying there is no framework for deciding who gets scarce resources like organs. There actually is a system in place called the United Network for Organ Sharing or UNOS. They maintain the organ donation network and have an entire list of criteria they use to decide organ donation. However, that does not make the ethical dilemmas easier to deal with nor will this health care reform.

Finally Jo, in your closing comments you say,” Ben Franklin, answering a question of a reporter, that asked; “what kind of government are you trying to create?”)

Franklin replied:

“A republic, if you can keep it.”

Keeping it, seems to be the biggest problem we face today. Half of America do not understand our form of gov’t. This HC bill is ILLEGAL.”

For starters, America got away from the advice of the founding fathers long ago since George Washington, while leaving office say we should avoid foreign entanglements. That worked well.

You are correct many Americans don’t understand government. I’m not even sure everyone in American government understands American government. I also wish that weren’t the case. As I said before, it saddens me how uninformed so many Americans are.

What I don’t understand is how you consider that this bill is Illegal. If you could maybe do that legal thing like presenting text from this bill and compare it to other laws currently on the books to show the text from this law and the text from other laws that makes it illegal. Quoting Ben Franklin, saying Americans don’t understand government and calling it evidence that this bill is illegal doesn’t hold any water from a logic point of view.

While we are on the topic of past figures in American history lets look at a figure like President Franklin D.Roosevelt, a figure considered by many to be one of the greatest presidents because he helped bring an end to the great depression by more government programs, programs like social security. The program came out of the Social Security Act which later included medicare and medicare, programs that are run by the federal government, programs which were controversial at the time, programs which have been since shown by history to work relative to the original controversies, and programs which if anyone tried to get rid of them today entirely would be faced with political suicide.

August 25, 2009 at 9:01 pm
(672) urbanlegends says:

JB writes:

“urbanlegends, you counter one of Jo’s arguments by saying there is no framework for deciding who gets scarce resources like organs. There actually is a system in place called the United Network for Organ Sharing or UNOS. They maintain the organ donation network and have an entire list of criteria they use to decide organ donation.”

Correct, I got that wrong. The premise of the article isn’t that there’s no broadly accepted ethical framework, it’s that the paradigms that do exist (or have been proposed) are, in the opinion of the authors, not as fair as they could be. The UNOS paradigm is discussed in depth and criticized in the article. My bad.

JB continues:

“However, that does not make the ethical dilemmas easier to deal with nor will this health care reform.”

Quite right. The only reason we’re discussing ethical dilemmas AT ALL right now is that Jo brought Ezekiel Emanuel’s bioethical writings into the debate, misrepresented what they say, and labeled them “Hitlerisk.” It required a bit of debunking.

August 26, 2009 at 10:36 am
(673) Ron says:

It is so apparant that 1) you have confused “end-of-life services” (regarding palliative care, hospice care, setting up wills & directives for life-sustaining services, etc. as “suicide”; and 2) your conclusions are so skewed that, upon reading the bill in its entirety juxtaposed to your conclusions, I can’t image any rational person following you on your blog, forum, twitter, facebook, or whatever. But everyone has a right to voice his opinion — and with the glut of opinions, we the audience must filter for those with the most cogent reasoning and intelligent support.

August 26, 2009 at 12:31 pm
(674) Jo says:

Ul — Wiil you PLEASE stop misrepresenting what I say.

Ron in his 649 post called it “Hitlerian” I responded to that with a facetious Hitlerisk comment.

I reiterate — I have said there are *similarities* I’m not calling anyone “side” or “anyone” Hitler.

I will get back to the other comments later.

August 26, 2009 at 12:46 pm
(675) urbanlegends says:

Jo writes:

Ul — Wiil you PLEASE stop misrepresenting what I say.

Ron in his 649 post called it “Hitlerian” I responded to that with a facetious Hitlerisk comment.

I reiterate — I have said there are *similarities* I’m not calling anyone “side” or “anyone” Hitler.

I said you labeled the Emanuel article “Hitlerisk.” You did. I don’t understand how you can deny it. You wrote, precisely:

Nothing Hitlerisk about HR 3200?

Naw, of course not!

Surly an ambiguous bill that leaves open ended power to the administration must not be harmless!

You went on, at the bottom of your posting, to EXPLICITLY compare lines from Emanuel’s article to Hitler’s rationale for the Nazi gas chambers:

Silly me, who would compare this to Nazi style T-4 HC?? That started with Hitler’s memo of September 1, 1939 to be rid of suffering patients “judged incurably sick, by critical medical examination”.

WHO is doing the misrepresenting, Jo????

What you’ve said is unconscionable not only because you are tarring a well-respected American bioethicist with a comparison to Nazi extermination policies, but in fact the article on which you based this attack is pretty much the exact opposite of anything the Nazis ever said or did.

How can you keep doing this in good conscience?

August 26, 2009 at 4:00 pm
(676) Jo says:

JB: I wouldn’t call Obama a political extremist by any definition of the phrase.

Jo: We clearly disagree. Apparently you are very misinformed. He is very FAR left. He has told us himself:

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

“I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists.”

He said during his campaign: If you want to see what I am going to do is look at who I surround myself.”

Currently he surrounds himself with communists, extreme environmentalists, globalists, Dr Kevorkian wanna-be’s, and domestic terrorists.

JB: Comparing Obama and his policies to Hitler does very much take away from a debate as important as this one…

Jo: I disagree, I think it opens the door to a discussion of who is writing this vauge legislation (stimulus and HC bill), and what agenda is behind it? Clearly, from a economic stand point, BO is certainly not trying to create free markets, or jobs, contrarily he’s doing all he can to kill them. So the question is – WHY is he doing this??

If you look to his friends the answer is clear. He wants to spread wealth, he is anti-capitalist, he’s pro-globalist, and he can not push this agenda unless he has “benevolent” control of the people – and HC is the best way to accomplish this.

BJ: If you want to reference history maybe look a little more recent like Clinton…

Jo: Boy I never thought I’d say I miss the Clinton’s but I do — heck I miss Carter! JB, I don’t know how old you are, however, you ought to go back with a skeptical eye and revisit who did what during Clinton. There is a lot of misinformation out there, one is the Clinton “surplus” — which was slight of hand – taking figures from one column and stacking them in the other.

JB: there are still a lot of checks and balances in place and I wouldn’t saying anyone from Obama’s camp are ’strong arming’ anyone.

Jo: Really? That’s not what Inspector General Walpin said after he was fired for investigating BO’s friend.

JB: Just because people are talking about government mandated wellness checks doesn’t it is part of the proposed reform.

Jo: Oh come now, this is just common sense. Well check ups would prevent illness and disease, and save gov’t money. It would be unwise for them not to add this to the bill. (Again I’m all for HC, in state by state – voted for by the people, just not federal.)We shall see if it makes it to the senate bill.

BJ: it would allow for doctors to get paid for these consultation, consultation which as I mentioned before include parts about life sustaining practices, but that does not make it wrong.

Jo: I didn’t say consultations are wrong. I have said it is not the constitutional job of gov’t. If I want to have a end-of life consultation then *I* should be the one to choose/pay for it — not gov’t.

JB: Saying they get paid for something incentivises doctors is faulty logic

Jo: No it’s not.

JB: in the sense that a surgeon by that logic would be incentivised to perform unnecessary procedures on a patient

Jo: Like BO suggests will happen if your child has a sore throat? Look, JB — incentives for discussions being compared to incentives for surgeries — is like comparing spit balls and bullets. They are just not comparable.

Tell me why:

“the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:”

… is even in the HC bill, if the gov’t doesn’t intend to mandate doctors to give consultations? I mean what is the point of a 5 year time frame if it’s not mandatory??

JB: However, you see doctors recommending other courses of treatments which do not provide as much billing hours for them …

Jo: Yep, you are 100% correct, as demonstrated in Oregon. Did you read the post (I posted above) about the woman who was denied (by the State of Oregon HC plan) life saving chemo treatment costing $4,000?? In the place of chemo, she was offered $50 end-of-life pain medication??

Nice huh?

This is what you want for “other recommended treatments” to lower billing hours?? Bye-bye grandma – you won’t feel a thing?? Yikes.

They offered a different treatment, that’s for sure.

I had a aunt who was diagnosed with cancerous tumors all over her body and given 3 months to live by doctors. With chemo, she lived 12 more years. Had she lived in Oregon she would have died.

JB: Jo I will give you the benefit of the doubt and ignore the life expectancy statistics. However, that still leaves the fact that in the current U.S Health care system a child has a higher probability of dying before age five than Britain and Canada.

Jo: Sorry, I should have expanded on this issue — in short: we have a 40% single mother pregnancy rate — many of these Mothers are drug addicted, and/or poor, and/or ignorant. They lack prenatal care — this increases the risk of the child’s mortality rate.

JB: saying that everyone would go to doctors for a sniffle simply because it is free is a gross generalization which holds no water in reality.

Jo: I disagree. I have personally known people who play the system to get medicare and food stamps, simply because they CAN. We have 35 million people on food stamps, there is a LARGE majority in America that activly seek out entitlements. If going to the doctor is one — they will use it.

JB: By the way you asked what would be the measuring stick for determining sickness?

Its called a science for a reason.

Jo: JB, my point was about making the appointment in a free HC system. I was asking who would get the doc’t appointment and who would not, if TOO many people called for an appointment for the ‘snifles”. First come first serve?? Even if the first 100 aren’t really sick, thus causing the other *sick* to spread a real virus in society??

JB: you are very correct in saying that this bill is about cutting health care costs. However, I don’t understand why that is a bad thing when there is so much wasteful spending in the current health care system.

Jo: We agree — however I reiterate, it is not the JOB of gov’t to provide HC, we can cut costs by other means.

JB: Do you realize how much it costs a company like Merck or Pfizer to create their medicines? Do you realize how much those same medicines cost when they are put on the market.

Jo: I do — much of it from litigation, regulation and taxation. All caused by gov’t. Yet you want gov’t to solve the problem they created?? (BTW that’s another slight of hand tactic of gov’t. They create a problem — then promise to solve it.)

JB: Simply because this bill cuts health care costs doesn’t mean that medical professionals will be forced out of work.

Jo: I didn’t say forced out of work (Are you taking “out of context lessons” from UL?? … just kidding!) — I said there is no incentive for additional doctors.

Doctors are human, they grow old, retire, die whatever. Their will be an eventual shortage if the profession isn’t profitable.

JB: You also say that we would fall behind on scientific advancements but we already are behind since Bush did everything he could to stonewall Stem Cell Research.

Jo: I’m not going there, I see both sides of that arguemnt.

JB: Why do you think places like Japan have so many discoveries. What kind of Health Care Plan do they have again?

Jo: And what kind of culture do they have?? Their culture has MUCH to do with their success in HC.

I am not for giving up liberty we enjoy for a dictatorial commune gov’t HC system — sorry. It is not the *American* gov’t job to run HC – it’s their job to oversee it.

JB: What I don’t understand is how you consider that this bill is Illegal.

Jo: Show me where in the constitution (or any admendment thereafter) reserves the right to the gov’t to take from one sect of society and give to another (entitlements). It doesn’t exist – it is a direct contradiction to the constitution.

Madison said: “With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

JB: If you could maybe do that legal thing like presenting text from this bill and compare it to other laws currently on the books to show the text from this law and the text from other laws that makes it illegal.

Jo: First off why would I take text from a illegal bill to cross reference it to law?? Second, I did g present the law — I gave you constitutional limits of government – amendments 9 and 10 — did you read them?

Or is your argument that gov’t should go outside our constitution and break the law??

Our constitution is the ultimate law, it LIMITS government from infringing on our liberties, the tenth amendment is explicit:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

This bill is illegal.

JB: Quoting Ben Franklin, saying Americans don’t understand government and calling it evidence that this bill is illegal doesn’t hold any water from a logic point of view.

Jo: Again, the CONSTITUTION does.

JB: While we are on the topic of past figures in American history lets look at a figure like President Franklin D.Roosevelt…

Jo: He broke he law too.

JB: The program came out of the Social Security Act which later included medicare and medicare, programs that are run by the federal government,

Jo: Yep — and they are BROKE.

Gov’t programs are always running in deficit. We spend more on *entitlements* than we do on the flippin’ military at a time of war! (And BTW — protection of the people IS a legitimate JOB of gov’t.)

JB: programs which were controversial at the time, programs which have been since shown by history to work relative to the original controversies, and programs which if anyone tried to get rid of them today entirely would be faced with political suicide.

Jo: We need more political suicide.

August 26, 2009 at 4:11 pm
(677) Jo says:

UL do you know understand what facetious means?? There is no such word as “Hitlerisk” — it was meant to be a spoof, on Ron’s post, as I have previously said.

I showed the similarities. I’ve admitted this all along.

If the T4 fits — Emanuel can wear it.

Too bad if you don’t like or agree with the similarities. I didn’t create them, I’m just the messenger.

It’s ironic you are suddenly concerned about wording.

August 26, 2009 at 4:27 pm
(678) Jo says:

“We evaluate three systems: the United Network for Organ Sharing points systems, quality-adjusted life-years, and disability-adjusted life-years. We recommend an alternative system—the complete lives system—which prioritises younger people who have not yet lived a complete life, and also incorporates prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value principles.”

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2809%2960137-9/abstract

Dr Emanual *recommends* the “complete life system”.

Say it several times:

We recommend an alternative system—the complete lives system…

We recommend an alternative system—the complete lives system…

We recommend an alternative system—the complete lives system…

and so on!

It is in black and white IN HIS OWN WORDS in 2009, he does not represent the opposite view. He is claiming he is suddenly “not for” rationing and limits for political reasons, (he was hired by BO in Feb!) can’t you get this through your head, UL??

I’m not smearing a “good man” — I’m exposing political expedience and dismissal of a long time professed ideology.

August 26, 2009 at 4:40 pm
(679) Jo says:

BTW UL, in my meanderings I found in 1998, he wrote a book entitled “The Ends of Human Life: Medical Ethics in a Liberal Polity” in which as his publisher explains: “He proposes an alternative ideology, a liberal communitarianism that imagines a federation of political communities dedicated to democratic deliberations to guide the formulation of laws and policies.”

Ok then…

What does it take to wake you?? This man, in addition to Von Jones, among others working for BO are avowed communists.

I’m starting to think, McCarthy was right.

http://books.google.com/books?id=jfSlJWNeuK4C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false

August 26, 2009 at 4:57 pm
(680) urbanlegends says:

Jo writes:

Dr Emanual *recommends* the “complete life system”.
. . .
It is in black and white IN HIS OWN WORDS in 2009, he does not represent the opposite view. He is claiming he is suddenly “not for” rationing and limits for political reasons, (he was hired by BO in Feb!) can’t you get this through your head, UL??

Jo, did you not read Emanuel’s article? Did you not read my post in which I summarized the point of it?

You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Dr. Emanuel and fellow authors recommend the “complete life system” in a SPECIFIC CONTEXT. That context pertains to allocating extremely scarce medical resources. I repeat: EXTREMELY SCARCE MEDICAL RESOURCES, SUCH AS ORGAN TRANSPLANTS AND LIMITED VACCINE SUPPLIES. The authors of the article compare and propose ideas for an ethical framework for making difficult choices WITHIN THIS CONTEXT.

Say you’ve got a situation where there are five people in need of immediate heart transplants and there are only two transplantable organs available. Treatment has to be denied to someone. How would YOU decide who gets a heart and who doesn’t? Where would you even begin?

More importantly, isn’t this an ethical dilemma that desperately needs to be pondered and discussed?

This paper, of which Ezekiel Emanuel was one of the authors, addresses that specific kind of ethical dilemma, carefully weighs various theoretical frameworks, and attempts to arrive at the fairest possible solution(s).

You have completely misrepresented it, and compared it to Nazism besides.

And by the way. This article — the one you hilariously refer to as “Hitlerisk” — is NOT the article Emanuel was referring to when he said “That is not my view.”

August 26, 2009 at 5:10 pm
(681) urbanlegends says:

Jo writes:

BTW UL, in my meanderings I found in 1998, he wrote a book entitled “The Ends of Human Life: Medical Ethics in a Liberal Polity” in which as his publisher explains: “He proposes an alternative ideology, a liberal communitarianism that imagines a federation of political communities dedicated to democratic deliberations to guide the formulation of laws and policies.”

What does it take to wake you?? This man, in addition to Von Jones, among others working for BO are avowed communists.

So NOW Ezekiel Emanuel is a Communist? My God, Jo.

You flabbergast me. And once again I’m left to wonder: do you MEAN what you say and simply not understand the words you’re using, or do you not CARE whether what you say is true or false, and you’ll say whatever it takes to gain advantage?

You DO know the difference between communitarianism and Communism, right?

August 26, 2009 at 5:24 pm
(682) urbanlegends says:

Jo wrote:

“UL do you understand what facetious means?? There is no such word as “Hitlerisk” — it was meant to be a spoof, on Ron’s post, as I have previously said.”

Jo, be serious with me. I got the joke the first time around. But here’s the deal. Okay, you were making fun of somebody else’s word “Hitlerian.” You spoofed it as “Hitlerisk.” Ha ha. The point is: you still MEANT to compare Emanuel’s work to Nazi ideology even if you were spoofing the word.

Try to follow me on this.

If I say: “What, Jo compare somebody to Hitler? NEVER!!!”

What I mean by that is: “Damn right she compares people to Hitler!”

What you said was: “Nothing Hitlerisk about HR 3200? Naw, of course not!”

What you meant by that was: “Damn right there’s something ‘Hitlerisk’ (i.e. Hitler-like) about it!”

As proof that that is what you meant, you went on, after quoting lines from Emanuel’s paper, to EXPLICITLY compare those lines to Hitler’s rationale for Nazi gas chambers.

Given that, are you STILL going to claim you weren’t comparing Emanuel’s work to Nazism???

Jo wrote:

“I showed the similarities…. If the T4 fits — Emanuel can wear it.”

There are no similarities. I’ve explained — and you could easily see for yourself if you would actually READ the documents you refer to — how that specific Emanuel article IN NO WAY advocates what you say it does. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Why won’t you admit it? Why do you persist in comparing people to Nazis and calling them Communists with no justification whatsoever?

August 26, 2009 at 6:26 pm
(683) urbanlegends says:

Jo wrote (to JB):

Tell me why:

“the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:”

… is even in the HC bill, if the gov’t doesn’t intend to mandate doctors to give consultations? I mean what is the point of a 5 year time frame if it’s not mandatory??

This has been COMPLETELY explained in comments above, and Jo knows it. She has read the explanations (though she dismissed them). They aren’t that hard to understand.

The 5-year time frame is a LIMITATION. This section of the bill is to be inserted into the Social Security Act where it defines services Medicare will pay for. If enacted, this language says Medicare would pay for patients to have advance care planning consultations, but NO MORE OFTEN than once every 5 years.

Note this paragraph:

“(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).

Not only have I cited about a half-dozen outside sources — mainstream media, left-leaning, and right-leaning — all of which agree with me that the consultations referred to in this section are NOT mandatory by the language in the bill, but Jo herself has cited at least one source which concluded the same thing.

Again, does Jo not understand the words she is reading, or is it that she will say anything it takes to win the debate, whether true or not?

August 26, 2009 at 7:37 pm
(684) Prunella H. says:

All of you who are against this bill are either 1)Crazy. 2) A sad fool who gets all of their so called “news” from Fox Network, Rush Limbah, Sean Hannity, etc. You need to hear both sides and read all the information before you state an opinion because if not you are stating an opinion of half and biased information. 3) You yourself make a lot of money and have a great insurance plan so you don’t care about the 47 million unisured americans.

It’s really sad to me that you can so strongly oppose something that is being proposed only to help us. Think about this, say you are a college student who isn’t currently working or is but isn’t able to obtain insurance from their place of work. Say you are in a car accident, you break a leg or have some other medical emergency. You now have to pay thousands and thousands of dollars to repair your leg and are now unable to pay for college, a place to live, etc. If you were that person you would have nothing, you would be destroyed. If we had a government provided health insurance plan things like this wouldn’t happen. Peoples lives wouldn’t be destroyed by something they have no control over.

I dont understand where people got the idea that these consultations are death panels, or that they are going to be killing the old people. Thats ridiculous.

“(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,

“(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

Page 427:

unable to communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decisionmaker (also known as a healthcare proxy).

READ THE ABOVE, THE ACTUAL WORDS. Seriously it says absolutely nothing about this being a consultation where doctors demand you end a life. The doctors are there to tell you what your best options are, they let you make the choice and then they explain that you should put this decision in your will or select a family member or friend to be the person to make your decision for you if you are unable at any time.

Every part of this bill is for AMERICA not against it. If you are willing to vote against this bill then you are willing to accept and are perfectly ok with 47 million lives possibly being destroyed by illness, an accident, or any other health issue that may occur in their lifetime. Think about it if you were one of these uninsured americans and I think you would have an entirely different opinion.

August 26, 2009 at 10:03 pm
(685) JB says:

Jo, A political extremist is someone who wouldn’t want any involvement with bipartisanship. Obama has shown he is willing to work with Republicans. Several of the people he surrounds himself with received unanimous bipartisan approval on their way to being confirmed, his secretary of defence is the same that Bush used, the “extreme environmentalist” as you call them are some of the most qualified and respected in the field and Obama himself won states that in the past were die-hard Republican states. Also, do you know the meaning of terrorist? Or Communist? Or are you as urban legends suggests just throwing them out there without concern over the severity of using such words. Some of the people surrounding Obama are Nobel Prize winners which you have reduce through misguided and inappropriate labels.

You go on to say that Obama is trying to do everything he can to kill jobs despite the fact that Obama probably saved tons of jobs with his stimulus package, which while I agree he went to far with, but was necessary to a certain degree and certainly not a means to kill jobs. However, this is not about jobs or the economy, but rather Health Care so lets stay focused on that.

As for Inspector General Walpin criticism of Obama, lets look at some of the criticisms of Walpin before we jump to any conclusions. The following is from White House Counsel Greg Craig in response to concerns over the firing:

“the Acting United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California, a career prosecutor who was appointed to his post during the Bush Administration, has referred Mr. Walpin’s conduct for review by the Integrity Committee of the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency.”

You’re right Jo seems like a winner to me.

As for the “mandatory government well checks” you say are common sense because they save government money. That doesn’t mean they are going to do it because forcing people to go to the doctors against their will would risk infringing civil liberties. While you are correct that they are common sense and people should do them more often the FACTS are I haven’t read this anywhere in the bill if you can find it in the actual bill then please show me the reference for it.

Next, you are correct that consultations are covered once in a five year time frame. The reason for the time frame is because there is no point to pay for more than one consultation in a five year period for a healthy individual. The same logic is what governs almost all private insurance companies to only cover one routine physical in a one-year period. The bill also says clearly that consultations can occur more frequently should medical circumstances change, like for instance if the patient develops a potentially fatal disease. However, no where does it say anything about forcing people to do anything. The way you are reading into things Jo is incredibly overly hyperbolic to the point where you completely misinterpreting facts.

Next, you are twisting my words saying:

“This is what you want for “other recommended treatments” to lower billing hours?? Bye-bye grandma – you won’t feel a thing?? Yikes.”

I wasn’t recommending palliative care as other treatments if there is another treatment that works and this bill doesn’t suggest that either. Once again you are reading everything with way to much hyperbole.

Next, yo say that 40% of mothers are single mothers, you then say, “many of these Mothers are drug addicted, and/or poor, and/or ignorant. They lack prenatal care — this increases the risk of the child’s mortality rate.” I agree with you those factors would increase infant mortality. According to studies I’ve read in the American journal of Public Health about 55% of children in single mother homes fall below the poverty line. A statistic which among developed countries, the United States is the worst in. Why is that I wonder? Many of these mothers and children would be able to get better medical attention if the single mother could afford health insurance which in many cases they can’t because they are struggling to just make ends meat, especially in these tough economic times.

Jo then says:

“JB: saying that everyone would go to doctors for a sniffle simply because it is free is a gross generalization which holds no water in reality.

Jo: I disagree. I have personally known people who play the system to get medicare and food stamps, simply because they CAN. We have 35 million people on food stamps, there is a LARGE majority in America that activly seek out entitlements. If going to the doctor is one — they will use it.”

You are still generalizing. Yes people play the system to get ahead. You know people like that and so do I. But are the MAJORITY of people you know playing the system to get extra entitlements because the majority of people I know don’t. on the contrary only a few do. Generalizations, like you are doing Jo, are noticing any behavior in any number of people and applying them to the masses. The fact is of those 35 million you quote most actually do need food stamps and other forms of federal assistance. Also Jo you say in your post 658 that, “Well then I’m in good company because the TH meeting are full of people just like me. And they are NOT the minority.” First of all whether or not the majority of people at town hall meetings agree with you or not is besides the point since almost every national poll I’ve seen show that the MAJORITY of people are IN FAVOR of health care reform in one way or another. In fact from a CBS News national poll 64% of Americans think the government should guarantee that people receive health care, 65 % say that is more important then simply getting Health Care Costs under control (which from my understanding is what McCain wants). Just because there are others who agree with your hyperbolic reading of Obama’s actions, including this bill, does not make you the majority.

Next Jo you clarify you position by saying, “I didn’t say forced out of work (Are you taking “out of context lessons” from UL?? … just kidding!) — I said there is no incentive for additional doctors.” however you say earlier in the same post, “JB, my point was about making the appointment in a free HC system. I was asking who would get the doc’t appointment and who would not, if TOO many people called for an appointment for the ’snifles”. First come first serve?? Even if the first 100 aren’t really sick, thus causing the other *sick* to spread a real virus in society??” the law of supply and demand says that if there is to much demand, as you seem to think will be the case if this bill goes through, then there will be opportunities for new doctors to start entering the profession.

You go on Jo, to ask, “First off why would I take text from a illegal bill to cross reference it to law??” If you want to prove it is illegal that is the only way to do it.

Also Jo, I actually have read the constitution and the amendments. I too had a basic American government course in college, I actually had several. You are correct that rights not given to the federal government earlier in the constitution and not limited from the states are reserved to the states and that the federal government can not infringe upon those rights. However, Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution reads:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and GENERAL WELFARE of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

Now this clause allows for spending on welfare programs, but not legislation. That as you pointed out is protected under the tenth amendment. However, they can pass legislation for specific powers which are enumerated to them under the constitution including, “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes” Health Care is a good that you buy, which makes it commerce, which gives the government the power to regulate it. In fact if you examine federal law you would find a great number of things are legal because of the commerce clause.

You are correct however, that Madison disagreed with other founding fathers like Alexander Hamilton over the interpretation of Article 1 Section 8.

Finally Jo, Urbanlegends is right on the money regarding your interpretation of Dr. Emanuals writings. Once again you are way to hyperbolic in your reading of these things.

August 26, 2009 at 11:23 pm
(686) Jo says:

Sorry, I don’t have time tonight to respond to all the BS, and personal attacks.
BUT…

…For the reasonable reader consider this article, on Van Jones (Czar of Obama — or whatever title you like) here is part:

“Although he had spent many childhood summers in “sweaty black churches,” and in college had discovered the black liberation theology that reinterprets the Christ story as an anticolonial struggle, he had pulled away from spirituality during his communist days.”

(uh-oh snipped for brevity — you know — UL hates that…)

Communist days, after his black liberation days — How nice!

(Now UL will attack me personally, then put a “rosey’ spin on an avowed radical communist, and/or say I’m “misinterpreting it”… whatever he can do to DISMISS reality.)

As a AMERICAN — read about it for yourself. YOU decide.

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/PrintFriendly?oid=290098

August 26, 2009 at 11:38 pm
(687) Jo says:
August 26, 2009 at 11:53 pm
(688) Jo says:

Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A “Planetary Regime” with the power of life and death over American citizens.

… the writings of Barack Obama’s guru (is this better than calling him a Czar??)

John Holdren.

Oh wait — now his handlers say:
“This material is from a three-decade-old, three-author college textbook. Dr. Holdren addressed this issue during his confirmation when he said he does not believe that determining optimal population is a proper role of government.”

=======================

No of course not — no coincidence he and *many* other BO “advisers” have this SAME views.

August 27, 2009 at 12:13 am
(689) urbanlegends says:

Okay, Jo. No need to take responsibility for anything you say. I’ve come to realize — as has everyone else here — that you’re incapable of it. Given that you’ve pretty much taken over this page anyway, just go to town. Rave on.

August 27, 2009 at 7:36 am
(690) Jo says:

UL said: Okay, Jo. No need to take responsibility for anything you say.

Jo: I said I didn’t have time yesterday. Not having time is not the same as not taking responsibility.

I take FULL responsibility for the comparisons I’ve made.

As for the 5 year consultations — You cling to illogical interpretations. You say the consultations are LIMITED to one every 5 years above. But the BILL itself says differnt:

(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;’…

In the case the constellation is performed MORE FREQUENTLY. Therefor there CAN be constellations more often that every 5 years.

BO and supporters can claim that the 5 year counseling is “voluntary.” (Again if it is voluntary why put a “5 year” or ANY time frame label on it??).

However, if there is a penalty for noncompliance to doctors, then it will effectively be mandatory. (Slight of hand – you don’t have to do this — but we will fine you if you don’t.)

The bill appoints medical committees and panels that will interpret and implement these provisions. Unless you have a crystal ball, you don’t know how these panels will interpret this bill.

August 27, 2009 at 9:16 am
(691) Tim says:

It seems half the people who read this bill have a predispostion that it is talking about suicide. MORONS!!! A lot of the people don’t even read it but get their opions about it from Gush Limpjaw or the Joseph Goebbels Network, Fox Noise.

Today without this bill people are encouraged to make plans about what happens to them when they are on “life support” after an accident or an illness. The gist of this language in the bill is referring to such circumstances. The big insurance companies, the pharmaceutical companies and the Conservatives are interpreting it for us as suicide because they want to continue to reap the profits of a monopoly.

August 27, 2009 at 9:31 am
(692) urbanlegends says:

Prunella H. writes:

“All of you who are against this bill are either 1)Crazy. 2) A sad fool who gets all of their so called “news” from Fox Network, Rush Limbah, Sean Hannity, etc. You need to hear both sides and read all the information before you state an opinion because if not you are stating an opinion of half and biased information. 3) You yourself make a lot of money and have a great insurance plan so you don’t care about the 47 million unisured americans.”

You don’t have to be a nut, a mindless follower, or the idle rich to find the existing House health care bill objectionable. Plenty of intelligent, reasonable people do.

August 27, 2009 at 9:41 am
(693) urbanlegends says:

Tim writes:

“It seems half the people who read this bill have a predispostion that it is talking about suicide. MORONS!!! A lot of the people don’t even read it but get their opions about it from Gush Limpjaw or the Joseph Goebbels Network, Fox Noise.”

You can always tell the folks who haven’t read through all of the comments. The Nazi comparisons don’t fly here, Tim. And they’re starting to make me grumpy. You probably won’t come back to read this or post again, but if you do, please refrain. Thanks.

August 27, 2009 at 10:41 am
(694) Jo says:

JB: Anyone who follows politics, understands the motives of “bipartisanship” when one party can out vote the other in congress. The democrats do not need the republicans to pass this bill. The only reason Obama wants to “work with republicans” is for political cover later on when this plan fails.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-pins-blame-on-gop-for-stalled-health-bills-2009-07-21.html

In this link BO blames republicans (slight of hand) for their opposition, making it appear publicly that republicans are stalling the passage of this bill. But the reality is republicans can’t pass or stop this bill from passing, they don’t have enough votes – but democrats do. (BTW same thing happened during Bush – democrats whined about stopping the war, but never voted to stop funding it which would have effectively ended the war, even though they had enough votes to do it.)

As for the election — Republicans made a HUGE mistake by running McCain he is center left, and many conservative republicans didn’t bother to vote *at all* since they didn’t feel they had a candidate to vote for.
Now Obama no doubt didn’t help matters, he spoke articulate (after Bush even BO’s occasional errs… and umms… were joy to the ears), he had carisma, and people were ready for something (anything) other than Bush. People did not vote for Obamas policy however, they voted for the message of hope and change.

In the polling you can clearly see buyers remorse. Obama’s political capital is fading fast. His numbers sinking. The people wanted change — but they didn’t vote for this sort of change.

The extream Czars (or whatever you want to call them) They expose his true agenda. I know most people here despise FOX and especially Glenn Beck. But Beck has done a very good special this week on the ties to Obama, ties I knew about before the special. Ties that the main stream media are ignoring. Did you know: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18011.html

“Carville calls White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, every morning?

Emanuel calls ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent George Stephanopoulos.

A bit later, CNN commentator Paul Begala, who is not quite the early bird that his friends are, will complete the circle with a rapid set of calls to all three. ”

If you listen to the buzz words in media (particularly CNN ABC MSNBC)you can distinguish the exact (approved) phrases of these talking point phone meetings. Many republican talk radio shows often string them together. It’d be amusing if it wasn’t so dangerous that our media is a mouth piece of the president and not a critic as the should be. Remember when the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/washington/26analyst.html?_r=1)
reported that the Pentagon had provided briefings for military analysts in the American media for six years without any disclosure from the analysts themselves?? The left screamed foul, yet Rham tells the BO-media what to say (or not) — and there isn’t a peep about it.

You asked me: do you know the meaning of terrorist? Or Communist?

I sure do and I take the word of the avowed communists, terrorists, (globalists, and other frightening people BO employs) who OPENLY admit that they are communist/terrorist and working for BO.

Tell me how did I mislabel Von Jones?? All I did was quote an article that quoted HIS OWN words. (UL likes to shoot the messenger, now you too?)

As for jobs creation by virtue of stimulus — every reputable economist will tell you you can NOT create jobs by raising tax and spending on gov’t pork. The proof is out there if you dare to read the reality of our economy. The numbers are dismal, and it’s ALL BO’s doing. 1.8 million jobs have been lost **this quarter**.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125072644649344669.html

As for Inspector General Walpin — he was asked to leave because BO was unhappy with his investigation into the misuse of AmeriCorps funds by Kevin Johnson, the former NBA star who is now mayor of Sacramento, California and a friend of Obama.

BO asked for the resignation over night, but was supposed to give him 30 day notice and a explanation — a violation of the 2008 Inspectors General Reform Act.

Walpin was a non-partisan watch dog, just as all inspector generals swear in to be. (You know – like judges are supposed to be) Be appointed by Bush or Clinton makes no difference.

You said “forcing people to go to the doctors against their will would risk infringing civil liberties.” My whole point has been that BO is trying to *fundamentally change* our constitution. (BTW those are BO’s OWN words, not mine) The constitution is the very law that protects our liberties. If BO changes the playing field (as he is trying to do) we all lose our liberties.

The bill doesn’t say it’ll force anyone to do anything — true — but it also doesn’t promise it won’t. It sets up the framework subject to interpretations by committes and panels to decide the specifics.

I prefer they tell us the specifics BEFORE they pass the HC bill, that’s all. Don’t you??

It is not “incredibly overly hyperbolic” to ask for specifics and facts. Nor was it hyperbolic to point out that the state preferred “alternative” treatment for incurable cancer in Oregon was end-of-life pain killers. (no exaggeration or hyperbole if you like — it is a simple fact)

I asked you if this was an acceptable option in your mind or not?

Apparently you say it’s not. So tell me again why you are in support of a vague HC bill, that could very well result in Oregon style end-of-life pain killers in lieu of expensive treatments? Clearly, if it can happen in a State run HC option such as Oregon it can happen Nationally. So again, why do you support a bill with no specifics??

As for single Mothers, I’m glad we agree on the single Mother infant mortality rate is a primary cause for the skewed statistics. No one (not me or anyone I know) wants single Mothers to go without HC for their children or themselves. With that said it is not the job of the federal gov’t to supply HC. It is the job of communities, charities, towns, cities, counties and the individual state, if so desired by the people of that state. Not the federal gov’t.

Can you imagine the progress we’d make if the states were allowed to compete in HC (or even just the insurance companies??) Just think, if you don’t like the HC – say in GA – you can move over the line to FL and viola’ you have better care. May the best state (or insurance company) win. And the best states (or insurance co.) reward for achieving a good plan is the influx of tax revenue (or HC policies – which is revenue for insurers).

Competition over seen by the gov’t, but not shackled by the gov’t will drive down costs.

As for generalizing on people who take advantage of entitlements — yes I was generalizing. SO??

The original point remains the same whether people are playing the system or not. We have 35 million people on food stamps, it’s a FACT. And this illegitimate function of gov’t costs as much as the legitimate function of gov’t – the military.

The states should be responsible for their welfare recipients not the fed-gov’t. I propose we have those who need help, work state run farms (or other projects) in return for the help they receive. It would give them purpose and pride, instead of pity and shame (with the exception of disabled, sick etc… of course.)

If people had to work in return for help, you’d see a mass exoduse off these sort of programs.

But the federal gov’t doesn’t want this. They actually advertise food stamps. Why?? Because they want Americans dependent on them, as they do with the HC bill.

As for HC “polls” pay attention to how the polls are conducted some are extraordinarily biased. You said: “CBS News national poll 64% of Americans think the government should guarantee that people receive health care.”

read this: http://www.businessword.com/index.php?/weblog/comments/new_york_times_cbs_poll_on_healthcare_reform_is_very_biased/

It says: 48% voted for Obama and 25% for McCain. 46% make less than $50k and therefore probably don’t pay income taxes. 27% say they’re liberals and 29% conservatives (vs. 21% and, I think, 38% in the WSJ/NBC poll), but that’s not how they voted.

Polls are skewed in either the right of the left.

Rasmussen is usually reasonably in the middle. While Rasmussen hasn’t done a current HC poll on over all opnion — they did this one:
Seventy percent (70%) of likely voters now favor a government that offers fewer services and imposes lower taxes over one that provides more services with higher taxes. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/america_s_best_days

I do believe that most Americans agree that our HC system needs work, but that doesn’t mean the majority wants *this* bill. In fact I stand by that the majority does NOT want it and you shall see this reflected in the vote 2010.

You said to me: “you seem to think will be the case if this bill goes through, then there will be opportunities for new doctors to start entering the profession.”

No I don’t think this. I think the demand for doctors will rise as the level of graduating doctors falls. This will create RATIONING of doctors — and HC.
You post:
Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution reads:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and GENERAL WELFARE of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

Then JB said: “Now this clause allows for spending on welfare programs, but not legislation.”

No it does not. In fact our founders were adamant against the federal gov’t over stepping the authority of the constitution. They specifically spelled out what was the job of our gov’t after the above part you posted — as follows:

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

NO WHERE does it say “to establish a national HC system.”

OH WOW JB says: However, they can pass legislation for specific powers which are enumerated to them under the constitution including, “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes” Health Care is a good that you buy, which makes it commerce, which gives the government the power to regulate it.

Jo: The power to *regulate* it — yes. The power to create a federal HC plan — NO!

Plusyou ironically make the republicans argument — the federal gov’t has no right to forbid interstate HC insurance commerce (as they do now) — they only have the right to regualte it.

So ask yourself this: Why do they forbid HC interstate commerce?? Answer: they know if they allowed state to state insurance commerce that would solve the HC dilemma! And gov’t wouldn’t have control and power over HC.

It all comes down to gov’t control and power — they protect themselves before they protect Americans.

August 27, 2009 at 11:18 am
(695) Jo says:

UL — about communism.

Obama himself said in his OWN book he embraced Marxisim.

Frank Marshall Davis (of the CPUSA – Communist Party) was a father figure to BO, he is referred to him as “Frank” in his book, Dreams From My Father.

So why does it surprise you that Von Jones or anyone else is a communist or Marxist in his advisory panel??

The Marxism shows in the writings of Emanuel, as well as others — such as John Holdren (Obama’s science Czar – adviser whatever…) who wrote “Ecoscience” in 1977 and said things like on pg 837:

“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society. ”

Or pg 787: Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.

I can go one but you get the gist.

August 27, 2009 at 11:42 am
(696) Jo says:

Or how about that Regulatory Czar (adviser – whatever)

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/26/nation/na-sunstein26

Harvard Law School professor Cass R. Sunstein, a widely admired intellectual and friend of President Obama, has spent years delving into the obscure issues of regulatory law and behavioral economics.

Though he is generally described as left of center, Sunstein’s academic interests in regulation have led him to raise questions about the constitutionality of liberal favorites such as workplace safety laws and the Clean Air Act. He has embraced a controversial “senior death discount” that calculates the lives of younger people as having a greater value than those of the elderly.

============================

Just another Marxist philosophy buddy of BO’s with the ‘senior death discount” mantra

August 27, 2009 at 11:56 am
(697) Jo says:

Oops here’s another… but they are scrubbing away the marxist affiliations as fast as they can:

Until last week, Carol M. Browner, President-elect Barack Obama’s pick as global warming czar, was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for “global governance” and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.

By Thursday, Mrs. Browner’s name and biography had been removed from Socialist International’s Web page, though a photo of her speaking June 30 to the group’s congress in Greece was still available.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/12/obama-climate-czar-has-socialist-ties/

August 27, 2009 at 12:02 pm
(698) Jo says:

BO’s Silencing of the Lambs Czar

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has announced a new “Chief Diversity Officer,” communications attorney Mark Lloyd.

But Doctor of Jurisprudence Lloyd is far more than merely a communications attorney. He was at one time a Senior Fellow at the uber-liberal Center for American Progress (CAP), for whom he co-wrote a June 2007 report entitled “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.”

Which rails against the fact that the American people overwhelmingly prefer to listen to conservative (and Christian) talk radio rather than the liberal alternative, and suggests ways the federal government can remedy this free-market created “problem.”

* Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations.
* Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing.
* Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting.

These last two get perilously close to the use of “localism” to silence conservative (and Christian) radio stations, about which we have been warning for quite some time.

August 27, 2009 at 12:36 pm
(699) Sillium says:

When Social Security, Medicare, the VA, USPS, DOE, all GSE’s and any other goverment run entity and/or program runs effeciently, then lets talk health care.

in the mean time, it would only take 500 billion to BUY private health care for all those not curently insured. hmm still cheaper then current plan….

August 27, 2009 at 1:22 pm
(700) Lisa says:

Connie – Do you want the government to stop Medi-Care? It’s a government program. There use to be a very large percentage of seniors that had NO healthcare coverage. Do you want to go back to that? If we drop Medicare why stop there, there are other socialistic systems – fire, police, schools, parks, roads, libraries and more. These systems spread the costs among a larger base of people. While they all have their problems I think they are better than they would be if some corporation was running it. Couldn’t afford FireCare premium? Your house can burn…

The ones that have no business in our healthcare are the the corporations that have been making insane profits year after year while providing less and less. United Health Care CEO Bill McGuire made $1.7 BILLION while they were dumping people that got cancer and other serious conditions who had been paying their premiums for years.

I’m for capitalism, but it doesn’t work when you allow monopolies (or close to it and then let them collude). Remember the lessons you learned from playing the game Monopoly – play long enough and one person ends up owning everything. Everyone else loses. Do you seriously think you are going to be one of the few that wins that?

August 27, 2009 at 2:52 pm
(701) Jo says:

I stand corrected JB — here the latest HC Rasmussen poll

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

If Democrats agree on a health care reform bill that is opposed by all Republicans in Congress, 24% of voters nationwide say the Democrats should pass that bill.

—————

It goes on to say the democratic party is split. But the republicans overwhelmingly want the bill changed.

That jives with the 24% figure above, and would mean roughly 3/4 of the people want the bill at the very least “changed”.

August 27, 2009 at 3:01 pm
(702) Jo says:

Capitalism and the “greedy rich” corporations, are a product of gov’t involvement with private industry, (special interest, bad regulation, taxation, kick backs, etc..)

To fix the problem, we must first fix gov’t, not hand them more power.

The federal gov’t job is to “oversee” – not take over.

August 27, 2009 at 7:18 pm
(703) JB says:

First of all before responding to any of the previous posts let me take a minute of remembrance for the late Sen. Kennedy, who regardless of political affiliation I think or at least hope we all can agree devoted his life to the service of this country.

First of all I agree that the Republicans made a mistake with McCain, a mistake which was compounded by the idiotic move of adding Sarah Palin to the ticket, who if they had won probably would have resigned by the end of her first year as VP anyway.

Next, I agree that news sources like MSNBC are liberally biased, I agree they misrepresent things however not to the extreme degree that Fox News does. You talk about republican talk shows that string together the “approved message” that is said. However, liberal talk shows do the same thing with the company line the right stations like Fox puts out. Jo, have you ever watched the movie outfoxed about just how bad Fox News is?

Next where are these links of people openly admitting they are terrorist/communist whatever you want to call them. You seem so quick to link articles for other points but not this one. You want to talk freighting how about people like Dick Cheney and Karl Rove who I would be a lot more frightened of in political power and influence then anyone in the Obama camp.

Next my criticism of Mr. Walpin was that a U.S Attorney who had been appointed by former president Bush had recommended he be looked at by the Integrity Committee of the Council of Inspector General on Integrity and Efficiency. I was showing that he isn’t a straight arrow and yet your come back to that is to only address Obama asking for his resignation. Which is certainly no worse then Bush did after firing federal attorneys for no reason. Who is ignoring facts now?

Next you attack Obama over 1.8 net jobs lost this quarter. First of all, I’ll point out that the recession which was a major part of recent job losses started before Obama took power. Asking Obama to fix the recession completely and stop job losses isn’t going to happen over night. Obama and his economic team even said there would be hard times ahead for some and that things might not completely leveling out and improving till the end of the year. Second all if you read the article you post you will see in line one that a disproportionate number of job losses came from small firms with 5 or less employees. The small firms were probably the hardest hit by the recession and had the smallest cushion to fall back on. Believe me I work for a small firm with less then five employees and one of them just got laid off because the small firms just can’t handle the recession as well.

Also, you admit you generalize in your response the problem I have with that is like I have said before you are using the examples of a few as what the masses would do. This is a weak debating tool at best because you can’t use a minority of the people you know as an example of anything the majority would do. That is why scientific polls like Rasmussen Reports are so careful about their methods. And even then anyone who is clever enough can make statistics lie if they know how to spin it. The fact that you are generalizing as one of your central arguments shows how weak the argument realize is. Yes people take advantage of the system for additional benefits, always have and probably always will that does not mean if the Health Care Bill passes they would clog the system and if they did that would provide opportunities for new doctors to join the profession. I’m not saying there wouldn’t be an influx of demands on medical services. Even the people who are central supporters of the bill acknowledge this fact and acknowledge that the bill plans on how to deal with this without causing the rationing you seem so afraid of.

Next insurance companies, like all other forms of business are competing now for health care customers and the costs are out of control. How is that better?

Also, the commerce clause does gives the government the power to regulate interstate commerce, there are a lot of federal programs that are not specifically enumerated in the constitution that are legal under the commerce clause. Things that you mention yourself Jo, in another post, things like workplace safety laws put in place by OSHA, environmental legislation like the National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and so many others all of which come from the commerce clause. The constitution does not say anything about the power to protect air quality or water quality from pollution, probably because the founding fathers never thought some of these things would be the issues they are today. These acts have been on the books for decades and have not been thrown out by the courts because they are LEGAL. As is the Health Care bill.

I will close tonight by the sentiments of a family friend who owns a small business and is a STRONG supporter of the health care reform including a public option because right not she cannot get insurance for her employees, which is how most health care is achieved through work, she pays for insurance for herself which costs her thousands of dollars a year and as she puts it is worse then dealing with ANY government agency.

The simple fact is if this bill goes through it will give Americans the care they need at lower costs.

August 27, 2009 at 7:23 pm
(704) JB says:

You say that it would cost 500 billion to buy insurance for the currently uninsured. However, the government can’t simply buy coverage for individual Americans who are uninsured, the uninsured are that way because in most cases they can’t afford insurance, and doing that wouldn’t solve any of the other problems with Health Care now like insurance companies rejecting people with pre-existing conditions

August 27, 2009 at 7:40 pm
(705) Lisa says:

I disagree with you Jo.

Capitalism and the “greedy rich” corporations,
are a product of gov’t involvement

I would say that our government certainly needs to be fixed. But it’s because it costs so much to run for anything you need literally millions of dollars so where do politicians get that money? They get it from the big corps. Then the big corps write the laws through the politicians.

Re-regulate businesses to get their fingers out of everything in the government and switch to publicly funding elections. Outlaw all paid lobbying by Unions and Corps. Don’t let people pay other people to hold their place in line for lobbying as a citizen either.

August 28, 2009 at 7:26 am
(706) Jo says:

Lisa said: it costs so much to run for anything you need literally millions of dollars so where do politicians get that money? They get it from the big corps. Then the big corps write the laws through the politicians.

Jo: Bingo on the corruption, however our gov’t is not supposed to take cash directly from corporations, for obvious reasons, it’s illegal.

Now, if you are speaking of corporate taxation, then yes gov’t has the right to levy tax. However, the problem with taxing corporate America is –

No corporation ever, EVER pays income tax.

Once taxed, they either passes tax on the cost of that tax to the consumer by raising their prices. (effectively taxing consumers instead – people like you and I.) or there are other ways of legally avoiding tax and passing it on by layoffs, reduction in pensions, moving over seas, etc… In short the corporation is an “entity” and never pays — but people who make income do.
Income is wealth, wealth is taxed, and the individual person ends up paying, not corporations.

So I disagree corporations should pay for gov’t by tax, all it does is hurt the middle class to poor. Instead we ought to be taxing the individual *wealth* that results from that business. Which we DO by taxing the rich (individual) at a higher tax rate.

Most middle class to poor don’t pay tax, sure they have tax taken out all year from their pay check, but come April 15th they file for a refund, and some not only get all their money back they also get additional money from child tax credits, and other write offs. Guess who pays that extra money? The nasty ol’ CEO who made a million in bonuses — that’s who.

The rich in this country foot the bill for the illegal entitlement programs. Ironically, the many Americans who scream “tax the corporations” or “take the profits from the greedy CEO’s bonuses” effectively give to gov’t and cu their own throats by way of inflation, job losses, pensions etc… as i just mentioned. Sure you may get food stamps, and housing instead of the job that was lost. But is this better?? I think not.

Roughly 50% of America voted in their own enslavement.

Lisa: Re-regulate businesses to get their fingers out of everything in the government and switch to publicly funding elections. Outlaw all paid lobbying by Unions and Corps. Don’t let people pay other people to hold their place in line for lobbying as a citizen either.

Jo: Agreed. Gov’t needs to be reduced, this alone will massively reduce spending and the interest on the deficit.

Further, imagine if we reduced the corporate tax rate, and re-regulated (only consumer safety issue regulation) Jobs would come screaming back into this county. Business’ would pop up all over the place.

One step further by eliminating entitlement programs (allowing the states to take over as they should be doing), would vastly reduce gov’t spending. We are looking at $57.3 trillion in federal liabilities to cover the lifetime benefits of everyone eligible for Medicare, Social Security and other government programs (according to USA TODAY analysis) That’s nearly $500,000 per household.

And this HC bill adds to THAT!

August 28, 2009 at 10:15 am
(707) Jo says:

JB — On media bias — CNN MSNBC ABC, NY Times, LA Times, Seattle, Chicago, Denver, Tampa, Miami, Boston, the list goes on — nearly every metropolitan news source slants liberal. FOX and talk radio, to the right. A few that lean to the right against hundreds that lean left is hardly equal coverage.

On Walpin — guess you believe it’s a coincidence that firing was right after the investigation of ***Ameri-corps*** – and I have a bridge for sale.

JB: Next where are these links of people openly admitting they are terrorist/communist whatever you want to call them. You seem so quick to link articles for other points but not this one.

Jo: Not true, I did link them. You need to actually click on them to make them work (smile).

See 679. or (for the clicking impaired):

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/PrintFriendly?oid=290098

“Jones had planned to move to Washington, DC, and had already landed a job and an apartment there. But in jail, he said, “I met all these young radical people of color — I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, ‘This is what I need to be a part of.’” Although he already had a plane ticket, he decided to stay in San Francisco. “I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary.” In the months that followed, he let go of any lingering thoughts that he might fit in with the status quo. “I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th,” he said. “By August, I was a communist.”

In 1994, the young activists formed a socialist collective, Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM, which held study groups on the theories of Marx and Lenin and dreamed of a multiracial socialist utopia.”

Jo: How much more do you need? He admits he’s communist.

JB: Next you attack Obama over 1.8 net jobs lost this quarter. First of all, I’ll point out that the recession which was a major part of recent job losses started before Obama took power.

Jo: TRUE! The recession, started right after the democrats retook congress in 2006. And don’t forget, the recession was a direct result of BAD democrat regulation policy in housing, not Bush economic policy.

However, when the the recession started does NOT effect or change the fact that BO has LOST 1.8 million jobs since he took office — if our economy was turning around, we would see MORE jobs not less. This is BO’s economy now, he has to own it.

JB: Second all if you read the article you post you will see in line one that a disproportionate number of job losses came from small firms with 5 or less employees. The small firms were probably the hardest hit by the recession

Jo: Exactly why Obama economic policy will destroy small business. Which supply the MOST jobs. Most small business file under LLC, S-corp’s C-Corps, etc… most make over $250,000 per year, they are subject to the heavy tax burden thanks to BO. To fix the upcoming tax burden, they are and will continue to laying off non-essential people. (Like you said happened in your firm.)

BO is causing layoffs, resulting in high unemployment.

JB: Also, you admit you generalize in your response the problem I have with that is like I have said before you are using the examples of a few as what the masses would do.

JO: I reiterate — the PROBLEMS caused by entitlement users (reguarless of reason) — still remain the same.

JB: that does not mean if the Health Care Bill passes they would clog the system and if they did that would provide opportunities for new doctors to join the profession.

Jo: You can ramble on about this all you want – you will still be incorrect.

If HC is low cost or free, people WILL take advantage of it. If it is low cost or free the pay will NOT be GOOD. People generally opt not to go into low paying professions. This is the most simplistic, basic law of supply demand. I’m amazed you try to make an argument to counter it.

JB: Next insurance companies, like all other forms of business are competing now for health care customers and the costs are out of control. How is that better?

Jo: WRONG — Contrarily, insurance companies can NOT compete state to state, this has helped create high insurance rates. If people could take their insurance state to state, competition would result, and rates would fall.

JB: Also, the commerce clause does gives the government the power to regulate interstate commerce.

Jo: I have never said any different. Are you confused by this issue?? I have said that gov’t is NOT allowing *insurance companies* to sell over state lines. Understand?

Our government has over stepped their authority via the commence clause. However the clause was intended for *commerce* not state to state regulations.

Your philosophy seems to be — the gov’t broke the law once, so let’s just let them continue to break the law. Sorry – I don’t share it. It is the road to serfdom.

Just because the gov’t steps on the law, it doesn’t make it just or legal. It takes money to over turn bad law, money that the “people” collectively don’t have but the gov’t does. The solution to over turning bad law – is hiring (voting) politicians of the peoples wishes.

This HC bill is not constitutionally legal.

JB: I will close tonight by the sentiments of a family friend who owns a small business and is a STRONG supporter of the health care reform including a public option because right not she cannot get insurance for her employees,

Jo: I think you mean she can *get* it — but she may not be able to *afford* it. This plan will force her to provide HC insurance for her employees. (Or she will be fined 2.5%), HOWEVER it ALSO will attract business that already have coverage for their employees by privately owned insurance – to the more affordable gov’t plan. Which will ELIMINATE private HC options. Again it’s not hard to comprehend – no demand for private HC — results in no supply of private HC. And BTW – this will result in MORE layoffs in the insurance industry.

You again make my one of my several points on why govt run HC is so bad for America.

JB: The simple fact is if this bill goes through it will give Americans the care they need at lower costs.

Jo: No it won’t — there is no such thing as a free lunch. One of two things will happen – either we will all pay massive tax hikes OR they will HAVE to ration YOUR care.

August 28, 2009 at 10:43 am
(708) Jo says:

JB: I think sillium was illustrating how much will be spent on the HC bill. Not literally suggesting we insure everyone.

BTW from a business stand point — a preexisting condition nearly guarantees the company will have to pay, so in a free economy, they choose not to insure certain preexisting conditions. Just as auto insurance,rejects people with a lot of accidents or a DUI. Or life insurance companies reject people who have illnesses or are very old.

Insurance is a business — if they take bad risk they will fail and no one will have coverage.

Under the Obama health plan, companies would be forced to accept people with preexisting conditions. That is very good for people who have pre-exsisting conditions, but very BAD for companies who will HAVE to raise their rates on healthier people.

Again the gov’t will be always undercut the private insurers price, and this will result in the elimination of private HC insurance.

This is their admitted plan, in order to attain single payer. One plan under gov’t with rationing (and/or sky high prices) for all.

Be careful what you wish for — you might just get it.

August 28, 2009 at 2:54 pm
(709) urbanlegends says:

JB writes:

“I agree that news sources like MSNBC are liberally biased, I agree they misrepresent things however not to the extreme degree that Fox News does.”

What about Keith Olbermann?

August 28, 2009 at 3:35 pm
(710) Jo says:

http://www.freedomslighthouse.com/2009/08/democrat-diane-watson-openly-praises.html

Last night, Diane Watson openly praised the Cuban Communist Revolution of the 1950′s (Chi Rivera), and also praised the leadership of longtime Cuban Dictator Fidel Castro.

She praised the Health Care System Castro put in place, and said he is “one of the brightest leaders I have ever met.”

More evidence of communist admiration and envy of BO minions — this time from a member of congress.

CONGRESS.

What will it take for naysayers, to see what is happening to America??

August 28, 2009 at 3:43 pm
(711) JB says:

First of all Jo, it seems Fox tries to make up for being outnumbered by liberal media by taking its biased to an entire new level. I admit that most media is liberal I never said it wasn’t, but the degree to which Fox biases its news is almost to the point its not news anymore.

On Walpin you still miss the point I’m making which is that if he was being recommended bu a U.S Attorney to the Integrity Committee for Inspector Generals probably means he had some major faults which might of had something to do with him being asked to resign.

Yes I read the article you posted on Van Jones, and you are correct that he had socialist ties at one point with his involvement in Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM, However if you research his life more then just one article you will see he also became disillusioned with many of those ideas. Yes he has been involved in some radical movements over his time. That doesn’t mean his agenda now is forcing us to follow in the footsteps of Marx. Thinking so would be ignoring reality. The fact is he is a graduate of Yale Law who has used his education to speak out over injustice because he has probably seen more of it than either of us. You are also correct that he is an environmentalist. So am I. You think being an environmentalist is bad? Just out of curiosity do you also believe global warming is a myth? The fact of the matter is all ecosystems have a certain carrying capacity, its something all environmental majors learn right off the bat, and if humans haven’t crossed it yet they are very close. You think there is a problem with Green Jobs and environmentally friendly actions? Because Jones is right that is probably the trend things are going in. Why do you thing people are trying to come out with better and better green technology every year?

Next, you attack Obama saying if the economy and job market were turning around we would have seen it already even though as I SAID IN MY PREVIOUS POST Obama said it would take a while to see improvements on all economic fronts, possibly through next year. Recessions like we are in don’t go away over night it takes many months to full recover.

Also, I admitted there would be a higher demand for medical services as have the supporters of this bill. However, the bill is set up such that it will prevent rationing of care and the system being clogged by people. You make a lot of logical leaps that this bill cuts costs and cutting incentives for new doctors therefore it will result in rationed care and a clogging of the system.

Jo then says, “You can ramble on about this all you want – you will still be incorrect.” Works both ways Jo.

I never said I was incapable of being wrong but you not only seem to do so you seem to ignore central facts and logic central to this debate. Yes I admit from time to time you make good points but that doesn’t mean you are correct.

Next you agree that the government under the commerce clause has the right to regulate interstate commerce. A form of regulation is restricting certain actions.

Jo then says, “Just because the gov’t steps on the law, it doesn’t make it just or legal. It takes money to over turn bad law, money that the “people” collectively don’t have but the gov’t does. The solution to over turning bad law – is hiring (voting) politicians of the peoples wishes.” Actually it takes the courts to overturn law as many of laws both liberal and conservative in nature have been overturned. Also as far as “voting politicians of the people wishes.” Last I checked Obama won the popular vote as did the democrats on capital hill. Obama was the people’s wishes. And the fact of the matter is Obama still has at least half if not more of the country supporting his actions as president to one degree or another depending on which polls you read.

You are correct Jo that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Obama has taken into account how to pay for this bill, yes some taxes probably will go up, but everyone will get the UNRATIONED care they need.

Fact: Health reform will not increase the deficit. On July 17, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) confirmed that the House bill will be fully paid for. CBO estimated that the cost of the bill’s reforms was $1.042 trillion over 10 years, while the bill’s cost savings and revenues totaled $1.048 trillion. Since then, amendments to the bill have trimmed the cost even more.

Fact: America’s Affordable Health Choices Act will not only provide affordable coverage to 97% of Americans and other necessary reforms, the bill will enhance and grow the nation’s primary care health professional workforce through strengthened scholarship, loan repayment and training grant programs. Specifically, the bill would:

* Expand the National Health Service Corps and create a new primary care loan program.
* Increase the advanced practice nursing force.
* Provide a new loan repayment and scholarship program to train a new generation of public health workers.
* Strengthen existing preventive medicine programs.
* Support existing health professionals through the establishment of a study center to gather better data on health workforce needs.
* Computerizing health data will increase efficiencies and the amount of time primary care professionals are caring for patients.

Jo you go on in your post 701 to talk about insurance as a business rejecting high risks. Actually auto insurance usually will insure people with a bad record, they will just have to pay more to cover the risk. Life insurance will also sometimes take older individuals but charge them a higher amount.

Rejecting people with pre-existing conditions in health care is as you said good business, but it is also wrong. On an ethical level how can we deny care to people who need it? Perhaps that business first mindset is one of the biggest problem with our current health care system which is why it needs such major reform.

Say that you or a family member or your best friend lost their job Jo, lost their health insurance. Are you seriously alright with a system that would either let them die because they couldn’t pay, or save them only to dump them on the street because the care they needed bankrupted them? Would you be so against a system that guaranteed low cost health care to every American then?

August 28, 2009 at 3:52 pm
(712) JB says:

Jo, first of all for all Cuba’s poverty which has been caused primarily by the U.S embargo against them, they are only two behind us in the World Health Organizations ranking of Health Care Systems. Their patients get the care they need with out the charges we get. Just because you disagree with their government on a whole are you willing to reject every idea Cuba has? In fact for all their poverty their life expectancy is about the same as the U.S and they have a slightly lower chance of children dying before age five according to the World Health Organization. Yes as I agreed in a previous post there are other circumstances at play in the U.S as their are in Cuba. If Cuba had the medical resources of the U.S. then they would probably be well ahead of us in Health Care.

No one is saying we are going to follow Cuba’s government on a whole, but I agree with those who credit Castro’s leadership of the country and the Health Care system they have.

August 28, 2009 at 3:59 pm
(713) JB says:

Fair point about Olberman urban legends. I wasn’t thinking about him when I said that. I also never meant to imply that all members of liberally biased news sources are better than Fox anchors. I should have worded that better.

August 28, 2009 at 9:52 pm
(714) RLHamilton says:

I don’t even think a lot of this is about health care…its about people who are afraid of trying to do things in a different way. Why not have universal health care? We have universal schools, police, fire depts, welfare, libraries, etc. At any rate, I did not see one line where it said how to die faster to save money. I read that we want to give choices and dignity to the elderly and sickly. As a personal remark, I believe that Obama is an honest man in a corrupt and failed system (thanks to the war mongering of previous administrations). Perhaps we needed to go to war perhaps we didn’t but the truth of the matter is that it was not thought through and the American people were not put first in that decision. I feel for people in poorer countries,but we have no right to tell the rest of the world how to live if we can’t even have our country up and running. We have starving children in America, abused, molested. We have people dying from lack of even the simplest medical care and people have to choose do I take my right breast off or my left breast off because my insurance will only pay for part of one…

It is unconstitutional. We have 3 unalienable rights, LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What kind of life do you have if you don’t have your health? How happy can you be can you be when you can’t even afford to get a pap smear? Nothing is going to be perfect in the beginning but at least someone is trying to do right by us instead of bending us over and screwing us.

August 29, 2009 at 12:26 pm
(715) Shelly Shetley says:

I have a couple of comments about what people are saying about healthcare. First of all, to everyone saying that Government does not need to be involved and should not in any shape or form have their hand in healthcare. Government already has their hand in healthcare. What do you think Medicare, Medicaid, and the Insurance that Men and women in the Military get is?

Second of all, most of your doctors and hospitals even today ask if you have an Advanced Care Directive and/or a Living Will. By Medicare providing the service of “Advance Care Counseling” that does not mean in any way shape or form that the elderly are going to be taught how to “kill themselves”. “Advanced Care Directives” and a “Living Will” gives the patient and/or family members “Choice” over their or their family member’s end of life care. If they want to extend life by being connected to a ventilator and tubes or not. Personally, I would like to have tht opportunity for my family/or myself to choose. Another thing, if Medicare does not provide this service and is not mandated to provide this service, how else do you propose that seniors will get this information?

Third, the E.R’s do have to see you and treat you. Have you been to the E.R lately? When you go to the E.R you can and, more often than not, do end up waiting 8 – 12 hours to be seen by anyone, Doctor or Nurse. Also, all the E.R’s have to do is stabilize you.

August 29, 2009 at 2:37 pm
(716) Jo says:

JB: I admit that most media is liberal I never said it wasn’t, but the degree to which Fox biases its news is almost to the point its not news anymore.

Jo: Look I’m not defending FOX, I don’t watch much TV, But I have seen their *news* anchors. Compared to the leftist news – they are fair in reporting both sides. I’m NOT talking about opinion or commentary (such as O Reilly, Hannity, Maddow, or Olberman, etc..) Journalists/anchors is what I’m talking about. And you can’t seriously think Chris Matthews, is less slanted than Chris Wallace?? I mean get real! There is no comparison.

As for the opinion show’s Hannity, Beck, and O’Reilly they are out numbed, just by ONE network of talking heads – (MSNBC) Maddow, Olberman, and Shultz. Not including CNN and others…

JB: On Walpin you still miss the point I’m making which is that if he was being recommended bu a U.S Attorney to the Integrity Committee for Inspector Generals probably means he had some major faults which might of had something to do with him being asked to resign.

Jo: I didn’t miss anything, you are ignoring the blatant facts surrounding this story – Obama said he “lost confidence” in Walpin, right after Walpin opened an investigation in which he found misuse of federal grants by Ameri-Corps, which is led by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, who is an Obama friend and supporter.

Ameri-Corps is a government-funded public-service network (community organizing!) that was formally launched by Bill Clinton (signed the 1993 National and **Community Service** Trust Act), establishing the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS). CNCS administers AmeriCorps and seeks “to improve lives, strengthen communities, and foster civic engagement through service and volunteering.”

Guess who they fund with OUR tax dollars?? ACORN, La Raza, among other “community organizing” groups.

There are insidious ties, to Obama. Obama nixed the investigation that would expose these ties by firing Walpin.

America has got to wake up — there are all sorts of “groups” out there being funded by your tax dollars, who are working in tandem with BO’s Czars to “fundamentally change” America.

JB: Yes I read the article you posted on Van Jones, and you are correct that he had socialist ties

Jo: Not socilist — COMMUNIST. Radical anti-American groups similar to the weather underground.

JB: at one point with his involvement in Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM,

Jo: STORM is anti-American, they denonced America the night after 9/11 and stood with Arab Americans in mourning for the “imperialistic actions” of America.

JB:However if you research his life more then just one article you will see he also became disillusioned with many of those ideas. Yes he has been involved in some radical movements over his time. That doesn’t mean his agenda now is forcing us to follow in the footsteps of Marx.

Jo: You’ve got to be in denial. Van Jones is only ONE man. Obama has surrounded himself with a plethora of Marxists, communists, and socialists, Jeff Jones (no relation to Van Jones) helped write the stimulus bill — Jeff Jones was the founder of the weather underground. Obama isn’t hiding these people or what he intendeds to do. Obama TOLD us he wants to “fundamentally change” America. And he’s not lying. Yesterday we hear, there is a bill to silence the internet in an emergency. This power would silence THIS very discussion, and the discussion of his plans. Coincidence among all the other coincidences?? I think not.

The ties Obama and company have created are vast. Once they surface and are exposed as Walpin did, they close down that “group” and reopen another (making hard to follow) just as Van Jones did with STORM — and Ella Baker Center, etc..

To ignore the trail is ignoring reality. I’m not taking their “word” that they suddenly quit being communist just because they went to Yale (and I wonder who funded that?? — you and me??). Sorry, their actions over the years say different, same for the Emanuals.

BTW I’m very green myself, I grow all my own food, eggs, veggies, and meat – all organic. I have nothing against protecting the environment, I’m all for it. But I don’t fall for those who use it as a cover to further their agenda.

JB: Just out of curiosity do you also believe global warming is a myth?

Jo: Nope. I think the globe warms and the globe cools. It’s a cycle that we don’t fully understand — as is cleary demonstrated with the conflicting studies on GW. Tell me why did Mars warm at the same rate the earth did? Little green men in SUV’s? Sun spots would be more like it.

JB: The fact of the matter is all ecosystems have a certain carrying capacity,

Jo: Think about the bigger picture of what you are saying, please will you?? It all fits together. Dr Emanual and other Czars affinity for ‘reducing” the population, by setrilization, or allowing the weak, sick and elderly to choose end of life programs. Wealth redistribution, limits on fuel consumption, etc… Have you ever read about the UN’s plan for the Globe called – Agenda 21?? They have a map where Americans are stacked in condos, and the rest of the USA is “given” back to nature. No one owns property. You’ll be told what to eat, where to live, where to work, where you can travel, etc… COMMUNAL Life – as in communism. No freedom, no liberty. Is this what you want? Is this how you want to live?? As a drone in a worker bee colony??

I’m all for going green, and I’m positive I’m greener than most people (I run things off solar/wind – my very republican neighbors are entirely solar etc…). However I believe that there should be a balance in change to green technology, one that doesn’t allow our government (either party) to take over our property, freedoms and liberties.

JB — I SAID IN MY PREVIOUS POST Obama said it would take a while to see improvements on all economic fronts,

Jo: Obama has been wrong since he took office. Didn’t he say unemplyment wouldn’t go over 8% because he saved the day with the pork-bill?? Opps… so much for that promise.
Look, if you don’t have a fundemential grasp on how the economy runs (and apparently you don’t) then you can’t understand that EVERYTHING Obama is doing will make things worse, not better. It is simple economics. Ask any reputable economist and they will tell you the same. There is no question Obama is making the economy worse. The question we should be asking is WHY is BO making things worse?? What does he gain from it?? Tie this in with him taking over private companies, pushing the HC bill (that will eliminate private care), pushing welfare benefits, creates a people who rely on and are dependent on the federal gov’t. And is the road map, to UN’s Agenda 21.

JB: the bill is set up such that it will prevent rationing of care and the system being clogged by people.

Jo: Please show me the section that outlines “the set up” for this in the bill.

JB: You make a lot of logical leaps that this bill cuts costs and cutting incentives for new doctors therefore it will result in rationed care and a clogging of the system.

Jo: Again not having the most basic fundamental understanding of economics, or supply and demand you’ll never grasp this reality.

JB: Next you agree that the government under the commerce clause has the right to regulate interstate commerce. A form of regulation is restricting certain actions.

Jo: The purpose of the commerce clause is so gov’t can step in when one state is trying to limit another from commerce. It does not give them the right to stop commerce, unless that commerce is illegal. Selling over state lines or not the federal gov’t still has the power to regulate. So, why do they not allow the sale of HC insurance? Better yet, please produce constitutional law that forbids the sale of HC insurance over state lines. Thanks I’ll be waiting.

JB: Actually it takes the courts to overturn law

Jo: Yes of course it does, that’s a given. My broader point was the legislature. They write the bills that are pased into law. To stop this from steam rolling we must change the people we vote for.

JB: Last I checked Obama won the popular vote as did the democrats on capital hill. Obama was the people’s wishes.

Jo: True and about a third who voted for him are having buyers remorse — there will be real change in 2010.

JB: Obama still has at least half if not more of the country supporting his actions as president to one degree or another depending on which polls you read.

Jo: Not according to Rasmussen daily tracking poll, only 32% “strongly agree” with BO. BO is -8 in the polling, and dropping.

JB: You are correct Jo that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Obama has taken into account how to pay for this bill, yes some taxes probably will go up, but everyone will get the UNRATIONED care they need.

Jo: Hows he going to pay for it? And how can HC not be rationed, with a finite amount of resources?? What you say makes no sense in the real word. Please produce links to support your claims.

I don’t know where you get your “facts” since you don’t produce links, but the most recent August CBO analysis doesn’t reflect your figures from July.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/105xx/doc10521/2009BudgetUpdate_Summary.pdf

And the HC bill will raise seniors medicaid cost.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9AC5GG82&show_article=1&catnum=0

JB: auto insurance usually will insure people with a bad record, they will just have to pay more to cover the risk. Life insurance will also sometimes take older individuals but charge them a higher amount.

Jo: Or they can be denied coverage. My entire point was it’s a business. They are not going to take risks that they know the will have to pay out on.

JB: Rejecting people with pre-existing conditions in health care is as you said good business, but it is also wrong.

JO: Look, as a business owner – I can understand why they deny coverage. However, morally I want everyone covered. BUT I do not want that coverage to be by force and at the point of a gun. (By mandate of the federal gov’t.) This is why I advocate charities and other voluntary private organizations (not for profit) to fund those who cannot attain health insurance coverage, or even a state run solution. Just keep the federal gov’t out of it.

JB: On an ethical level how can we deny care to people who need it?

Jo: Who said deny? I didn’t. Ironically, this HC bill may deny medical treatments – yet you support it??

JB: Perhaps that business first mindset is one of the biggest problem with our current health care system which is why it needs such major reform.

Jo: Perhaps the biggest problem for HC, is that some Americans can’t see the many other alternatives to gov’t HC. We have got to get past this pitiful class envy of “big bad business”, which BTW provide most people jobs. JB, you said you work for a “firm” — good thing they exist right? Puts food on the table. Business owners want everyone to be covered they just don’t want to give up freedom and liberty to do so.

August 29, 2009 at 3:08 pm
(717) Jo says:

JB: Cuba’s poverty which has been caused primarily by the U.S embargo against them,

Jo: Oh I see blame America first. There is a BIG WIDE world out there that Cuba can do business with. They are poor because they have a ruthless dictator for a leader.

BJ: they are only two behind us in the World Health Organizations ranking of Health Care Systems.

Jo: So?? Some at the top of the list have much better systems, such as Singapore, they have “health insurance accounts” – that idea has merit. We need to utilize what works, not utilize what’s worse than ours, such as Cuba’s system.

JB: Just because you disagree with their government on a whole are you willing to reject every idea Cuba has?

Jo: Um yes, if it involves a dictatorial run HC system.

As for mortality rates, again you have to take into consideration of the culture.

No one is saying we are going to follow Cuba’s government on a whole, but I agree with those who credit Castro’s leadership

Jo: Ok then, nuff’ said. You’re in good company within your party if you agree with Marxist/Communist leaders.

I don’t credit any murderous thugs leadership who will suppress their people for their own egos and personal profit. Sorry. To me that is MORALLY wrong. Further, I find it incredulous that you disapprove of American insurance companies who make profit allegedly “off the sick” – yet support thugs who make profit off the very enslavement of their OWN people.

If other Obama supporters in this country think like you do JB then we seriously have to have a chat about what kind of government we want to live in.

A country Free at liberty under leaders chosen by the people?

Or a country suppressed, by a self serving tyrannical gov’t who will pick their successors?

Pick one.

(BTW we became Americans because of a ruthless King whos’ gov’t suppressed, abused and misused his power over the colonies. Do we want to go back??)

August 29, 2009 at 3:29 pm
(718) Jo says:

Parroted arguments from the left:

Shelly says: “Government already has their hand in healthcare. What do you think Medicare, Medicaid, and the Insurance that Men and women in the Military get is?”

Jo: medicaid is broke, so is medicare, Wasn’t it the left that despised the VA hospital during the Bush administration? Remember Walter Reed??

Our gov’t fails in all the federal programs they create, now you want to give them our HC??

=====================================

RL says: It is unconstitutional. We have 3 unalienable rights, LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What kind of life do you have if you don’t have your health?

Jo: Oh please it’s not unconstitutional unless your bending the constitution.

LIFE is existence, health is the well being of that existence.

The constitution protects life, not health. Our founders would agree that we should try to help those who are in need of care, but they would disagree that the federal gov’t should mandate it. After all if they thought this was a RIGHT why didn’t they put it in the bill of rights??

So many don’t understand our form of government – it’s very sad. Government is LIMITED in what they can do to and for us. WE the people must find solutions not gov’t.

It is beyond me, why anyone would WANT gov’t control over their health? It’s down right creepy.

August 29, 2009 at 3:34 pm
(719) Jo says:

Just wondering have any of the posters here read “1984″ or “Logan’s Run”?? You might want to.

August 29, 2009 at 4:59 pm
(720) rodfromtx says:

“In God We Trust” We the people of the United States of America need to put our trust in God. We cannot put our trust in our president, our government to take care of us. We must honor and pray for all our leaders to make the right decisions. We all must seek our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. George Washington, Ronald Reagen both said with God in our lives, this nation cannot stand! The more we push God out of our lives and rely on the government to take care of us the more confusion and chaos there will, be. Times have not changed, people have changed. Divorce has increased about 50 percent since the late 1800′s. diseases, crime,teen pregnancies, more single families, most of the fathers are in prison, homosexuality, hate, adultery I can keep going on and on. We NEED God back in our lives. Even president Barack Obama said that Jesus Christ died for his sins and that he is redeemed through Jesus. He said this on youtube.com Just type: Obama on being a Christian. God gave all of us freedom of choice. We can choose Jesus who is the Light or we can choose the darkness (Satan). It is your choice. Don’t be the ones to say: Noah, Noah let me, let me in! I do not claim to be perfect and I never will be in this world. I do sin and I have accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour. I call upon the Holy Spirit until Jesus Christ returns.
God bless,
rodfromtx

August 29, 2009 at 6:12 pm
(721) rodfromtx says:

CORRECTION: without God

“In God We Trust” We the people of the United States of America need to put our trust in God. We cannot put our trust in our president, our government to take care of us. We must honor and pray for all our leaders to make the right decisions. We all must seek our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. George Washington, Ronald Reagen both said without God in our lives, this nation cannot stand! The more we push God out of our lives and rely on the government to take care of us the more confusion and chaos there will, be. Times have not changed, people have changed. Divorce has increased about 50 percent since the late 1800′s. diseases, crime,teen pregnancies, more single families, most of the fathers are in prison, homosexuality, hate, adultery I can keep going on and on. We NEED God back in our lives. Even president Barack Obama said that Jesus Christ died for his sins and that he is redeemed through Jesus. He said this on youtube.com Just type: Obama on being a Christian. God gave all of us freedom of choice. We can choose Jesus who is the Light or we can choose the darkness (Satan). It is your choice. Don’t be the ones to say: Noah, Noah let me, let me in! I do not claim to be perfect and I never will be in this world. I do sin and I have accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour. I call upon the Holy Spirit until Jesus Christ returns.
God bless,
rodfromtx

August 29, 2009 at 10:06 pm
(722) JB says:

First of all Rodfromtx, trusting in God is great I believe in God, I also believe if you break your leg God wants you to see a doctor, not wait for him to heal it. A discussion about Health Care in a country with separation of Church and State should have no discussion of God in its policies.

Next Jo, you clearly have absolutely know idea what you are talking about when it comes to Cuba. My family is from Cuba, most of my family has been to Cuba has talked to the people there. Cuba is not a country enslaved and just because credit was given to their health care system does not mean the country is immediately going to adopt every single aspect of their government. Once again you make a GIGANTIC leap of logic. You want to hate Castro that is you right guaranteed to you but our basic inalienable rights, however I have more reason then most Americans to hate him because my grandfather on my fathers side was a political prisoner under Cuba, convicted of selling information to the United States. He died before I really got a chance to know him of illnesses contracted in prison. However, I have a level head to see the things Castro has done right with that country as well as the things he has done wrong. And I have a level enough head to know the truth. Most Cubans have no problem with him or their government and they sure as hell are not slaves. They don’t pay thousands of dollars to get basic medical care like we do. You want to talk morally wrong, how about Bush turning down basic medical assistance from Cuba that was VOLUNTEERED after Katrina. Judging by how well that worked out for him he could of used any help he could get. Or how about the state department under Bush denying the Cuban baseball team a temporary visa to come into the states for an something as innocent as an international baseball tournament a year or two back. Or how about the MORALLY wrong fact of millions of people who could die or be forced into bankruptcy because they needed basic medical care to save their life while Cuba a country only 90 miles away has care for all its citizens. Politics is not an all or none type of deal I can see good things Cuba has done with out wanting to become socialist or Marxist in America. Learn a thing or two about Cuba, talk to actual Cuban citizens, live a life as a Cuban American as I have, then maybe you’ll start to understand better Jo. Don’t just believe everything Americans, especially right leaning Americans say about Cuba.

By the way Jo, you say there is a whole world out there, and Cuba has made some trade partners like Venezuela. However, of all the nations in the world how many have the resources to trade with Cuba enough to make up for the embargo the U.S has against it, especially after the fall of the Soviet Union, one of Cuba’s biggest trading partners.

I also like how you decided simply to focus on Cuba and call me a socialist/Marxist as opposed to focusing on all the valid points I made about our Health Care System and the currently proposed Health Care Bill in the post above that one. Where are your clever come backs to those points? The fact is this is not Cuba’s doing. You want to attack the bill pull text from the bill and attack that logic don’t point to every other country with a national health care plan and attack them, because our bill, isn’t theirs, as you have pointed out Jo our culture, our mindset, our way of life, our everything is different which would mean the success or failure of this bill would be different. I have shown time and time again many many good facts about these countries and their health care system and each time you swat it down by saying our culture or way of life is different, there are other factors at work. You can’t look at and attack negative things about other systems without being willing to be open to the good things. So you want to swat down the good things, that is fine. Just focus on what is actually in this bill instead then. Not what makes sense to you not what other countries have, what is actually in the bill, not what you hyperbolically read from the bill, but the actual text.

Jo finishes her post 709 by saying, ” BTW we became Americans because of a ruthless King whos’ gov’t suppressed, abused and misused his power over the colonies. Do we want to go back??” I really wish you had my history teacher in school. One of the major breaking points were things like the Stamp act and the Sugar act because it violated the colonists rights to not be taxed without consent, taxation without representation (which by the way is exactly what is happening in Washington D.C right now since they have no official vote in government. The proof of that is right on any Washington D.C. license plate.) When news of the reaction to the Stamp Act reached Britain they even repealed it but the damage had already been done. The way you make it sound Jo the King would stop at nothing to break the spirits of the colonists and deny them every right he could think. Yes, he overstepped his boundaries drastically and what he did violated the colonists rights as far as taxation was concerned and we were right to revolt to form our own government because at that point it was clear that our interests were different from England, but he wasn’t some evil ruthless Saturday-Morning-Cartoon-Show-Villian trying to crush his citizens under his heal. Also, Jo no one once said we wanted to or were trying to go back to a government like that. You seem to think all of this is one step after another leading us down a slippery slope, but the truth is there is no slippery slope, but rather a giant abrupt cliff between what you think is happening and what is actually happening.

You go on to say in post 710 Jo that life as in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is existence, health care is the quality of that existence. However, without basic medical care some people won’t have any quality of existence because they will be dead.

Then Jo, in post 711 You ask about two pieces of literature, of fiction. 1984 by George Orwell, and Logan’s Run by William Nolan and George Clayton Johnson. Why stop there if you are trying to imply a dystopian society that we are heading for why not keeping going with other literary greats like Brave New World. The fact is I have read 1984 and a Brave New World but not Logan’s Run. However seeing as how last time I checked those were all works of fiction I don’t see their relevance in this debate. I understand your logic in referencing them in that you are trying to suggest the Obama administration is trying to transform our government into some kind of socialist idea of a utopia which will in fact be a horrible dystopia, you think this bill as I said before is a slippery slope but it is not. No one is suggesting anything like that they are simply trying to ensure Health Care for all Americans. As I said before Jo, what you seem to consider a slippery slope is in fact a vertical cliff. As I have said you think this bill is bad, show text from the bill and why it is bad don’t reference works of fiction. We are all sure you are very well read Jo, but this isn’t a book club, don’t try to make it one.

You think this bill is bad Jo and I give you credit for speaking up so strongly for what you believe in. I agree with you how sad it is how many Americans don’t understand or even care about government and I wish more cared as much as you apparently care. I also sincerely wish that anyone on the fence about this bill read your arguments with a grain of salt just as I hope people reading my arguments or Urbanlegend’s arguments for that matter read them with the same grain of salt. Hopefully they will read the bill, read the arguments and decide the truth for themselves.

August 30, 2009 at 2:33 pm
(723) Jo says:

JB: You are some piece of work assuming I don’t know Cubans. I live in FL, I have many friends that are Cuban and while they (like you) have appreciation of socialist gov’t, they generally disagree with you about the Cuban gov’t. A regime like Cuba is Marxist thuggery, at best. They are not enslaved?? You are kidding right? The definition of enslavement means: forced into submission. Your grandfather was a political prisoner you said yourself. There you have it — enslavement — which is the very essence of the Cuban style of Communism. But for arguments sake, if the citizens of Cuba aren’t feeling enslaved, then why are Cubans piling on tire-tubes risking their lives to reach the US shore?? And how can you compare a country that has WORSE HC ratings than the USA, as having a superior plan to the USA?? This make no logical sense at all.

As for Bush turning down medical care from thug Cuba, I say GOOD. Glad he did it, same for refusing “free” Citgo (Venezuelan)oil from Chavez. Beholding to countries that want to see America fail, isn’t smart for America.

Cuban baseball — what the? Clearly you do not understand the depth of foreign policy.

JB: Or how about the MORALLY wrong fact of millions of people who could die or be forced into bankruptcy because they needed basic medical care…

Jo: This is a flat out, liberally charged, emotion based – LIE. JB come on your smarter than this. There isn’t a hospital who turns away the sick and dying. There are literally thousands of charities that supply coverage for families that can’t afford life saving treatments. Even those “evil rich people” who own those God awful jets – has a group that charitably fly emergency patients (or organs etc…) FREE of charge to distant hospitals. (Look up air charity.)

If a person is dying in America, it’s because they haven’t asked for help. Americans are the most generous in thew world.

Why do you display such contempt for our country and country men? And such pride and regard for Cuba?? If your allegiance is to Cuba, then perhaps you should consider returning. Americans won’t stop you from seeking that wonderful Cuban HC. Just stop trying to turn us into a Marxist thug country. It is an insult and an outrage, to generational Americans for immigrants running away from a tyrannical governments, who flood our beaches and borders, to then tell us WE are the ones who are screwed up.

JB: Cuba has made some trade partners like Venezuela.

Jo: Yep bird of a feather.

JB: However, of all the nations in the world how many have the resources to trade with Cuba enough to make up for the embargo the U.S has against it, especially after the fall of the Soviet Union, one of Cuba’s biggest trading partners.

Jo: Another outrage. The USA has every right to not do business where they feel the intrest of the American people are not well served. Too bad if you don’t like it. Again you show where your loyalties lie.

In America we do not FORCE people to make bad business decisions — well not yet anyhow, but open-ended legislation like the HC bill is a toe in the door.

I ask you why do you think someone who has more should be **forced** to give to someone who has less?

For example on a smaller scale so you can understand — Let’s say that your neighbor works 3 miles from your work place, but you have a car and your neighbor doesn’t, should you be FORCED to give them a ride every day for free? Or would you prefer to have the CHOICE of charity and offer them the ride? Or help them find a way to work that won’t hamper your commute??

Force? or Freedom? It isn’t that hard to understand.

JB: You want to attack the bill pull text from the bill and attack that logic don’t point to every other country with a national health care plan and attack them,

Jo: Another outrageous lie, I specificaly pointed to the merits of Singapore’s HC accounts.

JB: what is actually in the bill, not what you hyperbolically read from the bill, but the actual text.

Jo: you continue to be narrow minded and miss the broader point on this issue — the PEOPLE who are writing these bills (stimulus or HC bills) are admitted socialists, Marxists, and communists. The HC bill is vague – open ended – it is subject to interpretation by the unknown panels and committees. Your ok with giving power to unknown powers??

To do so is insanity.

As for King George, perhaps you should revisit the declaration of Independance for a better understanding of his brand of tryanny. Besides the taxation issues — (in part)

“He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.”

This is just a snippet, there is much more – read the declaration.

JB: no one once said we wanted to or were trying to go back to a government like that.

Jo: You don’t have to say it — your Marxist loving ideology will lead us there.

JB: you are trying to suggest the Obama administration is trying to transform our government into some kind of socialist idea of a utopia which will in fact be a horrible dystopia, you think this bill as I said before is a slippery slope but it is not.

Jo: I have given you evidence this is very well could be exactly the plan — meanwhile you babble on with no evidence to support your claims.

JB: you think this bill is bad, show text from the bill and why it is bad

Jo: I HAVE – where have you been?

JB: don’t reference works of fiction.

Jo: Talk about audacity! Again, I HAVE provided the evidence of this vast complicated group Obama is the ring leader of. Meanwhile you’ve provided ZERO evidence of contradiction. Just ramblings of fiction from you.

Obama is a self proclaimed Marxist. He’s surrounded himself with Marxists communists and other Chicago thugs. He is dangerous to the very essence of American freedom.

Fact.

August 30, 2009 at 6:36 pm
(724) MarkTheTruck says:

To Carrie and those who think we Canadians want your health care system: Get A Grip! Yes, our income taxes are higher than those of our American neighbours, but we expect our government to ensure that we all have access to care regardless of our ability to pay. Some procedures, such as cosmetic, are not funded, but brother, I had 2 children born in the Arctic, one of which needed treatment, and it cost me NOT A DIME! I have a niece born 6 weeks premature, she was in neonatal for over a month… my brother did not lose his home, nor did he have to pay anything other than his income taxes, as we all do.
I have spent considerable time in your country in the last several decades as a long-haul trucker, and have heard first hand accounts of your “insurance”. Keep it if you think basic health is not a reasonable expectation as a member of an advanced society, but do not suggest Canadians in any way want to emulate your backwards, corporate enriching charade of a health care system!

August 30, 2009 at 6:44 pm
(725) JB says:

Jo, I have no doubt that many of your friends who are Cuban disagree with many of the policies of Cuban government as most first generation Cubans do. Perhaps I should have been more clear of this. First generation Cubans, who came here directly generally do disagree with the Cuban government. My grandmother lives in Miami and hates Castro and the entire Cuban government. It is the second and third generation Cubans who are more open to a relaxing of relations between the two nations. As for my grandfather, yes he was imprisoned because he was convicted of selling information to the U.S. I guarantee you the same would happen to any U.S. citizen convicted of treason. Yes Cuban Government has problems and could be more free I never said that wasn’t the case. You want to reference accusations of wrong doing on Cuba’s part you have your pick. However, that doesn’t mean the U.S is innocent. The E.U. has condemned it for its trade embargo saying it is not the best way to encourage reform. While Cuba has a long way to go in certain areas it is also a country with tremendous culture and pride who certainly have some things to be proud of. Not every single thing their government has done is wrong, just as not everything done by the U.S. (under both republican and democratic administrations) is correct and just as I am sure you would agree Jo. I credit their Health Care System with doing the best that it can with limited resources.

As for “beholding to countries that want America to fail” first off Cuba doesn’t want America to fail, they have issues with our government not our country or our people. If you were to walk the streets of Cuba you would probably be welcomed openly by Cuban citizens.

Second of all Cuban physicians offered assistance during Katrina because it was a disaster. People were dying. It wasn’t about political agendas, it was about helping people. They had no benefit from offering their assistance. You say that Americans are the most generous in the world and many days I believe you are correct generally speaking, however we are also arrogant (again generally speaking). If there is a disaster and people are dying does it matter where the aide is coming from if they are trying to help? Does it matter if a U.S. doctor saves an American life or a Cuban doctor saves an American life if at the end of the day it is saved? If you were in a car accident would you turn down help someone because you didn’t like them? If were pinned in a wrecked car and the most despised , most disliked individual you know offered their help getting you out would you actually be willing to be known as the person too stubborn, proud, arrogant (choose which every one you would like) to accept the critical assistance you need?

By the way Jo, quick history lesson Batista, Castro’s predecessor was far from a saint but he was America’s friend because he was buddy-buddy with our government and gave our government what they wanted. For that matter our relations with Hussein was much better before he was dumb enough to invade Kuwait during the first Gulf War. Also on the list of former friends of the U.S was the predecessors of the Taliban back when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.

Next you were correct that it was a mistake assuming that you have no Cuban-American friends and for that I am truly sorry. However, it is equally wrong of you to assume that I, “display such contempt for our country and country men” First off all I debate the issue so feverishly because I think it is the best for this country just as you argue your point because you think that it is not the best. To assume I have contempt for this country or citizens is a personal insult to me Jo, and I likewise expect you to be smarter then that. I attended college at a very regimented, very conservative military school. I woke up and saluted the countries colors each morning proudly because I knew what those colors meant. I gave a moment of respect every evening when taps was played because I know very well where that song comes from and what it means. Many very good friends of mine are currently serving their country in several different branches of the military. They respect me and my faith in this nation and for you not to goes beyond politics it is down right disrespectful to me and them.

Also it is not just liberals that believe this Jo, an extremely conservative friend of mine who I went to school with finds it absurd that he as a healthy non-smoker he still pays over $4000 in Health Care costs without co-pays. He, like you Jo, believes that the government should be smaller, however when faced with either health care guaranteed for all Americans or a smaller government he chooses the former because he recognizes that is more important. As I have said politics does not have to be about everything or nothing, nor should it be.

You next attack me for looking at the merits of a country like Cuba who is as you correctly pointed out ranked two spots below the U.S (currently ranked 37th). Ignoring that they would probably be a lot higher with the medical resources of a country like the U.S. for the moment, you do the same thing when you dismiss countries like Canada (ranked 30th), the United Kingdom and Ireland(ranked 18th and 19th respectively) Also if you look at their ranking of PREVENTABLE deaths you find the U.S ranked 14th behind the U.K, Canada, and Ireland. But as I pointed out in my previous posts you ignore the good things about these countries and their systems while attacking them. What is it Jo if their below us in rankings like Cuba its okay to dump on their system without admitting they might have something right. And if they are above us in the rankings then you just ignore the arguments about what they have done well because it hurts your argument?

Jo then says:
“JB: no one once said we wanted to or were trying to go back to a government like that.

Jo: You don’t have to say it — your Marxist loving ideology will lead us there.”

As I have said you treat this bill like a slippery slope leading us to a Marxist society when this bill is only about guaranteeing Health Care for all Americans without leading us to the poor house. No slippery slope, no slope of any kind you take one bill and jump a couple hundred steps ahead. You’ve done it with so many of your arguments. You think this bill will cut cost therefore it will cut care, it won’t. You think the bill will ration care because fewer medical professionals will enter the profession however, as I showed in a previous post (post 704) the are plenty of incentives in place to attract and train a new generation of health care workers. You think this bill is unconstitutional because you read the constitution, specifically the commerce clause, and this bill in an overly hyperbolic, far to narrow-minded way.

You ignore key facts that I make, that urban legends makes, that every other single supporter of this bill makes. While I credit you when you make a good point or when I say something misleading, while urban legends defends opponents of this bill who would simply be called crazy and other unfounded demeaning names while you Jo, you sit there without giving credit to valid points or defending proponents of this bill from the equally irrational critics of it. You attack people and call them socialist for doing what they think is best for this country that you love so much. This isn’t a battle between Marxist and people who agree with you. Politics isn’t that black and white. This is a debate between many Americans who have pride in their country and are doing what they think is best for it and calling us socialists/Marxists/communists etc. is just as demeaning and derailing as likening this bill to Nazi Germany (which I should point out is a conflict of ideologies since Nazis and Marxist are on opposite ends of the spectrum and Nazism generally rejects Marxism as much as democracy as shown by the fact one of Nazi Germany’s biggest enemy in WWII was communist Russia.)You reference all these things Jo from history, from fiction (as you did with your reference to 1984 and Logan’s Run) which have no real place in this debate.

Yes Jo, I will concede that you are very well read, but your references are usually out of place in this particular debate.

August 30, 2009 at 8:58 pm
(726) Jo says:

JB – I don’t have time tonight to respond to all your claims.

Please, remit links, sources, and other sites that substantiate you claims.

Thanks in advance.

August 30, 2009 at 10:26 pm
(727) Allan says:

Every developed nation worth its salt provides healthcare. Mark my words; a few years after the US has a health care program, nobody will question it. National healthcare is no more Marxist than a national highway system or common defense. Every civilized first world country except the US has some form of federal insurance.

August 31, 2009 at 9:08 pm
(728) Jo says:

JB: … accusations of wrong doing on Cuba’s part you have your pick. However, that doesn’t mean the U.S is innocent.

Jo: JB, the difference between you and I are simple.

I can admit to Americas faults — and STILL defend America *first*.

You can’t.

JB: The E.U. has condemned it for its trade embargo saying it is not the best way to encourage reform.

Jo: I could care less what the EU says. America is doesn’t need the EU to make trade decisions for us. I wonder do you ever defend America to other countries?? Did you defend Americas promise of harsh action when Saddam thumbed his nose at 12 UN *international law breaking* resolutions??

I suspect you didn’t.

JB: Cuba doesn’t want America to fail…

Jo: Perhaps “fail” may have been a bad choice of words — they would like us to CONFORM to their communist form of government. Which would be a *failure* of our republican heritage.

As for Katrina — had the leaders of LA (Kathleen Blanco and Ray Nagin) had a contingency plan for the people of LA, in the event the levees failed, many more people would have been saved. They should have asked FEMA sooner to be on stand by. (FEMA has no authority unless requested by the state)Second, accepting help from communist nations not only gives them legitamacy, but is as complex an issue as allowing FEMA in without proper authorization. The 50 states are sovereign, under the umbrella of the federal gov’t, therefor the federal gov’t can not overtake state emergency operations. In addition, to these issues, giving a communistic country legitimacy would result in many more deaths around the world. (Example: Bill Clinton’s recent photo op with Kim Il was not a good idea. It gave him legitimacy and propaganda, to display to his people, and emboldened his desire to keep his people repressed.) You apparenlty are either very young or do not understand foreign/domestic policy, or both, and I don’t want to teach it, so please leave it at that.

JB: It wasn’t about political agendas, it was about helping people.

Jo: Sadly in the real world it is always about political agendas, red tape, and limits of law — just a harsh fact – in any country.

JB: You say that Americans are the most generous in the world and many days I believe you are correct generally speaking, however we are also arrogant (again generally speaking).

JO: Name one country that gives more in foreign aid to help others around the world?? Then name another *Chrisitain* nation who gives more in free will charity?? You won’t be able to do it.

As for arrogance, I see what you call “arrogance” as national pride. We think we are the best because we excel at being the best through freedom and liberty. I support the US before all others, if that makes me “arrogant” — well then so be it.

JB: Does it matter if a U.S. doctor saves an American life or a Cuban doctor saves an American life if at the end of the day it is saved?

Jo: No – long as it is done with OUR countries best intrest first, and under law.

And please – spare me the “we are the world” Kumbaya sentiments. While I certainly WISH we could all live together in world peace, ideologically speaking it’s not reality, it never has been, or ever will be. The best we can do is co-exist in tolerance. (See Canada, Mexico, and the US)

On Batista and Hussein or even the Taliban, this is Monday morning quarter backing, sorry I don’t participate in that silliness. You aren’t disclosing Americas reasoning of that time, and frankly I’m sick of people not telling the WHOLE story.

And your misrepresentations of these issues is why I think you dispaly a degree of contempt for this country. And I do NOT think you debate for what is best for this country, but to join in the far lefts passion for *changing* the fundamentals of this country. Which I vehemently defend.

If you take it as a personal insult – then so be it. I will not allow anyone to twist Americas rich history or mis-characterize Americas intentions. And for the record, my family has lived and died in US military service for many generations. Our Irish/Scottish roots are deep and proud. I hope you can understand, that your learning of our songs and love of our colors is not comparable to our long service (and generational deaths) in defending this great nation.

Health care is not a problem in America — health insurance is. We need to recognize that health insurance is a lot like automobile insurance. We don’t get coverage for oil changes. Coverage is for accidents and unforeseen happenings. There are alternatives to THIS HC bill, unfortunately the left does not want to hear them.

As for other countries HC, why don’t you look at Singaporean health care accounts?? They are far above those you list, we could learn a thing or two from them. Don’t you think?

JB: you treat this bill like a slippery slope leading us to a Marxist society

Jo: It is — it’s a stepping stone. Call it what you like — it is NOT American. It is constitutionally illegal.

August 31, 2009 at 11:03 pm
(729) voter for change says:

End of life counceling. Hmm sounds good to me.. I mean people receive counceling their whole lives for some pretty petty stuff.. Oh my husband thinks i’m fat, or my dad was too mean to me growing up, or my dog just died,, how will I cope ? Many of which taxpaying citizens pay for. So why when it comes to the most scariest, and emotional decision of our lives can’t we receive a little counceling and planning to actually feel like we at least know what to expect if and when there is no quality left in life. I hear people say after a long drawn out illness of a loved one. ” You know it was a blessing, they’re no longer suffering. They put up a good fight. And some say they would have gone earlier if it would have been their choice. In some cases medicine and technology only cause more pain. My grandfather was insured, and a man of faith, diagnosed with colan cancer, suffered 6 months and died natrually without any surgery. We have all accepted and respected his decision to put it in God’s hands. I’m sure he would have appreciated a little counceling to cope with that choice.

September 1, 2009 at 8:10 am
(730) Jo says:

No one is against counseling.

We are against GOVERNMENT control of our health care.

September 1, 2009 at 5:15 pm
(731) JB says:

Jo, who says I don’t defend America. I’ve pointed out mistakes in the past that America has made. I never attacked America the nation nor said I wanted it to fail. I do defend America. I am also a scientist therefore I defend reason and logic first and foremost. I look at the good as well as the bad.

As for Katrina how long did it take FEMA to properly respond once aide was requested? The only federal agency I saw doing their job if not going above and beyond was the U.S. Coast Guard.

As for Hussein and the Taliban, I didn’t explain Americas reasoning because I thought it would have been obvious to people who understand foreign policy and history. The U.S aided the Taliban because of the Soviet Unions invasion of Afghanistan. At the time our policy was to contain the soviet union and their government at any cost. As for Hussein he was our friend for the same reason the Saudis are our friends … oil. Had he not made the gigantic mistake of attacking Kuwait things might be different, but when we did we could no longer defend him. I was not saying Americas actions there were wrong I was just pointing out how any government including America changes their tune when it serves their purpose. You advocating against working with these individuals or these nations because it would be giving them legitimacy. First of all the fact out state department recognizes Castro as the president is all the legitimacy that is really needed. Second of all we have through out our history legitimized these individuals and nations when we work with people we now call terrorists. We worked with Communist Russia to defeat Nazi Germany even though we dropped that as soon as the war ended, we worked with the Taliban because we couldn’t fight of Russians ourselves without causing another world war, we worked with Hussein because we wanted oil and because at the time he hadn’t done anything to the extent of invading Kuwait.

Quite frankly there is a fine line between Arrogance and National Pride Jo. What you are doing, ignoring the possibility of Overhauling Health Care because you think our present system works in principle, that it only needs a few tweaks is arrogant. Especially when there is a host of information out there showing the truth. Ignoring arguments from myself urban legends and the many other people who support this bill is arrogant not pride. I’m not a fan of bringing religion into this but I think the bible describes your mind frame the best Jo, “Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall” (Proverbs 16:18).

However, for arguments sake lets say your narrow interpretation of the Commerce clause is correct. That means that a public option would have to be dropped. However, it does not mean that the government can’t pass a bill regulating how insurance companies operate. I would be open to no public option if the government strictly regulated insurance companies by preventing them from turning people down on the basis of pre-existing conditions, cut the costs that make Health Coverage so unattainable for so many Americans way down, cut the massive amount of money spent on malpractice, and insured that all Americans had a way to get the basic health care coverage they need.

I am not trying to argue some “we are the world kumbaya” sentiment. As much as I would like to see more tolerance in foreign policy I know that that is an unrealistic goal.

Next Jo, I have nothing but respect for a family with a rich history of service as is the case with yours. However, patriotism isn’t a competition. I have had people within my family serve the country as well, and have served myself for a short time in the U.S. Coast Guard. I have as much pride in this country as any one else. I also am not arrogant enough to not see when change is needed.

My comment about your insult is that you think I am leading the world to socialism (or more accurately that I am helping to do so). I believe this is the most important issue America faces today and that Health Care Coverage for all is the best for America. Because I want the best for it and its Citizens I argue so vehemently. I admit you also sincerely believe you are trying to do the best for this country and I respect you for it regardless of where you opinions fall. The fact that you seem to stubbornly insist that people like myself don’t honestly believe they are doing what they are doing because they believe it is in the best interest of this great nation is what I consider the personal insult.

I don’t claim to be an expert on constitutional law people who have been studying the constitution for much longer than either of us are debating the exact meaning of the constitution and if they can’t agree on a meaning I am not arrogant enough to believe I understand it better than them. Plenty of people who have been studying constitutional law longer than either of us Jo think it is a legal law and a good law just like their are many who agree with you Jo.

Also, Jo comparing health insurance to auto insurance is a little different an oil change doesn’t cost me the same as even a routine physical. If my car breaks down I could buy a brand new luxury car for the price an uninsured individual would bay to fix themselves when their body breaks down. However, if you want to compare them lets talk about the fact that the government requires all vehicles to be insured before you can pull out of your driveway, why shouldn’t it ensure that every American is as equally covered as their car.

September 2, 2009 at 12:10 am
(732) paul nelson says:

This concept is about having a discussion with individuals as to how they would like end of life issues dealt with. Hundreds of these discussions occur daily NOW with MD, patients, families and other healthcare professionals. However, this is often done in the state of crisis, that throws many into an even greater state of crisis because these very crucial issues were not discussed completely if at all. As a Hospital Social Worker for 35 years, I’ve had to witness the horrendous destruction this can do to a person(patient) and or family. No one wants to talk about death and how to handle care decisons. This provision simply says people NEED TO BE RESPONSIBLE AND DISCUSS HOW THEY WANT THE HEATLHCARE PROVIDERS TO TREAT THEM AND OR IF SOMEONE ELSE CAN MAKE THOSE DECISIONS FOR THEM. Physicians nor other healthcare professionals care which way people decide, they just need a person to state their preference. You have a very unfortunate, ignorant, uneducated, hysterical and completely wrong viewpoint.

September 2, 2009 at 5:18 pm
(733) Jo says:

National pride is NOT arrogance — but it is arrogant for you to think this of over 50% of Americans.

JB: What you are doing, ignoring the possibility of Overhauling Health Care…

No one is ignoring the possibility! Being against this bill — is not the same as being against HC reform.

I’m against the *language* of this bill. I’m against the federal take over of the HC system. I’m against single payer.

I AM NOT AGAINST HC REFORM.

Understand now?

JB: Ignoring arguments from myself urban legends and the many other people who support this bill is arrogant not pride.

Jo: I wasn’t aware UL supported it. UL and I interpret the bill differntly but I have never once seen UL say he supports this bill.

BTW disagreement is not arrogance. I and many other Americans (nearly 3/4 of them now) do not support this bill in it’s current form, which is open ended and subject to the unknown panels/committee interpretations. Does it make you arrogant for not agreeing with me? No. Does it make you wrong for putting all your trust in gov’t? No. It makes you terribly naive, but not arrogant or wrong.
FYI –
Romans 16:18 “For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive.”

On commerce: The government has the right to *regulate* interstate commece, not stop business from commece. There is a difference. You cannot regulate or legislate wealth, health or wisdom.

In a free country you can not stop people from abusing their bodies – and insurance has the freedom to deny coverage, or raise rates on those who do abuse their body.

Malpractice reform as you call it — is what tort reform is all about, and I support this.

A side note — My husband served in the coast guard too.

Again this plan will lead us to single payer, which is Marxist in itself. I’m not for it, BUT we all want HC reform, we simply have different ideas on how we to archive it.

On the constitution — The constitution is best understood in the context it was written — for that you need to read the federalist papers.

Comparing HC to automobile insurance is not very different. We don’t have coverage for regular tune ups and oil changes for our cars. If we all paid for regular preventative HC check ups we’d save millions.

As for getting a new car vs a new body — don’t be too sure, with the advances today just about anything is possible. Already, and like cars our bodies can have part replacements. (hearts, kidneys, etc…)

JB said: if you want to compare them lets talk about the fact that the government requires all vehicles to be insured before you can pull out of your driveway,

Jo: Yes and I’m not for that either. It is an infringement on our freedoms, and it has made the insurance companies rich. BTW it wasn’t always like that – I’m old enough to remember not having insurance, or seat belt laws, or helmet laws, etc… Just like we didn’t have income tax till 1913 — we managed before these new gov’t laws, we can revert back.

September 2, 2009 at 6:35 pm
(734) urbanlegends says:

To clarify:

It would be inappropriate for me to take a stand for or against the health care bill under discussion here, so I haven’t.

I am, however, against the misrepresentation of its contents, particularly the section that is the focus of this discussion, so I have fought hard for a fair and accurate analysis of it.

September 3, 2009 at 9:04 am
(735) Jo says:

UL I have to admit, I found ironic that I was defending your position.

ha!

September 3, 2009 at 11:09 am
(736) Jo says:

In the UK people are facing “death panels” of medical care “experts” and are being sentenced to death.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6127514/Sentenced-to-death-on-the-NHS.html

“Forecasting death is an inexact science,”they say. Patients are being diagnosed as being close to death “without regard to the fact that the diagnosis could be wrong.

“As a result a national wave of discontent is building up, as family and friends witness the denial of fluids and food to patients.”

Ummm… isn’t that what page 430 of OUR GOVERNMENTS HC bill eludes to?

Why, yes it does:
“(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—”

(last treatment listed)

“(iv) the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.”

========================

Full treatment or to LIMIT some or ALL specified interventions.

Pure insanity. Anyone who is FOR the current verbiage in this bill – is far too trusting of government, and ought to have their heads examined.

September 3, 2009 at 12:59 pm
(737) Jody says:

Have you read the bill? If not, how you condemn something you don’t know anything about. The government has been “regulating” the insurance companies for Medicare for years, that’s right, I said the INSURANCE COMPANIES. This means that the insurance companies cannot “CHEAT” the insured under any circumstances. This bill reads much the same way. My suggestion is click on the link and read it for yourselves before you pass judgement.

September 3, 2009 at 1:59 pm
(738) Jo says:

Jody I don’t know who “you” is but *I* have read the bill. I also have read up on the people who wrote the Obama HC plan. Have you?

September 3, 2009 at 6:37 pm
(739) urbanlegends says:

Jo once again demonstrates that she either can’t read or is purposely trying to misrepresent the text of the House health care bill when she brings up “death panels” and writes:

Ummm… isn’t that what page 430 of OUR GOVERNMENTS HC bill eludes to?

Why, yes it does:

“(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—”

(last treatment listed)

“(iv) the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.”

========================

Full treatment or to LIMIT some or ALL specified interventions.

Pure insanity. Anyone who is FOR the current verbiage in this bill – is far too trusting of government, and ought to have their heads examined.

Uh, actually no, Jo, this language DOESN’T allude to “death panels,” nor to the GOVERNMENT limiting medical care for individuals in any way.

The text (see below) is perfectly clear on this point. It does NOT say the GOVERNMENT can limit some or all specified interventions. It says the PATIENT can do so — and this is the whole point of advance care consultations — by drawing up a living will or advance care directive (aka “order regarding life sustaining treatment”) specifying the PATIENT’S preferences regarding life-sustaining measures ranging from “full treatment to an indication to limit some or all specified interventions.”

It’s all about the PATIENT specifying his or her own choices and limits.

I ask you again, Jo, please STOP misrepresenting this text. Or learn to read.

“(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.”

September 3, 2009 at 11:36 pm
(740) JB says:

Jo, I never said National Pride IS Arrogance. I said there is a fine line. I have national pride, I love this country and I am constantly seeing examples of what makes Americans and their country so great.

Also, I apologize for implying that you were not for some kind of Health Care Reform. You are correct that being against this bill is not the same as being against reform and I apologize for lumping the two together.

I also did not mean to say that urban legends supported this bill. The point of that comment was that you misinterpret or disregard some of his counter-arguments to your points. As you do with myself. As you do with other people who support this bill.

As for regulation, that can refer to limiting how much an individual can pay for health care rates, or denying companies from refusing coverage for certain reasons, such as pre-existing conditions. The federal government can do a lot to reform our system with simple regulation. Also, the government can restrain a person who is abusing their bodies. It simply depends on the abuse. If someone drinks and someone smokes and do all these other bad habits the government can’t stop them. If someone is cutting themselves or showing signs that they are abusing themselves to the point of suicidal tendencies then the police, social workers, and all kinds of other people and agencies will try to restrain that person.

There is a big difference between freedom and license and many people don’t understand the difference.

However, I think we have found something we both agree upon in that we both agree malpractice needs reforming.

My point about health insurance and car insurance being different isn’t that they can’t “change organs like they change parts” My point was that the prices aren’t comparable if I blow out the engine on my car I will probably pay several thousand bucks and I don’t know maybe i don’t get a vacation this year. Or I can simply buy a used car for close to the same price. I can as you pointed out Jo get a heart transplant or any other number of transplant thanks to medical advances, however, without insurance that would cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars for a transplant. So maybe I don’t make the rent that month.

On a side note it does not surprise me that you oppose mandated auto insurance, Jo. While there is a whole lot I could say about that I will refrain since this debate is supposed to be about Health Care not Auto Insurance.

I think Jo, that my biggest qualm with your general philosophy is your exaggerated hyperbolic interpretations of everything. Saying people who support this bill in its current form need to have our head examined, calling those who so support it socialists, comparing the bill itself to Nazi Germany’s policies, talking about ‘death panels’ in any shape or form when no where in this bill does it say anything remotely resembling ‘death panels’. (just to name a few of the misrepresentations) I think most Americans agree Health Care needs reform. While I am not by any means saying H.R. 3200 is a perfect solution, I do think it will successfully address many of the problems. However, I am open to discussion about where we should go and what changes we should and should not make. It is difficult to have a serious discussion of the topic while saying I need to have my head examined and being called a socialist who has contempt for this country and its countrymen. While I have disagreed with your points and your logic I have never once attacked you personally or called you crazy for your beliefs simply because I don’t understand them. In fact I have tried very hard to praise you for speaking so passionately about a topic you obviously care a great deal about and standing up for what you believe in. In exchange I get called a socialist with contempt for country and in need of psychiatric examination.

September 5, 2009 at 1:53 pm
(741) Jo says:

UL said: The text (is perfectly clear on this point. It does NOT say the GOVERNMENT can limit some or all specified interventions. It says the PATIENT can do so…

I’m not disputing that the INDIVIDUAL patient decides what intervention!!

Got it this time??

The individual makes a decision — after that — It does NOT say who limits the choice the *individual* made!! You do not know who makes that decision anymore than I do – because they do NOT specify who!! Presumably, it’s the government committee the bill sets up on like page 30.

Let me try one last time to show you where you and I read it differently …

“(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii)

Jo: THE **LEVEL** OF TREATMENT — that the INDIVIDUAL SEEKS. (We agree!)

may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions.

Jo: The intervention choice the INDIVIDUAL makes may be granted in full, or it may be limited. The question is BY WHOM?

Why would a patient that made a choice on their *individual* treatment – grant or limit the treatment they chose? It makes no sense!

The only reason for that line is so the “death panels” (as you call them, not me BTW)that are created by this bill, decides for the patient.

This is the only rational logical answer.

“(iv) the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.”

========================

Full treatment or to LIMIT some or ALL specified interventions.

UL said: Uh, actually no, Jo, this language DOESN’T allude to “death panels,” nor to the GOVERNMENT limiting medical care for individuals in any way.

September 5, 2009 at 2:12 pm
(742) Jo says:

SEC. 123. HEALTH BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
For UL…

From the bill page 30:(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—There is established a private-public advisory committee which shall be a
panel of medical and other experts to be known as
the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced,
and premium plans.

(b) DUTIES.—
12 (1) RECOMMENDATIONS ON BENEFIT STANDARDS.—The Health Benefits Advisory Committee
shall recommend to the Secretary of Health and
Human Services (in this subtitle referred to as the
‘‘Secretary’’) benefit standards (as defined in para
graph (4)), and periodic updates to such standards.

(FYI Paragraph 4 refers to the time on the committee)
————–

The panels recommend the standards, according to this — not the patients. Which is, of course, logical. The question remains — what are the specific standards they will recommend on page 430? (Standards of limits and full treatment??), and how will they be determined?

Too old? to young? to rich? too poor? too sick?

Dr Emanual has already recommended (not discussed — **recommended**) that in a medical shortage/emergency, the old and the very young – who are not “productive to society” will be the first to not receive care.

Again this is why I keep saying that the “hysterical e-mail” (as you call it) may not be all that hysterical after all, when you take the entire bill in it’s context.

September 5, 2009 at 2:41 pm
(743) urbanlegends says:

Jo writes:

Jo: THE **LEVEL** OF TREATMENT — that the INDIVIDUAL SEEKS. (We agree!)

may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions.

Jo: The intervention choice the INDIVIDUAL makes may be granted in full, or it may be limited. The question is BY WHOM?

Why would a patient that made a choice on their *individual* treatment – grant or limit the treatment they chose? It makes no sense!

The only reason for that line is so the “death panels” (as you call them, not me BTW) that are created by this bill, decides for the patient.

This is the only rational logical answer.

No it isn’t. You’re utterly mistaken.

The word “grant” doesn’t appear anywhere in the text.

You ask: “Why would a patient that made a choice on their *individual* treatment – grant or limit the treatment they chose? It makes no sense!”

The only reason it doesn’t make sense is because you’ve inserted the word “grant” and totally misinterpreted the sentence.

Read it again. It says the individual’s choices “may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some of all specified interventions.”

I.e., when YOU write your living will or advance care directive, YOU specify whether or not you want certain medical interventions limited and under what specific circumstances. For example: “Don’t keep me on life support if I’ve been brain dead for 5 years.” Or: “Do not resuscitate me if I have suffered such severe brain damage that I will never regain consciousness.” Etc.

It’s perfectly clear.

September 5, 2009 at 3:25 pm
(744) urbanlegends says:

Jo writes:

The panels recommend the standards, according to this — not the patients. Which is, of course, logical. The question remains — what are the specific standards they will recommend on page 430? (Standards of limits and full treatment??), and how will they be determined?

Too old? to young? to rich? too poor? too sick?

Once again, you are completely misinterpreting (or misrepresenting — as always, I can’t tell which) what this text says.

Read it more carefully:

SEC. 123. HEALTH BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—There is established a private-public advisory committee which shall be a panel of medical and other experts to be known as the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced, and premium plans.

(b) DUTIES.—

(1) RECOMMENDATIONS ON BENEFIT STANDARDS.—The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall recommend to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this subtitle referred to as the ‘‘Secretary’’) benefit standards (as defined in paragraph (4)), and periodic updates to such standards.

1. The Committee recommends what benefits are to be COVERED — i.e., paid for under each category of health insurance plan.

2. This is precisely what health insurance companies already do. Different plans offer different levels of coverage. Currently, the companies specify what’s covered and what’s not under each given plan.

3. The actions of this Committee would standardize and simplify healh insurance offerings by creating three categories of coverage — essential, enhanced, and premium — and recommending what levels of coverage would fall under each category.

4. It’s worth repeating: IT ONLY SETS STANDARDS FOR INSURANCE COVERAGE. The language does NOT give the Committee the power to limit medical treatments generally, let alone limit medical treatments for any individual, let alone limit medical treatments on the basis of age, income, or health.

5. It’s worth repeating again: IT ONLY SETS STANDARDS FOR WHAT EACH CATEGORY OF INSURANCE PLAN WOULD COVER; IT DOES NOT SET LIMITS ON MEDICAL TREATMENT.

September 5, 2009 at 3:31 pm
(745) Jo says:

JB: I also did not mean to say that urban legends supported this bill. The point of that comment was that you misinterpret or disregard some of his counter-arguments to your points. As you do with myself. As you do with other people who support this bill.

Jo: I disagree with UL’s interpretation that you apparently agree with, as do other people. On the other hand many Americans agree with me as well in the real world.

So go ahead, (as I asked UL) explain why a patient would make a end of life choice for themselves then limit that choice??

Your/UL’s/others interpretation makes no logical rational sense at all.

As for regulation — the gov’t's job is to regulate commerce for safety standards, professional licenses, OSHA, etc… regulation to protect Americans — this is reasonable regulation. It was never intended for our gov’t to regulate what a company can make or charge. Just imagine life with many electric companies to choose from? The competition would cause the rates to drop, innovation to evolve, and jobs created. It happened with the phones, once all we had was Bell, now there is all sorts of companies.

JB: As for regulation, that can refer to limiting how much an individual can pay for health care rates,or denying companies from refusing coverage for certain reasons, such as pre-existing conditions.

Jo: In the real world this kills companies. If it costs you $5 to make a widget, your overhead is $2 and the gov’t regulates that you can only sell that wiget for $5.25, your not going to stay in business very long.

If gov’t regulates the insurance companies to insure high risk people, the same happens. If they pay out more than they take in – they fail.Once the company closes the jobs/revenue lost are not just for that company, it effects the suppliers of goods and services of that company.

JB: The federal government can do a lot to reform our system with simple regulation.

Jo: Or kill it.

JB: Also, the government can restrain a person who is abusing their bodies.

Jo: A guy attempting to jump off the roof is not the same as a person who smokes. The guys has an emotional disorder, the smoker doesn’t. Local governments intervene when people cannot take care of themselves, or have psychological problems — they do this for the general welfare of all other Americans. But the guy who smokes too much, drinks too much, eats too much meat, or sugar, etc.. isn’t hurting other people – only themselves.

Tell me who am I hurting if I don’t wear my seat belt?? No one.

The left argument is “well they’ll cost more later on because of these decisions” — yes they may, or they may not. Some of the healthiness people I know smoke and drink. The broader point is where does it all stop?? Horseback riding is dangerous – stop that? Or football? Or bike riding? Driving? etc…

JB: However, I think we have found something we both agree upon in that we both agree malpractice needs reforming.

Jo: Amen to that — if your stupid enough to put a very hot cup of coffee between your legs, then too bad.

JB: My point about health insurance and car insurance being different isn’t that they can’t “change organs like they change parts” My point was that the prices aren’t comparable

Jo: They could be if we deregulate, do tort reform and allow HC insurance companies interstate commerce.

JB: I can as you pointed out Jo get a heart transplant or any other number of transplant thanks to medical advances, however, without insurance that would cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars for a transplant.

Jo: True supply and demand in the HC field is different than the automotive. You’ll wait and pay more for a heart, because of availability. There is always rationing in HC. We don’t have enough flu shots for the H1N1 — some people who want the shots will not receive it. I can see how this could translate to Gov’t run HC rationing.

JB: On a side note it does not surprise me that you oppose mandated auto insurance…

Jo: Well I don’t oppose all of it. I
think it can be improved on, but this is off topic.

JB: I think Jo, that my biggest qualm with your general philosophy is your exaggerated hyperbolic interpretations of everything.

Jo: You sure love the word hyperbolic don’t you? Again I direct you to the beginning of this post. In my view I’m interpreting this in the only rational and reasonable way.

JB: Saying people who support this bill in its current form need to have our head examined,

Jo: They do. I ask you, would you sign a blank contract, or would you prefer it’s filled out first?? It’s the same for this HC bill — it is open ended, ambiguous at best.

JB: calling those who so support it socialists,

Jo: I don’t call people who supports this bill socilists. I call support who support this bill AND defend the agenda of this administration, Marxists or communists.

JB: comparing the bill itself to Nazi Germany’s policies,

Jo: Again, not just the bill, the agenda.

JB: talking about ‘death panels’ in any shape or form when no where in this bill does it say anything remotely resembling ‘death panels’.

Jo: Read page 30 — there is a commitee – call it what you want.

JB: I have never once attacked you personally or called you crazy for your beliefs simply because I don’t understand them.

Jo: I didn’t call you crazy directly, I simply said anyone that supports this bill — according to my interpretation of it — is crazy.

Clearly you believe in UL interpretation, so in that fantasy kumbaya world (IMO) you’d be rational and not crazy.

In my opinion this administration is a disgrace to American, and it is paving the path to a communistic form of government. What more evidence do you want?? Many have admitted they are communists. Obama is a Marxist – his faher was a communist, who met his Mother in a RUSSIAN language class. His “mentor” Frank Marshall was the head of CPUSA. Van Jones told us he’s a communist, and now we find out he’s a 9/11 truther too. Obamas advisor is socalist at best. Hillary did a term paper on Saul Alynski. Oh I can go on, and on … but you get the point.

(BTW don’t blame me for their admissions.)

Anyhow, this bill is a insult to the intelligence of the American people.

What in the world has happened to the democrat party of JFK?? It’s been hi-jacked, and worse many democrats are destructivly protecting and defending the hi-jackers.

September 5, 2009 at 3:55 pm
(746) Jo says:

UL: The word “grant” doesn’t appear anywhere in the text.

Jo: This is semantics UL and you know it!

I’ll rephrase the question: Why would a patient make a make a choice on their *individual* treatment — in a “range” — from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit” some or all or specified interventions??

UL said… – I.e., For example: “Don’t keep me on life support if I’ve been brain dead for 5 years.” Or: “Do not resuscitate me if I have suffered such severe brain damage that I will never regain consciousness.” Etc.

Jo: Those choices would have PREVIOUSLY been MADE under: “(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) ”

It’s perfectly clear, that the choices have been made PREVIOUSLY, and decisions will have to be made in a RANGE of full treatment to an indication to limit interventions!

It doesn’t say who determines that “range” – presumably the committee.

September 5, 2009 at 4:08 pm
(747) Jo says:

UL — Some people here are under the impression there is no committee (or death panels if you like), so I produced that part of the bill that forms them.

Obama HIMSELF said in an interview in the New York Times, in mid-April, 2009, that they would be used in this manner:

“So that’s where I think you get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of costs, right? I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health bill out there.

I think there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place.

It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance.”

… guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists i.e. the **committee**.

September 5, 2009 at 4:09 pm
(748) urbanlegends says:

Jo writes:

Too old? to young? to rich? too poor? too sick?

Dr Emanual has already recommended (not discussed — **recommended**) that in a medical shortage/emergency, the old and the very young – who are not “productive to society” will be the first to not receive care.

Again this is why I keep saying that the “hysterical e-mail” (as you call it) may not be all that hysterical after all, when you take the entire bill in it’s context.

This is blatant scaremongering. And misrepresentation.

The recommendation to which you refer was made, as you say, in the context of medical shortages/emergencies. But you misrepresent it by failing to acknowledge that this is a context in which, by its very nature, medical treatment MUST be denied to someone.

For example, when 5 people need kidney transplants and only 2 organs are available.

In that situation, how would YOU decide who gets transplants and who doesn’t?

Emanuel is one of a number of bioethicists who have worked diligently and in good faith to arrive at the fairest way to handle impossibly difficult situations such as this.

You demean both his good work and his reputation, and you’re being blatantly deceptive, by implying that his recommendations would translate to people’s medical treatment being limited under the health care bill.

You should be ashamed.

Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions
Govind Persad, Alan Wertheimer, Ezekiel J. Emanuel

September 5, 2009 at 4:13 pm
(749) Jo says:

Better put: the end of life choices have been made PREVIOUSLY, (“(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) ”)…

and THOSE CHOICES will be considered in a RANGE of full treatment to an indication to limit interventions.

I don’t know how to make it any clearer for you.

September 5, 2009 at 4:21 pm
(750) Jo says:

UL said: You demean both his good work and his reputation, and you’re being blatantly deceptive, by implying that his recommendations would translate to people’s medical treatment being limited under the health care bill.

You should be ashamed.

Jo: Well then I guess you think Obama should be ashamed, and that he is deceptive to imply that peoples medical will be limited under the HC bill too – right?

Stop shooting the messenger, I’m quoting what THEY have told us themselves.

It’s like the defenders of this bill are deaf to the facts.

September 5, 2009 at 4:33 pm
(751) Jo says:

UL said: This is blatant scaremongering. And misrepresentation.

JO: No it is not, it’s reality – somebody gets shorted.

UL: The recommendation to which you refer was made, as you say, in the context of medical shortages/emergencies. But you misrepresent it by failing to acknowledge that this is a context in which, by its very nature, medical treatment MUST be denied to someone.

JO: I didn’t say MUST! You took what i said out of context.

Look UL, Treatments are rationed all the time! Look no further than flu shots. All reasonable thinkers know this. If the gov’t runs HC, and HC has shortages then who doesn’t get treatments? How do we choose? My point was — under Dr. Emanuls plan the elderly and the very young would be eliminated from treatment first. Will they use his plan? I don’t know, you don’t know. Because they DON’T tell us in the bill.

UL: In that situation, how would YOU decide who gets transplants and who doesn’t?

Jo: Private HC produces new treatments, government run HC (like it’s other programs) will consume not produce. Ever see a profit in Medicaid for example?? No it’s broke.

Perhaps no one would have to be denied HC treatments (or transplants) if we work on the *private* HC industry producers.

September 5, 2009 at 4:46 pm
(752) Jo says:
September 5, 2009 at 4:49 pm
(753) urbanlegends says:

Jo writes:

Those choices would have PREVIOUSLY been MADE under: “(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) ”

It’s perfectly clear, that the choices have been made PREVIOUSLY, and decisions will have to be made in a RANGE of full treatment to an indication to limit interventions!

It doesn’t say who determines that “range” – presumably the committee.

Yet again, I find it difficult to believe that even YOU believe what you’re saying.

Paragraph (B) simply adds explanatory detail to subparagraph (ii).

(A)(ii) says an order must communicate the patient’s preferences, including an indication of the treatment desired; (B) explains that THAT indication — the one being made BY the patient — may range from full treatment to limitations of specified interventions.

Come one, Jo. The legalese is consistent throughout the document in the way it expands definitions step-by-step. In this case, first it says the patient may indicate treatment, then it explains the range of things that treatment can include.

September 5, 2009 at 4:58 pm
(754) Tomme Actkinson says:

After going to the bill and reading pp 425-430 I’m not sure I totally agree with you. Does it say Euthanasia will be promoted/required? No it doesn’t. Does it say that people can voluntarily sign up for this and get it paid. Nope neither one. What it does say in para (hhh)(1) is that if an advance care planning consultation has not occurred in the last 5 years then such consultation shall include the following….. Does that mean that people will be allowed these, or does it mean that they will/must receive “Such consultation “…which…”SHALL (Caps are mine.) include the following…” Frankly I don’t trust the government to interpret that. My biggest concern with the bill is how it will be paid for. They estimate $1.5 trillion and never having seen a government program make budget, I can only wonder what would be cut or how they could make ends meet. Perhaps it’s paranoia on some peoples part but encouraging early demise solves two problems, health care costs and social security.

September 5, 2009 at 4:59 pm
(755) urbanlegends says:

Jo writes:

UL: The recommendation to which you refer was made, as you say, in the context of medical shortages/emergencies. But you misrepresent it by failing to acknowledge that this is a context in which, by its very nature, medical treatment MUST be denied to someone.

JO: I didn’t say MUST! You took what i said out of context.

Jo, slow down and THINK! I mean, seriously, THINK BEFORE YOU TYPE.

I didn’t say YOU said “MUST.”

I said you misrepresented Ezekiel’s case by FAILING to acknowledge that the kind of situation HE wrote about is, BY ITS VERY NATURE, one in which treatment MUST be denied to someone.

The fact that you SO misunderstood that simple point I was making goes a long way toward explaining why you can’t understand the language in the health care bill.

September 5, 2009 at 5:18 pm
(756) urbanlegends says:

Jo writes:

UL — Some people here are under the impression there is no committee (or death panels if you like), so I produced that part of the bill that forms them.

No you didn’t. You produced a part of the bill that forms a committee that will recommend standards for different levels of HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.

September 5, 2009 at 6:14 pm
(757) urbanlegends says:

Tomme Actkinson writes:

After going to the bill and reading pp 425-430 I’m not sure I totally agree with you. Does it say Euthanasia will be promoted/required? No it doesn’t. Does it say that people can voluntarily sign up for this and get it paid. Nope neither one. What it does say in para (hhh)(1) is that if an advance care planning consultation has not occurred in the last 5 years then such consultation shall include the following….. Does that mean that people will be allowed these, or does it mean that they will/must receive “Such consultation “…which…”SHALL (Caps are mine.) include the following…”

You missed the key point at the very beginning of this section of the bill (bottom of page 424) which stipulates that all of the language that follows (pp. 425-430) is to be inserted verbatim into Section 1861 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x), subsection (s)(2), which defines medical services covered by Medicare.

“Advance care planning consultations” are thereby added to a list of services ranging from outpatient physical therapy to home dialysis supplies to diabetes screening tests — NONE of which are “mandated” in any sense.

Advance care planning consultations would become a service paid for by Medicare. There’s nothing sinister in it.

See Comment #165 above for more detail. Better yet, look at that section of the Social Security Act.

Tomme continues:

Frankly I don’t trust the government to interpret that.

That’s a fair point. You’re not alone in making it.

My biggest concern with the bill is how it will be paid for. They estimate $1.5 trillion and never having seen a government program make budget, I can only wonder what would be cut or how they could make ends meet. Perhaps it’s paranoia on some peoples part but encouraging early demise solves two problems, health care costs and social security.

Okay, but consider this. If we’re justified in being paranoid about the government cutting costs by “encouraging early demise,” why shouldn’t we also be paranoid about insurance companies doing it?

Kaiser Permanente conducts free end-of-life planning classes for its members in which they are instructed how to compose advance care directives and encouraged to do it. Blue Cross puts out pamphlets for its customers along the same lines. Presumably most if not all health insurance providers are currently doing this. THEY have strong motives to cut costs, too: profit motives. Paranoid yet?

NOTE to those who have reading comprehension difficulties: I am NOT accusing insurance companies of actually “encouraging early demise” for profit. I’m making a comparison to demonstrate how people selectively apply their paranoia.

September 5, 2009 at 6:18 pm
(758) Jo says:

Here we go again, you can’t defend your position, so you snidely quip that I can’t “understand the language in the HC bill”. Tiresome.

In post 741 you said: “The recommendation to which you refer was made, as you say, in the context of medical shortages/emergencies. But you misrepresent it by failing to acknowledge that this is a context in which, by its very nature, medical treatment MUST be denied to someone.”

I said after that, (Jo): I didn’t say MUST! You took what I said out of context.

Now UL says — Jo, slow down and THINK! I mean, seriously, THINK BEFORE YOU TYPE.

I didn’t say YOU said “MUST.”

Jo: You said *I* misrepresent it “as by failing to acknowledge that this is a context in which, by its very nature, medical treatment MUST be denied to someone.”…

now pay attention….

I reiterate I never said MUST – you said *MUST*. I am not suggesting that this HC bill MUST deny coverage — I’m suggesting since shortages WILL happen, the committee will have to make recommendations of WHO will not receive treatments. You said it yourself, how do we decide who get’s the kidney transplant? I think the better question is how do we prevent the kidney from failing. Private sector science and PRODUCTION — that’s how. Not government CONSUMPTION.

Then you said (UL): … you misrepresented Ezekiel’s case by FAILING to acknowledge that the kind of situation HE wrote about is, BY ITS VERY NATURE, one in which treatment MUST be denied to someone.

Jo: I did NOT fail to acknowledge this UL, don’t lie. I said *specifically* in post 735: Dr Emanual has already recommended (not discussed — **recommended**) that in a medical shortage/emergency, the old and the very young – who are not “productive to society” will be the first to not receive care.

Are you paid by twist logic for the left, or what?

September 5, 2009 at 6:27 pm
(759) Jo says:

UL says: If we’re justified in being paranoid about the government encouraging early demise as a cost-cutting measure, why shouldn’t we also be paranoid about insurance companies doing it? Kaiser Permanente conducts free end-of-life planning classes for its members in which they are encourage to compose advance care directives and instructed how to do it. Blue Cross puts out pamphlets for its customers on the same subject.

Jo: UL, you miss the point! Private HC industry has many companies, and has NO POWER over the individual. If you don’t like the plan – you switch.

If gov’t takes over HC, eventually there will be no other option BUT gov’t HC.* Then you are at the mercy of gov’t.

(*gov’t can always provide cheaper HC *in the beginning* than public can – after all they have the IRS to fund them, thus eliminating private by supply/demand.)

September 5, 2009 at 6:35 pm
(760) urbanlegends says:

Jo writes:

UL says: If we’re justified in being paranoid about the government encouraging early demise as a cost-cutting measure, why shouldn’t we also be paranoid about insurance companies doing it? Kaiser Permanente conducts free end-of-life planning classes for its members in which they are encourage to compose advance care directives and instructed how to do it. Blue Cross puts out pamphlets for its customers on the same subject.

Jo: UL, you miss the point! Private HC industry has many companies, and has NO POWER over the individual. If you don’t like the plan – you switch.

Not if you’re dead.

September 5, 2009 at 6:39 pm
(761) Jo says:

Tomme, as you likely know — SHALL in law means WILL. You’ve got to comply to recieve the service. There is no logical reason to put a time frame of 5 years in the bill, unless they intend to make it mandatory.

People reading need to think — if your the gov’t and you have to save money somewhere in this HC bill, were do you make cuts?? In the “range” of treatment, that’s where.

BTW I’m in agreement with you — I don’t trust the government to interpret it the way UL is. (Not to mention the mess medicaid/medicare is in.) But I disagree that the biggest concern with the bill is how it will be paid for.

My concern is of the constitutionality of the bill.

Tomme inquired: I can only wonder what would be cut or how they could make ends meet.

JO: They have already suggested a consumption tax to pay for it.

Tomme: Perhaps it’s paranoia on some peoples part but encouraging early demise solves two problems, health care costs and social security.

Jo: Yet another good point!

September 5, 2009 at 6:44 pm
(762) Jo says:

Basic logic eludes UL.

If we have *many* choices, we have competition, with competition comes scientific advances and progress, with scientific advances and progress, comes LESS chance of death.

With gov’t we only we have ONE choice and they will decide one’s fate in the “3″ plans.

September 5, 2009 at 6:46 pm
(763) urbanlegends says:

Jo writes:

Tomme, as you likely know — SHALL in law means WILL. You’ve got to comply to recieve the service. There is no logical reason to put a time frame of 5 years in the bill, unless they intend to make it mandatory.

Obfuscation.

“Consultations SHALL consist of” does NOT mean “Patients SHALL have these damned consultations whether they want them or not.”

Not one of the “shalls” in this verbiage pertains to whether or not consultations will occur. They ALL pertain to what they must consist of.

September 5, 2009 at 6:50 pm
(764) urbanlegends says:

Jo, once again you’ve made me regret taking you seriously enough to respond to your inane arguments. Congrats on that.

September 5, 2009 at 7:01 pm
(765) Jo says:

“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:”

Jo: Correct UL — if you haven’t had a consultation — then you will, and it shall contain…Why even mention 5 years if it’s not required?? Why UL??

UL: Jo, once again you’ve made me regret taking you seriously enough to respond to your inane arguments. Congrats on that.

Jo: Once the debate is lost all that remains is insult.

Typical.

Perhaps some lefty minions will show up, and parrot — anyone who has concerns about this bill, must be TEA bagging, bible thumpin’, gun-clutching, racist-redneck. That’ll be fun. (NOT!)

UL have you ever thought that maybe you’re the one who’s wrong in the interpretation??

September 5, 2009 at 7:15 pm
(766) urbanlegends says:

Jo writes:

“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:”

Jo: Correct UL — if you haven’t had a consultation — then you will, and it shall contain…Why even mention 5 years if it’s not required?? Why UL??

Asked and answered a gazillion times already.

First, your paraphrase is incorrect.

Here’s what the exact paragraph says:

“(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:”

Please attend to punctuation. There’s a PERIOD after “if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years.”

A NEW SENTENCE begins: “Such consultation shall include the following…”

It is therefore a misreading or an intentional misrepresentation to claim that the paragraph MEANS: “if you haven’t had a consultation — then you will, and it shall contain…”

It very clearly does not mean that.

Furthermore, it is clear from the language that the 5-year time frame is a LIMITATION.

This section of the bill is to be inserted into the Social Security Act where it defines services Medicare will pay for. If enacted, this language says Medicare would pay for patients to have advance care planning consultations, but NO MORE OFTEN than once every 5 years.

Note this paragraph:

“(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).”

September 5, 2009 at 8:27 pm
(767) urbanlegends says:

Jo writes:

UL have you ever thought that maybe you’re the one who’s wrong in the interpretation??

I would take this as a sincere question, and one worth answering, if it had come from anyone other than an obfuscating demagogue who has time and time again attempted to tie elements of this bill, and some of its authors, and the motivations behind it to Communism, fascism, and Nazi euthanasia policies (yes, folks, all three!).

Any reasonable person will understand why I will not bother.

September 5, 2009 at 9:22 pm
(768) JB says:

Jo, look up the word “semantics” after looking it up I hope you will realize that inserting a word into a piece of legislation in such a way that it completely changes the meaning is not “semantics”. As urban legends pointed out it doesn’t say anything about granting. It says that the patient will have the choice. Period.

Next Jo, you say that the purpose of government regulation is to protect Americans. How does this bill not fit into that. This bill would protect millions of Americans from dying because they couldn’t afford insurance or going bankrupt because of needing basic medical care.

Next, as has been pointed out several times there is so much wasteful spending that the government can cut costs without eliminating their profit. People keep arguing that private companies can’t compete against government but that isn’t true. Fed-Ex and UPS do it quite well. Every single PRIVATE college in this country does it when they stay in competition against public colleges.

I do agree with you Jo that a suicidal individual is not the same as a chronic smoker/drinker. I too know many people who drink and smoke everyday and are extremely healthy. You then say, “The broader point is where does it all stop” Implying that it is some kind of slippery slope. It isn’t. It stops with things that are actually dangerous. Smoking/drinking is regulated by preventing minors from buying and using these products until they are old enough to understand and accept the risk. The reason for this is that alcohol is a toxin. As are many substances in cigarettes. Football and Horseback riding, have risks but aren’t toxic. For that matter walking outside could be dangerous if you get bitten by a mosquito with West Nile or Easter Equine Encephalitis (EEE). In fact with safety precautions most of these activities are typically completely safe. I don’t have exact statistics but I’m guessing the number of serious health problems from sports are nothing compared to liver failure and lung cancer caused by smoking/drinking.

On another side note I hope for your own sake you don’t drive without a seat belt.

You then talk about rationing in regards to the HINI vaccine. Saying that some people who want it won’t be able to get it. The reason for that is that it takes a lot of time to manufacturer those vaccines on a large scale and they are closely regulated by the FDA to protect the patients from harmful effects of poorly made vaccines. This isn’t an aspect of government vs. private, the limitations on making a vaccine won’t change regardless of how health care is run and I don’t see any evidence that the government would do a worse job of it than private corporations.

On the topic of rationing, you are very much taking Emanuals article out of context. And for the record often times people who are elderly are turned down for a transplant under the current system because as urban legends says it is extremely difficult how to decide which of 5 patients get 2 hearts. While this is not exactly a pleasant truth it is a truth never-the-less. People who have the best chance of long term success with a transplant are given priority because it is a risk-reward analysis and people who are elderly, people who do drugs, people who have serious underlying medical conditions, etc etc all often have more risk then a young healthy individual. If there were enough organs the system would be different but that is about as likely as world peace by the end of this year. (At least with current scientific technology. Down the road with advances in stem cell research there is a possibility of being able to grow new organs for transplant but that is a discussion for another time.)Jo says( in response to urban legends): “No it is not, it’s reality – somebody gets shorted.” That is not because its their policy to short someone its because it is impossible to just pull a heart or a kidney out of thin air and somebody has to get shorted. Like I said it is unfortunate but it can’t be changed and it isn’t a policy that Emanuel or the government or anyone else is advocating, its simple fact.

You also correct Jo, I do like the word hyperbolic. Maybe I should dust off the thesaurus and start using some of the synonyms for hyperbolic such as: abstract, amplified, artificial, bouncing, distorted, embroidered, exalted, excessive, extravagant, fabricated, fabulous, false, fantastic, far-fetched, hammy, highly colored, histrionic, inflated, magnified, melodramatic, out of proportion, overblown, overdone, overestimated, overkill, overwrought, preposterous, pretentious, schmaltzy, sensational, spectacular, steep, strained, stylized, tall, too much*, too-too, unrealistic. Take your pick Jo, most of them apply to your interpretations.

You call Obama a disgrace to Americans. What was Bush. An American Hero? I know you disagreed with Bush on points but that doesn’t change the fact that so far I don’t see anything wrong with Obama’s plan. If you want to call me socialist for wanting every single person in this country to have basic health care then so be it. You want to say I need my head examine but I say it works both ways given your (insert hyperbolic synonym of your choice here) interpretations of this bill and Obama’s policies. You say that Obama is a disgrace to America I say you are a disgrace to every single person who died under Nazi Germany by comparing the policies of that government to this one.

You attack Obama’s actions but so far what do we have. The stimulus package which, while I agree went too far, was necessary to try to stop an economy in free fall from many factors. He has also given money back to the scientists and environmental organizations after 8 years of Bush stonewalling them, and an initiative to make sure that every single person in this great country has a right to the basic medical care that is needed. I see nothing wrong there and nothing socialist/communist/Marxist/Nazi-ist/etc. about that.

In response to his many critics Bush said ‘let history be the judge’ In response to that I say A) I hope Bush lives long enough to hear history’s criticisms of him be added to all of the current criticisms, and B) that maybe you should do the same with Obama instead of taking eight months of work and comparing it to a government responsible for one of the worse genocides in human history.

You keep talking about this ‘committee’ mentioned on page 30 in section 123. As urban legends said the recommendations of this committee would be which treatments fall into which category and into which of the different plans. As urban legends goes on to say this is the EXACT SAME thing current insurance companies do with their different plans they offer. While you have shown how you tend to misinterpret things my only hope is that others who read the bill for themselves don’t make the same mistakes. ONCE AGAIN COMMITTEE IS NOT SUPER SECRET GOVERNMENT CODE FOR DEATH PANEL.

Jo then says (again in response to urban legends):

“UL: Jo, once again you’ve made me regret taking you seriously enough to respond to your inane arguments. Congrats on that.

Jo: Once the debate is lost all that remains is insult.”

First off all you can’t really declare yourself the winner of any serious debate and expect it to be taken serious. Second of all the insult was because urban legends is probably tired of hitting his head against the wall trying to use logic and actual text citations against someone who repeatedly uses overblown and out of proportion interpretations of this bill, the arguments in favor of it, and the constitution of the United States with no basis in logic whatsoever. Without even realizing that their interpretations are completely changing the original meaning of the said statements. (For the record that is my assumption. I in no way speak for urban legends.)

Quite frankly I’m getting a little frustrated with it too. The only reason I keep this up is in the hope that visitors to this site who are on the fence have some balance to your brand of crazy. I long ago gave up hopes of convincing you Jo and I hope that I won’t have to convince others because my hope is that they will read the bill for themselves, read the arguments and decide for themselves how far your interpretation of this bill falls from the truth.

September 6, 2009 at 9:02 am
(769) Jo says:

UL — I would take this as a sincere question, and one worth answering, if it had come from anyone other than an obfuscating demagogue who has time and time again attempted to tie elements of this bill, and some of its authors, and the motivations behind it to Communism, fascism, and Nazi euthanasia policies (yes, folks, all three!).

Jo: Again not *I*. I’m not the one saying the quotes I sent — Obama and his people are. I’m not the one who embraces communisim, Marxism, and totarianism (yes folks all three!) I’ve made valid FACTUAL comparisons, that you apparently can’t dispute.

“Reasonable” creditable people attack or disprove the post, not the poster.

But I expect no less from you UL, your defense of the bill and Obama from reasonable discussion exposes your left leaning ideology.

You should be ashamed to claim your not taking a position in this debate — clearly you are.

September 6, 2009 at 9:44 am
(770) Jo says:

Off topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqcPA1ysSbw

PLEDGE to Obama?? They keep validating my comparisons. The gift that keeps on giving. It’d be funny if it wasn’t so frightening that people really don’t remember history. OR they want to repeat it.

For those who don’t remember: In *America* the president serves the people, the people do not serve the President. Those types of government are totalitarian, and Marxist (communism).

But I pledge too — I’ll pledge never to purchase, rent, or go to, movies by those who pledge to Obama.

September 6, 2009 at 10:57 am
(771) urbanlegends says:

Jo, I’ve given up trying to reason with you. Don’t bother posting anything to me from here on out. Thanks.

September 6, 2009 at 12:28 pm
(772) Jo says:

JB: Jo, look up the word “semantics”

Jo: I don’t have to, I used it correctly.

JB: As urban legends pointed out it doesn’t say anything about granting. It says that the patient will have the choice. Period.

Jo: Please read my responses to UL. This has been covered.

JB: Next Jo, you say that the purpose of government regulation is to protect Americans. How does this bill not fit into that.

Jo: Tiresome, you keep asking the same question. Please read the constitution again, Article 1 section 8. Congress is limited in their power.

Again, the 50 states are in essence sovereign, under the umbrella of the federal government. If the individual states want to create a HC program according to their perspective constitutions – then fine. The federal gov’t does NOT have the constitutional right to force the states to participate in federal HC. Understand this time?

JB: People keep arguing that private companies can’t compete against government but that isn’t true. Fed-Ex and UPS do it quite well.

Jo: JB when Obama said this in NH, the very first thing *informed people* thought was how scary this comparison was. If the PO is an example of what to eexpect in gov’t HC we’re in big trouble. The PO is failing. Fed Ex and UPS are doing very well — therefor this MAKES the argument that private companies work, and gov’t run programs fail.

Further — Fed Ex and UPS are limited by the USPS – they can’t use the post office for delivery, or mailboxs, etc… Is this what gov’t will do to private insurance?? Limit them??

JB: …Implying that it is some kind of slippery slope. It isn’t.

JO: Yes it is. Toxins or not – dangerous actions and substances are banned. Helmet and seat belt laws are not toxins.

JB: I don’t have exact statistics but I’m guessing the number of serious health problems from sports are nothing compared to liver failure and lung cancer caused by smoking/drinking.

Jo: Funny you should mention statistics! Did you know statistically speaking doctors kill more people than guns? So does that make guns safer than doctors? Of course not. Risk is part of life, in a FREE country we should not be limited by government — unless the risk infringes on another persons rights.

JB: On another side note I hope for your own sake you don’t drive without a seat belt.

Jo: Not the point — the point is legal infringement of the right.

As for the H1N1 vaccine, my point was that rationing in HC happens all the time, I wasn’t placing blame on gov’t or the private sector.

JB: On the topic of rationing, you are very much taking Emanuals article out of context.

Jo: No I’m not — this is EXACTLY what he said regarding HC shortages: “We recommend an alternative system—the complete lives system—which prioritises younger people who have not yet lived a complete life, and also incorporates prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value principles.”

JB: as urban legends says it is extremely difficult how to decide which of 5 patients get 2 hearts.

Jo: No one is disputing this, my point was we don’t choose life saving treatments rationing based on young and old.

JB: Down the road with advances in stem cell research there is a possibility of being able to grow new organs for transplant but that is a discussion for another time.

Jo: Agreed, however medical advancement comes from *producers* (private sector) not consumers (government). You argue that we are limited – this goes without saying, we all agree.

The difference we have is you prefer government HC which will stifle progress (again, by the eventual elimination of private HC via supply/demand) – I prefer private health care that advances science.

JB: I don’t see anything wrong with Obama’s plan.

Jo: Apparently you can’t see it, like I said before it’s like Obama/HC bill supporters are blind to Obamas agenda. The HC plan is only another step to a quite, methodical, Marxist revolution. Any reasonable person can see the path we are on.

I have explained my interpretations on this bill, dispute the bill, instead of the emotional outburst, for a change.

JB: I say you are a disgrace to every single person who died under Nazi Germany by comparing the policies of that government to this one.

Jo: You know very well that I never said Obama is a ruthless dictator. I SAID his upbringing is very similar to Hitlers. They both had alcoholic fathers they felt alone, both wrote books in their 30′s about *themselves*, both wrote their second book on their political philosophies, they were both charismatic, both “rock stars”, etc… Their ideology on the form of government is similar. I did not accuse Obama of anything more.

You and UL KNOW this, yet you misrepresent what I said.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Obama has some very totalitarian ideas, he thinks the constitution is flawed, he believes in spreading the wealth (government robbing producers at the point of a gun), he intends to creat a “civilian national security force” (Hitler did this with a youth program), he supports social justice, the list goes on…

Obama is very, very good at wrapping all this in the guise of “equality and fairness” — but the fact remains his ideology is comparable to some of the worst dictators ideologies of the past. And, BTW no dictator ever ran a campaign of brutality to get in office, brutality comes after the people were tricked into voting for them. Now I’m NOT saying Obama will become brutal, in fact I think he and his ilk are calculated enough to “Nudge” people into accepting this “change” with out brutality.

Oh wait — that’s right some of Obamas minions admit to this this too — regulatory adviser (Czar?) Cass Sunstein wrote about “nudging” people into making “good decisions” — of course those “good decisions” are based on their far left ideology.

http://www.nudges.org/

On the stimulus, it was supposed to create jobs, not spend our tax dollars paying off political allies and thugs. Like ACORN for one example.

In 8 moths Obama has pushed a more radical agenda than any other POTUS in history, Imagine what he’ll do in 4 years.

JB: write about committees: … EXACT SAME thing current insurance companies do with their different plans they offer.

Jo: The difference is as I pointed out to UL, there are MANY insurance companies vs. the eventual reality of ONE gov’t run HC plan. NOW we have a choice – we can choose another plan, in the future of single payer option – we will have only one choice.

Why can’t you comprehend this?

In addition I disagree with the insurance co. playing doctor, don’t you?

JB: urban legends is probably tired of hitting his head against the wall trying to use logic and actual text citations against someone who repeatedly uses overblown and out of proportion interpretations of this bill,

JO: I know how he feels, you are the one who does this! You’ve yet to discuss the bills context. At least UL has. IMO, UL is not interpreting the bill correct, I am. It just proves how vague this bill is. Again would you sign a contract before filling it out? I wouldn’t.

JB: Quite frankly I’m getting a little frustrated with it too.

Jo: Ditto.

JB: The only reason I keep this up is in the hope that visitors to this site who are on the fence have some balance to your brand of crazy.

Jo: There it is — crazy. You left out TEA bagging, racist, redneck. You can’t defend the substance of what I’ve said, so you resort to name calling. typical liberal tactic.

JB: I hope that I won’t have to convince others

Jo: Convince?? I hope readers don’t listen to you or me. I hope they read the bill and decide for themselves. I believe I’m correct, and UL is wrong. I laid out my argument why. Until we have specifics, we won’t know who’s right.

September 6, 2009 at 12:48 pm
(773) Jo says:

I feel the same. Fine by me UL.

September 6, 2009 at 5:59 pm
(774) James says:

This bill doesn’t stipulate that people will be given directions on how to commit suicide, its to educate the people who are sick and may come to a situation where they will not be able to make a decision for themselves about whether or not to pull the plug. Basically so that they understand the procedures and what goes underway….stop jumping to conclusions, you know I’m from Canada and this type of medical healthcare is nothing but beneficial, plus the drug companies don’t run the show anymore…You republicans need to accept good things when they come along and stop fighting everything that Obama is trying to do to make things better.

September 6, 2009 at 8:22 pm
(775) Jo says:

James said: This bill doesn’t stipulate that people will be given directions on how to commit suicide…

————————————

Not even the alleged *hysterical* e-mail says *directions*.

September 6, 2009 at 10:02 pm
(776) JB says:

Jo says, “Tiresome, you keep asking the same question. Please read the constitution again, Article 1 section 8. Congress is limited in their power.”

I have read the constitution Jo. You and I simply disagree on our interpretation of Article 1 Section 8. You are correct that it is tiresome because it is clear neither of us are going to change our views. That doesn’t make either of us wrong it just makes us two people who interpret something differently.

As for private vs. government. You are correct the post office has all the problems. My point was Fed-Ex and UPS still are still are capable of competing. However, I concede that it was a poor example.

The same can’t be said about my example about schools. My sister went to a private college which is thriving. I went to a public college which is also doing well. Last time I checked their were lots of private schools that compete against public schools not because the quality of education at public schools is poor, but because of many other reasons. The same would be true of health care. Thinking that government run health care would put private companies out of business is a logical leap. Your argument is it makes sense because the government plan will be cheaper and so everyone will automatically change. However, this is faulty logic. As shown by private schools people are willing to pay more for services depending on what they want. People who want more comprehensive options, people like you who do not want to be involved with government care, people who like the care they already receive from their health care companies will all keep their own plans.

Next you are correct that helmets and seat belt laws aren’t toxins. However, those laws aren’t controlled by the federal government like actual toxic substances such as alcohol and tobacco are. Seat belt and helmet laws vary state to state. Given your support of state sovereignty I would have thought that you support that.

On the topic of rationing you quote Emanual, “We recommend an alternative system—the complete lives system—which prioritizes younger people who have not yet lived a complete life, and also incorporates prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value principles.” I hate to break it to you Jo, but that isn’t that far from what Organ Donation Networks do now. At a certain age the risk of a transplant is too great regardless of how healthy the person is. Of course they look at prognosis and medical factors such as medical urgency but medical factors being equal they will probably give the heart to someone who is 27 with 50 years to live over someone who is 72 with five years to live. Like I said it isn’t a pleasant reality but it is a reality none the less. In fact if you read the UNOS policies for allocating organs one of the top factors deciding survival likelihood after a transplant is age. To take what Emanual said as support that they are simply going to ‘pull the plug on grandma’ is a huge leap and is one that completely undermines an incredibly complex issue.

Next, medical breakthroughs come from all over. Private and Government. Two of the top medical research sites in the country are the Center for Disease Control and the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Disease (USAMRID) the reason being that these two organizations have access to resources that few other places, public or private, have. Another key organization for medical research is the National Institute of Health (NIH). Add to that that a lot of breakthroughs which occur in the private sector are assisted by federal funding and grants. I’m not try to say a lot of breakthroughs don’t come out of the private sector, I’m just saying that a lot come out of the government agencies too. Frankly, if you look at innovations and breakthroughs as a whole look at how many started as military or government research before becoming widespread.

You then say, “In addition I disagree with the insurance co. playing doctor, don’t you?” First of all NOWHERE in the bill does it say the government insurance will be making medical decisions regarding which treatment can and can’t be covered, second of all PRIVATE insurance companies do the same thing right now deciding which procedures are covered and which aren’t.

You finish by saying, “There it is — crazy. You left out TEA bagging, racist, redneck. You can’t defend the substance of what I’ve said, so you resort to name calling. typical liberal tactic.” First of all I wasn’t calling you crazy I was calling you reasoning crazy, as in not making sense. I already know your going to say the same thing back at me as you have already said it several times along with falsely calling me a socialist who has contempt for this country and needs to have his head examined. You have done just as much name calling as me. Almost all of what I write is a response defending what you say, not some childish emotionally charged name calling. Furthermore I didn’t use redneck or racist or anything else because I don’t think they apply. Anyone who does use them is wrong it would be an insult to you.

You finish by saying, “I hope readers don’t listen to you or me. I hope they read the bill and decide for themselves. I believe I’m correct, and UL is wrong. I laid out my argument why. Until we have specifics, we won’t know who’s right.”

I agree I hope readers don’t simply listen to me and I hope that they don’t simply listen to you. However, if you want a hint at how it turns out if you want the proof in the pudding so to speak read post by people like James who live in countries with National Health Care Plans and are happy with it.

September 7, 2009 at 1:54 pm
(777) Jo says:

JB: I have read the constitution Jo. You and I simply disagree on our interpretation of Article 1 Section 8.

Jo: I suggest you read the federalist papers for a better understanding. Limiting government is a reoccurring theme, under the *just powers* of government:

“In the first place, it is to be remembered, that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws: its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any.” –
James Madison, Federalist No. 14, November 30, 1787

JB: Your argument is it makes sense because the government plan will be cheaper and so everyone will automatically change. However, this is faulty logic.

Jo: Obama, his Czars, and several democrats in congress (Barney Frank among others), admit that this plan will eventually put private insurance out of business — resulting in single payer! Govt’ HC for all! IT IS THEIR ADMITTED PLAN. I’ve produced links numerous times. Are you suggesting they are lying??

This HC bill fines/taxes people who do not have HC (2.5%), this will force people to become insured. They will pick the cheapest plan, and that plan will be gov’t!

You clearly do not understand supply and demand, or basic economics. And I’ve grown tired of trying to teach you. Gov’t schooling vs private is a bad example, many private schools receive funding by government grants – it is a invalid comparison. Every gov’t run entitlement programs continually grow and consume more and more of our tax dollars, they do not produce, they never make a profit. How much more evidence do you need this is a bad idea??

JB: As shown by private schools people are willing to pay more for services depending on what they want.

Jo: We just got done discussing the vast LIMITS of HC, again the schooling comparison doesn’t work.

JB: Next you are correct that helmets and seat belt laws aren’t toxins. However, those laws aren’t controlled by the federal government like actual toxic substances such as alcohol and tobacco are. Seat belt and helmet laws vary state to state.

Jo: THE POINT WAS — violation of our rights. Federally or state to state it is still a violation.

JB: Given your support of state sovereignty I would have thought that you support that.

Jo: How ridiculous. The Bill of Rights cannot be violated by the perspective states, everyone knows this. Again you demonstrate that you do not understand our form of government.

JB (on Emmanuel):I hate to break it to you Jo, but that isn’t that far from what Organ Donation Networks do now.

Jo: (sigh) AGAIN — once there is only ONE choice you will have to follow their plans directives. Currently we have choices and options.

JB: At a certain age the risk of a transplant is too great regardless of how healthy the person is.

JO: THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU — you JUST made my point!! Who decides how old – is TOO old? The gov’t?? Is the age 60, 70, 80??

JB: In fact if you read the UNOS policies for allocating organs one of the top factors deciding survival likelihood after a transplant is age.

Jo: But they don’t deny the transplant based on age.

JB: To take what Emanual said as support that they are simply going to ‘pull the plug on grandma’ is a huge leap and is one that completely undermines an incredibly complex issue.

Jo: YOU just made that leap yourself!

JB: Next, medical breakthroughs come from all over. Private and Government.

Jo: Most discoveries come from the private sector in all industries. If we have only gov’t run HC, doctors pay will be capped, thus less incentive to produce new treatments and medicines etc… Again fundamental economics.

JB: NOWHERE in the bill does it say the government insurance will be making medical decisions regarding which treatment can and can’t be covered,

Jo: You ARE KIDDING aren’t you?? Of course they will! How in the world can they make the three plans if they don’t say what’s covered?? This is passing from ridiculous to silly.

JB: I wasn’t calling you crazy I was calling you reasoning crazy…

JO: If a persons *reasoning* is considered crazy – this would make that person the very definition of crazy, would it not?

JB: falsely calling me a socialist who has contempt for this country and needs to have his head examined.

JO: For arguments sake, tell me what your ideology is. One thing is clear it is not conservative captalist. It is CERTAINLY not progressive in the traditional sense, so what do you call it? You clearly have contempt for our democratic republic, you consistently disagree with all our founding principals, OR you just are ignorant on the subject. BTW there is nothing wrong in wanting a different form of government, but if that what you want you have to recognize what form of government it is, so you can better discuss it.

I have said it is my opinion that anyone who supports this bill in it’s current form should have their head examined — BECAUSE — it is like signing onto contract before it’s filled out. The entire bill is ambiguous. For the third time — would you fill out a contract that was not filled out with the details?

JB: (quoting Jo in the last post)”Until we have specifics, we won’t know who’s right.”

I agree…

Jo: You said in a previous post “I see nothing wrong with Obams plan” but now you agree and say it’s not specific?? Which is it?

JB: However, if you want a hint at how it turns out if you want the proof in the pudding so to speak read post by people like James who live in countries with National Health Care Plans and are happy with it.

Jo: Or you can read about them denying coverage and killing off their elderly in the UK.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6127514/Sentenced-to-death-on-the-NHS.html

September 8, 2009 at 5:55 pm
(778) JB says:

Jo, I am actually very familiar with the federalist papers. I am not surprised you choose to quote one of Madison’s writings. Madison, I concede, probably would have agreed with your interpretation of the constitution given how much he worked in his time to try and limit the federal government.

However, the primary author of the federalist papers, Alexander Hamilton disagreed with that particular point. Hamilton, the first secretary of the Treasury and one of the first constitutional lawyers often favored the federal government when it came to questions of the federal governments abilities.

Furthermore Hamilton’s broad interpretation of federal government power was backed by a unanimous supreme court decision in the land-mark court case McCulloch v. Maryland. In the case it was argued that the National Bank was unconstitutional because it was not specifically covered in the powers of the federal government granted by the constitution, much like your primary argument is that health care is not specifically written in the constitution. The state of Maryland also argued that the bank was in no way “necessary” and therefore Article 1 section 8 clause 18 (The Necessary and Proper Clause) did not apply. The supreme court unanimously disagreed. From the opinion written by chief justice Marshall:”But the question respecting the extent of the powers actually granted, is perpetually arising, and will continue to arise, so long as our system shall exist.” The first thing this shows is that disagreement over the interpretation of the constitution has constantly been debated back to the disagreement between Hamilton and Madison, two of the nations founding fathers. While there are many that agree with your interpretation, there are just as many if not more that agree with Hamilton’s broad interpretation of the powers granted to the government. For you to think that you understand the constitution or our form of government better than me simply because I agree with Hamilton’s interpretations on broader powers of government is ridiculous and insulting. I am also not the only person who considers this bill constitutional. Many extremely intelligent individuals who understand the government very well and who have been studying and debating the meanings of the constitution for most of their lives believe so as well.

Also from Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion, “Among the enumerated powers, we do not find that of establishing a bank or creating a corporation. But there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the articles of confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers; and which requires everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described.” Let me rephrase that last bit as it is kind of important, THERE IS NO PHRASE IN THE CONSTITUTION WHICH EXCLUDES IMPLIED POWERS. THERE IS NO PHRASE IN THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRING EVERY POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO BE EXPRESSLY DESCRIBED. The reason for this is if they had done so the constitution would have been so long and unwieldy that people wouldn’t know what to do with it. Your biggest argument Jo is that none of the enumerated powers of the government expressly include health care therefore it is unconstitutional, but supreme court precedent seems to disagree with that reasoning.

You make another unfounded assumption saying I don’t understand basic economics. Although my education is environmental science, I like almost every other college educated individual had gen-ed courses which included economics. I was top of the economics class. I actually understand economics quite well.

My point with private vs. public school was that people don’t always simply choose the cheapest option, especially when what they are buying is as complex as education (or health care). My sister paid thousands more then I did each semester she went to school because the program offered in her area of study was better. I choose a public school and payed thousands less because their environmental program was better. Like I said there are plenty of people who will take government health care because it is cheaper. Yes private companies will take a big hit in their profits. However, people like you who don’t trust government run health care, people who want to pay more for more comprehensive care, and people who like the service that they already get will most likely stay put even though it might cost them more money.

However, as for the tax against those who do not subscribe to any Health Care Plan, this is one of the few points of this bill I disagree with. Much like I disagree with Massachusetts tax penalty against those without Health Care.

As for transplant procurement and allocation, I haven’t seen anything in this bill suggesting that the government will decide who gets what organs. Insurance companies don’t decide that, they only decide if the treatment is covered. Even the treating physician doesn’t decide. Who gets organs is a decision for organ donation networks such as UNOS. I haven’t heard any suggestion that that will change. And as I said in my last post, medical factors being equal, they will probably give the organs to a 27 year old with 50 years to live, instead of a 72 year old with 5 years to live.

As for your argument that doctors pay will be capped by this plan therefore new treatments and medicine won’t come out, most new treatments and medicines aren’t made by your primary care physician or the surgeon up the street, they are made by doctors who only do research and often times their research is being directly funded by federal grants. Often times the money paid to a medical practice by a insurance company is not what funds major scientific breakthroughs.

As for me calling your reasoning crazy. I should have been more specific that your reasoning on this issue seemed crazy. I would like to believe that your reasoning on other subjects is perfectly fine. A person who is crazy is someone who has little or no complex reasoning skills and as a result usually can not function in society. I’m assuming you are a functioning member of society and likewise I assume you as a person are not crazy.

Next you say, “You clearly have contempt for our democratic republic” Seriously, Jo I thought we got past this insulting and grievously misguided idea you have about me. I love this country and am doing what I think is best for it just as I believe you are doing what you believe is best. I have saluted our flag with pride as have your family members. You also say I, “consistently disagree with all our founding principals” No I do not. I disagree with your principles as it relates to this issue. I disagree with Madison’s interpretation of the powers of the federal government. I agree very much with the founding principles of this country, principles like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I have proudly served this country and its principles. Get it straight.

As for the quote, ”Until we have specifics, we won’t know who’s right.” I was not clear enough. I did not mean to imply that I thought the bill was unspecific. I was saying if you want specifics of how good a national health care plan can be look at countries like the UK and Canada which are ranked higher then us and which people like James seem to be very happy with.

As for the article you posted it only deals with people deemed terminally ill. The idea of the policy was to easy suffering of those who will die regardless of what is done. I admit doctors make mistakes and misdiagnose patients, happens here as much as the UK. In fact given that we are ranked lower then the UK in preventable deaths by the World Health Organization its very possible it happens more. Furthermore, given the inclusion of this bills end-of-life consultations that would help avoid the problem mentioned in your article, Jo, because even if a team of doctors deems a patient terminal a patient can still say “I don’t want sedation I don’t want to go without a fight I want you to do everything medically and humanly possible to save me until my heart stops and can’t be started again.”

This bill is not the unconstitutional evil you seem to think it is and I sincerely hope that people who read the bill and decide for themselves see that.

September 9, 2009 at 2:23 pm
(779) Jo says:

Hamilton has been found wrong-headed by history. He fought the limitation of the power of the federal government, he fought against the creation of the Bill of Rights, and he fought against staying debt-free. He fought for a centralized gov’t bank etc… He used modern spin techniques – in the name of freedom (a tactic that continues). Because of this he was literally reviled by some of the other Founders. In fact, his ideology, can be directly blamed for establishing of the legalisms which enable all federal overreaching, as well as the creation of the Federal Reserve.

Bank involved with government, are what created the problems we have today.

The left interprets the Constitution in effort to expand government. Time has not changed this. However in 1833 Joseph Story, in Commentaries on the Constitution said:

“The constitution of the United States is to receive a reasonable interpretation of its language, and its powers, keeping in view the objects and purposes, for which those powers were conferred. By a reasonable interpretation, we mean, that in case the words are susceptible of two different senses, the one strict, the other more enlarged, that should be adopted, which is most consonant with the apparent objects and intent of the Constitution.”

The intent of the constitution is to LIMIT government expansion.It constrains congress.

The left abhors this constraint, so they systematically overreach, use a technicality to win a judicial victory, then uses that win as a legal basis to justify more over reaching. And so on. In direct opposition of the LIMITS on congress.

What astounds me is the demonstrable fact(s) that multiple programs and policies of our government are complete and abject failures.

YET the left ignores all the evidence and still believes that gov’t HC will work!

Tell me if you had a mechanic that screwed up your car all the time, would you keep going back to that mechanic?? I wouldn’t.

The poor, the jobless, the homeless, the hopeless, are all a direct result of government meddling, contrary to the pol’s claims. They promise the gullible the moon, and deliver them what? Welfare checks, public housing, food stamps, now HC, etc… they make the masses dependent and needy on gov’t for votes, and power — nothing more. They do not care about the welfare of the people.

Our government all too often causes a problem, so they can fix it to make political points with voters.

JB Shouts: THERE IS NO PHRASE IN THE CONSTITUTION WHICH EXCLUDES IMPLIED POWERS. THERE IS NO PHRASE IN THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRING EVERY POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO BE EXPRESSLY DESCRIBED.

Jo: We already have government HC coverage – Medicaid. It is not “necessary or proper” for the government to provide INSURACE. You do realize the difference don’t you?

The Elastic Clause in Section 8 of Article 1, was intended for unforeseen technologies such as an Airforce that did not exsist at the time of the founders. Health care DID exsist at the time of the founders and they PURPOSELY did not include HC as a right of the people or job of congress.

Think! If there are no limits on government than what was the point of the limits outlined in the constitution? Why bother with them?

As for schooling compared to HC, again it IS NOT comparable! HC one MUST have, schooling is optional!

Government HC WILL eliminate private options.

JB: However, as for the tax against those who do not subscribe to any Health Care Plan, this is one of the few points of this bill I disagree with. Much like I disagree with Massachusetts tax penalty against those without Health Care.

Jo: Just curious — why?? Isn’t it fair that all pay in? Why is it fair that some have to pay and others don’t?

JB: As for transplant procurement and allocation, I haven’t seen anything in this bill suggesting that the government will decide who gets what organs.

Jo: Your the one stuck on organs, not me. I was originally referring to the elderly and young.

JB: factors being equal, they will probably give the organs to a 27 year old with 50 years to live, instead of a 72 year old with 5 years to live.

Jo: Will they dole out end of life medicines the same?

JB (on research): they are made by doctors who only do research and often times their research is being directly funded by federal grants.

Jo: JB this is completely untrue, discoveries often come from doctors in the field. And if government is the only one paying for new tech — then we are in BIG trouble.

JB: As for the article you posted it only deals with people deemed terminally ill. The idea of the policy was to easy suffering of those who will die regardless of what is done.

JO: I had an aunt who was diagnosed with glandular cancer the doctors gave her 3 months to live — she lived for 12 more years!

So WHO CHOOSES?? What is the process of determining ones TIME of death? Had my Aunt lived in the UK she’d have been killed by the system denying her medication. A similar system to what Obama wants, that will inevitably have to ration resources.

To the readers, the decision is simple.

Pick one:

You trust our government with your life.

Or you don’t.

September 10, 2009 at 9:59 am
(780) Kim says:

Irresponsible writing. This is nothing new. Do you know everyone is asked and counseled about end of life services? Ask anyone in a nursing home. Ask anyone who has stepped foot in a hospital. It’s advanced directives and living wills. Obama didn’t create that. Give me a break and quit trying to scare people. It is good practice and good health care to let people make their wishes known. It isn’t to commit suicide. Use some common sense for goodness sake.

September 10, 2009 at 11:14 am
(781) Notapundit says:

Section 1233 does not advocate or mandate counseling about suicide or euthanasia. It mandates periodic that periodic health-planning sessions take place at mandated intervals and that these sessions include, under some conditions, end-of-life counseling.

This may be preferable to mandated suicide or euthanasia counseling, but it is adequately obnoxious by itself.

To mandate that seniors subject themselves to this counseling as a perquisite to receiving health care is nothing short of extortion.

Section 1233 is also bears the signature of many other sections of the proposed bill, as well as the existing medicare legislation, whereby control of the patient care is taken from providers and patients and is instead micromanaged by politicians. It is nothing less than an infringement of basic freedom.

September 10, 2009 at 11:38 am
(782) urbanlegends says:

Notapundit writes:

“It mandates that periodic health-planning sessions take place at mandated intervals and that these sessions include, under some conditions, end-of-life counseling.”

Would you mind showing us the language in the bill whereby the sessions are “mandated”? Thanks.

September 10, 2009 at 11:57 am
(783) Notapundit says:

I stand corrected. Section 1861 of the Social Security Act specifies covered services, not conditions for service.

September 10, 2009 at 1:43 pm
(784) Larry Waters says:

Legitimate policy debate includes honest questioning and offering up alternatiives.
Making law requires a willingness to work together on a set of improving compromises.
Using misinformation and name calling, no matter who does it, is neither funny, nor is it good for the country. “Winning” by these tactics in not winning at all, and is unpatriotic.

September 10, 2009 at 6:49 pm
(785) Jake says:

I am shocked to read from so many people with apparent IQ’s over 60 that this will be “free” healthcare. Get real. The governnment first has to steal the money from me to give to your sorry ass! It’s free to your no good ass because I paid for it so you can continue buying your pot and crack and doin’ da meth wit yo money! Lazy bastards. Go to work!

September 10, 2009 at 9:01 pm
(786) Jo says:

I reiterate:

You trust the government with your life.

Or you don’t.

The bill, as is (vague), asks us to trust the government’s HC committees to interpret details later.

I ask reasonable posters, would any of you sign a contract without the *specific* details? No, of course not. Same idea.

There are *legitimate* concerns – perhaps it’s time to do the homework instead of listening to the MSM.

BTW Obama said this bill won’t cover illegal immigrants. For arguments sake, let’s say that’s 100% correct. (Debatable, but let’s say…)
What if he passes his amnesty bill (that he ran on), right after the HC bill?

Illegals, will be eligible for coverage by “getting in the back of the line”.

(Not and opinion on bad/good idea, just showing the half truth rhetoric of BO – and btw, it happens in BOTH parties. This of course resulted in Wilson’s outburst of “you lie”. Which I denounce.)

September 12, 2009 at 12:38 am
(787) JB says:

Jo, first of all many still credit Hamilton as one of the most influential founding fathers next to the likes of Madison and Washington. Hence why he is immortalized with his picture on the ten dollar bill. (Which by the way he is one of only two people to be honored in such a way without becoming president, the other of course being Ben Franklin). Hamilton has many other signs of his great service to this country like the fact that the main building at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy is named Hamilton Hall. (A tribute to the fact that Hamilton founded the predecessor to the coast guard.)

I do like how you kept referencing the federalist papers then respond like you did when I referenced the primary author of the federalist papers, Alexander Hamilton.

However, for arguments sake lets say you are correct that history considered him to be wrong-headed. That does not change the fact that a unanimous supreme court decision agreed with that assessment. Need I remind you that supreme court precedent sets the law of the land. When I “shouted” “THERE IS NO PHRASE IN THE CONSTITUTION WHICH EXCLUDES IMPLIED POWERS. THERE IS NO PHRASE IN THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRING EVERY POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO BE EXPRESSLY DESCRIBED.” Those weren’t my ideas, although I agree with them, they are paraphrasing of chief justice Marshall’s. This isn’t some technicality this is a legal precedent from the highest court in the land. Your argument about necessary and proper is the same one that was made and subsequently rejected in the court case McCullough v. Maryland. Legally according to supreme court precedent your argument has no legs to stand on.

Jo, you then say, “As for schooling compared to HC, again it IS NOT comparable! HC one MUST have, schooling is optional!” A side from the fact that the reference was simply meant to illustrate that private institutions can compete against public ones, a point I still stand by, you highlight the biggest need for this reform when you respond by saying,”HC one MUST have.” Without serious checks on the system as is right now many won’t get the service you yourself call a must. At the point we are at now those checks must come from the government or a not-for-profit agency. Just look at the fact that 40 million are uninsured at the moment with more getting dropped from insurance all the time. This can not and should be allowed to happen in a country as great as this. People should not be turned away from a service you yourself call a must because of pre-existing conditions.

As for the tax, I hadn’t looked at that particular section of the bill as closely as others. I did not realize until President Obama’s Speech that their would be hardship waivers for those falling below the poverty line. The reason I opposed the tax before finding out about the waivers was because I thought it would but to much pressure on the people in this country facing the toughest economic hardships.

You then mention your aunt who would be dead right now if she lived in the UK. This debate isn’t about the health care in the UK its about the proposed health care reform here in the United States. As I said in the previous post problems similar to what were highlighted in the article you posted won’t happen in the U.S. because of the end-of-life counseling. Under the proposed system she would have been told she had a disease which is usually terminal within a certain period of time, she would have been given all the options, and if she wanted to do everything to fight it she could and she would have that opportunity.

As one of the doctors in that article says, predicting death is far from an exact science. Despite the many medical advances we have made, there is still so much that we don’t understand about the biological processes we go through as well as how they react to things like cancer or other terminal diseases which are still poorly understood relatively speaking.

As for you denouncing Wilson’s outburst of ‘You Lie!” during the president’s speech, I applaud you for that. As I have said the only way to find an answer to health care that works is through civil discussion of the pros and cons and what Wilson did was far from civil.

However, the simple fact is you Jo have shown yourself time and time again to be unwilling to face compromise. Even after Obama eased up on his support of the public option (as did I for arguments sake at one point in the debate) you continued to attack this bill, his administration and all those who support it. You show at the end of your post 772 how much you see the world in black and white when you say, “To the readers, the decision is simple. Pick one:
You trust our government with your life. Or you don’t.” The fact is plenty of people support this bill while still being suspicious of government, plenty people in this bill support parts of this bill not all of it. You however seem to view not only this bill but the entire Obama administration in black and white refusing to credit a single good idea or action he or anyone in his party has made. You refuse to credit good arguments made here in this forum. This black and white way of looking at things is what is so infuriating if not down right dangerous because nothing about the topics discussed in this debate are simple or black and white. Nothing. Arguing as if they are is what skews information and distracts from the real issues.

I could go through you history of arguments and pick out time after time where you have done this. Hamilton wasn’t all wrong, he was and still is considered one of the most influential individuals in the founding of this country, just like Madison. Both had good ideas and probably some bad ones. One bill does not make Obama a socialist and supporting said bill sure doesn’t make me and the MILLIONS of other people in this country who support it socialists. Section 1233 has nothing to do with death panels or even ‘nudging’ people towards letting go. Time after time after time you do this.

For those of who reading these arguments, as I have said before don’t take my word for it or simply accept what I say any more then what Jo says, read the bill, read the constitution, read the federalist papers, read the many arguments on both side of this debate and see the truth for yourself.

September 12, 2009 at 6:40 pm
(788) Carol says:

I am truly amazed at some of the comments. Mr. Emery clearly stated that the text in the current health care bill amends the Social Security Act to

“stipulate that Medicare will pay for — not mandate — “advance care planning consultations” between individuals and physicians every five years, during which a spectrum of end-of-life options can be explained and discussed so said individuals can knowledgeably choose their own treatment preferences in advance.”

The “mandate” is for medicare reimbursement. No where in the bill does it require a patient to participate in an “end of life” consultation.

I don’t know about everyone else, but I would like that consultation as I prefer to make “informed” decisions.

September 12, 2009 at 7:35 pm
(789) Mike says:

Whatever happened to the good old days in America when the government never got in the way of capitalism and growing companies and wealthy men could rape and exploit the lower class. Damn you Upton Sinclair! Damn you Teddy Roosevelt!

September 13, 2009 at 7:52 am
(790) Brad says:

People READ, there is nothing here that says that this is required. This allows people how are terminally ill to make choices as to what they want when they are no longer able to speak for themselves.
The fact is that most of us are selfish when it becomes evident that there is nothing more that came be done. There comes a point when we need to let go and let our love ones go on to meet their maker. This is the money issue, when we hold on to someone because we are not willing to let them go, we cost the rest of us money. Plain and simple…

September 14, 2009 at 1:11 pm
(791) bill says:

It amazes me that people actually believe this crap that the government will promote suicide as an option. Advanced Care Planning is what responsible people do to ensure that they are taken care of. Mr. Emery should go back to writing sit-coms or I guess he really hasn’t stopped.

September 14, 2009 at 2:14 pm
(792) urbanlegends says:

Bill writes:

It amazes me that people actually believe this crap that the government will promote suicide as an option. Advanced Care Planning is what responsible people do to ensure that they are taken care of. Mr. Emery should go back to writing sit-coms or I guess