You are not signed in (Login or Join Free)   |   Help
Sploofus Trivia
Trivia GamesCommunityLeaderboardsTournaments
MySploofus
You are here:  Home  >>  Chat Forums  >>  The Salty Dog  >>  View Chat Message

View Chat Message



Pages:  1    


1mks
1mks  (Level: 210.8 - Posts: 5883)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 8:14 AM

PAGE 425 OF THE HEALTH CARE BILL

http://tinyurl.com/mcmq6h

So much for our "golden years".




collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.7 - Posts: 9952)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 8:31 AM

Thank you, Marsha.

We all should listen to this.

Personally I would have no problem* with shifting medical resources from the elderly to the younger generations (but not in this cold-hearted way) IF the Obama administration would be forthright and candid about it.

Beverly dear, whaddaya think about this ??????

(* even if I still lived in the US)

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 8:40 AM

Thank you for posting this, Marsha.


jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 8:57 AM

It's time we start believing the words in front of us, rather than those who would try to pull the wool over our eyes.

The truth is right in front of us in the words in the bill.

Please see Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 9:02 AM

When admitting someone to the hospital, I'm required (and have been for several yrs) to ask each and every patient (or their family, if they're not able to answer), if they want us to resuscitate them if they stop breathing or their heart stops. That scares a lot of people, and I'm quick to explain that it's something that we have to ask everyone.
As I understand it, this bill requires counseling sessions (probably just something signed by you and your doc) so that your decisions will be known BEFORE you go to the hospital.
Issues such as hospice care and power of attorney are also included.
Can someone give me a link to the actual bill that supposedly supports euthanasia etc? The actual bill, not someone's version.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 9:06 AM

Of course not.

1. The last thing they want is for us to read the bill.

2. They didn't even read the bill themselves.

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 9:08 AM

Then how do you know that's what it says?

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 9:10 AM

It's not online for us to read. But there obviously are people who have seen it and are reporting the best and worst parts.

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 9:11 AM

When I am at the end of my life I hope I will be able to be receive counseling about my options.

This is nothing but a scare tactic to frighten seniors. I think it's despicable.

The Deathers are worse than the Birthers, and equally dishonest.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 9:12 AM

There's not one thing that has ever prevented a senior citizen - or anyone else - to talk with your doctor about the options of care toward the end of your life.

Why would the federal government have to interfere or infer that you don't already have that right?

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 9:14 AM

It's agreeing to pay for it, Jank, that's all. No mandate, no force.

It's an OPTION. You've probably heard of those, we get them now and then during Democratic administrations.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 9:16 AM

No - it's a requirement every five years, according to those who represent your side.

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 9:19 AM

Yes, there is a page 425 of the thousand-plus-page bill, and on it is Sec. 1233, "Advance Care Planning Consultation." It would allow Medicare, for the first time, to cover the cost of end-of-life counseling sessions. Here's what it says:

"Such consultation shall include the following: An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to; an explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses; an explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy."

It doesn't make counseling sessions mandatory, nor does it make anyone agree to anything. Consultation is purely voluntary, and Medicare will pay for it once every five years unless there's a change in a patient's health status.

It would allow doctors to be paid for talking with patients about options such as living wills (hospitals already ask about this) and the kind of end-of-life care they want (such as a Do Not Resuscitate order) so their wishes are known.

Jon Keyserling, general counsel and vice president of public policy for the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, said the health care proposal doesn't encourage euthanasia, it allows for important counseling for decisions that take time and consideration. "These are very serious conversations," he said. "It needs to be an informative conversation from the medical side and it needs to be thought about carefully by the patient and their families."

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 9:20 AM

And about paying for it, I've never had my insurance company ask what I discussed with my doctor during my visits to make decisions which part they pay for it. Are you saying that if this health bill passes, the government will decide what part of my discussions with my doctor will be paid for by insurance?

Freedom. We used to stand for freedom. I hope we do again soon.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 9:21 AM

It's a waste to add to the cost of something that is already covered by insurance as though they are improving anything.

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 9:30 AM

The doctors and medical facilities would like such consultations to be separate paid services, is my understanding.

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 9:31 AM

Much better to decide things like living wills while you're healthy, and in your right mind. I don't want someone else deciding what's right for me if I'm incapacitated. They might want my millions.

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 9:34 AM

And it could still be stricken from the final bill, it's just one provision up for discussion.

I'm not fighting for it as some sacred right that must be funded, I could probably do without it, I'm only saying it shouldn't be used so dishonestly to scare people, it's not a mandate for euthanasia as the Rushbecks would have us fear.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.7 - Posts: 9952)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 9:35 AM

a requirement every five years



sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 9:36 AM

so friggin what? That you tell your doctor every 5 yrs if you want cpr or not?

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 9:37 AM

It doesn't make counseling sessions mandatory, nor does it make anyone agree to anything. Consultation is purely voluntary, and Medicare will pay for it once every five years unless there's a change in a patient's health status.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 9:39 AM

Sandra I couldn't agree more. That's why each of us has the personal responsibility to get a will and put our wishes in it, and/or talk with our family about it. My parents did all this with their doctor when they became senior citizens. There was never any question what their wishes were and they didn't pay a dime extra for it. It is bad stewardship of taxpayer money to include a provision that is already taken care of by us personally for free.

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 9:39 AM

Medicare will pay for it once every five years unless there's a change in a patient's health status.

Presumably a change in one's health status might precipitate a change in one's thinking.

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 9:41 AM

Jank, I'll give you the the benefit of the doubt on "bad stewardship" if you take back "forced euthanasia".

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 9:44 AM

Sorry, I am not a member of the House of Representatives. I have no power to "take back forced euthanasia". But I too wish they would.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.7 - Posts: 9952)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 9:45 AM

Sandy, this is not as innocent as it seems, or it would not be a requirement.

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 9:49 AM

Jank,
All that means nothing when you're admitted to a hospital. No connection between the drs. office and the hospital that way. If you come in, brain dead say, and you have a living will that states you want no life support, well, if your family wants you kept alive, that's what you get. Happens every day.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 9:52 AM

Then that is the right of the family. The government should not be mandated stepping over the wishes of the family who loves that person. The government loves no one and cares about no one. It merely tries to control where your tax money goes.

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 9:54 AM

Coll, we keep so many nearly dead folks alive who didn't want it in the first place. The patients wishes aren't being met. Perhaps the "mandatory" signing of the "do not resuscitate" order would be more binding.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 9:54 AM

Do you think the government is better prepared to make life and death decisions over a family member than the family itself who know that person?

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 9:58 AM

Jank, do you really think that the rights of the family outweigh the rights of the patient? Geez, I really hope your kids like you a lot.
Also, decisions made during stressful times (like dying family members) are often emotional, irrational.
Why shouldn't the wishes of the person who decided for himself what he wanted be honored?

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.7 - Posts: 9952)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 9:58 AM

Sandy, I have no problem with any of this as long as we are in control.

However, we won't be.

garrybl
Garrybl  (Level: 279.5 - Posts: 6639)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 10:00 AM

Can I throw in my two pennyworth?
I admire the general tone of this discussion. No personal insults, no overly strong and emotive language?
As a non-citizen I'm not sure how much extends to me yet but I'd like the option to decide for mysewlf on euthanasia and I'd like everyone to be offered that option -- at least every five years.
(And I have a few candidates I'll be happy to vote for.)

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 10:02 AM

What is it we won't be in control of Coll? And which is it that we're in control of now, while you're at it?

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 10:05 AM

Garry - do you have the right to legal euthanasia where you live now?

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 10:07 AM

If you go in brain dead, you're not really much caring, are you? However, the family that loves you is very involved and deserves the right to decide at that point.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21598)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 10:08 AM

Sandy, there are 3 separate bills out of the House and one out of the Senate-lotsa luck finding them all. Obama does NOT have a plan. Had my routine 3 mos visit with my doc this am to have my scripts refilled. Talked about health care with him-he does not like any of the plans floating around out there. He practiced medicine in Canada for 10 years prior to coming here. He said like I already knew that Canada has a gov. plan-. He told me though that in Canada you have to screw up big time to be sued for malpractice. He has a neurologist friend here who has been sued 3 times-his insurance costs him $125,000 per year Each time he has ended up settling out of court but too costly to pursue. He also told me what I already knew that there will be a horrible shortage of family docs like him. Just would make sense to reduce costs by tort reform-but nothing being done in DC makes sense

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.7 - Posts: 9952)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 10:08 AM

Sandy, wise up. They're going to be rationing services to seniors.

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 10:13 AM

Colliure, have you read the bill? I admit that I haven't.
Any Canadians or British folks here (that aren't filthy rich) ready to give up their healthcare system? (Asked with all sincerity)

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.7 - Posts: 9952)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 10:16 AM

Of course not, but that's one place they need big savings.

Don't be naive, Sandy.

They're playing games with the truth every day. It's not about covering the uninsured as that could be accomplised with less drastic leasures. It' all about a federa

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.7 - Posts: 9952)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 10:17 AM

Of course not, but that's one place they need big savings.

Don't be naive, Sandy.

They're playing games with the truth every day. It's not about covering the uninsured as that could be accomplished with less drastic measures. It's all about a federal takeover for which they do not have the money.

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 10:19 AM

Coll, why do people in all the countries with universal healthcare live longer than Americans?

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 10:21 AM

I should say "most". Including almost all of Western Europe.

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 10:31 AM

It's one thing to debate the bill on its merits. It's quite another to try to drive it with scare tactics, distractions and deliberate misrepresentations. If you're pushing the forced euthanasia angle - matter of fact, if you're a Birther OR a Deather - if you are spreading the accusation that the president was born in Kenya (or anywhere besides the US), and if you think or say that health care reform is a dark plot to kill off old people, then you're either dishonest or ignorant or nuts or all three.

I do not retreat from that statement.

That Betsy person combed the bill to find something to scare people with and page 425 was it. They count on very few people knowing what it actually says, and by the time it can be explained to them the Rushbecks have stirred up a dirty fog of fear and false accusations. They want people so scared they can't hear anything. Fear is what they do best.


jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 10:42 AM

Personal responsibility has more to do with life expectancy than whether a country has universal life insurance.

The United States has more obesity (a personal responsibility issue) which leads to more illnesses and younger deaths. We are not obese because the government hasn't provided enough education programs paid for by taxpayer money, any more than people smoke for that same reason.

We are obese and practice unhealthy behaviors because we are free to do so. The very fact that the United States is such a rich nation leads to more choices of food which sadly are not always healthy. But we are (and I'd like to see us remain) a free country, and that means people have the right to make bad choices in what they eat.

Also, the United States has many jobs that are sedentary. Sitting all day also leads to health issues.

The United States, because of no federal interference so far into expenditures on advanced techniques, uses more experimental procedures on infants during pregnancy and afterward, which without consideration makes it appear we have a higher infant mortality. Babies may be kept alive a little longer by extraordinary means through birth and beyond, but often these babies don't make it out of infancy. Also, illegal drug usage by prenant women leads to higher mortality rates in infants.

My personal belief for which I cannot find a study to support, is that use of illegal drugs by so many, rich or poor, over the past 50 years has lead to health problems and has resulted in the US having a lower life expectancy. People who are addicted to illegal drugs often use their money for drugs rather than for healthy food and healthy behaviors that would promote health and longer life.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 10:50 AM

Smoke said:

"if you're a Birther OR a Deather - if you are spreading the accusation that the president was born in Kenya (or anywhere besides the US), and if you think or say that health care reform is a dark plot to kill off old people, then you're either dishonest or ignorant or nuts or all three...I do not retreat from that statement...That Betsy person combed the bill to find something to scare people with and page 425 was it."

I ask you to consider again Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals (which tactics Donna has followed for years in Salty Dog):

Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

By applying rule #5, we see that the use of the words "birther" or "deather" is an attack of ridicule. Change to the birther question is an attack of ridicule. "Dishonest...ignorant..nuts" is an attack of ridicule. None of the 3 have anything to do with the discussion of this thread.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.7 - Posts: 9952)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 10:51 AM

If it is true, Sandy, you might start looking at their diets, lifestyles . . .

because if you're really sick, you want to be in the USA.

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 10:53 AM

Hey, we're # 30 on the list. I'll give you that we try to save more premature infants who unforunately die, but don't think that's the problem. Obesity yes. Agreed. Obesity in this day and age is linked to poverty oddly enough. (also diabetes)
The culprit? Cheap fast food. Full of corn and corn syrup from our corporate farmers receiving socialistic-like support from the government.

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 10:53 AM

Yes, Jank, we all realize you think everyone should be as responsible and self-sufficient as you are, and the world might even be a better place if that were true, but the fact is, in the real world they're not, and a huge number of them are children and old people, and many are chronically and critically ill, and yes, many are addicted to one or more abusable substances both legal and illegal, with few prospects for help. That's reality.

Do you turn your back on them all and wash your hands because YOU are not obese or otherwise self-destructive, and YOU have squirreled away nuts enough for winter, and tough luck on them if they have not?

You imply so disingenuously that the Democrats would attempt to thin the herd by euthanasia. Your side would do it by neglect and attrition.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.7 - Posts: 9952)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 10:55 AM

Oh, please, Donna

Not that silly argument again.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 10:56 AM

My side did not write the bill.

The words in the bill speak for themselves.

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 10:58 AM

What you say may be true, Jank, but I formed my response without knowledge of Mr Alinsky, whose name i've only ever seen in your posts.

I'm not a radical, but I ridicule the liars who spread disinformation and fear. I believe they are damaging my country.

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 10:58 AM

Coll, I must have missed something. Which silly argument?

madamec8
Madamec8  (Level: 82.5 - Posts: 893)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 10:59 AM

This was supposed to be a health care plan for the 20-30 million chronically uninsured -- look what it has become -- you better be afraid -- scare tactics do serve a purpose, like scare the crap out of those who think it's no big deal. And taxpayers are going to pay $510 billion for this piece of caca plan.

Be very afraid. I'm serious.



smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 11:04 AM

Fine. Be afraid of what it might cost and how disruptive it might be. Valid concerns.

But don't be afraid (or worse, pretend that you are) that the evil Obama socialist demons are going to force you to sign the papers to pull the plug on your life support. That's paranoid schizophrenia. Or something very like it.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 11:05 AM

Uh oh, Donna. You quoted Saul Alinsky the first time I brought him up - I didn't. That means you have heard of him and you know of his writings.

It was in the thread where you said progressives don't think of Hillary as a progressive, though she said she thinks of herself as one. I wrote that I was surprised and didn't know that, and I asked you what it was about Hillary's beliefs that progressives did not agree with - you never answered that question. You just did the Rules for Radicals bait and switch and ignored my question.

If I need to, I'll do a search to find our previous posts, because your words quoting him are there for all to see.

goddess28
Goddess28  (Level: 92.6 - Posts: 5236)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 11:05 AM

My moms a radical? LOL!!!!!!!

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 11:07 AM

I think that with the layoffs due to the economic downturn (crash) that the numbers are significantly higher now. I'm afraid of what our country will become without a new healthcare plan. From what I've heard, Obama favors a single payer system, but is in no way insisting on it.


sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 11:10 AM

Smoke is the President of that radical group the SDS.


sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 11:11 AM

oh, the "Sploofus Dallying Society"

goddess28
Goddess28  (Level: 92.6 - Posts: 5236)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 11:15 AM

LOL! How utterly ridiculous!

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.7 - Posts: 9952)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 11:15 AM

Donna, that one party wants to starve seniors.

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 11:19 AM

Where's the beef Coll?
That's a very strong statement.

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.7 - Posts: 9952)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 11:25 AM

I know, Sandy.

We heard it about 15 years ago.

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 11:29 AM

Was that your final answer?

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 11:40 AM

I don't think so, Jank. I think you or someone else posted about him before and I wiki'd him and responded, I don't remember what it was about, but I was not familiar at all with him before that conversation, whatever it was. Good luck proving I've read his work, other than what's to be found online. What I know, which is little, came from wiki or links from it, and it was looked up in response to the previous conversation. Did I find something from him that said Hillary is not a progressive? That is a possibility but it hardly makes me a disciple.

By all means, go find it, I don't care.

I'm still not a radical, never memorized the Radical Handbook. I'm not ridiculing birthers and deathers because I read somewhere ridicule is a "tactic" I should use on a freaking trivia message board. I do it because they are ridiculous. And what is painting the president as a foreigner, a clown, a villain, a socialist, Hitler, Satan and a murderer of the elderly but ridicule?

It is ridiculous to believe the president is not an American and he wants to kill old people. R.I.D.I.C.U.L.O.U.S.

It is much worse than ridiculous, it is reprehensible to foster such a beliefs in others if you do not sincerely share them. Unpatriotic at the very least.



goddess28
Goddess28  (Level: 92.6 - Posts: 5236)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 11:45 AM

hehehehehe.

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 11:50 AM

All this opposition, and the only thing they can come up with is a requirement on 1 page that people decide for themselves what they would like (or not) done medically, if they are unable to answer for themselves at the time?
Where is the outrage from the insurance people?

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 11:53 AM

I think you're looking at it.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21598)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 11:59 AM


collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.7 - Posts: 9952)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 12:04 PM

Large power grab and not for the objectives stated early on.

Be very afraid.

Colleen is correct.

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 12:10 PM

Smoke posted the link to page 425. What's in it that has everyone so upset?

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 12:16 PM


caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21598)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 12:20 PM

If you look at the questions I posted that is a real small part of why folks should be afraid and we should be VERY afraid. I made my end of life decisions several years ago and those wishes are in the proper hands-my hope is it might make decisions easier for my kids if they have to make them. My dad died of kidney cancer and was in Hospice care. On the frig was posted a big yellow sign in case anyone called 911 which said DO NOT RESUCIATE. Life end decisions are difficult often on loved ones if the person is in pain.-Think we all kinda hope that some day we will all go to sleep and simply not wake up. Unfortunately, that is not often the case

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 12:28 PM

You are correct. This is an eye opener and has been to many who have been members of AARP for years. If you look on the AARP site, you will find many posts by people who are now cancelling their membership after years because of AARP's support for this bill.



caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21598)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 12:28 PM

Haven't quite figured out the agenda of AARP certainly no longer represent me.but know I destroyed my card. They have let themselves be co-opted. If you look at their campaign which I am might prove of interest.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21598)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 12:38 PM

should have read campaign donations

fudypatootie
Fudypatootie  (Level: 197.1 - Posts: 1302)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 12:47 PM

As to the life expectancy debate, the US rates for deaths due to car accidents and violence are much higher than in other countries. That could certainly play a part in our numbers, and would not in any way be improved by a new health care program.

Just remember as you read and listen to all the debating of this subject that there are "lies, damned lies, and statistics."

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.7 - Posts: 9952)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 1:05 PM

Donna, I live under socialized medicine and my biggest problem here is the government's active campaign to discourage the use of antibiotics against respiratory infections. I have seen what the government sends to my doctor on this subject, and it is based more on cost than on effectiveness.

Because of this foolish campaign that allows serious colds to become more serious infections while patients get more miserable and miss more work, I had the worst Christmas of my life here in 2003. Avoidance of antibiotics when colds progress downward to sore throats, laryngitis and pneumonia, leads to even more expensive antibiotics and many more doctor visits. Penny wise on the first visit and pound foolish in terms of eventual cure.

Comparative effectiveness research or not, you don't want the government intervening between you and your doctor.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21598)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 1:20 PM


collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.7 - Posts: 9952)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 1:32 PM

BTW, Donna, one of the AARP's arguments against Betsy McCaughey was that she represents a company in the health care industry. Well, lots of those companies have influence inside government and could influence medical policy nationwide.

bigmama60
Bigmama60  (Level: 95.2 - Posts: 6648)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 2:00 PM

Andy
As I have said REPEATEDLY it is another scare tactic coming from those who represent the interests of the Fat Cats and want to maintain the status quo. In the thread about the uninsured I posted the truth. Here it is again-- MYTH#5
**************************************************************
http://pascrell.house.gov/apps/list/press/nj08_pascrell/pr72120093.shtml

5. MYTH: The government will pull the plug on dying seniors (i.e. end-of-life planning).
TRUTH: There is nothing in health reform that will deny seniors or any individual needed medical care. Health reform provides for voluntary advanced care planning consultations under Medicare so that seniors can sit down with their health care providers to discuss end-of-life care, rather than leaving these decisions to families during difficult times. The advanced care planning provided for in the legislation allows for thoughtful discussion between a senior, their family, and their health care provider. The government will have no authority over the contents of such plans.

****************************************************************************************************************************
Smoke has also provided this links for you to read

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/euthanasia.asp

http://www.takepart.com/blog/2009/07/27/scare-tactics-page-425-of-the-healthcare-bill/

http://urbanlegends.about.com/b/2009/07/27/health-care-bill-page-425-the-truth.htm

http://www.newshounds.us/2009/08/03/bill_hemmer_promotes_debunked_by_fox_news_misinformation_on_health_care_reform_.php

http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/4698/how_mainstream_media_coverage_fuels_right-wing/as proved the links for others here to read which dispute the confusion (scare tactics)

I also think; it’s a noble idea to provide counseling sessions for a person to have. That gives the patient his choice to die in the dignified fashion they choose before hand.

In my opinion the current system will kill a person who doesn't have insurance.



collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.7 - Posts: 9952)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 2:10 PM

Beverly, you are such a true believer and follower that you just are not credible.

The bait-and-switch by the President plus the tactics being used in the Congress tell us all to be far more inquisitive and doubting.

We surely do not need such a enormous plan just to bring the uninsured into the fold.

smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 2:15 PM

"Comparative effectiveness research or not, you don't want the government intervening between you and your doctor.".

In America we already have bureaucrats invtervening between us and our doctor, they are called insurance agents. They seem similar to me, and they deny people coverage all day long.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21598)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 2:24 PM

It is really hard being so ignorant that I don't know what is good foir me sigh http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/08/04/oreilly_on_the_health_care_duel.html

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.7 - Posts: 9952)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 2:25 PM

They don't tell your doctor how to practice, do they Jeremy?

bigmama60
Bigmama60  (Level: 95.2 - Posts: 6648)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 2:43 PM

Andy,
How you can take pride in America when we have a health system that spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries?

Wouldn't it be logical to utilize the resources for the lesser many? When you have deeper poverty by lack of financial protection against ill- health it makes Americans poorer. Wouldn't this help the gross domestic product by preventing a black market in health, where widespread corruption, bribery, moonlighting and other illegal practices flourish. You then have as a result those who put their money into offshore accounts causing the economy to further collapse.
The black markets, which themselves are caused by malfunctioning health systems, and low income of health workers, further undermine those systems.


caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21598)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 3:12 PM



alvandy
Alvandy  (Level: 229.1 - Posts: 7560)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 3:14 PM

Yep, the Fred Thompson Show- certainly fair and balanced reporting. I'm sure Mr. Thompson is a multi-millionaire and cares [less] about the middle class.
Anyway

Here's another link ,a Snopes-- like rumor buster. Please read it - link will be below.

My view--- Everyone will die. Having life insurance, writing a will, pre-planning funeral arrangements, thinking about being an organ donor, etc.--- many already realize that "planning" these can save a lot of heartaches, stress, remorse, and hurtful family feelings when they pass on.

This 'Advance care planning" provision [mentioned on Page 425] just helps senior citizens have a voluntary option to have a thoughtful medical discussion about their wishes.

Nothing scary about that. People might fear the dying process, but death is part of life. Live wisely during our mortal years on planet Earth.
Let's keep learning facts about health care reform, and not fall prey to rumors and mis-truths.
Don't be tea bagged.


Here is the link I mentioned earlier. Smoke has provided other great resources during this thread.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/b/2009/07/27/health-care-bill-page-425-the-truth.htm




smokydevil
Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 3:16 PM

"They don't tell your doctor how to practice, do they Jeremy?"

Indirectly they do, and it's the same difference.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21598)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 4:01 PM


collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.7 - Posts: 9952)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 4:05 PM

Jeremy, it's not the same.

Perhaps you have never worked in government. I have.

If you haven't, you ought to know what drives decision-making in government. It's a long way from rational, Jeremy.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21598)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 4:33 PM

Anyone who likes the serive and efficiencieny the US Post Office and the DMV will love nationalized health care-simple as that- nitpick all you choose

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 4:43 PM

Al - would you say that the ones who are being interviewed and state the opposite opinion on the health bill are any less partisan liberals and progressives than Fred Thompson is partisan to conservatives?

Saying the message is not valid because Mr. Thompson held the interview means the messages from the liberals and progressives on this subject are not valid, either.

The truth is the truth, no matter who says it. But until President Obama makes good on his election promises and has bills posted online several days in understandable wording so that we can read them, we are left at the mercy of those who have read it.

Sadly, as Congressman Conyers said, "I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill. What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”

FYI, CONYERS IS A LAWYER himself. I don't know why he needs two more lawyers to interpret bills. Is it that he is more interested in mocking the ones who disapprove of congresspeople who don't do their job and who vote on a bill without reading/understanding it?

Who exactly writes the words of a bill? What attorneys advise during the writing to make sure it is Constitutional?

However, if congresspeople who just voted for this bill in the House admit they don't have time to read and don't know what it means...

...how can anyone argue that there is no reason to be very afraid of this bill and what might be in it?

Is the verbiage such that it is open to interpretation later when the need arises (such as, the need to find extraordinary ways to cut back expenditures wherever the government can because there is no money at all)?

This administration has been grabbing power over previously non-government entities practically from the beginning of their term.

I don't trust the government with my health care. They are not forthright. They leave things open for interpretation, or they outright lie.

This bill is the epitome of jumping out of the kettle into the fire.

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 6:24 PM

Jeremy is right. The insurance companies most certainly do tell Dr.s how to practice. And not just indirectly.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21598)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 7:21 PM

I like my Medicare/Advantage and although I am 7 0have never had my insurance refuse a suggested procedure nor a scrip I needed. My grandfather was 75 and active when he had a hip replacement. Do know that not many Fl. docs at least will accept Medicare only-that is the government-patients They must have reasons.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21598)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 7:37 PM

should have read "will NOT accept"

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 8:40 PM

Thanks Linda for a good argument for universal health care.

alvandy
Alvandy  (Level: 229.1 - Posts: 7560)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 10:19 PM

To my friend Jank: any politically based talk show host will "spin" their messaging. Liberals will of course, highlight the policies they espouse. I lean to liberalism, but I am skeptical of wild claims and overly biased philosophical arguments and try to do further research. The truth is out there! Just do the work and make up one's mind based on facts and validated arguments on an issue. It helps to know history too.

My post is only meant to point out that the Fred Thompson show guest who talked about page 425 did not interpret [intentionally?] the bill properly and spread misconceptions and scare tactics.

She also counted on the fact that most listeners would not bother to check into the claims. We have become a generation of 30 second sound biters and low attention spans

The Snopes articles make it clear to me that page 425 is not what the speaker on his show claimed.

alvandy
Alvandy  (Level: 229.1 - Posts: 7560)
Wed, 5th Aug '09 10:31 PM

Again , listen to the interview of Betsy McCaughey that spoke on the Fred Thompson show [link above in the 1mks post].
She said that page 425 MANDATES.... and goes on to keep lying about the bill.

Here is a detailed counter- point:

The Republicans and their right-wing henchmen (including some sitting members of Congress) are pulling out all of the stops to destroy any hope of meaningful health care reform in this country. The depths to which they've gone to achieve this and to scare the American public are truly unbelievable. There are viral emails, and blog posts based on those emails, rapidly spreading across the Internet, purporting to outline the basic features of the proposed legislation, H.R. 3200. There are outright lies in these emails and blog posts whose only purpose is to frighten the elderly and their care givers in an effort to defeat meaningful Health Care Reform.

Here is just one example, out of many, from one of those emails.

PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Government provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in how to die.

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

These are outright lies. There is simply no other way to categorize them. There is nothing that even closely resembles these claims in the actual legislation. Advanced Care Planning Consultation is NOT MANDATED. Nowhere in the bill does it say that.

What page 425 actually says is that at least once every five years you may choose to receive Advanced Care Planning assistance paid for by the government. And if you have a serious illness between available consultations an additional consultation would be available to you free of charge, if you desire.

This planning includes such things as preparing a living will (that's a good thing that everyone should do), letting your loved ones know your wishes in medical matters and emergencies. Nothing on page 425 or what follows mandates or encourages ending life and there is no language in the bill that states or implies anything about the "government has a say in how you end your life".

Read the actual proposed legislation (the full Section is reprinted below after the video). But those seeking to derail meaningful Health Care Reform are counting on the fact that most Americans won't read the legislation because it is too long and because it is written in typical bureaucratic mumbo jumbo. But it is absolutely essential that every thinking American actually read and understand the section for themselves.

The author of the "page 425" section of the legislation (Section 1233) is Congressmen Earl Blumenaur of Oregon. He crafted the proposed legislation with a Republican Doctor.



caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21598)
Thu, 6th Aug '09 4:37 AM

Call me a "mob' if it makes you feel better-will add that to the negative names I've been called for not supporting Obama policies. Any town hall meeting hall in my area, expect me there. The first thing out of Obama's mouth when he started his health care push was that we did NOT need Medicare./ Advantage

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Thu, 6th Aug '09 8:20 AM

I count myself very fortunate to live in a state where my representatives listen to us and respond to us. I have excellent representatives and mostly my emails, calls, and letters are expressing my gratitude to them for their record of vote and encouraging them to keep up the good work.

My representatives actually believing in "representing" us.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21598)
Thu, 6th Aug '09 8:31 AM

Either my post was unclear or you misread it Sandy. Private insurance is the key to quality care. Steve cited France as a god model-looked at it and it is certainly betterthan Britian or Canada. Key things-docs do not have to carry expensive malpractice insurance-tort reform has been done and they have little to no paperwork. Their educations are paid in full but they only accept the most qualified intoi medical school-guessing no affirmative action or quota system. The docs although they make only about haldf their US counterparts startoff debt free. The BIGGIe is that the funds are dispersed through private insurers NOT the government. Alk French citizens have insurance.

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Thu, 6th Aug '09 8:52 AM

Yes, the French model is good.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Thu, 6th Aug '09 9:06 AM

I'm very supportive of "reforming" where reforms are needed (tort reform, get rid of rejection because of pre-existing conditions, competitive insurance rates across the state lines).

I am totally against "overhauling" the system to give the government control and power. There's just no need for it, there's no need to waste immeasurable amounts of taxpayer money for it - plus money that doesn't even exist and won't appear out of the air.

There is nothing that needs reforming requiring 1200 pages of bill, with the government controlling every single little detail of our healthcare from conception to death. When did Americans decide to turn over their freedom and Constitutional rights to the government?

It's a crazy economic system when other countries won't buy our debt so the fed buys our own debt? With what?

So adding this massive expense that will control 1/7th of the national economy sounds in any way workable?



smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Thu, 6th Aug '09 9:08 AM

"with the government controlling every single little detail of our healthcare from conception to death."

That's not true, it's a scare tactic.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Thu, 6th Aug '09 9:17 AM

It's exactly true. It's in the 1200 pages. But you will see if it ever gets shown online.

goddess28
Goddess28  (Level: 92.6 - Posts: 5236)
Thu, 6th Aug '09 9:20 AM

Yep. Obama is an alien, and he is trying to kill all the elderly...and us liberals are gonna help. Only elderly liberals get to live.

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Thu, 6th Aug '09 9:29 AM



Yep. Obama's an alien granny-snuffer - but I'm the radical here.

Kinda brightens your day, don't it?



caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21598)
Thu, 6th Aug '09 9:33 AM

Good luck with the Freench model though as the trial lawyer lobby in DC is far too strong. This is not abot cost cutting or giving everyone coverage or tort reform would be on the table. It is about government control and we know how well they run Amtrak and the Post Office Why isn't someone who has a voice bringing up the French model?

garrybl
Garrybl  (Level: 279.5 - Posts: 6639)
Thu, 6th Aug '09 10:11 AM

Caramel
You ask a fine question.
The answer to your question is contained in a great article but it is in a magazine you might not approve of.

The New Yorker addressed the question of how to get from an exisiting system to Health Care in England France and other countries.

The answer is that what they had in place was more easily convertible.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/01/26/090126fa_fact_gawande
It appears to have taken five years in England and 50 in France.

I can't vouch for the truth of the article of course but it is not political per se, more a statement of the situation in those countries pre HI.

Let us know what you think --and why you don't agree.
Barry

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21598)
Thu, 6th Aug '09 10:40 AM

The French look with scorn on the British socialized medicine. In France private insurance companies control the purse and seems to be a good working model. Yes, Barry, I am smart enough to comprehend whatr is wwritten in the New Yorker and read it on occasion although believe Bigmama said that we who watch Fox as "less educated"

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Thu, 6th Aug '09 10:42 AM

Thanks Barry. Great article, and fascinating re the origins of universal healthcare in England and France.


jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Thu, 6th Aug '09 10:43 AM

Smoke - don't you at least want to be given the time to find out for sure if you're right? I mean, you and I aren't that far apart in age.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Thu, 6th Aug '09 10:45 AM

To choose ridicule as your tactic against people who want to know the truth is......

(fill in the blank - and the answer is not "wise")

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Thu, 6th Aug '09 10:50 AM

Linda, I believe the insurance companies in France are "not for profit"

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Thu, 6th Aug '09 11:02 AM

Excellent article, Barry, thanks so much for posting it. I hope everyone taking part in this discussion will take the time to read and comment.

"But look at the news report in the Times of London on July 6, 1948, headlined “FIRST DAY OF HEALTH SERVICE.” You might expect descriptions of bureaucratic shock troops walking into hospitals, insurance-company executives and doctors protesting in the streets, patients standing outside chemist shops worrying about whether they can get their prescriptions filled. Instead, there was only a four-paragraph notice between an item on the King and Queen’s return from a holiday in Scotland and one on currency problems in Germany.

The beginning of the new national health service “was taking place smoothly,” the report said. No major problems were noted by the 2,751 hospitals involved or by patients arriving to see their family doctors. Ninety per cent of the British Medical Association’s members signed up with the program voluntarily—and found that they had a larger and steadier income by doing so. The greatest difficulty, it turned out, was the unexpected pent-up demand for everything from basic dental care to pediatric visits for hundreds of thousands of people who had been going without."

The part about the Massachusetts Universal Care model at the end is also interesting and informative. The whole article has influenced my previous thinking that Obama isn't going far enough and the current system needs to be scrapped and replaced.

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Thu, 6th Aug '09 11:08 AM

"The greatest difficulty, it turned out, was the unexpected pent-up demand for everything from basic dental care to pediatric visits for hundreds of thousands of people who had been going without."

That part bears repeating.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/florida/AP/story/1156254.html

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Thu, 6th Aug '09 11:17 AM

Does Obama's plan address dental?

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21598)
Thu, 6th Aug '09 11:26 AM

Obama's biggest problenm right now is that he personallhyy has NO plan. He is asking the lawmakers to defend something that is just an idea or a dream when the facts hit the dream the numbers don't woirk http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/23/AR2009072302723.html perhaps since Andy lives in France he can tell us if the insurance copanies are nonprofit. I don't know and no one with a voice in DC is discussing it as iut would oppose the trial lawyers

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Thu, 6th Aug '09 11:32 AM

I sure hope so, Sandy, it certainly should. Nothing can wreck your general health and comfort faster than a mouth full of bad teeth.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21598)
Thu, 6th Aug '09 12:44 PM

REPEAT OBama has NO plan on anything

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.7 - Posts: 9952)
Thu, 6th Aug '09 1:22 PM

Health insurance in France?

I think only for the co-pays that the state does not cover.

Not a comparable situation.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Thu, 6th Aug '09 3:57 PM

This is from Smoke posted on my thread about submitting emails to the white house if "fishy." This is the text of the health bill the House is considering:

Smoke (Level: 21.7 - Posts: 1857)
Thu, 6th Aug '09 3:38 PM

Here you go.

http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

goddess28
Goddess28  (Level: 92.6 - Posts: 5236)
Thu, 6th Aug '09 4:02 PM

Mom, you got that right! I had a toothache for about a week and then pulled on monday, I have been miserable ever since! It got infected and had to get antibiotics. I keep waiting for the pain to back down, its not distracting like before but its there.

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Thu, 6th Aug '09 4:03 PM



sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Thu, 6th Aug '09 4:10 PM

We already have a plan for the poor/uninsured. It's called "Go to the emergency room-they can't turn you away". Very expensive way to do business.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Thu, 6th Aug '09 4:11 PM

It's a lot of reading and I'm certainly no attorney.

I'm not finding page 425 to do anything but waste taxpayer money for something everyone can already do under their current insurance plan. I don't see euthanasia here specifically.

However, I had to check out page 16 for one of the other problems conservatives have with this bill.

I see no other way to read it except that if you don't have your own private health insurance at the time this bill were to be enacted, you will not be allowed to have your own private health insurance.

SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE. GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE DEFINED.—

Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:

(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—11 IN GENERAL.—

Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

So I guess if you stretch it, this administration is not lying when he says if you like your current health care provider you may keep it.

The operative word is "current." As soon as it is no longer your "current" healthcare provider (you change jobs, you quit insurance and come back later, you try to change private insurance) you are then required to no longer have private health care.

Can you see it meaning anything else with this exact wording of the bill?

At my house here, I am "grandfathered" in that the city council voted to not allow property owners along the golf course to have privacy fencing or chainlink fencing. You must have either ornamental fencing (MUCH more expensive and totally useless if you have a small dog) if you have fencing at all.

But the backyard of my house had chainlink fence before the city council change the ordinance so I get to keep it. BUT - I cannot match that fence now if I add any more fencing to my lot. Also - if I ever decide to mend it or change it a little, I will have broken the ordinance and can no longer have chainlink fencing.

To me, this bill is worded to mean that same thing about health care.

If I'm wrong, please explain how.


jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Thu, 6th Aug '09 4:12 PM

(My dad's doctor told him that a badly infected tooth left unattended could damage his heart.)

collioure
Collioure  (Level: 104.7 - Posts: 9952)
Thu, 6th Aug '09 4:19 PM

You are correct, Jank.

My Congressperson Jan Schakowsky openly admits that this proposal is intended to bring everyone in to a single payer system.

That's the bait-and-switch game Obama has been playing.

goddess28
Goddess28  (Level: 92.6 - Posts: 5236)
Thu, 6th Aug '09 4:19 PM

The tooth ached and needed to be pulled, but the pulling is where the infection came from...that same night I started running a fever. I am taking stuff for it, it's not unattended but thanks for telling me that.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Thu, 6th Aug '09 4:36 PM

Goddess - I didn't say that to scare you. My dad was in his 70s and due to circumstances beyond his (or my) control, he had an infected tooth which remained way too long. His doctor wanted to make sure he never did that again.

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Thu, 6th Aug '09 4:38 PM

Yes, I know it's a lot of reading, I'm certainly not going to read it, but at least it's available if you want to.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Thu, 6th Aug '09 4:40 PM

If it is as I understand the wording, then I will vocally do all I can to fight this bill because that is the very basis of its existence.

It makes it hard to fight, though, when my representatives are already fighting its passage, and representatives from other districts do not want to hear from anyone but their own constituents (and often they only want to hear from the liberal ones). Shedding light is all I can.

And pray.

I don't want "the poor" to be without healthcare. That's what medicaid is for, and we have other ways to help the poor. This is not the way I support to help them.

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Thu, 6th Aug '09 4:42 PM

Cake, anyone?

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Thu, 6th Aug '09 4:44 PM

There's cake and there's CAKE.

goddess28
Goddess28  (Level: 92.6 - Posts: 5236)
Thu, 6th Aug '09 4:45 PM

Jan, I appreciate you telling me that. You didn't scare me, but made me aware of a potential problem if this doesn't go away.

caramel1
Caramel1  (Level: 128.2 - Posts: 21598)
Thu, 6th Aug '09 4:53 PM

MA insures everyone and folks are stilling showing up in ER as cannot get a family doc.

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Thu, 6th Aug '09 4:53 PM

You have representatives in a district in Texas who wants to hear from liberals? How encouraging!

Why should you want to influence the representatives of other peoples' districts? Isn't it up to the people who live in that district what they want their representative to do? Isn't that the whole point of districts and representatives?

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Thu, 6th Aug '09 4:55 PM

I didn't know that Linda. Bummer.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Thu, 6th Aug '09 5:07 PM

(I have no idea what was in the code or marks that caused an angel to appear in the middle of what I copied from the bill. I didn't want anyone to think I put it there.)

sandracam
Sandracam  (Level: 149.3 - Posts: 4190)
Thu, 6th Aug '09 5:08 PM

LOL, I wondered about that!

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Thu, 6th Aug '09 5:21 PM

It's a miracle ... no ... wait, it's a A in parentheses.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Fri, 7th Aug '09 3:49 PM

So did anyone ever come up with any other interpretation for page 16 in the health care bill other than that if you ever want to change private insurance companies from the one you had when the bill is enacted you will not be allowed to - that you will then be forced under the national health care system against your will because your new policy will not be grandfathered?

Best I can understand (along with other things I've been reading in the bill), you absolutely will NOT have choice to have private insurance UNLESS you stay with the company you're covered by at the time the bill would be enacted - for the rest of your life.

Sounds like if this bill passes we better hurry and lock in our private healthcare insurance with one company before the president signs the bill - or your rights and freedom about private health care provider will be stolen from you by the federal government.


smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Fri, 7th Aug '09 4:00 PM



jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Fri, 7th Aug '09 4:07 PM

Your linked article is on a totally different subject, Donna.

Your article says "warns that "...on the 16th page, it says whatever health care you have now, it’s going to be gone within five years..."

That's neither what I said, nor is that what page 16 says.

I pasted page 16 above. It doesn't say your private insurance becomes illegal ever.

It says you are only allowed to opt out of the new national healthcare system if you stay with the private insurance you have right at the time the bill goes into effect because that policy will be grandfathered - you have it before the bill goes into effect.


smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Fri, 7th Aug '09 4:09 PM

That's only one of them, try the bottom one.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Fri, 7th Aug '09 4:13 PM

So you're saying, trust this liberal editorialist...

...or trust my lying eyes?

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Fri, 7th Aug '09 4:17 PM

Hey, I found what you asked for. Horse ... water.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Fri, 7th Aug '09 4:22 PM

So I can only add, for anyone reading this thread who wants to know the truth about whether you will be allowed to have private health care - or in what way you will get to keep private health care, since that's one of the major sticking points of this bill, you have the actual house bill linked here, and you have page 16 - which is for some reason written in VERY easy to understand English (most of the bill is very hard to understand).

There is no lack of clarity on page 16. Read and you will know the truth - and then you only have to decide how you feel about it and whether you support it or not.

I'm just so glad that now we have the actual wording to see and don't have to depend on anyone partisan to explain it. It's very clear black and white.

But hopefully this will lend some light on why some people hate this life-changing, nation-changing bill.

jank0614
Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Fri, 7th Aug '09 4:23 PM

I agree, Donna. Smoke....water. And now we have the truth that the water is poison.

And we don't have to drink.

smoke
Smoke  (Level: 96.7 - Posts: 12009)
Fri, 7th Aug '09 4:26 PM

Try this source, it's supposed to be nonpartisan.

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/sidebyside.cfm


Pages:  1    



Copyright © 2003-2016 Sploofus Holdings LLC.  All rights reserved.
Legal Notice & Privacy Statement  |  Link to Sploofus