Let's discuss this "Death Panel" idea

[LnGrrrR]

Ok... to everyone ripping on the 'death panels'...

Honestly, what do you expect?

Do you expect the government to pay for every treatment under the sun to possibly extend life?

Don't insurance companies ALREADY do that?

Can't people, if they have the resources, get that alternative care from a private source if the government declines to pay it?


Really, it's so stupid. It's OBVIOUS that, yes, if you are on health care, then there will be decisions made near end-of-life that may deny you care. It happens NOW, and there's no possible way the government could provide the best possible treatment to everyone.

Too bad he can't just come out and say that, because half the people will take it as fact that Obama wants to start a roving band of techno-warriors to go house to house and start exterminating everyone over the age of 65 like some present-day Logan's Run.

Now, I don't agree with many aspects of the plan, but this 'death panel' idea is retarded nonsense.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Ok... to everyone ripping on the 'death panels'...

Honestly, what do you expect?

Do you expect the government to pay for every treatment under the sun to possibly extend life?

Don't insurance companies ALREADY do that?

Can't people, if they have the resources, get that alternative care from a private source if the government declines to pay it?


Really, it's so stupid. It's OBVIOUS that, yes, if you are on health care, then there will be decisions made near end-of-life that may deny you care. It happens NOW, and there's no possible way the government could provide the best possible treatment to everyone.

Too bad he can't just come out and say that, because half the people will take it as fact that Obama wants to start a roving band of techno-warriors to go house to house and start exterminating everyone over the age of 65 like some present-day Logan's Run.

Now, I don't agree with many aspects of the plan, but this 'death panel' idea is retarded nonsense.

No one will be able to provide you with any documentation to disprove you.

Of course what you will get right is wing opinion as proof that you are wrong.

[Wild Cobra]

The problem with the Death Panel idea is that after 3 years, everyone except those in a grandfathered insurance plan must join a government approved plan. What if this excludes a person from caring for their own family members, and the government says they are pulling the plug, due to expense?

Personally, I want to go if I get that decrepit, but some people want to give death a real fight. Just because I believe they should be allowed to die, or even assisted in dying, doesn't mean I believe I have the right to make that decision, or anyone else but a family member.

I heard today that ion France, if you are in a coma after a few days, they simply pull the plug there! You might be someone perfectly capable of coming out of a coma and living a completely normal live again. Nope. Cost too much to keep you plugged in in case you don't come out of a coma. It wouldn't be long before our government panels do the same things due to costs, because there are no set in stone planes yet.

[ElNono]

The problem with the Death Panel idea is that after 3 years, everyone except those in a grandfathered insurance plan must join a government approved plan. What if this excludes a person from caring for their own family members, and the government says they are pulling the plug, due to expense?

They can go with a private insurer, considering they can't deny you coverage for a pre-existing condition.


Personally, I want to go if I get that decrepit, but some people want to give death a real fight. Just because I believe they should be allowed to die, or even assisted in dying, doesn't mean I believe I have the right to make that decision, or anyone else but a family member.

I fail to see how that decision would be made by anybody other than a family member.


I heard today that ion France, if you are in a coma after a few days, they simply pull the plug there! You might be someone perfectly capable of coming out of a coma and living a completely normal live again. Nope. Cost too much to keep you plugged in in case you don't come out of a coma. It wouldn't be long before our government panels do the same things due to costs, because there are no set in stone planes yet.

Do you actually have anything to back this up? Honest request. I googled around and couldn't find anything about that.
I would suspect that it might be the case if you enter vegetative state, but then again, France actually has a mixed system with private insurers available too, so you could go that route if you can afford it and so desire.

[spurster]

Dying is very profitable for the medical industry.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2006-10-18-end-of-life-costs_x.htm

[SonOfAGun]

Why does the House bill want to decrease Specialists?

[boutons_deux]

"want to decrease Specialists"

which page is that on?

There is already a crisis of not enough primary care/general practitioners, a symptom of the system being broken as docs flee PC to grub money in the specialties.

[101A]

Ok... to everyone ripping on the 'death panels'...

Honestly, what do you expect?

Do you expect the government to pay for every treatment under the sun to possibly extend life?

Don't insurance companies ALREADY do that?

Can't people, if they have the resources, get that alternative care from a private source if the government declines to pay it?


Really, it's so stupid. It's OBVIOUS that, yes, if you are on health care, then there will be decisions made near end-of-life that may deny you care. It happens NOW, and there's no possible way the government could provide the best possible treatment to everyone.

Too bad he can't just come out and say that, because half the people will take it as fact that Obama wants to start a roving band of techno-warriors to go house to house and start exterminating everyone over the age of 65 like some present-day Logan's Run.

Now, I don't agree with many aspects of the plan, but this 'death panel' idea is retarded nonsense.

The only thing Insurance companies can deny to a patient is "experimental" or un FDA-approved treatments. ANYTHING else a doctor prescribes to treat a dying patient, regardless of the possibility of success is going to get paid for.

Obama has specifically talked about these expensive, "heroic" procedures; if not in so many words - and he has a point; I'm sure if my dad, and any number of patients I know of had it to do over again, they wouldn't do that last round of chemo, radiation, or been hooked to the life support, etc.....

Most people spend a majority of their LIFETIME medical expenses in the final weeks or months of their lives - with baby boomers aging, THAT is what is driving up costs SO dramatically these days; and, I've said it before, Obama gets it.

I'm (literally) headed to a town hall with Arlen Specter right now; can't continue; I'll report back what I see (or maybe y'all can catch me on youtube)

[Wild Cobra]

"want to decrease Specialists"

which page is that on?

There is already a crisis of not enough primary care/general practitioners, a symptom of the system being broken as docs flee PC to grub money in the specialties.
Yep, and they want to make more doctors be general practitioner. It's there somewhere, maybe I can find it.

[clambake]

i think we can all agree on the morphine drip.

[Wild Cobra]

Yep, and they want to make more doctors be general practitioner. It's there somewhere, maybe I can find it.
Page 241 lines 6 to 8:
Service categories established under this paragraph
shall apply without regard to the specialty of the
physician furnishing the service.’’.
this is talking about financial reimbursement for their work. Why would doctors take the extra schooling for a specialty when it's not going to pay them any more money? It makes such a concept obsolete.

They make these things hard to find, purposely I think. They don't directly add or exclude important things, but make it impossible to survive or exclude.

[LnGrrrR]

WC, I'm pretty sure you'll still be able to go with a private company.

Now, due to government undercutting the private companies somewhat, those costs may be PROHIBITIVE for some people that could theoretically afford them now. However, private companies will, I'm sure, still exist, ESPECIALLY if the government's service is poor.

Of course, there are people NOW who can't afford that health care. It seems to me that government-instituted health care will swing the balance by emphasizing the extremes. Now, people on the bottom will have SOME form of health care, but PRIVATE health care will skewer up to the extremely wealthy.

[boutons_deux]

"I'm pretty sure you'll still be able to go with a private company."

WC is part of the lying mob spreading bullshit to rouse the rabble.

Note that it's always some extreme hypothetical, and words like "they're gonna kill my baby, and grandma".

[ChumpDumper]

How did this get derailed from the death panel canard to wanting more GPs?

Anything to avoid a real discussion, I suppose.

[angrydude]

"I'm pretty sure you'll still be able to go with a private company."

WC is part of the lying mob spreading bullshit to rouse the rabble.

Note that it's always some extreme hypothetical, and words like "they're gonna kill my baby, and grandma".

because nothing that can go wrong will go wrong.

[Duff McCartney]

There's no such thing as giving death "a fight". You ALWAYS lose. Everybody dies.

[Duff McCartney]

False ‘Death Panel’ Rumor Has Some Familiar Roots

WASHINGTON — The stubborn yet false rumor that President Obama’s health care proposals would create government-sponsored “death panels” to decide which patients were worthy of living seemed to arise from nowhere in recent weeks.

Advanced even this week by Republican stalwarts including the party’s last vice-presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, and Charles E. Grassley, the veteran Iowa senator, the nature of the assertion nonetheless seemed reminiscent of the modern-day viral Internet campaigns that dogged Mr. Obama last year, falsely calling him a Muslim and questioning his nationality.

But the rumor — which has come up at Congressional town-hall-style meetings this week in spite of an avalanche of reports laying out why it was false — was not born of anonymous e-mailers, partisan bloggers or stealthy cyberconspiracy theorists.

Rather, it has a far more mainstream provenance, openly emanating months ago from many of the same pundits and conservative media outlets that were central in defeating President Bill Clinton’s health care proposals 16 years ago, including the editorial board of The Washington Times, the American Spectator magazine and Betsy McCaughey, whose 1994 health care critique made her a star of the conservative movement (and ultimately, New York’s lieutenant governor).

There is nothing in any of the legislative proposals that would call for the creation of death panels or any other governmental body that would cut off care for the critically ill as a cost-cutting measure. But over the course of the past few months, early, stated fears from anti-abortion conservatives that Mr. Obama would pursue a pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia agenda, combined with twisted accounts of actual legislative proposals that would provide financing for optional consultations with doctors about hospice care and other “end of life” services, fed the rumor to the point where it overcame the debate.

On Thursday, Mr. Grassley said in a statement that he and others in the small group of senators that was trying to negotiate a health care plan had dropped any “end of life” proposals from consideration.

A pending House bill has language authorizing Medicare to finance beneficiaries’ consultations with professionals on whether to authorize aggressive and potentially life-saving interventions later in life. Though the consultations would be voluntary, and a similar provision passed in Congress last year without such a furor, Mr. Grassley said it was being dropped in the Senate “because of the way they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly.”

The extent to which it and other provisions have been misinterpreted in recent days, notably by angry speakers at recent town hall meetings but also by Ms. Palin — who popularized the “death panel” phrase — has surprised longtime advocates of changes to the health care system.

“I guess what surprised me is the ferocity, it’s much stronger than I expected,” said John Rother, the executive vice president of AARP, which is supportive of the health care proposals and has repeatedly declared the “death panel” rumors false. “It’s people who are ideologically opposed to Mr. Obama, and this is the opportunity to weaken the president.”

The specter of government-sponsored, forced euthanasia was raised as early as Nov. 23, just weeks after the election and long before any legislation had been drafted, by an outlet decidedly opposed to Mr. Obama, The Washington Times.

In an editorial, the newspaper reminded its readers of the Aktion T4 program of Nazi Germany in which “children and adults with disabilities, and anyone anywhere in the Third Reich was subject to execution who was blind, deaf, senile, retarded, or had any significant neurological condition.”

Noting the “administrative predilections” of the new team at the White House, it urged “anyone who sees the current climate as a budding T4 program to win the hearts and minds of deniers.”

The editorial captured broader concerns about Mr. Obama’s abortion rights philosophy held among socially conservative Americans who did not vote for him. But it did not directly tie forced euthanasia to health care plans of Mr. Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress.

When the Democrats included money for family planning in a proposed version of the stimulus bill in January, the socially conservative George Neumayr wrote for the American Spectator: “Euthanasia is another shovel ready job for Pelosi to assign to the states. Reducing health care costs under Obama’s plan, after all, counts as economic stimulus, too — controlling life, controlling death, controlling costs.”

Ms. McCaughey, whose 1994 critique of Mr. Clinton’s plan was hotly disputed after its publication in The New Republic, weighed in around the same time.

She warned that a provision in the stimulus bill would create a bureaucracy to “monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost-effective,” was carried in a commentary she wrote for Bloomberg News that gained resonance throughout the conservative media, most notably with Rush Limbaugh and the Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck.

The legislation did not direct the coordinator to dictate doctors’ treatments. A separate part of the law — regarding a council set up to coordinate research comparing the effectiveness of treatments — states that the council’s recommendations cannot “be construed as mandates or clinical guidelines for payment, coverage or treatment.”

But Ms. McCaughey’s article provided another opportunity for others to raise the specter of forced euthanasia. “Sometimes for the common good, you just have to say, ‘Hey, Grandpa, you’ve had a good life,’ ” Mr. Beck said.

The syndicated conservative columnist Cal Thomas wrote, “No one should be surprised at the coming embrace of euthanasia.” The Washington Times editorial page reprised its reference to the Nazis, quoting the Aktion T4 program: “It must be made clear to anyone suffering from an incurable disease that the useless dissipation of costly medications drawn from the public store cannot be justified.”

The notion was picked up by various conservative groups, but still, as Mr. Obama and Congress remained focused on other matters, it did not gain wide attention. Former Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, an advocate for the health care proposals, said he was occasionally confronted with the “forced euthanasia” accusation at forums on the plans, but came to see it as an advantage. “Almost automatically you have most of the audience on your side,” Mr. Daschle said. “Any rational normal person isn’t going to believe that assertion.”

But as Congress developed its legislation this summer, critics seized on provisions requiring Medicare financing for “end of life” consultations, bringing the debate to a peak. To David Brock, a former conservative journalist who once impugned the Clintons but now runs a group that monitors and defends against attacks on liberals, the uproar is a reminder of what has changed — the creation of groups like his — and what has not.

“In the 90s, every misrepresentation under the sun was made about the Clinton plan and there was no real capacity to push back,” he said. “Now, there is that capacity.”

Still, one proponent of the euthanasia theory, Mr. Neumayr, said he saw no reason to stop making the claim.

“I think a government-run plan that is administered by politicians and bureaucrats who support euthanasia is inevitably going to reflect that view,” he said, “and I don’t think that’s a crazy leap.”

------------------------------------------

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/health/policy/14panel.html?no_interstitial

[LnGrrrR]

You know, I say, screw it.

If old people want to be retarded, and not face the possibility of the end of their life with free, informed counseling, then why should Congress write it into the bill?

Just let the boomers think they'll live forever without a consultation, and that the government will pony up massive billions for experimental procedures near end-of-life. They'll probably be too senile to realize that isn't the case by the time the plug is about to be pulled.

[ChumpDumper]

Right, it will be funny when they get bills for end of life counseling and they bitch that it isn't covered.

"Someone should do something about this! When is the next town hall meeting? I'm totally going to yell about this while someone else is speaking."

[Rodriguez]

The death panel is only the first scene, say the socialization has just begun and we will see many more likes in years to come. Politicians can still prevaricate around these discussions but the conclusion is already pretty clear and irreversible.

[AZLouis]

Granted there is no such thing as a death panel in the propsed bill, Sarah Palin evidently supports one or did or doesn't. I get confused.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/13/...anel-flipflop/

In recent weeks, right-wing groups have been pushing the myth that health care reform will somehow kill seniors. One of the most high profile voices pushing this lie has been Sarah Palin, who claimed President Obama will institute bureaucratic “death panels.” Today, again on her Facebook page, she continued the attack. Though some Republicans have rebuffed this absurd, inaccurate notion — like Johnny Isakson (R-GA), who called such talk “nuts” — others, like Newt Gingrich, have piled on to agree with Palin.

However, on April 16th 2008, then Gov. Sarah Palin endorsed some of the same end of life counseling she now decries as a form of euthanasia. In a proclamation announcing “Healthcare Decisions Day,” Palin urged public facilities to provide better information about advance directives, and made it clear that it is critical for seniors to be informed of such options:


WHEREAS, Healthcare Decisions Day is designed to raise public awareness of the need to plan ahead for healthcare decisions, related to end of life care and medical decision-making whenever patients are unable to speak for themselves and to encourage the specific use of advance directives to communicate these important healthcare decisions. [...]
WHEREAS, one of the principal goals of Healthcare Decisions Day is to encourage hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, continuing care retirement communities, and hospices to participate in a statewide effort to provide clear and consistent information to the public about advance directives, as well as to encourage medical professionals and lawyers to volunteer their time and efforts to improve public knowledge and increase the number of Alaska’s citizens with advance directives.
WHEREAS, the Foundation for End of Life Care in Juneau, Alaska, and other organizations throughout the United States have endorsed this event and are committed to educating the public about the importance of discussing healthcare choices and executing advance directives.
Though this proclamation is now deleted from the Alaska governor’s website, it shows that Palin’s current fear-mongering is purely political. Palin is not the only conservative leader completely flip-flopping on this issue. Merely months ago, Gingrich too endorsed end of life counseling. At a conference in April of this year, Gingrich said advance directives can “save money” while also helping to “decrease the stress felt by caregivers.”

[Wild Cobra]

There must be something to it. The senate version of the bill is having it removed. Should I say the previsions that allow it. Those previsions don't name one, but it would be the natural extension, since it's not excluded. You see, the Death Panel will be a reality some how. Rationing will have to occur, and it will be done by government bureaucrats. They will ultimately make life/death decisions for people, or the costs will absolutely go into run-away mode.

Like Abortion. Notice you won't find it mentioned anywhere if you search. That's because of past court rulings. It will automatically be a required service unless it's excluded, including late term abortion.

[ChumpDumper]

There must be something to it.Except there isn't.

[Wild Cobra]

Except there isn't.

You're a fool to think otherwise.

They have purposely left the bill to have the specifics determined later. If you don't think we will see numerous changes that we won't like, you're a bigger fool that I already believe.

[ChumpDumper]

You're a fool to think otherwise.

They have purposely left the bill to have the specifics determined later. If you don't think we will see numerous changes that we won't like, you're a bigger fool that I already believe.They took out the specifics because old people were being told by liars they were going to be killed.

[Wild Cobra]

They took out the specifics because old people were being told by liars they were going to be killed.
I see you haven't read any of it. It is covered with statements saying specifics will be determined later.

[ChumpDumper]

I read plenty of it. There is no indication they want to kill everyone.

[Wild Cobra]

I read plenty of it. There is no indication they want to kill everyone.
I didn't say that fool.

[ChumpDumper]

Sure you did. You said they are just waiting for the chance to kill more and more people. You said that is their eventual goal.

[Wild Cobra]

Sure you did. You said they are just waiting for the chance to kill more and more people.
Please direct me to the specific post. I must have multiple personalities if that's true.

I wish a moderator would ban you if you cannot produce evidence of your slander against me.

[ChumpDumper]

There must be something to it. The senate version of the bill is having it removed. Should I say the previsions that allow it. Those previsions don't name one, but it would be the natural extension, since it's not excluded. You see, the Death Panel will be a reality some how. Rationing will have to occur, and it will be done by government bureaucrats. They will ultimately make life/death decisions for people, or the costs will absolutely go into run-away mode.You're welcome.

Do you want the correct definition of the word slander next so you don't look like such an idiot every time you use that too?

[Wild Cobra]

You're welcome.

Do you want the correct definition of the word slander next so you don't look like such an idiot every time you use that too?
My God... You are more moronic than I thought. That statement does not reflect "just waiting for the chance to kill more and more people."

[LnGrrrR]

It seems like the vast majority of seniors are either A) idiotic, because they think they'll never die unless the government somehow runs their health insurance or B) idiotic, because they think the government is going to spend billions on experimental end-of-life costs.

The only reason they might be taking it out (the end of life counseling provision) is because lots of old people are obviously stupid as fuck.

[ChumpDumper]

My God... You are more moronic than I thought. That statement does not reflect "just waiting for the chance to kill more and more people."My God....Of course it does.

[Yonivore]

It seems like the vast majority of seniors are either A) idiotic, because they think they'll never die unless the government somehow runs their health insurance or B) idiotic, because they think the government is going to spend billions on experimental end-of-life costs.

The only reason they might be taking it out (the end of life counseling provision) is because lots of old people are obviously stupid as fuck.
This is from a proponent of socialized medicine so, see if the argument makes more sense to you now, LnGrrrR:

Obama's Euthanasia Mistake (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-08-11/obamas-euthanasia-mistake/p/)


Make no mistake about it. Determining which treatments are “cost effective” at the end of a person’s life and which are not is one of Obama’s priorities. It’s one of the principal ways he counts on saving money and making universal healthcare affordable.

[boutons_deux]

Magic Negro is not promoting euthanasia. The just Yoni and right-wing-nut red-herring bullshit slime.

The bill pays for voluntary, periodic end-of-life counseling, nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, it might save a few $100M/year if people had official "do not resuscitate/no artificial or forced sustenance" papers.

But the health-care sytems knows there's $Bs to be made in end-of-life care.

Hospitals and docs love to suck every last $$$ of the dying/terminal bodies. It's their business.

As their motto goes, "Above All, Do Not Stop Billing"

[Marcus Bryant]

So there won't be "death panels" but the likelihood that certain care will not be provided as one ages will increase under the proposed system. That is a substantive issue, but please continue on with the circle jerk about whether or not such panels were proposed.

[Yonivore]

The bill [makes mandatory] voluntary, periodic end-of-life counseling [during which patients may be pressured to opt for less expensive palliative care rather than aggressive curative procedures].
It requires them after a certain age and increases their frequency after certain diagnoses.

[Yonivore]

So there won't be "death panels" but the likelihood that certain care will not be provided as one ages will increase under the proposed system. That is a substantive issue, but please continue on with the circle jerk about whether or not such panels were proposed.
I think without the "death panel," the bill is definitely unsustainable. The last six months of anyone's life is the most expensive medically. If they can't control spending in that area, and this "death panel" was the answer to that, this whole fiasco is sunk...thankfully.

[Marcus Bryant]

So there'll be a death formula instead of a death panel.

Also, it's interesting that this proposed increase in federal government intervention in health insurance is being proposed in part because of the exploding costs in the current federal insurance program. But, yeah, they'll get it right this time. Honest.

[Yonivore]

So there'll be a death formula instead of a death panel.

Also, it's interesting that this proposed increase in federal government intervention in health insurance is being proposed in part because of the exploding costs in the current federal insurance program. But, yeah, they'll get it right this time. Honest.
Like I've said, when they fix the fraud, waste, and incompetence in the Medicare, Medicaid, and Veterans Administration Health Care systems, they can start monkeying with my health care system.

[Yonivore]

fRdLpem-AAs
Still relevant after all these years.

[LnGrrrR]

Honestly, anyone with half a brain would figure out the government would have to terminate treatment eventually. If people would want to spend more than the government is willing to, they could fork out the cash themselves.

I mean, this already happens NOW, except you take out the idea of government covering ANYTHING, and you just foot all the bills yourself through your insurance.

[Yonivore]

Honestly, anyone with half a brain would figure out the government would have to terminate treatment eventually. If people would want to spend more than the government is willing to, they could fork out the cash themselves.

I mean, this already happens NOW, except you take out the idea of government covering ANYTHING, and you just foot all the bills yourself through your insurance.
But, it's not a negotiation in which I wish the government to be involved.

[LnGrrrR]

But, it's not a negotiation in which I wish the government to be involved.

Understandable, but it would make more sense for people who don't have a choice for health insurance (ie. poor people) to get SOME counseling about what the government will and will not pay for.

Watch, the first few old people that get the plug pulled, their families will all say, "BUT WE DIDN"T KNOW!!!!! WHY WEREN'T WE COUNSELED ON THIS!!! WE WANT TO SUE FOR MONEY!!!"... because lots of people are stupid.

[Yonivore]

Understandable, but it would make more sense for people who don't have a choice for health insurance (ie. poor people) to get SOME counseling about what the government will and will not pay for.

Watch, the first few old people that get the plug pulled, their families will all say, "BUT WE DIDN"T KNOW!!!!! WHY WEREN'T WE COUNSELED ON THIS!!! WE WANT TO SUE FOR MONEY!!!"... because lots of people are stupid.
I'm in favor of laws that prevent the cessation of life-saving or life-sustaining medical care due to an inability to pay.

I think we already have them.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm in favor of laws that prevent the cessation of life-saving or life-sustaining medical care due to an inability to pay.

I think we already have them.

How is that a libertarian ideal?

I mean, if they can't pay, why should hospitals be forced to use their own equipment to keep them alive?

[Yonivore]

How is that a libertarian ideal?
It might not be. I'm sure I could spend time justifying it but, given how convoluted our society has become, there's quite a bit I'm willing to bend on that may fly in the face of pure libertarianism.


I mean, if they can't pay, why should hospitals be forced to use their own equipment to keep them alive?
Well, the first thing that comes to mind is the reams of laws that prevent, deter, or discourage medical charity...or, all charity, in fact.

That's a good discussion, though.

[Wild Cobra]

Honestly, anyone with half a brain would figure out the government would have to terminate treatment eventually. If people would want to spend more than the government is willing to, they could fork out the cash themselves.

I mean, this already happens NOW, except you take out the idea of government covering ANYTHING, and you just foot all the bills yourself through your insurance.
Except we have a choice of policies rather than government mandating what the policies have. As for paying out of pocket, if that is my choice, then fuck you for wanting to see me taxed that extra 8%.

If you are a patriot, you would not advocate a program that takes away my healthcare rights!

[LnGrrrR]

It might not be. I'm sure I could spend time justifying it but, given how convoluted our society has become, there's quite a bit I'm willing to bend on that may fly in the face of pure libertarianism.


Well, the first thing that comes to mind is the reams of laws that prevent, deter, or discourage medical charity...or, all charity, in fact.

That's a good discussion, though.

Fair enough. :toast

[LnGrrrR]

Oh give me a break with the f'ing "patriot" call. You and I both know that some people will still be able to afford private health care. It's just that YOU might be priced out, just as many RIGHT NOW are priced out.

Sure you say, "fuck you" for me wanting to see you taxed 8%. But aren't there thousands saying "Fuck you for not wanting to grant me any sort of healthcare"? Of course there are.

The question to my mind is, does it make sense to see more people receive some form of health insurance at the risk of increased private rate expenses/policies. There are of course pros and cons on both sides of the fence. I lean towards pro, but it's not by far a huge issue for me.

I mean, I'm government, so my health care plan is already set up for me. Any word on how I feel on the subject is just my opinion and won't affect me viscerally.

[Yonivore]

Fair enough. :toast

:toast

[Wild Cobra]

Oh give me a break with the f'ing "patriot" call. You and I both know that some people will still be able to afford private health care. It's just that YOU might be priced out, just as many RIGHT NOW are priced out.
I don't know if I would be priced out or not. The point is, you are enforcing an authoritarian plan that removes freedoms. That is not patriotic by any definition I am aware of.


Sure you say, "fuck you" for me wanting to see you taxed 8%. But aren't there thousands saying "Fuck you for not wanting to grant me any sort of healthcare"? Of course there are.
Give it to them without removing my freedoms and I wouldn't have the same right to complain. I can still complain about the extra social spending, but not about taking away my rights.


The question to my mind is, does it make sense to see more people receive some form of health insurance at the risk of increased private rate expenses/policies. There are of course pros and cons on both sides of the fence. I lean towards pro, but it's not by far a huge issue for me.
That's the problem. You don't care how it hurts people.


I mean, I'm government, so my health care plan is already set up for me. Any word on how I feel on the subject is just my opinion and won't affect me viscerally.

I only see downfalls in what I have grown to expect in my coverage. To be any where near revenue neutral, you have to take away from the have's to give to the have-not's. I worked my ass off all my l8ife to be where I am. I don't care if I sound callous. Have most the others who cry about not having healthcare even tried to apply themselves in life as much as I have. Those who haven't tried don't deserve to take away from me.

[Yonivore]

The Obama Death Panel "Rumors" - The Times Looks Everywhere But The Mirror (http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2009/08/the-obama-death-panel-rumors-the-times-looks-everywhere-but-the-mirror.html)

THE PRESIDENT: So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right?

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.

LEONHARDT: So how do you — how do we deal with it?

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.
Yep, sounds like a "death panel" to me too. So, I guess Governor Palin got the idea from President Obama.

[Ef-man]

With all these anti-vaxxers and conservatives dying from covid even though the vaccines are free and available for everyone, it is high time President Biden brings up the creation of death panels. It is god’s will that Joe was elected.

No sense in letting good ideas go unfulfilled.

[DarrinS]

With all these anti-vaxxers and conservatives dying from covid even though the vaccines are free and available for everyone, it is high time President Biden brings up the creation of death panels. It is god’s will that Joe was elected.

No sense in letting good ideas go unfulfilled.

You bumped this thread for that? I'm conservative and the the entire family is vaccinated. Happy trails.

[Spurtacular]

You bumped this thread for that? I'm conservative and the the entire family is vaccinated. Happy trails.

A conservative pussy, Karrins.

[Th'Pusher]

I'm conservative...

Not really. You’d drop your “conservative” ideals in a second if it meant reinstating republican leadership. You’re a party hack, not a conservative.

[RandomGuy]

You bumped this thread for that? I'm conservative and the the entire family is vaccinated. Happy trails.

You're gullible is what you are.

You have been told to be "conservative" by your choice of news, and have, over the years, bought into it, and convinced yourself that what passes for conservatism these days somehow solves problems when, deep down, you know it doesn't.

You can't even be honest with yourself. smh

The core of modern conservatism is dishonesty, and violence.

[Ef-man]

Not really. You’d drop your “conservative” ideals in a second if it meant reinstating republican leadership. You’re a party hack, not a conservative.

What is even funnier is that the MAGAtards are death paneling themselves by not getting the vaccine.