Reply With Quote
Clearly you enrolled in public schools and I was forced to pay for it.
Screw you!
This is just about people who want things they can't afford and are forcing others to pay for it. It is a form of stealing.
All these recent advancements in health care are expensive! And with these idiotic "ethics" doctors think they have to treat people who can't pay! If they're too poor to pay for their own health care, society would probably be better off with them dead!
It's bad enough to have so many people who contribute nothing to the economy loitering around, making cities look tacky, committing crimes, but they can't leave it at that -- they have to be an economic drag on those of us who add value. I guess with this so-called "President" from Kenya or Indonesia or wherever the he's from I shouldn't be surprised.
The only thing I've heard so far that sounded good was those "death panels" --- once old people can't work anymore and their money runs out, why keep them alive? What's the point?
Why do you people insist upon forcing others to take care of you? Why can't you take care of yourself? What happened to your families? Why is it my problem? Screw you!
Clearly you enrolled in public schools and I was forced to pay for it.
Screw you!
Why are we forced to pay for police and firemen? I've never used them..
...the military? Tell them to come take out that stump in my yard...
It is a form of stealing...
The rest of your post is silliness.
How many of his posts aren't silly?
One Daisycutter ought to do the job.
Liberals actually believe you can make healthcare "free" by signing a bill. Therefore, anyone who opposes "free healthcare" must be truly diabolical. There's no other possible reason.
Their ain't nothing free for nobody.
The Five Biggest Lies in the Health Care Debate
By Sharon Begley | NEWSWEEK
Published Aug 29, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Sep 7, 2009
To the credit of opponents of health-care reform, the lies and exaggerations they're spreading are not made up out of whole cloth—which makes the misinformation that much more credible. Instead, because opponents demand that everyone within earshot (or e-mail range) look, say, "at page 425 of the House bill!," the lies take on a patina of credibility. Take the claim in one chain e-mail that the government will have electronic access to everyone's bank account, implying that the Feds will rob you blind. The 1,017-page bill passed by the House Ways and Means Committee does call for electronic fund transfers—but from insurers to doctors and other providers. There is zero provision to include patients in any such system. Five other myths that won't die:
You'll have no choice in what health benefits you receive.
The myth that a "health choices commissioner" will decide what benefits you get seems to have originated in a July 19 post at blog.flecksoflife.com, whose homepage features an image of Obama looking like Heath Ledger's joker. In fact, the house bill sets up a health-care exchange—essentially a list of private insurers and one government plan—where people who do not have health insurance through their employer or some other source (including small businesses) can shop for a plan, much as seniors shop for a drug plan under Medicare part D. The government will indeed require that participating plans not refuse people with preexisting conditions and offer at least minimum coverage, just as it does now with employer-provided insurance plans and part d. The requirements will be floors, not ceilings, however, in that the feds will have no say in how generous private insurance can be.
No chemo for older Medicare patients.
The threat that Medicare will give cancer patients over 70 only end-of-life counseling and not chemotherapy—as a nurse at a hospital told a roomful of chemo patients, including the uncle of a NEWSWEEK reporter—has zero basis in fact. It's just a vicious form of the rationing scare. The house bill does not use the word "ration." Nor does it call for cost-effectiveness research, much less implementation—the idea that "it isn't cost-effective to give a 90-year-old a hip replacement."
The general claim that care will be rationed under health-care reform is less a lie and more of a non-disprovable projection (as is Howard Dean's assertion that health-care reform will not lead to rationing, ever). What we can say is that there is de facto rationing under the current system, by both Medicare and private insurance. No plan covers everything, but coverage decisions "are now made in opaque ways by insurance companies," says dr. Donald Berwick of the ins ute for healthcare improvement.
A related myth is that health-care reform will be financed through $500 billion in Medicare cuts. This refers to proposed decreases in Medicare increases. That is, spending is on track to reach $803 billion in 2019 from today's $422 billion, and that would be dialed back. Even the $560 billion in reductions (which would be spread over 10 years and come from reducing payments to private Medicare advantage plans, reducing annual increases in payments to hospitals and other providers, and improving care so seniors are not readmitted to a hospital) is misleading: the house bill also gives Medicare $340 billion more over a decade. The money would pay docs more for office visits, eliminate copays and deductibles for preventive care, and help close the "doughnut hole" in the Medicare drug benefit, explains Medicare expert Tricia Neuman of the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Illegal immigrants will get free health insurance.
The House bill doesn't give anyone free health care (though under a 1986 law illegals who can't pay do get free emergency care now, courtesy of all us premium paying customers or of hospitals that have to eat the cost). Will they be eligible for subsidies to buy health insurance? The house bill says that "individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States" will not be allowed to receive subsidies.
The claim that taxpayers will wind up subsidizing health insurance for illegal immigrants has its origins in the defeat of an amendment, offered in July by Republican Rep. Dean er of Nevada, to require those enrolling in a public plan or seeking subsidies to purchase private insurance to have their citizenship verified. Flecksoflife.com claimed on July 19 that "hc [health care] will be provided 2 all non us citizens, illegal or otherwise." Rep. Steve king of Iowa spread the claim in a USA today op-ed on Aug. 20, calling the explicit prohibition on such coverage "functionally meaningless" absent mandatory citizenship checks, and it's now gone viral. Can we say that none of the estimated 11.9 million illegal immigrants will ever wangle insurance subsidies through iden y fraud, pretending to be a citizen? You can't prove a negative, but experts say that Medicare—the closest thing to the proposals in the House bill—has no such problem.
Death panels will decide who lives.
On July 16 Betsy McCaughey, a former lieutenant governor of New York and darling of the right, said on Fred Thompson's radio show that "on page 425," "congress would make it mandatory … That every five years, people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner, how to decline nutrition." Sarah Palin coined "death panels" in an Aug. 7 Facebook post.
This lie springs from a provision in the House bill to have Medicare cover optional counseling on end-of-life care for any senior who requests it. This means that any patient, terminally ill or not, can request a special consultation with his or her physician about ventilators, feeding tubes, and other measures. Thus the house bill expands Medicare coverage, but without forcing anyone into end-of-life counseling.
The death-panels claim nevertheless got a new lease on life when Jim Towey, director of the White House office of faith-based initiatives under George W. Bush, claimed in an Aug. 18 Wall Street Journal op-ed that a 1997 workbook from the Department of Veterans Affairs pushes vets to "hurry up and die." In fact, the thrust of the 51-page book, which the VA pulled from circulation in 2007, is letting "loved ones" and "health care providers" "know your wishes." Readers are asked to decide what they believe, including that "life is sacred and has meaning, no matter what its quality," and that "my life should be prolonged as long as it can...using any means possible." But the workbook also asks if readers "believe there are some situations in which I would not want treatments to keep me alive." Opponents of health-care reform have selectively cited this passage as evidence the government wants to kill the old and the sick.
The government will set doctors' wages.
This, too, seems to have originated on the Flecksoflife blog on July 19. But while page 127 of the House bill says that physicians who choose to accept patients in the public insurance plan would receive 5 percent more than Medicare pays for a given service, doctors can refuse to accept such patients, and, even if they participate in a public plan, they are not salaried employees of it any more than your doctor today is an employee of, say, Aetna. "Nobody is saying we want the doctors working for the government; that's completely false," says Amitabh Chandra, professor of public policy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.
To be sure, there are also honest and principled objections to health-care reform. Some oppose a requirement that everyone have health insurance as an erosion of individual liberty. That's a debatable position, but an honest one. And many are simply scared out of their wits about what health-care reform will mean for them. But when fear and loathing hijack the brain, anything becomes believable—even that health-care reform is uncons utional. To disprove that, check the commerce clause: Article I, Section 8.
Find this article at http://www.newsweek.com/id/214254
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/062809.htmlWhile a public option could piggyback on the Medicare bureaucracy to maximize savings and have the advantage of simplicity, the emerging Baucus-Conrad scheme would add an array of cooperatives to the already confusing mix of insurance plans. For many Americans, these new en ies won’t present an appealing alternative to private insurance.
If such a “compromise” emerges, a few Republicans might vote yes; the industry would be happy; and the Obama administration could have a “bipartisan” signing ceremony.
But the American people might find themselves left out of the celebration. The federal government might even compel the uninsured – under penalty of fines – to sign up with an existing insurance company whether they feel they can afford it or not. Mandated coverage could mean a big windfall for the insurance industry, pushing nearly 50 million new customers into its arms.
kenya!
"The federal government might even compel the uninsured"
It says "might", but let's assume there will be no mandate to participate, so, like now, even people who can afford health insurance can continue to remain uninsured, aka, "play medical bankruptcy casino".
When they have a serious, EXPENSIVE disease or accident ($100K+ in medical bills), and they show up at the county hospital ER (which has been so far required to provide care), the county hospital (paid for by insured citizens and taxpayers) will reserve the right to say "we can't find you in ANY insurance plan, so GTFO"
Pretty fun vid.
^^ Nice 'stache Boutons. That shirt was a little too much however.
No dude this is about the state trying to steal and oppress the people under the guise of compassion.
I'm an European. We have "free" health care here.
Shocking news: it's not free. Doctors still get paid, nurses still get paid, hospital builders still get paid, pharmaceutical companies still get paid, etc. The difference is that the taxpayers, even those who aren't born yet, are the ones paying, not the guys using it. On the other hand, what you get is an amazing degree of inefficiency. You know, the guy who's ill and needs healthcare isn't the one paying for it anyway, the client is an abstract iden y called "the government", that will always pay the bill anyway, so why should you care?
I've always been amazed why people who defend an universal and free healthcare system don't also defend an universal and free clothing, universal and free housing, universal and free restaurants and food stores, etc. Aren't those essential goods as well? If it works, what are we waiting for?
Shh. You are not too subtly undermining the meme that government health care will destroy the health care sector...Shocking news: it's not free. Doctors still get paid, nurses still get paid, hospital builders still get paid, pharmaceutical companies still get paid, etc.
Another economic panic.I've always been amazed why people who defend an universal and free healthcare system don't also defend an universal and free clothing, universal and free housing, universal and free restaurants and food stores, etc. Aren't those essential goods as well? If it works, what are we waiting for?
When prime and jumbo debts start to fail, along with commercial real estate, there may be another economic shock. Whenever that happens, public provision of the *essentials* you describe may become relevant in the USA.
One friend of mine says to get ready for a *bank holiday* in the USA this fall.
So why do you think everyone is saying the worst is over? Even libertarianish
economists are saying it now. I just don't see anything that makes me think we are done but then again I'm no economist.
I don't either. It's more happy talk.
Beat's me why they're doing it. It's a temporizing move at best. The facts may overrun it pretty soon.
That's not at all what they are proposing here.....clinics, hospitals and emergency rooms would continue to operate much like they do now, what is reformed is who pays for care after it has been delivered...
Dan, do you recall this:
Compare with:
I had a college professor who did this. He would ask a question. Then he shake his head and say yes, or nod it and say no.clinics, hospitals and emergency rooms would continue to operate much like they do now, what is reformed is who pays for care after it has been delivered
He liked to do this with correct answers. He would nod his head yes and say <<No!>>, then repeat the correct answer you had just given back to you.
You have just done something like this.
people who work hard and budget are expected to pay for the ones who rather have unlimited minutes and internet on their iphone.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
