Obama's Healthcare?? Plan

[Churchmouse]

The more I see about this the more it looks like we are on the road to elderly euthanasia. This may not bother the younger members here, but it should.These things take place a little at a time. It may not effect older people like myself, but 30 or so years down the road a government official may decide when and whom is obsolete. If we were to go back sixty years did people believe there would be a day when unborn children lives could be terminated with the governments blessing?

As for the King part. I believe that Obama believes himself to the the King of the United States. A king's decisions are not questioned and are carried out without debate. He did this with the economy. Elected officials didn't even get a chance to read the package before it was voted on. Now we are finding out what it contained. I'm seeing his style now. Push things through the Democratic controlled Senate and House as quickly as possible. He finally hit a wall with this Healthcare Plan of his and it's the "blue dog" Democrats that stopped him. His sky high popularity has vanished and people , on both sides of the aisle, are beginning to question their choice.

Now that I'm retired I get free healthcare through the Veterans Administration. I pay $250 a month for my wife, and have a $5,000 deductable, but I prefer that to what the govenment is offering.

[prospectmom]

He did this with the economy. Elected officials didn't even get a chance to read the package before it was voted on.

Are you serious.. Congress and Senate put their own wants into the bill and werer willing to let it go through because they got their part....... No one was willing to look ahead to see the consequences. The senate and congress were tooo full of greed to get it what they individually wanted.

As for the King part.

Luckily we have a constitution..... and no he can not make a decision like a king could. Aren't we to be respectful to our persons in office especially our president even if we disagree with the policy.

The more I see about this the more it looks like we are on the road to elderly euthanasia.

Can you please show me wher in the proposed bill it any way states this?????

[miztrniceguy]

Obamacare is coming!!

[boyando]

As for the King part.

Luckily we have a constitution..... and no he can not make a decision like a king could. Aren't we to be respectful to our persons in office especially our president even if we disagree with the policy.

President Obama is using czars to work his little magic. He is not a King and he is not a dictator, yet. But oh how great it would be.

The more I see about this the more it looks like we are on the road to elderly euthanasia.

President Obama stated in one of his town meeting that standards for care needed to bet set, and if some one does not meet the standards, because of age or other reasons, the best coarse of action would be to make the patient comfortable and send them home to die.

Can you please show me wher in the proposed bill it any way states this?????

Maybe we need to listen to what he is telling us.

[prospectmom]

who the poster who got the origons of the stimulis bill wrong or the Pres?????

[MarginOfError]

Well, if the President's vision of health care were to be realized, it would look a lot like the health care system for which I work. This health care system is rated in the top 5 in the country, and maintains its own health insurance plan that is quite effective at minimizing cost.

What's more, the model this health system works on reduces unnecessary procedures, and encourages more effective procedures that are usually associated with better outcomes. For instance, the hospital for which I work does more Uterine Fibroid Embolization (UFE) procedures that almost any other institution in the country. The reason for that is that the primary physicians in our system don't stand to lose money if they refer a patient for UFE. Traditionally, uterine fibroids are treated through gynecologic surgery, whereas UFE procedures are performed by a branch of radiology. For a gynecologist in a traditional health care system to refer that patient to the radiologist is to lose a patient and the revenue from that patient. In our model, the physician loses no revenue by referring the patient and can offer a less invasive procedure with better outcomes for the patient.

Unfortunately, Congress has its hands on health care now. It wasn't perfect under Obama's vision, but it's dismal under Congress's.

[Moksha]

The more I see about this the more it looks like we are on the road to elderly euthanasia.

What an off-the-wall idea. Euthanasia is much more likely in a society that lets people die from lack of health care because they lack health insurance or else have a preexisting condition.

[Moksha]

Unfortunately, Congress has its hands on health care now. It wasn't perfect under Obama's vision, but it's dismal under Congress's.

Congress is much better tuned into the need of those who want to make maximal bucks off this health care revision.

[prospectmom]

Congress is much better tuned into the need of those who want to make maximal bucks off this health care revision.

Yes Moksha the special interests, etc who pay the lobbyists to court the congress

[Palerider]

This so called Healthcare system is so wonderful....none of the current politicians want to use it for themselves.....its only good enough for us to use....isn't that nice of them....:)

[prospectmom]

PALe don't you know Congress and the Senate have the best healthcare money can buy. Why would they want to change?????

[Palerider]

PALe don't you know Congress and the Senate have the best healthcare money can buy. Why would they want to change?????

Thats another reason why.....when they all start telling me how good anything is and this will be great for me and everyone....I want to run and hide my wallet......I know the Tax man is coming....:)

They should have the same care as us....

[Churchmouse]

He did this with the economy. Elected officials didn't even get a chance to read the package before it was voted on.

Are you serious.. Congress and Senate put their own wants into the bill and werer willing to let it go through because they got their part....... No one was willing to look ahead to see the consequences. The senate and congress were tooo full of greed to get it what they individually wanted.

As for the King part.

Luckily we have a constitution..... and no he can not make a decision like a king could. Aren't we to be respectful to our persons in office especially our president even if we disagree with the policy.

The more I see about this the more it looks like we are on the road to elderly euthanasia.

Can you please show me wher in the proposed bill it any way states this?????

Well, Mrs. Obama, let's see what your husband, the King said.

During one of his town meetings a lady asked about her 105 "very active" mother. She does her own housekeeping, shopping and has a social life. Now she needs a transplant. She asked the King what his plan would do. He said maybe she should be put on morphine rather than receive a transplant at her age. Letting someone die that could otherwise return to a normal life sounds like euthanasia to me. I would prefer that a doctor help me make that decision rather than some government flunky.

Now. You tell me where in the Bill it says anything? If Congress hasn't even read it I doubt that you have. You need to remove MoveOn.org from your Favorite's List:(

[Churchmouse]

Well, if the President's vision of health care were to be realized, it would look a lot like the health care system for which I work. This health care system is rated in the top 5 in the country, and maintains its own health insurance plan that is quite effective at minimizing cost.

I think it's wonderful that you have more confidence in the plan that Congressman from his own party and that you are more knowledgeable than the majority of Americans that are opposed to the plan.

[Churchmouse]

What an off-the-wall idea. Euthanasia is much more likely in a society that lets people die from lack of health care because they lack health insurance or else have a preexisting condition.

In 1958, legal, government paid for abortion was an off-the-wall idea.

[Gatorman]

Well, sounds like someone works for a company like Kaiser P. The difference, those are companies. The government needs to encourage such companies to exist and proceed. I work for a company that is self insured. They contract with Beechstreet for the provider network, BUT, they give us the amounts they are willing to pay and we can go to any doctor and show it to them and say 'If you want me as a patient, here is what you get paid'. Puts more control in our hands.

[FunkyTown]

I think it's wonderful that you have more confidence in the plan that Congressman from his own party and that you are more knowledgeable than the majority of Americans that are opposed to the plan.

Uh... Churchmouse? What Obama said is the same under the current system. If she wants a transplant at her age, she has to be able to afford it. And there needs to be a matching donor.

The health plan doesn't include any required euthanasia plans, nor does it force people to use its coverage. If someone can afford better coverage, they will get that.

NE StatePaper.com - FactCheck.org Documents False Euthanasia Claims

That, plus a quick trip to factcheck.org will show you're incorrect. If you have a beef with the President, please stick to real issues (Like overspending, or questioning the efficacy of this health care) rather than lying outright. It hurts your cause and the cause of all conservatives.

Edited July 31, 2009 by FunkyTown

[Gatorman]

Common Sense Health Care Reform Plan -

1 - Government has no authority under the constitution to be involved in health care or business

2 - No requirement to provide healthcare to any person in the country illegally.

3 - Government enticement to businesses and health care systems to become self insured, ala Kaiser Permanente.

4 - Allow physicians to make necessary decisions and get paid based on out comes, not based on tests run.

5 - If using a procedure based system, link it to medically accepted best practices and require exceptions to be well documented, but possible.

Now, forgive my words if they do not seem to describe this well. The ideas are the issue, not how I fail at describing them.

[MarginOfError]

Well, Mrs. Obama, let's see what your husband, the King said.

During one of his town meetings a lady asked about her 105 "very active" mother. She does her own housekeeping, shopping and has a social life. Now she needs a transplant. She asked the King what his plan would do. He said maybe she should be put on morphine rather than receive a transplant at her age. Letting someone die that could otherwise return to a normal life sounds like euthanasia to me. I would prefer that a doctor help me make that decision rather than some government flunky.

Now. You tell me where in the Bill it says anything? If Congress hasn't even read it I doubt that you have. You need to remove MoveOn.org from your Favorite's List:(

Strange that you would say such a thing, because all of the urologists I know would say exactly what President Obama said. In fact, the standard practice would be to put the 105 year old lady as low priority on the transplant list. If a kidney became available and it didn’t provide a match for anyone higher up on the list, then she is welcome to it. However, her position on the waiting list will be extremely low primarily because of her age. It’s also important to remember that transplantation is a brutal procedure. Many transplant patients are advised to reduce their activity for 1 – 2 years following the transplant while the body learns to accept the new organ. While all this is taking place, heavy immunosuppressants are administered to prevent the body from rejecting the organ. This leaves the patient susceptible to all sorts of illness and disease. Under these conditions, it is highly unlikely that a woman 105 years of age would ever return to anything like her pre-transplant level of activity or health.

I think it's wonderful that you have more confidence in the plan that Congressman from his own party and that you are more knowledgeable than the majority of Americans that are opposed to the plan.

It amuses me that you would rant and rave about how ignorant and irresponsible liberal members of Congress are and then hide behind them to justify your point. And yes, being someone that works in healthcare, investigates procedural and medical decisions, and looks for ways to improve health care administration for each patient, yeah, I’d say I have a little more knowledge in the topic than your average American. Without hesitation, I’d say I have more knowledge than you do.

In 1958, legal, government paid for abortion was an off-the-wall idea.

Living wills are end-of-life care paperwork are not euthanasia as you would put it. Saying that these documents are euthanasia is as ignorant as saying that Hospice care is euthanasia. Let’s actually look at what Obama proposed. He proposed that at about age 60 or 65, each patient would be required to complete paperwork specifying how doctors should respond if the patient is in a medical crisis and unable to communicate their desires to their doctors. This paperwork would be updated every five years.

This has a couple of advantages. 1) the physicians can retrieve the documents in an emergency and provide treatment according to the patient’s wishes, whether that be to administer end-of-life care or to do everything possible to save the patient’s life at all costs. 2) the health care system doesn’t have to search out next of kin to get permission or instruction on how to proceed. The proposal was never to force end-of-life care on seniors. It was to make arrangements so that the decision would be made ahead of time, which prevents wasted time before treatment when an emergency arises.

You might also consider the fact that many health care systems are asking patients to fill these out routinely. When my wife and I pre-admitted to the hospital for the birth of our daughter, the hospital gave us the information on how to specify our wishes regarding end-of-life care. My wife was 27 years old at the time. Why is it so outrageous that we would ask 65 year old people—the group of people that, generally speaking, have the highest risk of death—to specify what course of action they would like physicians to take in a medical emergency?

Accuse me and others of drinking the kool-aid all you want, but you’ve got a pretty thick streak of red on your lip yourself.

[FunkyTown]

Accuse me and others of drinking the kool-aid all you want, but you’ve got a pretty thick streak of red on your lip yourself.

Everyone's drinking Kool-aid? Oh no!

Oh no!

[bytor2112]

MOE.......I appreciate your comments and your insight regarding the health care issue. I can't speak for anyone else, but I would say what concerns me is that we really don't know the details.......and the devil is usually in the details.

1. How much will it cost? (will we cut wasteful spending somewhere else? Doubtful)

2. Who will be paying? Everyone?

3. Who will be covered? Who won't be covered?

4. What is covered and what is not?

5. Choice of Doctor's?

6. Will we really be able to retain our private insurance?

7. What happens to private insurers and how does that affect the economy?

The list could go on. As far as the euthanasia....I think some people are concerned that if treatment is available that MAY or MAY NOT save someone, those decisions may be decided by a government panel based on cost.......ok, that probably occurs now with insurance companies. I am not completely opposed to the idea, BUT, I would sure like to see some wasteful spending cut to off-set the price tag...wouldn't you?

Honestly, Obama and the members of Congress that support this have done a lousy job of presenting the plan to a cautious and concerned public. Details, details, details.....we need details. This is way to big an issue to just ram down out throats. If they get it wrong, it could have disastrous consequences for the economy and the health and well being of all Americans.

Edited July 31, 2009 by bytor2112

[NeuroTypical]

I recently asked an uber-liberal buddy of mine when was the last time the government put together a program of similar massive scale, that turned out to be a good thing. He mentioned Social Security. Upon being pressed for something a bit more current, he mentioned the Department of Energy.

I don't know which is worse, the prospect of gubment healthcare working as efficiently and wonderfully as the DOE, or the fact that various people will indeed 'drink the koolaid' and believe it's a good thing when it's here.

LM

[Wingnut]

Thank you to whichever mod edited the derogatory "King" out of the thread title.

[rameumptom]

One problem I see is that the President is NOT getting what he originally envisioned. He's totally turned the process over to Nancy Pelosi, as he did the "stimulus bill."

A couple days ago, I was watching a news discussion on this on MSNBC. The commentators stated that in Clinton's era, the health care program failed because the president/Hillary tried to keep things secret and not allow Congress any true input into the system and it failed.

Obama is trying to avoid the same mistake by letting Congress develop it. The problem is, he is totally giving it over to them, and not steering the plan along, to ensure it will actually do something good.

As it is, they are not touching Medicare and Medicaid, which together have costs that will soon approach $50 trillion in IOUs. Unless Congress gets serious and does something about those two programs, we're going to end up bankrupt with no health care for anyone in the USA (except Congress and their cronies). It totally amazes me how no one outside a few media types are even talking about it. Congress seems absolutely blissful to wear their blinders and march forward to their Utopia. But what will happen when they find out their city in the clouds only has a false floor ready to collapse, and everything falls back to earth?

[rameumptom]

I recently asked an uber-liberal buddy of mine when was the last time the government put together a program of similar massive scale, that turned out to be a good thing. He mentioned Social Security. Upon being pressed for something a bit more current, he mentioned the Department of Energy.

LM

Does your friend realize that Social Security runs out of money in less than 10 years, and will be totally bankrupt before 2025? Does he realize it only realizes a 1.5% annual return (our national average is 3%, so it loses ground yearly)? Does he realize that personal accounts in US treasury bonds could easily have gotten us 5-8% interest?

Even with the 2008 crash, bonds would have had us far ahead over the last 20 years than the 1.5% annual rate.