Obama's Healthcare?? Plan

[prospectmom]

Here is some info from my Pain Newsletter

Help Correct Misinformation About Hospice and Palliative Medicine in Health Care Reform Bill

The American Pain Foundation and the American Academy of Hospice & Palliative Medicine (AAHPM) request your help in correcting misinformation about hospice and palliative medicine in the health care reform bill. Your voice is urgently needed to weigh in on the health care reform debate. Provisions AAHPM worked hard to have included in health care reform legislation are now being attacked, and some members of Congress have been hearing from constituents who've been misinformed. We need you to correct the record!

America's Affordable Health Choices Act (H.R. 3200) contains a provision that would provide coverage under Medicare for people to talk to their doctor about their wishes and care preferences at the end of life. This has prompted some groups to falsely claim that care planning consultations include "euthanasia," that physicians would be required to "recommend a method for death" and that such consultations would be "mandatory every five years." These claims are blatantly false.

The provision included in H.R. 3200 simply allows Medicare to pay for a conversation between a patient and their doctor if the patient wishes to speak about their preferences and values. This benefit would be purely voluntary, and patients do not need to have this consultation with their doctor if they do not wish to do so. The new Medicare benefit would allow doctors to be compensated for these conversations every five years, and more frequently if a patient has a life-limiting illness or health status changes.

Staff for U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), who sponsored the original legislation on advance directives, have been reaching out to other Congressional offices in an effort to clarify mischaracterizations of the health care reform legislation. Now they are asking to hear from you. They need quotes from patient advocates and health care providers so they can help correct the record and promote the benefits of advance care planning among the members of Congress.

If you wish to weigh in on this legislation, please forward a quote - no more than a few sentences - to Christa Shively in Sen. Blumenauer's office stating why these provisions in the health care reform bill are important. These should be positive statements about improving patient care and helping families through difficult times. They need your feedback as soon as possible. You may also want to follow up with your own representatives in Congress - let them know that you support this and other hospice and palliative care provisions in the health care reform bills.

Please contact AAHPM Advocacy with any questions.

PLEASE NOTE: Members of Congress will recess and return to their home states for an August work period. AAHPM urges you to make an appointment with your representatives for this time, to discuss the benefits of hospice and palliative care provisions now included in the health care reform bills. Your voice is crucial to ensuring all of these provisions remain in the final version of reform legislation.

[Gatorman]

I have a simple question that I have not found an answer to myself. Which of the powers, granted by the Constitution, give the Congress authority to pass such a bill, regardless of its value or specifics?

[FunkyTown]

I have a simple question that I have not found an answer to myself. Which of the powers, granted by the Constitution, give the Congress authority to pass such a bill, regardless of its value or specifics?

Article 1, Section 8:

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

(Emphasis mine).

This could be interpreted to include health care, since health is certainly a part of the general welfare of the United States.

My question is how the Patriot Act managed to get Habeus Corpus suspended.

Is the US currently being invaded? Is there a major rebellion going on?

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

I would say, if the Constitution is a person's concern, fixing the horrendous abuses of it in the past 8 years since September 11th would be a person's primary concern.

[rameumptom]

Several of the Founding Fathers warned about overuse of the general welfare clause. Otherwise, it can sink the rest of the Constitution in feel-good actions by Congress.

I agree that habeas corpus, writ of, should not have been suspended, as we have not had an imminent attack in 8 years.

The reality is, the more Congress messes with the economy, the more other things are impacted that were not realized before. It would be one thing if they were to really fix Medicare and Medicaid, but they aren't. They are not into helping America, but only in helping themselves and their radical ideologies (left and right).

Personally, I think health care, as with other things not specifically given in the Constitution to the Feds and not prohibited to the states, should be done by the states. If a state wishes to have state-wide healthcare, all power to them. But let's not ram it down everyone's throat in a giant program that will suck away jobs and economic growth.

If you want to really fix things, do some tort reform. Doctors do tons of expensive tests right now, because they are afraid of being sued. Sadly, Pelosi and many other Democrats are in the pocket of ambulance chasers, and so won't change the system so as to make things responsible for all involved.

I mean, remember the woman who received $2million, because she spilled her hot McDonald's coffee on her lap? Give her $50,000 plus medical costs, and leave it at that.

[FunkyTown]

Several of the Founding Fathers warned about overuse of the general welfare clause. Otherwise, it can sink the rest of the Constitution in feel-good actions by Congress.

I agree that habeas corpus, writ of, should not have been suspended, as we have not had an imminent attack in 8 years.

The reality is, the more Congress messes with the economy, the more other things are impacted that were not realized before. It would be one thing if they were to really fix Medicare and Medicaid, but they aren't. They are not into helping America, but only in helping themselves and their radical ideologies (left and right).

Personally, I think health care, as with other things not specifically given in the Constitution to the Feds and not prohibited to the states, should be done by the states. If a state wishes to have state-wide healthcare, all power to them. But let's not ram it down everyone's throat in a giant program that will suck away jobs and economic growth.

If you want to really fix things, do some tort reform. Doctors do tons of expensive tests right now, because they are afraid of being sued. Sadly, Pelosi and many other Democrats are in the pocket of ambulance chasers, and so won't change the system so as to make things responsible for all involved.

I mean, remember the woman who received $2million, because she spilled her hot McDonald's coffee on her lap? Give her $50,000 plus medical costs, and leave it at that.

It's interesting that the same arguments used against unifying international cross-country highways way back under Madison are the same arguments being used now against Universal Health Care.

Roosevelt, when he brought together the highway system in the US, provided decades of far superior transportation. It even allowed the trucking industry to take off and really expanded the economy in the long run. Under Madison, the creation of the highway system was ruled unconstitutional. Under Roosevelt, it developed the US economy and really improved quality of life for the majority.

However, I should point out that current US spending is out of control and somebody has to make some tough cuts.

Hmm... Intriguing. I just did some research. I'm going to post a new thread with regards to tax dollars coming in vs going out.

[Gatorman]

I tend to side with the Founding Fathers. Why give a catch all power to Congress, when they had specifically defined the others? The idea was to restrict what government could do, but then to give them a get out of fail free card. Does that make sense?

[FunkyTown]

I tend to side with the Founding Fathers. Why give a catch all power to Congress, when they had specifically defined the others? The idea was to restrict what government could do, but then to give them a get out of fail free card. Does that make sense?

Hey, you asked which of the powers granted by the Constitution allows this.

Plus, Roosevelt accepted the argument when he made the cross-country highways. Of course, if you've never driven on 'em, then you can make the argument that they shouldn't have been built.

[Just_A_Guy]

Funky, the US interstate system was Eisenhower's brainchild, not FDR's. And FWIW, there was a strong national-defense component to them: Eisenhower had seen first-hand the strategic advantage that well-planned, well-constructed roadways (like the Autobahn) gave to the Germans during WW2. (Personally, I think a "general welfare" argument is unnecessary since Congress' ability to impose universal health care can be extrapolated from our Commerce Clause jurisprudence. I also dislike the "general welfare" argument because it lets Congress do pretty much whatever it wants to, as long as it can claim an arguably utilitarian basis for its actions.)

By the way (and I don't know if it's come up already, since I was out-of-state all last week), here is an interesting video with some admittedly cherry-picked quotes that suggest the President does intend for private insurers to be edged out of the market over the long-term.

Edited August 3, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[FunkyTown]

Funky, the US interstate system was Eisenhower's brainchild, not FDR's. And FWIW, there was a strong national-defense component to them: Eisenhower had seen first-hand the strategic advantage that well-planned, well-constructed roadways (like the Autobahn) gave to the Germans during WW2. (Personally, I think a "general welfare" argument is unnecessary since Congress' ability to impose universal health care can be extrapolated from our Commerce Clause jurisprudence. I also dislike the "general welfare" argument because it lets Congress do pretty much whatever it wants to, as long as it can claim an arguably utilitarian basis for its actions.)

By the way (and I don't know if it's come up already, since I was out-of-state all last week), here is an interesting video with some admittedly cherry-picked quotes that suggest the President does intend for private insurers to be edged out of the market over the long-term.

A pox upon you! You are correct. Eisenhower was the one behind it. I don't know why I kept saying Roosevelt when I meant Eisenhower.

[Moksha]

They found out that Sen Dodd has prostate cancer....instead of going to Canada or Europe for his operation, since the medical care is better there....he is going to have the surgery here in the states.....then he will be back to help overhaul our poor system....:huh:

Pale, there is nothing wrong with the hospitals in the United States, but not everyone has the high-end no deductable health care benefits like Senator Dodd. Many have no benefits at all.

[Moksha]

Funky, the US interstate system was Eisenhower's brainchild, not FDR's.

You are fight. Eisenhower had seen first hand the wisdom of the German Autobahn. Too bad both men were unable to see the functionality of Germany's current health care system, although FDR did take his cue from Bismark's idea for elderly workers and thus we have Social Security.

[Palerider]

Pale, there is nothing wrong with the hospitals in the United States, but not everyone has the high-end no deductable health care benefits like Senator Dodd. Many have no benefits at all.

Like I said before.....many don't have homes and a job.....lets give the people everything they need.......

[Moksha]

Like I said before.....many don't have homes and a job.....lets give the people everything they need.......

As we both know, LDS Employment services would like them to have a job.

I don't believe any conservative would endore the right to have a roof over our heads at night or even in the winter, let alone a house.

[Palerider]

As we both know, LDS Employment services would like them to have a job.

I don't believe any conservative would endore the right to have a roof over our heads at night or even in the winter, let alone a house.

Lets make the Gov't provide these things....afterall they can solve all the problems.....

[rameumptom]

It's interesting that the same arguments used against unifying international cross-country highways way back under Madison are the same arguments being used now against Universal Health Care.

Roosevelt, when he brought together the highway system in the US, provided decades of far superior transportation. It even allowed the trucking industry to take off and really expanded the economy in the long run. Under Madison, the creation of the highway system was ruled unconstitutional. Under Roosevelt, it developed the US economy and really improved quality of life for the majority.

However, I should point out that current US spending is out of control and somebody has to make some tough cuts.

Hmm... Intriguing. I just did some research. I'm going to post a new thread with regards to tax dollars coming in vs going out.

The highway system was actually developed under Eisenhower. He didn't do it under the general welfare clause, but under Commerce. He believed it would open the door for greater commerce, and he was right. But he made sure the program was paid for by the taxpayers.

Going trillions of dollars into debt is not the way to improve the economy. FDR tried doing it during the Great Depression, and ended up extending it out several more years.

Let's break down the phrase:Change we can believe in"

Change: a small amount of money, usually found in your front pocket or inside the couch.

Believe: something that one has faith in or can rely upon.

Well, Congress' idea of change is trillions of dollars, much more than what one would find in one's wallet or bank account.

And as for something one can believe in, we have a health care system that already is overburdened and about to collapse within a few years. We have a stimulus package that isn't stimulating anything. We have a Cap and Trade bill that promises to give away 85% of the tax advantages to Congress' special interest groups.

So, "Change we can believe in" really means "Trillions of dollars we can use to pay back our supporters."

[Gatorman]

My understanding of the 'general welfare' clause is that it is a restrictive clause, not a permissive one. It means that the only laws congress can pass are ones that apply equally to everyone. So, anti discrimination laws have be equal both ways. You can not hire/fire someone because they are black. But, neither can you hire them to balance the equation. It is still discrimination and the general welfare clause means such a law has to apply equally.

[boyando]

I just remembered my grandma's cure for anything that ales yah. Stick your head in a bucket of water three times and pull it out twice, and all your pains go away. Now thats change that you can believe in.

Well the health care system is broke and we got to do something.

[Just_A_Guy]

Hmm.

Wow.

Sign me up for that state-run health care!

Edited August 5, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Palerider]

I heard it today....if you oppose his healthcare plan....you are part of an angry Mob.......Thats me....I am part of an angry Mob.....:lol:

[Maxel]

Hmm.

Wow.

Sign me up for that state-run health care!

"We'll help you to die, not live."

That seems to be the unnamed, basic philosophy behind every government program. I went to the local community college with my mom today (for her school books) and had to wait in line. While in line, the discussion turned to government welfare- and how, in different ways, it would help sustain people when they're not going to school but won't help sustain them when they are attending school. For many on welfare, the choice becomes: do I work hard to improve my situation and lose the government's help, or do I slack off, doing the bare minimum to survive and keep the government's money?

[bytebear]

I heard it today....if you oppose his healthcare plan....you are part of an angry Mob.......Thats me....I am part of an angry Mob.....:lol:

I find it quite hypocritical that the same people who call it a political conspiracy to disrupt town hall meetings are the same people who pop up en mass when a civil rights issue is raised or a war is fought. How many people does Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton bus in to their protests?

Of course the left thinks its a set up. After all, they perfected the technique.

[farmer]

Did you watch the DNC commercial ? Priceless I tell you.

[kevtop]

As of now, the 20 million "illegal" immigrants are confined to the emergency room for when they need medical treatment. Under Obama's plan, they will have the same rights to seek out any doctor office they wish. I fear that should this come to pass, my doctor will be "too" busy treating these new patients, and my relationship with my primary doctor, as well as my health, will suffer.

[Hemidakota]

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.

If the government runs the program, it will only fail.

[Just_A_Guy]

From Reason.com, via Instapundit:

If Obama has his way, his health care plan will be funded by his treasury chief who did not pay his taxes, overseen by his surgeon general who is obese, signed by a president who smokes, and financed by a country that is just about broke.

On a slightly more serious note, we often hear that tort reform is a necessary element of a system-wide health care overhaul. When you're listening to such pleas, don't forget:

Medical mistakes have consequences, often very expensive ones. To what degree should we be insulating doctors against malpractice claims?

Edited August 10, 2009 by Just_A_Guy