Obama's Healthcare?? Plan

[HEthePrimate]

The hysterical claims about euthanasia for the elderly and sick are bogus. The people who make those claims either don't know what they are talking about, or are purposely misleading people simply because they don't want the Congress to pass a health care bill (Rush Limbaugh falls into this category).

The fact is, the health care plan simply allows for doctors to talk with people about what they (the patients) want to have happen at the end of their life. First of all, it's completely optional--nobody has to do anything, even talk about it. Second, it has nothing whatsoever to do with euthanasia. Even if a patient wanted euthanasia, that is NOT AN OPTION.

What they are talking about is similar to what the hospice movement is doing. Many people do not want to spend their last months hooked up to machines in a cold, sterile hospital. They would rather die with dignity at home, or at least in a more pleasant environment (like a hospice) than a hospital. And many people, when diagnosed with a terminal illness, do not see any point in spending tens of thousands of dollars extending their life by only a few months, and opt instead to focus on things like pain control and spending quality time with their family for the short amount of time they have left.

In my opinion, the right-wing talking heads themselves do not believe in the euthanasia myth, but are instead purposely fanning the flames and scaring people merely because they want Obama and Democrats in general to fail. They don't give a hoot what the American people want, they just want to see Obama crash and burn. This is exceedingly irresponsible and (yes, I'll say it!) unpatriotic. If you are against the health care plan, that is fine, go ahead and passionately oppose it. But do so on the basis of fact, not fantasy. Argue the merits or demerits of the plan based on at least your perception of reality, rather than simply making things up in order to scare the people away from your opponents' ideas. The Rush Limbaughs of the world are unpatriotic because they are more concerned with their own popularity and with making a buck than they are with the democratic process, which requires an informed citizenry. By lying to the American people about what the health care plan is all about, Limbaugh and his ilk are undermining the democratic process.

HEP

[Just_A_Guy]

It's already happening in Oregon.

I'm sure, fifteen years ago, that people who expressed such concerns as Oregon's health care plan was debated were dismissed with just the same kind of language as is being used now.

The fact is, our president has already as good as admitted that under his plan--at least in some circumstances--seniors will not be getting life-saving care, for primarily financial reasons.

Edited August 10, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

The hysterical claims about euthanasia for the elderly and sick are bogus. The people who make those claims either don't know what they are talking about, or are purposely misleading people simply because they don't want the Congress to pass a health care bill (Rush Limbaugh falls into this category).

The fact is, the health care plan simply allows for doctors to talk with people about what they (the patients) want to have happen at the end of their life. First of all, it's completely optional--nobody has to do anything, even talk about it. Second, it has nothing whatsoever to do with euthanasia. Even if a patient wanted euthanasia, that is NOT AN OPTION.

What they are talking about is similar to what the hospice movement is doing. Many people do not want to spend their last months hooked up to machines in a cold, sterile hospital. They would rather die with dignity at home, or at least in a more pleasant environment (like a hospice) than a hospital. And many people, when diagnosed with a terminal illness, do not see any point in spending tens of thousands of dollars extending their life by only a few months, and opt instead to focus on things like pain control and spending quality time with their family for the short amount of time they have left.

In my opinion, the right-wing talking heads themselves do not believe in the euthanasia myth, but are instead purposely fanning the flames and scaring people merely because they want Obama and Democrats in general to fail. They don't give a hoot what the American people want, they just want to see Obama crash and burn. This is exceedingly irresponsible and (yes, I'll say it!) unpatriotic. If you are against the health care plan, that is fine, go ahead and passionately oppose it. But do so on the basis of fact, not fantasy. Argue the merits or demerits of the plan based on at least your perception of reality, rather than simply making things up in order to scare the people away from your opponents' ideas. The Rush Limbaughs of the world are unpatriotic because they are more concerned with their own popularity and with making a buck than they are with the democratic process, which requires an informed citizenry. By lying to the American people about what the health care plan is all about, Limbaugh and his ilk are undermining the democratic process.

HEP

I agree with you on the right-wing talking heads. And it's only fair to say that fear mongering happens on both sides of the aisle. Since time immemoriam.

But, the difference here though HEP, is that, in the private market, a terminal patient can CHOOSE to fight it or "hospice" it. In the government plan, the way it is written right now, the choice is made for you by the government.

I had a conversation with my Bulgarian friend just 2 hours ago. She is getting her US citizenship in February. But now, she's starting to wonder if she should keep her Bulgarian citizenship. She grew up in communist Bulgaria and just recently migrated to the US. She feels very strongly, especially with this healthcare business, that she left one government controlled country just to wallow in another. She is starting to think that maybe staying in Bulgaria is a better option for her since Bulgaria, for the past 20 years has been struggling to rise above government control and start privatizing which, after 20 years, is finally making improvements in the country. In her own words, she said, America has the greatest medical advancements in the world. It is expensive but it is the best. And she says it is a testament to free enterprise. She came to America with $500 in her pocket 5 years ago. Now she has 35 piano students and more on a waiting list, each student paying $20 for a 30 minute lesson. She takes advanced music lessons herself to improve on her skill and expands her range to organ and electronic keyboards. A far cry from her life in Bulgaria. She is not willing to give up her achievements so she can buy healthcare for somebody else. That's her words.

Just thought I'd share.

[Just_A_Guy]

But, the difference here though HEP, is that, in the private market, a terminal patient can CHOOSE to fight it or "hospice" it. In the government plan, the way it is written right now, the choice is made for you by the government.

Well, no; if I read it right the government plan (as-written) merely covers the cost of an appointment where the patient sits down with the doctor and discusses the issue. I don't think the patient is required to have the consultation.

Of course, ten years from now--who knows how it may be interpreted, applied, or amended (as Oregon citizens are learning--see above).

[Maureen]

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.

This is a good example of someone willing to believe false information no matter how crazy it sounds.

M.

[HEthePrimate]

It's already happening in Oregon.

I'm sure, fifteen years ago, that people who expressed such concerns as Oregon's health care plan was debated were dismissed with just the same kind of language as is being used now.

You're saying the government is forcing euthanasia on the people of Oregon? Baloney! Euthanasia may be occurring in Oregon, but that's because the people of Oregon voted to allow people to choose euthanasia for their own reasons (dying with dignity, avoiding excruciating pain), not because the government is forcing them to for financial reasons.

The fact is, our president has already as good as admitted that under his plan--at least in some circumstances--seniors will not be getting life-saving care, for primarily financial reasons.

Just not true.

[HEthePrimate]

But, the difference here though HEP, is that, in the private market, a terminal patient can CHOOSE to fight it or "hospice" it. In the government plan, the way it is written right now, the choice is made for you by the government.

Simply not true. The government plan would not make anybody do it.

In her own words, she said, America has the greatest medical advancements in the world. It is expensive but it is the best. And she says it is a testament to free enterprise.

Americans pay far more per capita on health care than any other nation on earth. Yet we trail behind many countries in terms of our actual health. Our life span is shorter, infant mortality is higher, etc., etc. Our system is a monument of inefficiency. The myth that the private sector always outperforms the public sector is taken by many as gospel truth, to the point where they fail to examine the actual facts. The profit motive is a double-edged sword that can lead to inefficiency.

She came to America with $500 in her pocket 5 years ago. Now she has 35 piano students and more on a waiting list, each student paying $20 for a 30 minute lesson. She takes advanced music lessons herself to improve on her skill and expands her range to organ and electronic keyboards. A far cry from her life in Bulgaria. She is not willing to give up her achievements so she can buy healthcare for somebody else. That's her words.

How nice. A "me generation" Bulgarian.

HEP

[Just_A_Guy]

HEP:

Please refute the links I provided, then.

[HEthePrimate]

To find out what Obama is actually striving for, and dispel some of the myths:

Get the facts about the stability and security you get from health insurance reform | Health Insurance Reform Reality Check

[Just_A_Guy]

The White House press office does not shape reality.

1. Was an Oregon state health plan patient denied coverage for chemotherapy (but offered coverage for an assisted suicide), or was she not?

2. Did President Obama tell a commenter at a forum that that under his plan the commenter's ninety-odd-year-old grandmother may have to forego a pacemaker in favor of a pain pill, or did he not?

[bytor2112]

To find out what Obama is actually striving for, and dispel some of the myths:

Get the facts about the stability and security you get from health insurance reform | Health Insurance Reform Reality Check

Perhaps something other than Whitehouse.gov.......I am sure there isn't any bias or misleading info there:rolleyes:...although that flavor kool-aid is pretty tasty!!

Edited August 10, 2009 by bytor2112

[FunkyTown]

The White House press office does not shape reality.

1. Was an Oregon state health plan patient denied coverage for chemotherapy (but offered coverage for an assisted suicide), or was she not?

2. Did President Obama tell a commenter at a forum that that under his plan the commenter's ninety-odd-year-old grandmother may have to forego a pacemaker in favor of a pain pill, or did he not?

Can't intelligently comment on #1, but on #2, I saw the damning video.

And no, he did not say she would -have- to forgo. Just that the government wouldn't pay for it.

And you know what? It doesn't pay for it now. Difference=Not at all.

So while I don't know about the first, I can say you are definitely misrepresenting the facts in the second.

[Just_A_Guy]

Point taken, Funky.

Still, though--why is it so terrible that someone doesn't get health care because they can't pay for it; but no one bats an eye at a health plan under which someone won't get health care because the government won't pay for it--based on a value judgment that government has knowingly and deliberately made about the value of that person's continued existence?

You are right, though, in another sense: If she can't afford care, then difference between government not paying for her care and her having to forego that care = not at all.

And aren't you basically admitting that, after all the government and bureaucracy, we're STILL going to be left with a health care system that is, when all is said and done, class-based?

Edited August 10, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

Simply not true. The government plan would not make anybody do it.

You read the bill as it is written HEP? Okay, I admit, the last version I read was from 3 weeks ago. It changes pretty fast that one...

Yes, it does not say, YOU WILL HAVE TO such and such... But, reading the bill and extrapolating how it is going to be implemented it is the only conclusion to arrive at. When you are given an option of keeping your healthcare insurance but you can't make ANY changes to it, then what is your conclusion? It makes it so that eventually you have to avail yourself of the plan provided by government. That eliminates CHOICE. And what would you conclude if on that same bill it states that a committee will be established to provide health accountability? And, what would you conclude if on that same bill it states that healthcare coverage will be appropriated on quality of life (which, it doesn't state who decides what quality of life means)? That, coupled with the provision that you cannot change existing private coverage, just tells me we are led to the No Choice plan.

Now, I wouldn't be as concerned if I actually see a government plan being GOOD... I have education, Social Security, Medicare, welfare as examples of what a government can do... I have to say, No Thank You. I mean, it's like trying to hire somebody to work for you, you review the resume and find all these glaring problems but you'll hire him anyway?

Americans pay far more per capita on health care than any other nation on earth. Yet we trail behind many countries in terms of our actual health. Our life span is shorter, infant mortality is higher, etc., etc. Our system is a monument of inefficiency. The myth that the private sector always outperforms the public sector is taken by many as gospel truth, to the point where they fail to examine the actual facts. The profit motive is a double-edged sword that can lead to inefficiency.

HEP, it's not a myth. It is fact coupled with logic. Americans are not healthy because they choose the jumbo popcorn with double butter double salt and coca-cola at the movies. Completely separate from medical advancements.

How nice. A "me generation" Bulgarian.

That's America, HEP. Maybe you should move to Bulgaria?

[boyando]

Simply not true. The government plan would not make anybody do it.

Americans pay far more per capita on health care than any other nation on earth. Yet we trail behind many countries in terms of our actual health. Our life span is shorter, infant mortality is higher, etc., etc. Our system is a monument of inefficiency. The myth that the private sector always outperforms the public sector is taken by many as gospel truth, to the point where they fail to examine the actual facts. The profit motive is a double-edged sword that can lead to inefficiency.

How does this in any way shape or form make sense to you. President Obama state's that his plan will compete with the private sector and that means that you can keep your plan. Right. Your private sector insurance can compete with the US government, who can lower the price to zero if the want. They wont lower it to zero until after they have "out competed the private sector, which is kind of what they did with flood insurance in high risk areas (they didn't lower the flood insurance to zero, but the risk to cost factor makes it a lot like zero).

Competition and tort reform will lower the cost of health care. If it is the insurance companies that are the problem, why not put meat into health savings accounts so that the insurance companies get to insure less?

If this government can make health care cheaper, let it start with the vets.

[Kawazu]

Hi,

My apologies if this has already been said but I am not certain that the president envisions universal health care competing with private sector.

"Everybody in, nobody out," he stated.

Have a great day.

Regards,

Kawazu

[Palerider]

Hi,

My apologies if this has already been said but I am not certain that the president envisions universal health care competing with private sector.

"Everybody in, nobody out," he stated.

Have a great day.

Regards,

Kawazu

stick around...it will change again....:)

[Kawazu]

stick around...it will change again....:)

Presto. Shazam!

[Guest]

Hi,

My apologies if this has already been said but I am not certain that the president envisions universal health care competing with private sector.

"Everybody in, nobody out," he stated.

Have a great day.

Regards,

Kawazu

This is true... TECHNICALLY, but not practically.

Read the HR Bill! Yes, you can keep your private insurance. But, you only have to read at around page 16... okay, the version I read was from 3 weeks ago, this might have changed again... to realize that there are certain provisos in the bill that would make it difficult for you to do so...

I'm kinda reminded by the "depends on what IS is... I did not have sex with that woman..." yeah, TECHNICALLY if you limit the definition of sex, but not practically. And no, I'm not picking on democrats. It's just the most prominent example that came to mind.

Edited August 11, 2009 by anatess

[Kawazu]

Currently, how many pages is the House bill?

[rameumptom]

My biggest issue with the healthcare plan, is that it is being developed by the hard left Democrats in Congress. They will do to this plan what they did to the "stimulus" package - add tons of benefits for their constituents and favorite groups, and gut out the free enterprise portions.

My second issue is that they are not trying to fix the current system. Medicare/Medicaid are on the verge of bankruptcy. 2017 is not that far away, guys.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/199167

We cannot afford a $45 trillion deficit caused by Medicare and Social Security. Yet, that's where it is headed, and it will be there faster if Congress keeps playing the games it is playing. They want to use money from Medicare to help fund the new healthcare program. So, they are in all actuality planning on bankrupting the system that much faster.

Instead of overhauling the entire program, and overhauling insurance AND tort reform, we will not see a real and lasting fix. We need to have Medicare start at 70 or 72, reduce malpractice damages to reasonable amounts, etc. Everyone is going to have to feel the pain, or there will be nothing for anyone.

[boyando]

Simply not true. The government plan would not make anybody do it.

Americans pay far more per capita on health care than any other nation on earth. Yet we trail behind many countries in terms of our actual health. Our life span is shorter, infant mortality is higher, etc., etc. Our system is a monument of inefficiency. The myth that the private sector always outperforms the public sector is taken by many as gospel truth, to the point where they fail to examine the actual facts. The profit motive is a double-edged sword that can lead to inefficiency.

How nice. A "me generation" Bulgarian.

HEP

My biggest issue with the healthcare plan, is that it is being developed by the hard left Democrats in Congress. They will do to this plan what they did to the "stimulus" package - add tons of benefits for their constituents and favorite groups, and gut out the free enterprise portions.

My second issue is that they are not trying to fix the current system. Medicare/Medicaid are on the verge of bankruptcy. 2017 is not that far away, guys.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/199167

We cannot afford a $45 trillion deficit caused by Medicare and Social Security. Yet, that's where it is headed, and it will be there faster if Congress keeps playing the games it is playing. They want to use money from Medicare to help fund the new healthcare program. So, they are in all actuality planning on bankrupting the system that much faster.

Instead of overhauling the entire program, and overhauling insurance AND tort reform, we will not see a real and lasting fix. We need to have Medicare start at 70 or 72, reduce malpractice damages to reasonable amounts, etc. Everyone is going to have to feel the pain, or there will be nothing for anyone.

I just got to ask......is your avatar a smiley face beating a dead horse or a smiley face beating a dead donkey.

[rameumptom]

Does it matter whether it is a horse or donkey?

Our current system has many inefficiencies. These do not come because of the free market, but rather because the market is so heavily regulated against the system. Medicare is a huge, wasteful program that is suspected of wasting hundreds of billions of dollars per year. Requirements placed upon insurance companies, businesses who give insurance to their employees, doctors, etc., greatly increase the costs. These are basically hidden taxes. And when there is no limitations placed upon trial lawyers, it drives the costs up even more. Some doctors have stopped performing certain procedures (including childbirth), because the liability is so high.

I don't mind fixing our current system. But we aren't really fixing it with what the Democrats are proposing. We're just creating a bigger trash pile of fraud, waste and abuse.

[boyando]

Currently, how many pages is the House bill?

Which one? There are four in the House and one in the Senate. The one from the Senate is not available for the publics eyes yet. So Senators can claim at the town hall meetings, "thats not in the bill".

In other words, we don't know what we are talking about because we want to read and study, what they are trying to pass, and they keep changing it.

Now that's entertainment.

[FunkyTown]

Which one? There are four in the House and one in the Senate. The one from the Senate is not available for the publics eyes yet. So Senators can claim at the town hall meetings, "thats not in the bill".

In other words, we don't know what we are talking about because we want to read and study, what they are trying to pass, and they keep changing it.

Now that's entertainment.

Yeah. That's a terrible idea. Universal healthcare is a good idea, but because politicians are using it to beef up their support back home, they're adding riders and clauses that really shouldn't be in it. Sadly, if it were a simple, elegant solution, you'd be much more likely to get it passed. After all, even Teddy Roosevelt tried to get it passed in 1912 and Truman wanted to push it forward.

Sadly, politicians care more about being elected than actually coming up with an effective solution that helps America.