Page 119 of 143 FirstFirst ... 1969109114115116117118119120121122123124129 ... LastLast
Results 2,361 to 2,380 of 2855
  1. #2361  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I guess it should take as long as it takes - and that's not meant as a smart*ss answer. It took decades to get us to this point, so "realistically" it won't be an up and down vote that turns this ship around.
    It took decades of obstructionism by republicans and special interests. That's true, you got me there. Maybe now we can actually get something done. For at least 15 years I've been saying that we were never going to get health care reform done until the cost got so high that middle income workers could not longer afford to have decent coverage. Nobody pays any attention to minimum wage earners, because they don't vote very much and they don't contribute much and nobody speaks for them at all. But middle income employees do vote. If something isn't done right now, and they are delayed for several years. things will only get worse, and then we'll be in an even more dire situation. Cost controls need to be implemented now, not in two years or until Grassley becomes even more demented. Republicans do NOT want change in health care; they never have. The few that have were essentially booted out of the party (try Jacob Javits, who developed a national health plan in the '70s). There still have not been any concrete proposals that do anything to control costs put forward by any republican in congress. There is no opinion here; those are the facts.
  2. #2362  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Sorry. You are making the mistake of thinking that some of these people want to change the system. They voted against change, and now they are putting that vote into inaction. Additionally, when you say it's only an option, they say "you lie" because they don't believe you. Or the president. And as far as those who don't currently have access.....TS.
    As well you too are making a mistake thinking that people don't want change to come. Are you in health care????? My guess is NO! If you are ask your patients what do they really want and what concerns they have with the plan OUR PRESIDENT MR. OBAMA is pushing for. You will then see that they want change, however they are worried about the Gov. having a hand in the issue... This is not that much different from when Reagan was pushing for the Social Security system.

    Now to the "You Lie." That comment was totally uncalled for and out of line. What are we in kindergarten? The major issue is that many Republicans are more concerned about tarnishing the image of Our President, instead of focusing on the "real" issues at hand. Better yet lets revert back to the last 8 yrs. and go to war because "he threatened my father" and then lets turn around and call it a "success" and miss lead everyone and give false expectation that the WAR will be "quick and simple" WOW that coming from a person who avoided the war.

    If everyone took your view "And as far as those who don't currently have access.....TS" well, how will that help anything?
  3. #2363  
    Yeah, I forgot about Nancy's fleet. You speak of supporting insurance companies. Look closer. We are actually going supporting the UAW and its retirement fund to the tune of $10,000,000,000.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    We sure are. We're forced to buy billion dollar jets and aircraft carriers and pay for Blackwater thugs, and nobody asked my opinion. Too bad for me, right? Well, too bad for you too. At least we could simplify it by just paying for it out of taxes....but you'd rather waste your money supporting insurance companies. Great judgement.
  4. #2364  
    Was it out of line? Barry effectively called Sara Palin a liar in his speech when he spoke of death panels. The thing is - death panels did exist in the legislation and do exist in a number of states - Oregon is one of them. Barry out-right lied on that count and did not blink an eye about it. Health care reform? It is not reform. It amounts to destroying the current system with a socialist system that does not work well, especially in a country as big as ours.

    Quote Originally Posted by kmehr View Post
    As well you too are making a mistake thinking that people don't want change to come. Are you in health care????? My guess is NO! If you are ask your patients what do they really want and what concerns they have with the plan OUR PRESIDENT MR. OBAMA is pushing for. You will then see that they want change, however they are worried about the Gov. having a hand in the issue... This is not that much different from when Reagan was pushing for the Social Security system.

    Now to the "You Lie." That comment was totally uncalled for and out of line. What are we in kindergarten? The major issue is that many Republicans are more concerned about tarnishing the image of Our President, instead of focusing on the "real" issues at hand. Better yet lets revert back to the last 8 yrs. and go to war because "he threatened my father" and then lets turn around and call it a "success" and miss lead everyone and give false expectation that the WAR will be "quick and simple" WOW that coming from a person who avoided the war.

    If everyone took your view "And as far as those who don't currently have access.....TS" well, how will that help anything?
  5. #2365  
    The conservatives (not Republicans necessarily) do not believe the government has any reason to be in health care. Where in the Constitution does it state the government has the right/necessity to be involved in health care, education and many other areas it has forced itself in to. The private sector works in this country. The private sector got you your computer, not the government.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    It took decades of obstructionism by republicans and special interests. That's true, you got me there. Maybe now we can actually get something done. For at least 15 years I've been saying that we were never going to get health care reform done until the cost got so high that middle income workers could not longer afford to have decent coverage. Nobody pays any attention to minimum wage earners, because they don't vote very much and they don't contribute much and nobody speaks for them at all. But middle income employees do vote. If something isn't done right now, and they are delayed for several years. things will only get worse, and then we'll be in an even more dire situation. Cost controls need to be implemented now, not in two years or until Grassley becomes even more demented. Republicans do NOT want change in health care; they never have. The few that have were essentially booted out of the party (try Jacob Javits, who developed a national health plan in the '70s). There still have not been any concrete proposals that do anything to control costs put forward by any republican in congress. There is no opinion here; those are the facts.
  6. #2366  
    There are those of us who do not question the legitimacy of his birth certificate - what is questioned is why does he not provide it. Also, who frankly cares if he is a Muslim - I do not. His job though is to support American values, not apologize for them.

    Barry hurts himself though by not doing the Fox scene. Heck, by its ratings, most of America agrees.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    OK, then, maybe he quite rightly realized that Fox's market share is because neo-cons are all concentrated on one channel, and since there's nothing that he can say to change a single mind on that channel.....similar to the way that no amount of facts can convince so many that his birth certificate is valid or that he's not a Muslim.....he didn't want to waste his time.
  7. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #2367  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    The private sector got you your computer, not the government.
    Well actually, that's not true. Computers and the internet were both funded by the government in response to wartime efforts or needs.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  8. #2368  
    Really? Below is a link. Follow the link, do some reading and do some looking around.

    Palin: "So Much For Civility" With Obama's Debunking of Death Panels | TPMDC

    When you have a one-payer system, you have exactly that.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    And he was right in doing so.



    Show your work, please.



    Where has your president spoken of this commitment to the US government taking ownership of US hospitals and placing all physicians on the Federal dime?
  9. #2369  
    Everyone has seen it; however, why not do a photo copy of the original one and then post it in its entirety? Also, there are 4 versions types of birth certificates here in the state. Read the article closer.

    Ok, Obama refuses to show the real birth certificate. McCain did show his real birth certificate. If McCain refused to show his real birth certificate and Obama showed his real birth certificate, what would you say?

    Again, Obama refuses to show the original one - we are sure he has a copy of the original one. So there is no lie upon the questioners part. Show us the original, not the ones released to the public.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    These lies are laughable.

    FactCheck.org: Born in the U.S.A.

    FactCheck.org: Sliming Obama

    What is your source for your "info"?
    Last edited by bclinger; 09/23/2009 at 04:06 AM.
  10. #2370  
  11. #2371  
    Quote Originally Posted by kmehr View Post
    As well you too are making a mistake thinking that people don't want change to come. Are you in health care????? My guess is NO! If you are ask your patients what do they really want and what concerns they have with the plan OUR PRESIDENT MR. OBAMA is pushing for. You will then see that they want change, however they are worried about the Gov. having a hand in the issue... This is not that much different from when Reagan was pushing for the Social Security system.

    Now to the "You Lie." That comment was totally uncalled for and out of line. What are we in kindergarten? The major issue is that many Republicans are more concerned about tarnishing the image of Our President, instead of focusing on the "real" issues at hand. Better yet lets revert back to the last 8 yrs. and go to war because "he threatened my father" and then lets turn around and call it a "success" and miss lead everyone and give false expectation that the WAR will be "quick and simple" WOW that coming from a person who avoided the war.

    If everyone took your view "And as far as those who don't currently have access.....TS" well, how will that help anything?
    Ummmm.....clearly you haven't read the thread. First, my post was entirely sarcastic because I am totally committed to significant health care reform. Second, in fact, I am in health care. Look back over the thread and you'll get a feel for who I am and what I stand for. Meanwhile, allow me to welcome your assistance in pointing out how important this effort is.
  12. #2372  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    The conservatives (not Republicans necessarily) do not believe the government has any reason to be in health care. Where in the Constitution does it state the government has the right/necessity to be involved in health care, education and many other areas it has forced itself in to. The private sector works in this country. The private sector got you your computer, not the government.
    Such tiresome clatter. There are no death panels. Just because you put kittens in the oven, that doesn't make them biscuits. As was said, show your work. Give details where decisions were made to end someone's life....except of course all those examples that come from private insurers refusing to cover treatments so that people die. You can start your education by watching Sicko, which I'm sure you've never seen and probably never will. Too bad. You might learn something. And what this boils down to is very simple. Until you or your loved ones are forced into bankruptcy by appendicitis, or your kids can't get preventive services, or you watch someone die because they can't afford treatment, you will continue to blabber on about how health care isn't provided for in the constitution.

    You just don't see any difference between owning a car, having a nice house, and being protected against financial disaster by an illness you had nothing to do with. I do. If people don't have cars, or nice houses, that's up to them to provide. If they can pay for their health care, that's fine too. But if they can't, we as a country have the morality to not let people die in the streets. That's why we mandate care in ER's. But we cannot afford that any longer. Regardless of your denials, you've unmasked yourself as a birther, a deather, and mostly as someone who just doesn't care about people who get sick and can't pay for their care. You are the exact person that is supporting the status quo, which is unsustainable. Congrats.
  13. #2373  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    snip...

    Show your work.
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra
    As was said, show your work.
    I am really very flattered that you both have wholeheartedly adopted my phrase as your own personal retort to anyone who disagrees with you.

    It's funny how the left is so good at picking up sound bites that suit their agenda. Especially when they aren't willing to do what it is they are requesting of others.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  14. #2374  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Such tiresome clatter. There are no death panels. Just because you put kittens in the oven, that doesn't make them biscuits. As was said, show your work. Give details where decisions were made to end someone's life....except of course all those examples that come from private insurers refusing to cover treatments so that people die. You can start your education by watching Sicko, which I'm sure you've never seen and probably never will. Too bad. You might learn something. And what this boils down to is very simple. Until you or your loved ones are forced into bankruptcy by appendicitis, or your kids can't get preventive services, or you watch someone die because they can't afford treatment, you will continue to blabber on about how health care isn't provided for in the constitution.

    You just don't see any difference between owning a car, having a nice house, and being protected against financial disaster by an illness you had nothing to do with. I do. If people don't have cars, or nice houses, that's up to them to provide. If they can pay for their health care, that's fine too. But if they can't, we as a country have the morality to not let people die in the streets. That's why we mandate care in ER's. But we cannot afford that any longer. Regardless of your denials, you've unmasked yourself as a birther, a deather, and mostly as someone who just doesn't care about people who get sick and can't pay for their care. You are the exact person that is supporting the status quo, which is unsustainable. Congrats.
    I love how you're able to stick to the facts and not get all personal in your replies.

    Until you or your loved ones are forced into bankruptcy by appendicitis, or your kids can't get preventive services, or you watch someone die because they can't afford treatment, you will continue to blabber on about how health care isn't provided for in the constitution.
    Would you mind referencing the clause or section or any thing at all in the Constitution that allows us to disregard the rest of the document when things aren't going our way?
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  15. #2375  
    There are no death panels?

    http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/08/d...ing-in-oregon/

    Another subject that has links there just for you to click on.

    We cannot afford any longer? Really? Just like we can afford out of control medical related law suits! The type that made Johnny "I didn't" Edwards a multi-millionaire.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Such tiresome clatter. There are no death panels. Just because you put kittens in the oven, that doesn't make them biscuits. As was said, show your work. Give details where decisions were made to end someone's life....except of course all those examples that come from private insurers refusing to cover treatments so that people die. You can start your education by watching Sicko, which I'm sure you've never seen and probably never will. Too bad. You might learn something. And what this boils down to is very simple. Until you or your loved ones are forced into bankruptcy by appendicitis, or your kids can't get preventive services, or you watch someone die because they can't afford treatment, you will continue to blabber on about how health care isn't provided for in the constitution.

    You just don't see any difference between owning a car, having a nice house, and being protected against financial disaster by an illness you had nothing to do with. I do. If people don't have cars, or nice houses, that's up to them to provide. If they can pay for their health care, that's fine too. But if they can't, we as a country have the morality to not let people die in the streets. That's why we mandate care in ER's. But we cannot afford that any longer. Regardless of your denials, you've unmasked yourself as a birther, a deather, and mostly as someone who just doesn't care about people who get sick and can't pay for their care. You are the exact person that is supporting the status quo, which is unsustainable. Congrats.
  16. #2376  
    It is exceedingly evident that neither of you know of "Google Search." Try it. You might like it.

    It was in the senate version and taken out after the public found out about it.

    Death panels do exist and when you yourself mentioned that emergency health care can no longer afford...well, take it like that - when the money runs out, death is the way out and who makes that decision? The government.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    If I were you, I'd be editing out the lie ("The thing is - death panels did exist in the legislation") that bclinger continues to spread, out of shear embarrassment too. Good for you!

    Just noticed your signature. It certainly lives up to your treatment of your "challenge" to the statistical analysis of a certain population study.
  17. #2377  
    That is it right there. The Constitution only fits the needs of the liberal and his/her moments of need. Otherwise make room for the "feel good" that liberals have and the hate they espouse at others who do not agree with them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    I love how you're able to stick to the facts and not get all personal in your replies.

    Would you mind referencing the clause or section or any thing at all in the Constitution that allows us to disregard the rest of the document when things aren't going our way?
  18. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #2378  
    There was to be a "death panel", and it had nothing to do with the eol issue in Oregon.

    The "death panel", early in the national debate, was the term applied to Obama's selected team of "experts" that would decide which procedures would be best for each patient based on data, best practice, and BUDGET. This panel was called a "death panel" because of the rationing issue, specific examples like denying a hip replacement to an 80 year old because of rationing needs, but allowing it for a 40 year old because he'll get more out of it, were cited. In effect, the lack of the hip replacement could be shown to contribute to the decline and ultimate demise of the elderly patient. At the very least, it would greatly reduce their quality of life. But hey, they've lived their lives, right? Why should they complain. They've taken enough from the rest of us already.....
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  19. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #2379  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    looking forward to your specific, cited reference for your claims
    Help yourself. It's called "google". I don't have to reach out and grab a "specific cited reference" for you every time I post a comment.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  20. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #2380  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    I just figured since you (and bclinger) are so intimately familiar with the senate proposal and all ... and its devious plan to refuse granny a hip replacement ... They usually have numbers assigned to make them easy to reference, if that helps.
    Obama's Death Panels: Whose Life Is It, Anyway?
    By EvanMadianosMD - Posted on August 16th, 2009

    "The big story of the past week is the controversy over "death panels"— Sarah Palin's term for the idea that "my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care."

    The basis for this claim is two different provisions put forward in various versions of the (still not completely written) health-care bill.

    The first is a proposal to establish a panel of medical experts who would determine which treatments are supposedly most cost-effective and thus will be paid for under a government-run system—and which will not.

    In a New York Times interview in April, which makes very instructive reading in the current debate, President Obama explained that "part of what I think government can do effectively" is to be a "broker" "between patient and provider"—that is, between you and your doctor—"in assessing and evaluating treatment options."

    He continued: "And certainly that's true when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid, where the taxpayers are footing the bill and we have an obligation to get those costs under control."

    The example he gives? Whether his ailing grandmother should have been allowed a hip replacement in the final months of her life.

    "End-of-life care" he said, is an area where "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."

    So who is going to make the decisions about grandma's cancer treatment and hip replacement surgery?

    "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."

    Just don't call it a "death panel"!

    Other countries already have such a system. In Britain, it's known by the creepy, Orwellian acronym NICE, for National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, and it is the panel charged with deciding, for example, that a cancer drug that would extend your life by six months is too expensive because you don't have enough "quality adjusted life years" remaining to justify your cost to the National Health Service.

    This is a rationing board for government-provided medical care, based on a bureaucratic formula that tells you how much your life is worth to the state.

    The second provision in the current health-care reform, covered in more detail by Palin in a follow-up posting, is a proposal—actually included in a Senate version of the bill until Palin pointed it out—that would give doctors a financial incentive to approach their patients about "end-of-life planning." This would likely have the effect of pushing doctors to discourage additional treatment in the last years and months of one's life in order to cut costs for the government.

    Obama has dismissed these concerns—somewhat flippantly—as mere "rumors." But they are totally in keeping with his own statements and with the logical consequences and overall direction of the bill.

    And worse: the fears about "death panels" and rationing of care for the elderly are validated by the moral justifications offered for the health-care bill in the first place.

    In a recent editorial, the Wall Street Journal does an excellent job of describing the economic factors that will necessitate rationing of health-care and denial of care for the elderly. But it is important to grasp that this is not an accidental or unintended consequence of government control of health care. It is an intended consequence, following directly from the basic moral premise behind the health-care bill: the premise that your medical care is the business of "society."

    Thus, when discussing the "difficult moral issues" that are raised by end-of-life care, President Obama says, "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," leading to Obama's idea of an "independent group" being put in charge.

    Is this how you would naturally think about decisions regarding the end of your own life? Would you say, "let's have a democratic conversation about it"? Or would you respond that this is your life and hence your decision, which cannot morally be made by anyone else?

    Jack Wakeland sent me an e-mail yesterday which captured how these "end-of-life" decisions—let's put it bluntly: decisions about dying—are currently, and properly, treated.

    "When a patient is terminally ill, it is entirely proper and legitimate for doctors to push for frank discussions between the patient and his family about whether or not the medical profession can really do anything for him other than alleviate pain. It is entirely proper and legitimate for the patient to consider the financial burden he is imposing on his family if they are supporting him, or the financial loss to his family if he intends to bequeath to them what remains of his estate after his death.

    This kind of end-of-life cost/benefit analysis is a deeply personal issue. It is so intensely personal that one's own family members—including one's own wife or husband—may not legitimately involve themselves in the decision unless they're asked by the one who is to die
    ."

    Yet Obama is proposing to turn the subject over to a whole bunch of strangers, to an "independent group" "guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists."

    Under what morality is this acceptable?

    Ask one of the "ethicists": Ezekiel Emanuel, a physician, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, and a "special advisor for health policy" in the Obama administration. Dr. Emanuel has advocated the denial of care based on a viciously thorough, consistent version of collectivism: the premise that an individual's life is only valuable insofar as he is valuable to the collective.

    In an article titled "Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions," published in the medical journal The Lancet in January of this year, Dr. Emanuel and his co-authors advocate "a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated."

    Get that? We're going to "allocate" "chances that are attenuated." Just don't call it a "death panel"!

    The administration's toadying defenders in the press have leapt to object that Dr. Emanuel was "only addressing extreme cases like organ donation," but the examples that lead his article include "beds in intensive care units," penicillin, and kidney dialysis (which were once quite scarce). Yet what is important is not so much the treatments that are to be rationed, but the principle on which they would be rationed.

    In a 1996 article, Emanuel advocated government guarantees of health care for those treatments that would make possible the "full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations," while "services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed."

    Thus, it is "public participation"—a person's usefulness to society—that is the criterion by which health care is granted or "attenuated."

    Of course, this raises the specter of the politicization of health care. After all, are the tea party protesters good "participating citizens"? Not according to Nancy Pelosi. So maybe those good "participating citizens" in the Service Employees International Union should be first in line for the state's allocation of scarce health-care resources.

    Decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the left still adheres to the philosophy of collectivism—the ghostly influence of the twisted moral code that inspired the murder of millions in the 20th century.

    The American people sense this, and that is why they are recoiling in horror from Obama's plan for a greater government role in health care. Once the government sets itself up as the allocator of "society's" resources, the people—and especially the elderly—are afraid that they will be granted or denied care based on some nebulous criteria that attempts to measure how useful they have been or will be to society.

    Greater government control puts the individual's life at the mercy of collective—which means the state. And that is what makes people justifiable terrified of Obama's health-care plan.

    The individual is not a mere cog in the collective and cannot be regarded as such—or discarded when he is no longer useful to the state. That view is a fundamental rejection of the founding ideal of this nation: that all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That means that each individual life is an end in itself, an irreplaceable value whose fate can only be decided by one person: the individual himself.

    Any legislation that threatens to undermine this code of American individualism must be thoroughly and immediately rejected. It's time to convene a death panel to discuss end-of-life planning for Obama's health-care bill.
    ========
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.

Posting Permissions