Page 120 of 143 FirstFirst ... 2070110115116117118119120121122123124125130 ... LastLast
Results 2,381 to 2,400 of 2855
  1. #2381  
    The end result is the same. A select person/group makes the decision. That is what is done in Oregon and that is what was going to be done on the federal level.

    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    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.....
  2. #2382  
    You need to listen to more than one source. You need to then go and look for the information. It is there. It was in the senate version and subsequently removed after Obama stated it was not there and then found to be there.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    Thanks for correcting bclinger. It's not nice to promote misinformation.



    I'm looking forward to your specific, cited reference for your claims just as I am bclinger's. Was this included in a Senate resolution or proposal, as bclinger suggests?
  3. #2383  
    Take responsibility for your own education.

    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.
  4. #2384  
    My wife is in home-based hospice at this time due to lung cancer.
    When she was initially diagnosed, the 1st doctor took the time to speak to us where we were, where we were going, and what to expect. When an oncologist was assigned to her, the routine was repeated. When the radiologist began treating her, the routine was repeated. Standard stuff. However, the government is now mandating it according to their standards and when things like "responsibility to family" is stressed over quality of life on a personal level, then we really have an ethics problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    An Op-Ed by a Radiologist, far removed from patient care, about the already known provisions for providing end of life services ["During those consultations, practitioners are to explain “the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,” and the government benefits available to pay for such services"] is what this tizzy is all about? You're kidding, right?

    If that's the standard, somebody do something to reform Pastoral Care too since it has always been in the practice of digging the grave and throwing dirt on granny's face (while praying for her mortal soul, of course!).

    This is absolutely laugh-out-loud ridiculous to be equated with "death panels" and is only regurgitating what is already known to be misrepresentative.
  5. #2385  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael;1915052[B
    The first[/B] 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 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."

    ===
    There is so much garbage, misinformation and dunderheadedness in that piece that it's hard to know where to begin. Do you think that determining which treatments are effective and which are not is a bad thing? Would you rather be spending your money on things that have been proven to not be helpful because your granny's sister wants it done, even though it will not improve her quality of life or care? If so, and that's the attitude everybody has, we're all screwed. We cannot afford that. Try looking at the work of the US Preventive Services Task Force (link) who convene world experts to determine what screening tests are safe and effective. Read again: world experts, not government doctors. If you decide you want to have a screening MRI of your entire body just to check on things, should we pay for it? Should your private insurance company pay for it?

    For a number of years I volunteered to serve on a panel that was put together by a local non-profit health plan (yes, a private insurance company). The group, called the Technology Assessment Panel, was composed of private docs and academic docs. None of them worked for the HMO. Our job was to review requests by docs who had contracts with the HMO who wanted to add specific technologies or treatments to the list of approved interventions. If we said no, there's no evidence from the literature that that new replacement finger joint is any better than the traditional joint, regardless of what the private orthopedist thinks, then it was not paid for by the HMO....and guess what? If that was what we decided, it almost always saved them money, because new stuff costs a lot more than old stuff. But cost never was a part of the discussion,only efficacy (and effectiveness....you might look up the difference if you don't know it). Is there something wrong with that approach? The same thing is done in hospitals to determine what drugs should be added to the forumulary to avoid bias. Is what you want no control whatsoever, so if you want to see a neurosurgeon for a simple headache you can do it and your insurance company will pay for it? Does any of that assessment of quality or efficacy sound like a death panel to you? If so, you might want to think about it for a while. Death panel...crap. There are no death panels, there never have been in this country.
    Last edited by davidra; 09/23/2009 at 06:41 PM.
  6. #2386  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    My wife is in home-based hospice at this time due to lung cancer.
    When she was initially diagnosed, the 1st doctor took the time to speak to us where we were, where we were going, and what to expect. When an oncologist was assigned to her, the routine was repeated. When the radiologist began treating her, the routine was repeated. Standard stuff. However, the government is now mandating it according to their standards and when things like "responsibility to family" is stressed over quality of life on a personal level, then we really have an ethics problem.
    I'm very sorry about your wife. But I see nothing in any bill that would alter the treatment she has had or the discussions either. Nothing was ever mandated about end of life counseling, remember? It was optional. And now it's been removed because conservatives misrepresented it, and people may now not get the kind of counseling they need. And there were no government standards, ever. And the whole thing was put into at least one bill by a republican.

    Again, I am very sorry for the situation you and your wife are in. And I'm glad you will not be rendered bankrupt by her illness....because lots of people would be.
  7. #2387  
    With all due respect to my american friends and family members. Even to those of my southern neighbors that I will never know. Many of you talk about government control, that this is just one more step in taking away your rights. People, lets face it, the biggest loser here will be the big health care companies and the even bigger health insurance companies. Why, as it was pointed out above, should a person be forced into bankruptcy, loose their homes, simply because a family member becomes ill. Come on, 3800 bucks for 6 stitches, one hour worth of time. I know this is just an example, but please, those kind of abuses are absurd at best. The only one I would be afraid of in this whole thing is the health care company who is going to loose out on all those profits, and the doctors who help charge those obscene rates.

    Lets face it, the average american tax payer, can not afford to even have a bloody kid without going into hock for 4-5 years. Wake up and smell the smoke folks, your health care system is behind many so called 3rd world countries.

    Govt health care is not a bad thing. What it does, is level the playing field for the majority of Americans.

    just my two Canadian cents worth.

    Micael... i would suggest that presently, my good southern neighbors all ready have a "death panel". Its called being too damn poor to get the treatment that many people need. As you have pointed out repeatedly, you are individuals, you compare national health care to being in a collective. That sir is just so much hogwash ( harkens back to the 50s and the big red scare tactics of a certain individual, Mcarthay lol) . If you have the money, you get the treatment, if you dont have the money you dont get the treatment. Based on that basic little tenet, you have the ultimate death panel. Like I said above, the real looser in this whole national health scheme is the health insurance companies..... and before you go off about 2.2 percent of each dollar is all the money they make,,, why is it they continue in that business if it is so unprofitable.... hmmmm just more misdirection by people who really only read what they want to read
    Last edited by xForsaken; 09/24/2009 at 05:40 AM. Reason: missed a post
  8. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #2388  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    With all due respect to my american friends and family members. Even to those of my southern neighbors that I will never know. Many of you talk about government control, that this is just one more step in taking away your rights. People, lets face it, the biggest loser here will be the big health care companies and the even bigger health insurance companies. Why, as it was pointed out above, should a person be forced into bankruptcy, loose their homes, simply because a family member becomes ill. Come on, 3800 bucks for 6 stitches, one hour worth of time. I know this is just an example, but please, those kind of abuses are absurd at best. The only one I would be afraid of in this whole thing is the health care company who is going to loose out on all those profits, and the doctors who help charge those obscene rates.

    Lets face it, the average american tax payer, can not afford to even have a bloody kid without going into hock for 4-5 years. Wake up and smell the smoke folks, your health care system is behind many so called 3rd world countries.

    Govt health care is not a bad thing. What it does, is level the playing field for the majority of Americans.

    just my two Canadian cents worth.

    Micael... i would suggest that presently, my good southern neighbors all ready have a "death panel". Its called being too damn poor to get the treatment that many people need. As you have pointed out repeatedly, you are individuals, you compare national health care to being in a collective. That sir is just so much hogwash ( harkens back to the 50s and the big red scare tactics of a certain individual, Mcarthay lol) . If you have the money, you get the treatment, if you dont have the money you dont get the treatment. Based on that basic little tenet, you have the ultimate death panel. Like I said above, the real looser in this whole national health scheme is the health insurance companies..... and before you go off about 2.2 percent of each dollar is all the money they make,,, why is it they continue in that business if it is so unprofitable.... hmmmm just more misdirection by people who really only read what they want to read
    This discussion is about who we want making decisions about our lives. I say keep it at the personal individual level. You say, give it to some bureaucrat in DC. Thats it. Thats all that this is about. It's not about saving money, but in who "controls" the money, cause da money still gonna flow. This is a political fight, not healthcare solution development. The government solves nothing. The government does nothing but controls things. Power is about the control of the flow of money, and that's all this is: A POWER GRAB BY THE GOVERNMENT. Period.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  9. #2389  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    This discussion is about who we want making decisions about our lives. I say keep it at the personal individual level. You say, give it to some bureaucrat in DC. Thats it. Thats all that this is about. It's not about saving money, but in who "controls" the money, cause da money still gonna flow. This is a political fight, not healthcare solution development. The government solves nothing. The government does nothing but controls things. Power is about the control of the flow of money, and that's all this is: A POWER GRAB BY THE GOVERNMENT. Period.
    Manure. Nobody in Washington tells me what decisions to make in my Medicare patients. Never have, never will, although they may suggest I don't keep patients in the hospital longer than they need to be there....but I don't have to listen to them.

    You can make it a political control issue. That makes it easy for you, doesn't it? That way you can ignore all the people that are hurting and dying and using inappropriate resources because of the non-system we have. That might be a little harder to face. This is not about power....it's about being a caring society. Listen to the Canadians who have weighed in on these threads. They're trying to tell you something.
  10. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #2390  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    You can make it a political control issue. That makes it easy for you, doesn't it? That way you can ignore all the people that are hurting and dying and using inappropriate resources because of the non-system we have. That might be a little harder to face. This is not about power....it's about being a caring society. Listen to the Canadians who have weighed in on these threads. They're trying to tell you something.
    I'm surprised you didn't throw in the "children".
  11. #2391  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    What exactly do you have against a Public Funded/Privately Administered healthcare system serving as an adjunct to private insurance? There is no evidence of any plan being considered which supports your assertion that any civil servant makes clinical decisions for any patient, at any time. None!
    Privately administered? How does the government privately administer something?
    “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
  12. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #2392  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    Wrong. Times 40!

    REPORT: The media have debunked the death panels -- more than 40 times over

    Under reform, the patient is always the one to make their own healthcare decisions. Just as today.
    Media matters... lol. Now there's an impartial group!
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  13. #2393  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    I'm surprised you didn't throw in the "children".
    Yeah, I had forgotten you don't give a damn about them either, do you? How'd you feel about SCHIP? It was passed by a republican congress and a democratic president, and in case you don't know anything about it, it provides low-cost insurance for children that are ineligible for Medicaid but still are at 200% of the federal poverty guidelines. A good example of a bipartisan program that filled in holes for uninsured children. A good example of what we could do if people actually got involved in the process instead of obstructing and rooting for failure for political reasons.

    There, feel better? They're included. And by the way....cynicism about the health of children is unbecoming.
  14. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #2394  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    There is no evidence of any plan being considered which supports your assertion that any civil servant makes clinical decisions for any patient, at any time. None!
    Other than the words coming directly out of Obama's mouth? You don't consider that evidence? Wow. What will it take?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  15. #2395  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Yeah, I had forgotten you don't give a damn about them either, do you? How'd you feel about SCHIP? It was passed by a republican congress and a democratic president, and in case you don't know anything about it, it provides low-cost insurance for children that are ineligible for Medicaid but still are at 200% of the federal poverty guidelines. A good example of a bipartisan program that filled in holes for uninsured children. A good example of what we could do if people actually got involved in the process instead of obstructing and rooting for failure for political reasons.

    There, feel better? They're included. And by the way....cynicism about the health of children is unbecoming.
    Gee Micael I didn't realize what a mean hateful uncaring person you were. It's really awesome that the good Dr points that out for us.
    “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
  16. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #2396  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    And Joe Scarborough is a Pinko Commie!



    Media Matters only reported what responsible media has confirmed ... More than 40 times (to date).
    So why are you telling me this? I've said nothing about anyone encouraging euthanasia. Do you even read my posts? Really, you can be very annoying when you attack someone for a stance they haven't made.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  17. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #2397  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    How exactly did I attack you? Underscoring the multiple media outlets who have taken that false argument off the table, 40 times over, is hardly unfair, personal, or unkind.

    Where did I interject "encouraging euthanasia"? The only person to do that was bclinger, and even you had to correct the error of his ways.
    You've posted the media matters link "debunking" the "right-wing claims that the House health care reform bill would encourage euthanasia of the elderly". That's interjecting the topic, to me.

    My point was different and hasn't been debunked by you, or by your fair and balanced media matters.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  18. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #2398  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    If you'd like to continue spinning your wheels about Media Matters, who only made a collection of the multiple media outlets who have debunked your conspiracy theory about death panels, go right ahead. Doesn't change the truth of the matter, but that appears to be a nonpriority.

    If you're going back to your response to XForsaken, where you stated: "This discussion is about who we want making decisions about our lives. I say keep it at the personal individual level. You say, give it to some bureaucrat in DC. Thats it. Thats all that this is about.", this is simple fearmongering, plain and simple which has no foundation in any congressional proposal, nor anything any policy-maker has stated. The delivery of healthcare will remain privately administered whereby the patient determines their care. Once you have substantiation, as written in a congressional proposal, that confirms the existence of a bureaucratic layer which prevents patients from directing their own care, you'll have something to harp about. Until then, you're denying reality.
    So you don't believe what comes out of Obama's mouth.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  19. #2399  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    This discussion is about who we want making decisions about our lives. I say keep it at the personal individual level. You say, give it to some bureaucrat in DC. Thats it. Thats all that this is about. It's not about saving money, but in who "controls" the money, cause da money still gonna flow. This is a political fight, not healthcare solution development. The government solves nothing. The government does nothing but controls things. Power is about the control of the flow of money, and that's all this is: A POWER GRAB BY THE GOVERNMENT. Period.
    Well up here in the great white north, we have govt health care, as I am sure you know. Yes, we do have some govt input. Yes the govt can and does tighten the purse strings at times. NO they do not decide who gets what treatment. NO they have absolutely no say what so ever over the basic or extended care levels. Is it perfect? Hell no!!! The Feds and Provinces tax us, that money is sent down to the different areas of need. Health care, highways, etc etc.. At no time does the premier of a province or the prime minister of canada have any bloody say about what treatment we get. Is there waste, yes, is there fraud on the part of some (very very few) practioners? Yes. Does for the most part it work pretty damn well? HELL YES..

    Some time back, late 70s i was skiing in Colorado,, little hill called Aspen, I broke my leg,,, it cost the company I was skiing for a bloody fortune to get it set and cast.. only to find out when i got back to Canada they had done it wrong.. and it had to be rebroken... now, saying that the same thing can happen here,, however.. it does not cost me a penny, not one thin dime.. on either count.

    I stand by my statement, this is less to do about national health care and more about big biz loosing out on a major cash cow.. namely big health care run hospitals and insurance companies. I reassert, that the only reason so many bloody people are up in arms about this is the scare tactics that these big businesses have been using. comon Death panels, rationing, give me a break. Fact, if you can afford to go to a big hospital,, and pay to get to the front of the line you get the better care.. the cash that is paid out is far more then the average american makes in a year. Your right its about money, and who controls it.. right now.. the big health companies and the insurance companies do.. and you have absolutely no say in it.. have the money come from your tax dollars, and i will bet far fewer people are paying 3800 for 6 bloody stitches..
    Time for the average american (sorry folks, but i am only generalizing here) to get his or her head out of their collective a$$es and realize that you are being sold a bill of goods... and you in your much vaunted individualism are swallowing it hook line and sinker..
    Try looking at it from a personal view, how about this, your loved one gets cancer, ( i am sorry if i offend) by the time you go through all the chemo radiation and every bloody other thing they can throw at you ,,, your loved one either recovers or dies.. either way.. you and possiblly the rest of your family are living in the back seat of your car eating from dumpsters because the health care companies have taken it all.. i know i know its extreme. or is it...
  20. #2400  
    i apologize,,, I said Collective, I should have said Individual A$$es

Posting Permissions