First, shoot all the lawyers.
Second, real Pay for Play. Meaning, if you ain't got cash or coverage, don't expect a doctor to treat you.
Those two alone should do wonders to reduce the cost of healthcare.
I don't support either side doing it. But why let one get away with hijacking your meetings. Fight fire with fire, or you face swift-boating.
Someone shot at you?!?!The people are being removed are they not? So the police are called. But I sure as hell am not waiting for them to arrive while I am being shot.
Yeah, that's the one. I don't defend the vigilantes who removed the protesters any more than I defend the protesters who tried to stop the town hall meeting.
A little extreme. First off, you would have a major increase in the death rate, followed by Islamic takeover as our population was weakened by lack of healthcare for all but the wealthy.
They deserve to be heard but they shouldn't be stopping other people from being heard.So what you're saying is that public meetings with elected officials should be conducted precisely according to whatever the politician wants to say, and the serfs should say nothing and applaud when ordered to.
Unless it's a Republican politician.
I don't want to sound harsh, but one thing that we need to figure out in America is not if we CAN take extreme measures to preserve life, but if we SHOULD. There are a lot of expensive procedures performed on seniors and preemies, and other groups, and the fact of the matter is that we are all paying for them, in one form or another.
And life isn't mean to go on forever. Sometimes, the quality of life for someone after having these extreme life-preserving measures is really not good. Check out the research on preemies, for instance.
Does anyone here really support heart valve replacement for a woman who is 101 years old?
How about someone 91 years old...
or 81...
or 71...
or 61...
or 51...
Where are YOU going to draw the line, and what gives YOU that right?
All of these arguments are false. The healthcare bill has none of the things conservatives say it does. The government does not make any calls on a persons health decisions, that is between the patient and doctor. As I have mentioned many times, all that is happening here is the same old misleading campaignes that cost the GOP elections. Hopefully you guys will stay on the same path and we can replace the last, what, 10.:lol:
Really? isn't there mandatory counseling for all seniors at a minimum of every five years?
Actually, the amount of gray area in alot of the plan allows enough wiggle room for exactly what conservatives are warning against. First off, the statement that you can keep your coverage is false, the congress has written into the legislation stating that if the provision is passed, new applications cannot be written once the bill is signed, so if an employer drops group, then people would have to join the government plan, second, the requirement for coverage, this would force uninsured to join the government plan, then, what if private companies cannot afford to compete with the "not-for-profit" system and fold, then......etc. This is true, and quite possible.All of these arguments are false. The healthcare bill has none of the things conservatives say it does.Wrong, tobacco taxes, soda taxes, other "sin" taxes, if the government is paying, they can tell you which doctors you may see or they don't pay. Also, since the government would be paying, they could tell you what behaviors put you on which tier regardless of the critical nature of your needs, and, the national health database would allow anyone making payment decisions access to your medical files, so yes, it does give government alot of control of your health decisions.The government does not make any calls on a persons health decisions, that is between the patient and doctor.Tl, it's not that simple.As I have mentioned many times, all that is happening here is the same old misleading campaignes that cost the GOP elections. Hopefully you guys will stay on the same path and we can replace the last, what, 10.:lol:
Really? isn't there mandatory counseling for all seniors at a minimum of every five years?
Actually, the amount of gray area in alot of the plan allows enough wiggle room for exactly what conservatives are warning against. First off, the statement that you can keep your coverage is false, the congress has written into the legislation stating that if the provision is passed, new applications cannot be written once the bill is signed, so if an employer drops group, then people would have to join the government plan, second, the requirement for coverage, this would force uninsured to join the government plan, then, what if private companies cannot afford to compete with the "not-for-profit" system and fold, then......etc. This is true, and quite possible.
False, there are three separate plans right now and only ONE has a government plan. The other two, which are much more likely to pass have state co-ops that are not federally ran at all.
Wrong, tobacco taxes, soda taxes, other "sin" taxes, if the government is paying, they can tell you which doctors you may see or they don't pay. Also, since the government would be paying, they could tell you what behaviors put you on which tier regardless of the critical nature of your needs, and, the national health database would allow anyone making payment decisions access to your medical files, so yes, it does give government alot of control of your health decisions.
Read the bills, there is no such power of the government to make such decisions, all three bills state that coverage cannot be denied for any reason and that medical decisions will be made between patient and doctor. Also, states are the biggest propagators of sin taxes, not the federal government.
Tl, it's not that simple.
Of course it isn't, but nor is it an evil government plot to control the citizens!!!!SPOOKY:shock::lol:
They deserve to be heard but they shouldn't be stopping other people from being heard.
AS I understand it, the government will pay for the counseling, but it's not mandatory.
No, not MANDATORY, optional. And the counseling is nothing more than advising seniors to appoint power of attorney, hospice,...etc. Further, this counseling is supported by every medical association in the country. Oh, and it is covered once for every five years, if people want to change all of their decisions, then they will have to pay if they do it before the five year period, unless in cases of loss of spouse and then it would be covered for changing POA over to a child/relative.
Does the fact that we have had cases in washington and Oregon where the state run medical system has refused medication and instea offered euthinasia?
Combine that with some of the language in this bill, Is it not something.... (take outthe inflammatory "death councils") we need to look at and be concerned about?
do you have a link to the corresponding pages in the bill that I may review your claim?
A provision in President Obama's health care reform bill encourages "end-of- life" counseling for seniors -- sparking euthanasia fears among some of the legislation's critics and leading others to believe that the White House is looking to save money by pressuring insurers to provide less coverage to seniors.
The provision, tucked deep within the House bill, would provide Medicare coverage for an end-of-life consultation every five years, and more frequent sessions if a person is suffering a life-threatening disease.
Health providers would be required to explain to seniors the end-of-life services available, including "palliative care and hospice."
"This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia if enacted into law," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, R-Mich. said in a statement last month.
But the sessions are not required, as President Obama reassured seniors last week at an AARP town hall meeting, when one woman said she'd been told that the policy requires everyone of Medicare age to be visited and told they have to decide how they wish to die.
"Nobody is going to be forcing you to make a set of decisions on end-of-life care based on, you know, some bureaucratic law in Washington," the president said.
Obama encourages people to create living wills, but it's not clear if he supports Medicare reimbursement for "end-of-life" counseling.
Quite frankly,I am tired of hearing others like FOX, CNN and others comment third hand, I'd like to find the page in question and come to my own conclusion.
H.R. 3200, page 425: Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:
(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.
(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.
(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.
(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning … .
(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.
(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders … .
Page 425 does deal with counseling sessions for seniors, but it is far from recommending a "Logan’s Run" approach to Medicare spending. In fact, it requires Medicare to cover counseling sessions for seniors who want to consider their end-of-life choices – including whether they want to refuse or, conversely, require certain types of care. The claim that the bill would "push suicide" is a falsehood.
Nope, one final bill will be passed based upon the three options, and the one that I am hearing most is for the government plan, which has attrocious pitfalls written into it.False, there are three separate plans right now and only ONE has a government plan. The other two, which are much more likely to pass have state co-ops that are not federally ran at all.
There is already a proposal for a federal soda tax to patially fund this bill, furthermore, the bill can state whatever it will, the facts are if the government is paying it can deny payments to whatever it deems appropriate and you cannot sue the federal government for damages. If a doctor deems a surgery necessary it may happen.....when the government clears for said surgery to be paid for, thus, the final decision would be with the fed.Read the bills, there is no such power of the government to make such decisions, all three bills state that coverage cannot be denied for any reason and that medical decisions will be made between patient and doctor. Also, states are the biggest propagators of sin taxes, not the federal government.
The problem with us laughing about it is that these idiots in Washington are trying to pass this thing off as some kind of miracle plan, a solve-all if you will, and the reality is it is so loaded that it will undoubtedly create more damage than solutions.Of course it isn't, but nor is it an evil government plot to control the citizens!!!!SPOOKY:shock::lol:
I used the old standby False Euthanasia Claims | FactCheck.org.
The langauge from the bill:
from the article:
Link to bill: http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
So what you're saying is that public meetings with elected officials should be conducted precisely according to whatever the politician wants to say, and the serfs should say nothing and applaud when ordered to.
Unless it's a Republican politician.
How about someone 91 years old...
or 81...
or 71...
or 61...
or 51...
Where are YOU going to draw the line, and what gives YOU that right?
Thank you...
What does this mean to you?
"(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items—
"(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac or pulmonary problems;
Who decides this?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?