Middletown Ohio


Find us on
 Google+ and Facebook


 

Home | Yearly News Archive | Advertisers | Blog | Contact Us
Sunday, May 19, 2024
FORUM CITY SCHOOLS COMMUNITY
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Here lies the Problem with ObamaCare
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Here lies the Problem with ObamaCare

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
rngrmed View Drop Down
MUSA Citizen
MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: May 06 2009
Location: Middletown
Status: Offline
Points: 309
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rngrmed Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Sep 26 2009 at 9:41pm
Then who gets to play God?  Are you saying we should just let a patient lie there in bed, completely unresponsive, no cough reflex, no eye movement? What are role do you think we are playing when we do open heart surgery to save someone's life?  When we use medicine to help a family conceive a child when previously they were physically unable to?  Is that not a form of playing God? 
 
Do I think things are going to get better because 40 or 50 million more people have Government sponsored insurance?  NO!  But do believe there should be some affordable option made to those 40-50 million people. Some sort of reasonable healthcare.  Maybe some sort of piece together plan with benefits that they need and can afford. 
 
This country already has how many people that qualify for Government assistance?  How many senior citizens that receive medicare?  Maybe we should take that away from them?
Maybe you don't have a problem bringing in some drug dealer to the ER that just swallowed a bunch of crack so he doesn't get arrested with it and spending hundred of thousands of dollars to save his life, but I do! 
 
Do I have a problem paying for some innocent person that got shot in a drive by?  NO! An 80-90 year old person that is otherwise healthy and needs open heart surgery? NO!
But the people that continually abuse the system?  yes.
Should there be a mandated Government insurance plan? Not hardly. 
I think people should be able to go to whichever insurance provider they want.  But many insurance companies don't cover preventative medicine.  What a waste.  Remember the once of prevention is worth a pound of cure. 
Hell, my wife and I pay almost $400/month  for her, a 2 year old and I.  And we work in healthcare.  And there are things my insurance doesn't cover.  I either have to carry what work offers or pay more with no added benefits because Insurance companies doesn't have to offer those options in the State of Ohio.  Maybe there should be some sort of Federal guidelines as to what is offered or have people be able to pick and choose.
Back to Top
wasteful View Drop Down
MUSA Citizen
MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Jul 27 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 793
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wasteful Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Sep 26 2009 at 8:31pm
MgrMed sounds like to me you should be working in the UK National Health Service.  Personally I don't think the Government should be playing God. 
 
So you think when Obama basically dumps 40-50 million new insured patients into the health care system with no increase in Drs. or Hospitals, etc., you are going to have it any better.  I think you better think it over again.  You should probably retire now or find another line of work.
Back to Top
wasteful View Drop Down
MUSA Citizen
MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Jul 27 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 793
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wasteful Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Sep 26 2009 at 8:26pm
Irisner what an ass.
 
The above posts I C & P'ed came from Politico.com a very credible website and a website I doubt many people here including yourself read.  It doesn't matter  to me whether you like it or not.  I also could careless if you like Obama's Health Care Plan or not.  Whether you like my posts or not doesn't matter either.
 
People like you that can't stand not being in control and are insignificant.
Back to Top
rngrmed View Drop Down
MUSA Citizen
MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: May 06 2009
Location: Middletown
Status: Offline
Points: 309
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rngrmed Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Sep 26 2009 at 8:00pm
I think there are a lot of flaws with "ObamaCare", but if you think the AMA is innocent you are jumping on the wrong band wagon.  And guess what, health insurance companies already decide what treatments you can and can not have.  As a nurse that works in an ICU, I am tired of taking care of patients that refuse to take their medications or follow their treatment plans, become unresponsive and come in to the ER and ICU's for help.  These patients routinely do not have insurance are crude and expect the staff to kiss their asses.  And the hospital eats the cost.  I think facilities/medical staff should be able to refuse these people medical treatment.  Do I get to go in to a store, be an ass, take a bunch of items, not pay and continually go back?
 
I am not saying don't treat the young man with CP.  But should we do open heart surgery on a patient with terminal cancer? I have seen it done.  And the outcome was not good.  And not just on one occassion either.  This is a pretty regular occurence because the family wants it done. 
As of right now for any of you people you with DNR orders.  Did you know your family can override those once it has been determined you can not make decisions for yourself?  I have seen that time after time. 
I think the Government should step up and make some restrictions on who gets what. 
This is not a easy fix and will not be fixed over night.  There will be a lot of bad ideas tossed around. 
But I am glad that Obama has the balls to step up and try to fix this problem. Instead of letting the problem go on. 
Back to Top
lrisner View Drop Down
MUSA Citizen
MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: May 26 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 330
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lrisner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Sep 26 2009 at 2:13pm
Originally posted by wasteful wasteful wrote:

Mommy Dearest, aka irisner, the name is Wasteful and if you don't want to read the truth then move along like a good little boy.  I could careless if you want to create a heading and post about what you perceive as Obama's achievements, knock yourself out.  You are like all bully's in this world can't stand it when someone doesn't bow down to your rants and demands.
 
 
Obama tends to do one thing well, he sticks to the top 5 or 6 crowd pleasing points in all of his speeches about ObamaCare, but in reality it is what is contained in the the rest of the 1000+ page bill that shpuld scare the crap out of everyone.
 
You know Irisner Obama shouldn't lie though.  When he says to the public, "if you like the insurance you have now, you won't have to change."  Tell that one to the 11,000,000 Seniors in Medicare Advantage, which Obama wants to do away with and force all of them into Medicare with no advantage.
 
Run along little boy you have shown your ignorance and how little you can contribute to this conversation for today.LOL


As usual, people like yourself "Rant and Rave" about things you do not know anything about.

Find me one post where I have shown any support for Mr Obama. Can you? No, of course not. I am NOT an O'bama supporter!.  My "ranting" is about stupidity and useless Cut and Paste and bad info. Any idiot under the Sun can search the internet and find an article for c&p supporting whatever their position is on something. I only ask that posters use their own minds to create their own posting material.

It is clear to me that there are many Forum posters thru out the Internet, you in particular are an example, who care nothing for facts or discussion and only want to "Rant and Rave"and pick at those that don't share you perverted views.

Can't contribute? Certainly not at your asinine level!
Back to Top
Hermes View Drop Down
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: May 19 2009
Location: Middletown
Status: Offline
Points: 1637
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hermes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Sep 26 2009 at 1:58pm
I'd like to see how the IRS or  Washington itself will collect fine payments from the poor if they decide not to accept the 'mark of the beast". Does anyone actually believe that Obama or any politician cares whether you have insurance or not ?? If you do your more naive than you should be. This is not about your health plan. It's the same plan that was forced on us when they mandated automobile insurance. Nothing more. The insurance companies lobbied for this crap for years to make every citizen participate so they could make money. Pay into a plan that will not pay you is the name of the game. Deny those medical test,deny that surgery,deny,deny,deny. But the money keeps rolling in and never goes back out. This is Corporate America , not just America.
No more democrats no more republicans,vote Constitution Party !!
Back to Top
wasteful View Drop Down
MUSA Citizen
MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Jul 27 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 793
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wasteful Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Sep 26 2009 at 11:39am
Mommy Dearest, aka irisner, the name is Wasteful and if you don't want to read the truth then move along like a good little boy.  I could careless if you want to create a heading and post about what you perceive as Obama's achievements, knock yourself out.  You are like all bully's in this world can't stand it when someone doesn't bow down to your rants and demands.
 
 
Obama tends to do one thing well, he sticks to the top 5 or 6 crowd pleasing points in all of his speeches about ObamaCare, but in reality it is what is contained in the the rest of the 1000+ page bill that shpuld scare the crap out of everyone.
 
You know Irisner Obama shouldn't lie though.  When he says to the public, "if you like the insurance you have now, you won't have to change."  Tell that one to the 11,000,000 Seniors in Medicare Advantage, which Obama wants to do away with and force all of them into Medicare with no advantage.
 
Run along little boy you have shown your ignorance and how little you can contribute to this conversation for today.LOL
Back to Top
lrisner View Drop Down
MUSA Citizen
MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: May 26 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 330
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lrisner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Sep 26 2009 at 11:15am
Knock off all the cut and paste, Pacman !  It is like a spoiled child who wants to dominate the Scene. Just think, if you are able, what the site would look like if some Obama fan were to match you c.p. for c.p. The site would then be useless for everyone else.

Good God, is it all about You?
Back to Top
Mike_Presta View Drop Down
MUSA Council
MUSA Council
Avatar

Joined: Apr 20 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3483
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mike_Presta Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Sep 26 2009 at 8:43am
Send me to jail for refusing to buy a government mandated health insurance policy???
 
Well, first, that's STUPID!!!  Then they would not only have to pay for my health care, but also have to feed and cloth me.
 
Second, if they actually enforce this uniformly, they are going to need a lot more prisons.
 
Finally, they might be able to do get me to prison...right after the fight!!!
 
The way things seem to be going, I certainly hope that the military stands on the side of THE PEOPLE!!!
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
Back to Top
wasteful View Drop Down
MUSA Citizen
MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Jul 27 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 793
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wasteful Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Sep 26 2009 at 7:51am
September 24, 2009
Categories: 
Senate

Flout the mandate penalty? Face the IRS

Americans who fail to pay the penalty for not buying insurance would face legal action from the Internal Revenue Service, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.

The remarks Thursday from the committee's chief of staff, Thomas Barthold, seems to further weaken President Barack Obama's contention last week that the individual mandate penalty, which could go as high as $1,900, is not a tax increase.

Under questioning from Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), Barthold said the IRS would "take you to court and undertake normal collection proceedings."

Ensign pursued the line of questioning because he said a lot of Americans don't believe the Constitution allows the government to mandate the purchase of insurance.

"We could be subjecting those very people who conscientiously, because they believe in the U.S. Constitution, we could be subjecting them to fines or the interpretation of a judge, all the way up to imprisonment," Ensign said. "That seems to me to be a problem."

Ensign's argument , however, wasn't persuasive to the committee -- which rejected an amendment from Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) to eliminate the individual mandate.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) was the only Republican to vote with Democrats to preserve the mandate.

 
 
 
September 25, 2009
Categories: Senate

Ensign receives handwritten confirmation

This doesn't happen often enough.

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.

Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it "Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold."

The note was a follow-up to Ensign's questioning at the markup.


Back to Top
wasteful View Drop Down
MUSA Citizen
MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Jul 27 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 793
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wasteful Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Sep 11 2009 at 8:10am
I look at what Pacman has done here as a Public Service Announce on the fallacies of the Obama Health Care Policy.  I particularly like the Czars Gone Wild Heading which makes for interesting reading.  It is like the Pacman Report of Middletown.LOL  Thank you Pac.
Back to Top
Pacman View Drop Down
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Jun 02 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2612
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pacman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Sep 10 2009 at 10:06pm
2000+ these posts span over a months time.  I am not, I repeat not a believer in the Obama policies and have no desire or intention of trying to justify something I do not believe in and think is bad for this country.  Now Obama won the Presidency I would think that there are more than enough people who can defend what Obama is trying to do with Health Care, it won't be me.
 
Not my fault no one else posts in favor of Obamas Health care plan, including you, if you believe in it?
 
My best advice to you is head on over to Wildwood if that suits you and after awhile it will all blur together for you. 
Back to Top
2000+ View Drop Down
MUSA Resident
MUSA Resident


Joined: Jan 27 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 100
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 2000+ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Sep 10 2009 at 9:47pm
Pacman, Any rationale will do. Why is it so necessary to challange almost every point made by the other side. Balance is found in both views. I thought this blog was about the expression of a variety of viewpoints that encouraged rational conversation, not manifesto's directed at those who somehow miss the point of the lession of the day.
 
I was looking at the membership list the other day, and I noticed the large number of folks who are members compared to the small number who actually join in the conversation. From what I could see there are about 15 to 20 regular's and the rest  check in from time to time to make short comment.  Sorry, but not enough objective opinions to make this blog relevant. It's been a hoot, but I can find the same partisan dialogue in the bar at Wildwood.
Back to Top
Pacman View Drop Down
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Jun 02 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2612
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pacman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Sep 10 2009 at 11:02am
Of course you are going to have a double digit jump when you poll more than twice as many Democrats as you do Republicans.  Makes you just shake you head at Politics and the News.
 
 
September 10, 2009
Posted: September 10th, 2009 10:51 AM ET

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Two out of three Americans who watched President Barack Obama's health care reform speech Wednesday night favor his health care plans — a 14-point gain among speech-watchers, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation national poll of people who tuned into Obama's address Wednesday night to a joint session of Congress.

Sixty-seven percent of people questioned in the survey say the support Obama's health care reform proposals that the president outlined in his address, with 29 percent opposed. Those figures are almost identical to a poll conducted immediately after Bill Clinton's health care speech before Congress in September, 1993.

The audience for the speech appears to be more Democratic than the U.S. population as a whole. Because of this, the results may favor Obama simply because more Democrats than Republicans tune into the speech. The poll surveyed the opinions of people who watched Wednesday night's speech, and does not reflect the views of all Americans.

(Full results after the jump)

About one in seven people who watched the speech changed their minds on Obama's health care plan. "Going into the speech, a bare majority of his audience — 53 percent — favored his proposals. Immediately after the speech, that figure rose to 67 percent," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "But the real question is whether those conversions will last. Bill Clinton got similar numbers after his 1993 address to Congress, but five months later a majority of the country no longer supported his plan."

Fifty-six percent of people questioned say they had a very positive reaction to the speech, with 21 percent indicating they had a somewhat positive reaction and a equal amount suggesting they had a negative reaction. The 56 percent who said they had a very positive reaction is lower than the 68 percent of speech watchers who had a similar reaction to the president's first address to a joint session of Congress in February.

More than seven in ten say that Obama clearly stated his goals, with one in four saying he didn't express his goals clearly.

Three out of four say it's very or somewhat likely that the president will pass most of his proposals on health care reform through Congress, with one in four saying it's unlikely.

Seven in 10 say that Obama's policies will move the country in the right direction, up 10 points from before the speech.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted just before and just after the president's speech, with 427 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 5 percentage points.

The sample of speech-watchers in this poll was 45 percent Democratic and 18 percent Republican. Our best estimate of the number of Democrats in the voting age population as a whole indicates that the sample is about 8-10 points more Democratic than the population as a whole.

Back to Top
Pacman View Drop Down
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Jun 02 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2612
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pacman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Sep 10 2009 at 9:16am
Back to Top
Pacman View Drop Down
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Jun 02 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2612
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pacman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Sep 10 2009 at 8:34am

Read the Union Health-Care Label

Get ready for Detroit-style labor relations in our hospitals.

By MARK MIX

In the heated debates on health-care reform, not enough attention is being paid to the huge financial windfalls ObamaCare will dole out to unions—or to the provisions in the various bills in Congress that will help bring about the forced unionization of the health-care industry.

Tucked away in thousands of pages of complex new rules, regulations and mandates are special privileges and giveaways that could have devastating consequences for the health-care sector and the American economy at large.

The Senate version opens the door to implement forced unionization schemes pursued by former Govs. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois in 2005 and Gray Davis of California in 1999. Both men repaid tremendous political debts to Andy Stern and his Service Employees International Union (SEIU) by reclassifying state-reimbursed in-home health-care (and child-care) contractors as state employees—and forcing them to pay union dues.

Following this playbook, the Senate bill creates a "personal care attendants workforce advisory panel" that will likely impose union affiliation to qualify for a newly created "community living assistance services and support (class)" reimbursement plan.

The current House version of ObamaCare (H.R. 3200) goes much further. Section 225(A) grants Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius tremendous discretionary authority to regulate health-care workers "under the public health insurance option." Monopoly bargaining and compulsory union dues may quickly become a required standard resulting in potentially hundreds of thousands of doctors and nurses across the country being forced into unions.

Ms. Sebelius will be taking her marching orders from the numerous union officials who are guaranteed seats on the various federal panels (such as the personal care panel mentioned above) charged with recommending health-care policies. Big Labor will play a central role in directing federal health-care policy affecting hundreds of thousands of doctors, surgeons and nurses.

Consider Kaiser Permanente, the giant, managed-care organization that has since 1997 proudly touted its labor-management "partnership" in scores of workplaces. Union officials play an essentially co-equal role in running many Kaiser facilities. AFL-CIO President John Sweeney called the Kaiser plan "a framework for what every health care delivery system should do" at a July 24 health-care forum outside of Washington, D.C.

The House bill has a $10 billion provision to bail out insolvent union health-care plans. It also creates a lucrative professional-development grant program for health-care workers that effectively blackballs nonunion medical facilities from participation. The training funds in this program must be administered jointly with a labor organization—a scenario not unlike the U.S. Department of Labor's grants for construction apprenticeship programs, which have turned into a cash cow for construction industry union officials on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

There's more. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus has suggested that the federal government could pay for health-care reform by taxing American workers' existing health-care benefits—but he would exempt union-negotiated health-care plans. Under Mr. Baucus's scheme, the government could impose costs of up to $20,000 per employee on nonunion businesses already struggling to afford health care plans.

Mr. Baucus's proposal would give union officials another tool to pressure employers into turning over their employees to Big Labor. Rather than provide the lavish benefits required by Obamacare, employers could allow a union to come in and negotiate less costly benefits than would otherwise be required. Such plans could be continuously exempted.

Americans are unlikely to support granting unions more power than they already have in the health-care field. History shows union bosses could abuse their power to shut down medical facilities with sick-outs and strikes; force doctors, nurses and in-home care providers to abandon their patients; dictate terms and conditions of employment; and impose a failed, Detroit-style management model on the entire health-care field.

ObamaCare is a Trojan Horse for more forced unionization.

Back to Top
Pacman View Drop Down
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Jun 02 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2612
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pacman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Sep 09 2009 at 10:44am

Obama and the Bureaucratization of Health Care

The president's proposals would give unelected officials life-and-death rationing powers.

 
Writing in the New York Times last month, President Barack Obama asked that Americans "talk with one another, and not over one another" as our health-care debate moves forward.

I couldn't agree more. Let's engage the other side's arguments, and let's allow Americans to decide for themselves whether the Democrats' health-care proposals should become governing law.

Some 45 years ago Ronald Reagan said that "no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds." Each of us knows that we have an obligation to care for the old, the young and the sick. We stand strongest when we stand with the weakest among us.

We also know that our current health-care system too often burdens individuals and businesses—particularly small businesses—with crippling expenses. And we know that allowing government health-care spending to continue at current rates will only add to our ever-expanding deficit.

How can we ensure that those who need medical care receive it while also reducing health-care costs? The answers offered by Democrats in Washington all rest on one principle: that increased government involvement can solve the problem. I fundamentally disagree.

sense tells us that the government's attempts to solve large problems more often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy. And common sense tells us to be skeptical when President Obama promises that the Democrats' proposals "will provide more stability and security to every American."

With all due respect, Americans are used to this kind of sweeping promise from Washington. And we know from long experience that it's a promise Washington can't keep.

Let's talk about specifics. In his Times op-ed, the president argues that the Democrats' proposals "will finally bring skyrocketing health-care costs under control" by "cutting . . . waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies . . . ."

First, ask yourself whether the government that brought us such "waste and inefficiency" and "unwarranted subsidies" in the first place can be believed when it says that this time it will get things right. The nonpartistan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doesn't think so: Its director, Douglas Elmendorf, told the Senate Budget Committee in July that "in the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount."

Now look at one way Mr. Obama wants to eliminate inefficiency and waste: He's asked Congress to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Council—an unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts charged with containing Medicare costs. In an interview with the New York Times in April, the president suggested that such a group, working outside of "normal political channels," should guide decisions regarding that "huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . ."

Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats' proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels? Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans. Working through "normal political channels," they made themselves heard, and as a result Congress will likely reject a wrong-headed proposal to authorize end-of-life counseling in this cost-cutting context. But the fact remains that the Democrats' proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters. Such government overreaching is what we've come to expect from this administration.

Speaking of government overreaching, how will the Democrats' proposals affect the deficit? The CBO estimates that the current House proposal not only won't reduce the deficit but will actually increase it by $239 billion over 10 years. Only in Washington could a plan that adds hundreds of billions to the deficit be hailed as a cost-cutting measure.

The economic effects won't be limited to abstract deficit numbers; they'll reach the wallets of everyday Americans. Should the Democrats' proposals expand health-care coverage while failing to curb health-care inflation rates, smaller paychecks will result. A new study for Watson Wyatt Worldwide by Steven Nyce and Syl Schieber concludes that if the government expands health-care coverage while health-care inflation continues to rise "the higher costs would drive disposable wages downward across most of the earnings spectrum, although the declines would be steepest for lower-earning workers." Lower wages are the last thing Americans need in these difficult economic times.

Finally, President Obama argues in his op-ed that Democrats' proposals "will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable." Of course consumer protection sounds like a good idea. And it's true that insurance companies can be unaccountable and unresponsive institutions—much like the federal government. That similarity makes this shift in focus seem like nothing more than an attempt to deflect attention away from the details of the Democrats' proposals—proposals that will increase our deficit, decrease our paychecks, and increase the power of unaccountable government technocrats.

Instead of poll-driven "solutions," let's talk about real health-care reform: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven. As the Cato Institute's Michael Cannon and others have argued, such policies include giving all individuals the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers; providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage; reforming tort laws to potentially save billions each year in wasteful spending; and changing costly state regulations to allow people to buy insurance across state lines. Rather than another top-down government plan, let's give Americans control over their own health care.

Democrats have never seriously considered such ideas, instead rushing through their own controversial proposals. After all, they don't need Republicans to sign on: Democrats control the House, the Senate and the presidency. But if passed, the Democrats' proposals will significantly alter a large sector of our economy. They will not improve our health care. They will not save us money. And, despite what the president says, they will not "provide more stability and security to every American."

We often hear such overblown promises from Washington. With first principles in mind and with the facts in hand, tell them that this time we're not buying it.

Back to Top
Pacman View Drop Down
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Jun 02 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2612
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pacman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Aug 28 2009 at 6:42am

ABC, NBC Won't Air Ad Critical of Obama's Health Care Plan

The refusal by ABC and NBC to run a national ad critical of President Obama's health care reform plan is raising questions from the group behind the spot -- particularly in light of ABC's health care special aired in prime time last June hosted at the White House

By Joshua Rhett Miller

FOXNews.com

Thursday, August 27, 2009

 
 
 
The refusal by ABC and NBC to run a national ad critical of President Obama's health care reform plan is raising questions from the group behind the spot -- particularly in light of ABC's health care special aired in prime time last June and hosted at the White House.

The 33-second ad by the League of American Voters, which features a neurosurgeon who warns that a government-run health care system will lead to the rationing of procedures and medicine, began airing two weeks ago on local affiliates of ABC, NBC, FOX and CBS. On a national level, however, ABC and NBC have refused to run the spot in its present form.

"It's a powerful ad," said Bob Adams, executive director of the League of American Voters, a national nonprofit group with 15,000 members who advocate individual liberty and government accountability. "It tells the truth and it really highlights one of the biggest vulnerabilities and problems with this proposed legislation, which is it rations health care and disproportionately will decimate the quality of health care for seniors."

Adams said the advertisement is running on local network affiliates in states like Louisiana, Arkansas, Maine and Pennsylvania. But although CBS has approved the ad for national distribution and talks are ongoing with FOX, NBC has questioned some of the ad's facts while ABC has labeled it "partisan."

"The ABC Television Network has a long-standing policy that we do not sell time for advertising that presents a partisan position on a controversial public issue," spokeswoman Susan Sewell said in a written statement. "Just to be clear, this is a policy for the entire network, not just ABC News."

NBC, meanwhile, said it has not turned down the ad and will reconsider it with some revisions.

"We have not rejected the ad," spokeswoman Liz Fischer told FOXNews.com. "We have communicated with the media agency about some factual claims that require additional substantiation. As always, we are happy to reconsider the ad once these issues are addressed."

Adams objects to ABC's assertion that his group's position is partisan.

"It's a position that we would argue a vast majority of Americans stand behind," he said. "Obviously, it's a message that ABC and the Obama administration haven't received yet."

Dick Morris, a FOX News political analyst and the League of American Voters' chief strategist, conceptualized the advertisement and said its purpose was to "refocus" the debate on health care reform.

"I feel the whole debate on health care reform needed to be refocused on the issue of Medicare," he told FOXNews.com. "Most of the debate had been on issues of socialized medicine and cost. I felt that the impact of the legislation in cutting the Medicare program and enforcing rationing needed to be addressed."

Morris, a onetime advisor to former President Bill Clinton, said he was particularly troubled by ABC's decision not to air the spot.

"It's the ultimate act of chutzpah because ABC is the network that turned itself over completely to Obama for a daylong propaganda fest about health care reform," he said. "For them to be pious and say they will not accept advertising on health care shuts their viewers out from any possible understanding of both sides of this issue."

Back to Top
wasteful View Drop Down
MUSA Citizen
MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Jul 27 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 793
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wasteful Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Aug 27 2009 at 11:17am
Back to Top
John Beagle View Drop Down
MUSA Official
MUSA Official
Avatar

Joined: Apr 23 2007
Location: Middletown
Status: Offline
Points: 1855
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote John Beagle Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Aug 24 2009 at 10:09pm
According to the popular conception, Eskimos must work so hard to survive that they simply cannot manage to support adults who are no longer contributing to the well-being of the group.

Thus, when old-age strikes, rather than waiting around as they dwindle toward death, eating food their companions fight to catch and clothing their companions struggle to construct, the elderly Eskimos are taken to sea, and set adrift on a floating iceberg.

Alone on their iceberg, the elderly must inevitably freeze or starve to death, facing their end, uncomfortable, and horrifyingly alone.

This is essentially socialized health care.
John Beagle

Middletown USA

News of, for and by the people of Middletown, Ohio.
Back to Top
Pacman View Drop Down
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Jun 02 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2612
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pacman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Aug 24 2009 at 9:17pm

Back to Top
wasteful View Drop Down
MUSA Citizen
MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Jul 27 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 793
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wasteful Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Aug 20 2009 at 9:19pm

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204683204574358590107981718.html

The Death Book for Veterans

Ex-soldiers don't need to be told they're a burden to society.

By JIM TOWEY

If President Obama wants to better understand why America's discomfort with end-of-life discussions threatens to derail his health-care reform, he might begin with his own Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). He will quickly discover how government bureaucrats are greasing the slippery slope that can start with cost containment but quickly become a systematic denial of care.

Last year, bureaucrats at the VA's National Center for Ethics in Health Care advocated a 52-page end-of-life planning document, "Your Life, Your Choices." It was first published in 1997 and later promoted as the VA's preferred living will throughout its vast network of hospitals and nursing homes. After the Bush White House took a look at how this document was treating complex health and moral issues, the VA suspended its use. Unfortunately, under President Obama, the VA has now resuscitated "Your Life, Your Choices."

Who is the primary author of this workbook? Dr. Robert Pearlman, chief of ethics evaluation for the center, a man who in 1996 advocated for physician-assisted suicide in Vacco v. Quill before the U.S. Supreme Court and is known for his support of health-care rationing.

"Your Life, Your Choices" presents end-of-life choices in a way aimed at steering users toward predetermined conclusions, much like a political "push poll." For example, a worksheet on page 21 lists various scenarios and asks users to then decide whether their own life would be "not worth living."

The circumstances listed include ones common among the elderly and disabled: living in a nursing home, being in a wheelchair and not being able to "shake the blues." There is a section which provocatively asks, "Have you ever heard anyone say, 'If I'm a vegetable, pull the plug'?" There also are guilt-inducing scenarios such as "I can no longer contribute to my family's well being," "I am a severe financial burden on my family" and that the vet's situation "causes severe emotional burden for my family."

When the government can steer vulnerable individuals to conclude for themselves that life is not worth living, who needs a death panel?

One can only imagine a soldier surviving the war in Iraq and returning without all of his limbs only to encounter a veteran's health-care system that seems intent on his surrender.

I was not surprised to learn that the VA panel of experts that sought to update "Your Life, Your Choices" between 2007-2008 did not include any representatives of faith groups or disability rights advocates. And as you might guess, only one organization was listed in the new version as a resource on advance directives: the Hemlock Society (now euphemistically known as "Compassion and Choices").

This hurry-up-and-die message is clear and unconscionable. Worse, a July 2009 VA directive instructs its primary care physicians to raise advance care planning with all VA patients and to refer them to "Your Life, Your Choices." Not just those of advanced age and debilitated condition—all patients. America's 24 million veterans deserve better.

Many years ago I created an advance care planning document called "Five Wishes" that is today the most widely used living will in America, with 13 million copies in national circulation. Unlike the VA's document, this one does not contain the standard bias to withdraw or withhold medical care. It meets the legal requirements of at least 43 states, and it runs exactly 12 pages.

After a decade of observing end-of-life discussions, I can attest to the great fear that many patients have, particularly those with few family members and financial resources. I lived and worked in an AIDS home in the mid-1980s and saw first-hand how the dying wanted more than health care—they wanted someone to care.

If President Obama is sincere in stating that he is not trying to cut costs by pressuring the disabled to forgo critical care, one good way to show that commitment is to walk two blocks from the Oval Office and pull the plug on "Your Life, Your Choices." He should make sure in the future that VA decisions are guided by values that treat the lives of our veterans as gifts, not burdens.

Mr. Towey, president of Saint Vincent College, was director of the White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives (2002-2006) and founder of the nonprofit Aging with Dignity.

Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

 

 

Back to Top
Pacman View Drop Down
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Jun 02 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2612
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pacman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Aug 13 2009 at 9:17pm
 


First Posted: 08-13-09 11:10 AM   |   Updated: 08-13-09 05:49 PM

A memo obtained by the Huffington Post confirms that the White House and the pharmaceutical lobby secretly agreed to precisely the sort of wide-ranging deal that both parties have been denying over the past week.

The memo, which according to a knowledgeable health care lobbyist was prepared by a person directly involved in the negotiations, lists exactly what the White House gave up, and what it got in return.

It says the White House agreed to oppose any congressional efforts to use the government's leverage to bargain for lower drug prices or import drugs from Canada -- and also agreed not to pursue Medicare rebates or shift some drugs from Medicare Part B to Medicare Part D, which would cost Big Pharma billions in reduced reimbursements.

In exchange, the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA) agreed to cut $80 billion in projected costs to taxpayers and senior citizens over ten years. Or, as the memo says: "Commitment of up to $80 billion, but not more than $80 billion."



Representatives from both the White House and PhRMA, shown the outline, adamantly denied that it reflected reality. PhRMA senior vice president Ken Johnson said that the outline "is simply not accurate." "This memo isn't accurate and does not reflect the agreement with the drug companies," said White House spokesman Reid Cherlin.

Stories in the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times last week indicated that the administration was confirming that such a deal had been made.

Critics on Capitol Hill and online responded with outrage at the reports that Obama had gone behind their backs and sold the reform movement short. Furthermore, the deal seemed to be a betrayal of several promises made by then-Sen. Obama during the presidential campaign, among them that he would use the power of government to drive down the costs of drugs to Medicare and that negotiations would be conducted in the open.

 And over the past several days, both the White House and PhRMA have offered a series of sometimes conflicting accounts of what happened in an attempt to walk back the story.

The White House meeting took place on July 7th, as first reported that evening in the Wall Street Journal. Also on the same day, a health care lobbyist following the talks was provided the outline of the deal by a person inside the negotiations. That outline had been floating around K Street before being obtained by the Huffington Post. In order to learn more about its origin, HuffPost agreed not to reveal the name of the lobbyist who originally received it.

"That is the PhRMA deal," said the lobbyist of the outline. He then clarified, "It was the PhRMA deal."

The deal, as outlined in the memo:

Commitment of up to $80 billion, but not more than $80 billion.

1. Agree to increase of Medicaid rebate from 15.1 - 23.1% ($34 billion)

2. Agree to get FOBs done (but no agreement on details -- express disagreement on data exclusivity which both sides say does not affect the score of the legislation.) ($9 billion)

3. Sell drugs to patients in the donut hole at 50% discount ($25 billion)
This totals $68 billion

4. Companies will be assessed a tax or fee that will score at $12 billion. There was no agreement as to how or on what this tax/fee will be based.

Total: $80 billion

In exchange for these items, the White House agreed to:

1. Oppose importation

2. Oppose rebates in Medicare Part D

3. Oppose repeal of non-interference

4. Oppose opening Medicare Part B

"Non-interference" is the industry term for the status quo, in which government-driven price negotiations are barred. In other words, the government is "interfering" in the market if it negotiates lower prices. The ban on negotiating was led through Congress in 2003 by then-Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-La.), who is now the head of PhRMA.

The rebates reference is to Medicare overpayments Big Pharma managed to wrangle from the Republican Congress that Democrats are trying to recoup. The House bill would require Big Pharma to return some of that money. The rebate proposal would save $63 billion over ten years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The White House, given the chance, declined to tell the Wall Street Journal for a July 17th article that it supported the effort to pursue the rebates.

The Medicare Part B item refers to "infusion drugs," which can be administered at home. If they fall under Part B, Big Pharma gets paid more than under Part D. The agreement would leave infusion drugs in Part B.

In the section on Big Pharma's concessions, "FOBs" refers to follow-on biological drugs. Democrats have pushed to make it easier to allow generic drug makers to produce cheaper versions of such drugs, an effort Big Pharma has resisted. The Senate health committee bill gives drug makers 12 years of market exclusivity, five more than the White House proposed.

PhRMA's Johnson cast doubts on the provenance of the outline. "The memo, as described, is simply not accurate," he said in a statement. "Anyone could have written it. Unless it comes from our board of directors, it's not worth the paper it's written on. Clearly, someone is trying to short circuit our efforts to try and make health care reform a reality this year. That's not going to happen. Too much is at stake for both patients and the U.S. economy. Our new ads supporting health care reform are starting this week, and we are redoubling our efforts to drive awareness of why this issue is so important to America's future."

Johnson added that "no outside lobbyists -- not a single one -- were ever involved in our discussions with the Senate Finance Committee or the White House so someone is blowing smoke."

But the lobbyist who was given the outline defended its authenticity. And although the White House now says that drug price negotiations and reimportation were not actually discussed in the talks with PhRMA, the lobbyist said: "Well, that's bull -- that's baloney. That was part of the deal, for them not to push that."

The new uncertainty surrounding the deal comes after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has repeatedly said that her chamber is not bound by any agreement it is not a party to. On July 8th, the day after the Journal reported some elements of the deal, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said in a public speech that his committee would not be tied down by the agreement.

Before recess, he followed through. His committee passed a bill that allowed for re-importation and drug-price negotiations.

In the Senate, Democrats Sherrod Brown (Ohio) and Byron Dorgan (N.D.) pressed White House officials at a closed-door meeting last week, asking whether the White House had tied the Senate's hands.

The health care lobbyist said that what deal still exists is uncertain, as a result of House pressure. "Now the White House is backing away from it, as you know, because of pressure from the House, because the House was not a party to the deal," he said. "The Speaker put enormous pressure on the White House, [saying], 'We weren't a party to it and we reserve the right to do whatever we want.' And which they did in the House Energy and Commerce Committee bill, which led the White House to say, 'Well, maybe it's not cast in concrete.'"

Obama is walking a tightrope here. He wants to keep PhRMA from opposing the bill, and benefits by having its support, which now includes a $150 million advertising campaign. That's a fortune in politics -- more than Republican presidential candidate John McCain spent on advertising during his entire campaign -- but it's loose change in the pharmaceutical business.

Opponents of the deal with PhRMA hope that Obama is playing a multilayered game, making a deal in order to keep the drug makers in his camp for now, but planning to double-cross them in the end if he needs to in order to pass his signature initiative.

Big Pharma, however, is still comfortable. "As far as the pharmaceutical industry, PhRMA and its member companies, yes, they say a deal is a deal. We'll see what happens," said the health care lobbyist.


Back to Top
Pacman View Drop Down
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Jun 02 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2612
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pacman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Aug 13 2009 at 7:13pm
 
Truth:
 
AMA Responds to Obama:
 
In the case of tonsillectomies, a patient is referred to a surgeon after medication therapy has proven to be ineffective. Actually, the medical profession itself recognized questions about utilization and appropriateness of tonsillectomies and took action by developing clinical guidelines, which has resulted in a sharp decline in the rate of tonsillectomies.
 
Back to Top
Pacman View Drop Down
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Jun 02 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2612
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pacman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Aug 13 2009 at 7:08pm
 
The Truth:
 
AMA responds to Obama’s amputation remarks
 
We agree with President Obama on the importance of prevention. However, a recent example used to illustrate his important point was misleading. Surgeons are not paid $30,000 to $50,000 to amputate a diabetic’s foot. Medicare pays a surgeon, on average, from $541.72 to $708.71 for one of two procedures involving a foot amputation.
 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.112 seconds.
Copyright ©2024 MiddletownUSA.com    Privacy Statement  |   Terms of Use  |   Site by Xponex Media  |   Advertising Information