Palin Told Us So
Sarah Palin deserves an apology. When she said that the new health-care law would lead to "death panels" deciding who gets life-saving treatment and who does not, she was roundly denounced and ridiculed.
Now we learn, courtesy of one of the ridiculers -- The New York Times -- that she was right. Under a new policy not included in the law for fear the administration's real end-of-life game would be exposed, a rule issued by the recess-appointed Dr. Donald M. Berwick, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, calls for the government to pay doctors to advise patients on options for ending their lives. These could include directives to forgo aggressive treatment that could extend their lives.
This rule will inevitably lead to bureaucrats deciding who is "fit" to live and who is not. The effect this might have on public opinion, which by a solid majority opposes Obamacare, is clear from an e-mail obtained by the Times. It is from Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), who sent it to people working with him on the issue. Oregon and Washington are the only states with assisted-suicide laws, a preview of what is to come at the federal level if this new regulation is allowed to stand. Blumenauer wrote in his November e-mail: "While we are very happy with the result, we won't be shouting it from the rooftops because we aren't out of the woods yet. This regulation could be modified or reversed, especially if Republican leaders try to use this small provision to perpetuate the 'death panel' myth."
Ah, but it's not a myth, and that's where Palin nailed it. All inhumanities begin with small steps; otherwise the public might rebel against a policy that went straight to the "final solution." All human life was once regarded as having value, because even government saw it as "endowed by our Creator." This doctrine separates us from plants, microorganisms and animals.
Doctors once swore an oath, which reads in part: "I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion." Did Dr. Berwick, a fan of rationed care and the British National Health Service, ever take that oath? If he did, it appears he no longer believes it.
Do you see where this leads? First the prohibition against abortion is removed and "doctors" now perform them. Then the assault on the infirm and elderly begins. Once the definition of human life changes, all human lives become potentially expendable if they don't measure up to constantly "evolving" government standards.
It will all be dressed up with the best possible motives behind it and sold to the public as the ultimate benefit. The killings, uh, terminations, will take place out of sight so as not to disturb the masses who might have a few embers of a past morality still burning in their souls. People will sign documents testifying to their desire to die, and the government will see it as a means of "reducing the surplus population," to quote Charles Dickens.
When life is seen as having ultimate value, individuals and their doctors can make decisions about treatment that are in the best interests of patients. But when government is looking to cut costs as the highest good and offers to pay doctors to tell patients during their annual visits that they can choose to end their lives rather than continue treatment, that is more than the proverbial camel's nose under the tent. That is the next step on the way to physician-assisted suicide and, if not stopped, government-mandated euthanasia.
It can't happen here? Based on what standard? Yes it can happen in America, and it will if the new Republican class in Congress doesn't stop it.
(Direct all MAIL for Cal Thomas to: Tribune Media Services, 2225 Kenmore Ave., Suite 114, Buffalo, N.Y. 14207. Readers may also e-mail Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com.)
- Cal Thomas's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
a shower and warm ovens for Grandma
Submitted by MidAmerica on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 12:26am.
I hear there will be free transportation for your End of life Care.
gotcha coming and going
Submitted by MidAmerica on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 1:15am.
Besides not being too compassionate about old people, obama as an illinois State Senator, vigorously opposed the Infant Born Alive Protection Act which would have ended the practice of letting live infants die without medical care who somehow survived an abortion. Now with his obamacare he really has the government in control of when an infant is allowed to be recognized as a person and when your time on this earth is finished.
I saw this show on psychics the other night who could see the angel of death hovering around people a few days before that person dies. Well we won't need any psychics now. When we see the grim looking guy in a suit and carrying a briefcase whisper in our doctors ear we will know our time is nigh.
This conjures up Edward G
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 1:42am.
This conjures up Edward G Robinson in Soylent Green as he opts to die in a government death facility.
Does anyone actually think
Submitted by Iron Tigers Vet on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 7:15am.
anyone will give her that well deserved apology?
Liberals - first to criticize, last to admit defeat or wrongdoing.
No.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 8:22am.
Charles Krauthammer, liberals, and other critics will say," Yeah, so? A stopped clock is right once in awhile too."
The last thing Palin deserves is an apology.
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 10:06am.
On the contrary, she deserves continued scorn for her cynical, demagogic distortions of the demonstrably laudable policy of authorizing Medicare coverage for voluntary discussions with physicians involving patients' desires and objectives in connection with potential and eventual terminal illnesses. The issue is one of input, direction, and control by the patients themselves--while they are physically and mentally capable of making their wishes known.
There was no acknowledgement by the NYT that Palin had been correct. In fact, she was and remains dead wrong on this issue. And her "death panel" moniker was not just a misnomer, but a shameful misrepresentation in order to scare the bejesus out of the elderly and embolden health reform opponents with "pull the plug on granny" hysteria.
Jer
Thank you, Dr. Kevorkian, but
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 10:16am.
the Medicaid paying for medical advice aspect was only one small component of the overall criticism.
The primary bitch is about the [potential] outcome-weighted rationing of care and pharmaceuticals, i.e. you are too old or sick and others are more deserving.
"Republicans want you to die quickly." - The Honorable Alan Grayson
I've removed Kevorkian from my speed-dial, but...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 2:05pm.
as someone who has personally experienced--and continues to experience--rationed care and pharmaceutical coverage reductions [down to zero in the latter case] by health insurance panels motivated by profit, I can assure you the process will exist to some degree under any system.
Jer
Jer, I didn't say neither of those scenarios didn't exist, but
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 3:29pm.
I was specifically addressing your accusation of Palin demagoguing what was a very minor issue overall in the healthcare reform discussion.
SickoLibs, Jer is funny. He
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 3:42pm.
SickoLibs,
Jer is funny. He just finished claiming that Palin was lying.
When you point out the facts, he turns around and claims that the circumstances which he just finished telling us Palin lied about actually will exist under any form of health care system.
Jer, which one is it? did Palin lie or do the death panels exist under any type of health care system? you can't have it both ways! LOL
SoL...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 3:47pm.
Couple of points: I'm extremely lukewarm on Obamacare and if the whole bill were tossed wouldn't shed any tears.
However, I do believe the flogging of the death panel issue was wrong and irresponsible and had more of an impact than it's "minor" import should have warranted. And, apparently, it is enough of a hot-button issue to have commanded--and to continue to command--a lot of attention at this website.
Jer
Death Panels are a reality in
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 3:55pm.
Death Panels are a reality in the Canadian, English, French, Spanish, Australian, etc healthcare systems.
You cannot have a sustainable universal healthcare system without having someone making decisions of who gets what procedure and who doesn't get the procedure. It is an impossibility. To claim that these do not exist in socialized medicine is not only lying, but goes against all laws of economics.
The death panels do exist and it is here in America. You acknowledged as much right after claimign that Sarah Palin lied. LOL
Now, I agree with you, the private health insurance companies also decide who gets what procedure and who doesn't. I am unsure how they go about making this decision. I have no doubt that it is profit based. There is no way getting around this.
However, Obamacare and universal healthcare would not get rid of these death panels. The death panels would go from being control by insurance companies to being controlled by the government. BOTH motivated by.....profit!
Death panels are a reality
Submitted by yutsnark on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 5:16pm.
Sure, any health insurance, public or private, is going to cover some illnesses, and not cover others.
Yutsnark, That's right. Any
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 11:25pm.
Yutsnark,
That's right. Any and ALL healthcare systems, private and public WILL, by their nature, have a group of people makign decisions on who gets what treatment and who doesn't. They will be making life and death decisions, thus the "death panel".
I agree with Jer that those who complain today about the government death panels weren't up in arms when it was the health insurance companies making these decisions. However, the premise of the Left/Liberla debate has always been that more people were goign to get covered and the denial of healthcare services was going to end. THIS IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY, thus a lie from the Left/Liberals. Death Panels are a reality, as you admitted on both government run and private run medicine.
However, given the fact that our government can't run a DMV, it can't run a Veteran's hospital, can't pay soldiers on time, can't run the post office well, etc, etc, etc I rather have the private sector deciding whether I live or die, not some government bureaucrat who can't chew and walk at the same time.
Death Panels exist, this is a fact that Liberals like Jer and others deny because to them it is more important to destroy their political opponents with lie than to tell the truth. To Liberals/Left wingers the ends do justify the means!
A MAJOR difference
Submitted by buzzkill59 on Wed, 01/05/2011 - 8:48am.
There is a MAJOR difference between insurance companies and the government.You can sue the insurance company and win with a good sheister.Try it against a government agency.You will be long dead before resolved.
Buzzkill59, both the
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 01/05/2011 - 3:42pm.
Buzzkill59,
both the governnent and the insurance companies can be sued. In both intences, I believe, it is next to impossible for the average Joe or Jane to sue since you need an EXCELLENT lawyer. Sadly, good lawyers today cost a lot more money than most Americans can afford. Unless of course, it is a class action law suit.
I am a Conservative and I believe in the free market and private sector a lot more than the government. However, something that Conservatives refuse to acknowledge is that our private sector is sick. When the ONLY bottom line of a company is to make money no matter who they steam roll alongn the way, there is something extremely wrong.
I am all for anyone and everyone making money as they please and wish, as long as it is moral, ethical and legal (in this order). Too many companies today do not care about their employees, do not care about customers. All they care about is the bottom line.
The government is also very sick, much more so than the private sector, but I am a big believer that we Conservatives miss the boat on holding companies accountable when the ONLY thing they have is mind is making money no matter what it takes.
I am 100% for capitalism and 100% against any form of socialism, communism. I am for a capitalsim where money doesn't trump human beings. The capitalism we have today IS All about money, money, money, money, money. This is AS wrong as what Obama and his socialist/communist pals want for America.
Tis true SoL
Submitted by Denny Crane on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 12:25pm.
You have just described the difference between "crony capitalism" and "free market capitalism"
One is good, and the other isn't.
We Are The 53%
I'll try one more time, Jer...
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 5:42pm.
The whole "death panel" meme is much more far-reaching than the doctors-getting-paid-by-Medicare-for-consulatations thing you claimed Palin demagogued... that is a tiny part of it.
If this socialist nightmare is not squashed, our government WILL be involved, either directly or indirectly, in negotiating life or death guidelines and/or decisions... not just your personal physician.
Understood, SoL.. But if
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 6:20pm.
Understood, SoL..
But if the subject is to be broadened to rationed care in general and equate it with "death panels", why hasn't Palin complained in the past--both long before Obamacare was even proposed as well as while it was being debated--that such panels already existed and were staffed and operated by insurance company bureaucrats making life and death decisions with respect to insured patients? She could have introduced that phrase into the national lexicon long ago. Instead she selectively applied a very loaded term to the recent health care bill for what I believe were largely political and ideological reasons. [To be clear, my position is that using the ominous term "death panel" would have been demagogic whether associated with rationed care at the behest of either insurance companies or the government.]
And, again, the current regulation only refers to voluntary discussions between the physician and patient regarding terminal illness wishes, which I consider to be a very worthwhile and sensible provision. But Cal Thomas suggests this regulation and the NYT article somehow vindicate Palin. I disagree.
Jer
Instead she selectively
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 6:36pm.
Instead she selectively applied a very loaded term to the recent health care bill for what I believe were largely political and ideological reasons.
Well, you're leaving out the entire premise for health care REFORM. Remember the eeevvviiiillllll insurance companies? Daily demagogued by Queen Nan and the Boy Wonder? Pre-existing conditions and all that jazz. Mean old insurance companies- in it just for the money. It's almost hard to believe that anyone ever got better under those money-grubbing bastards!
And yet, here comes the savior in chief, all ready to save us from those evil-doers; those charlatans who've been robbing us blind and then kicking us to the curb at a rate of 150% per day. With the same plan. Except he's going to pay doctors to enforce it, rather than let the insurance companies do it on their own. I'll say that again: He's going to pay the doctors to enforce his "die quickly" plan (or something like that).
Hey, wasn't the AMA in his camp on this whole thing?
bkesyer, Exactly! Obamacare
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 12:28am.
bkesyer,
Exactly! Obamacare was suppose to REFORM the system! all it has done is move what the private insurance did to the government sector. There was NO CHANGE!
I work in healthcare, on the education side of it. I can tell you story after story from countless of Liberal and Conservative doctors who are planning to leave the field before 2014. 99% of them were planning a long, very long career as physicians well passed 2014, however, if Obamcare is not repealed we will have a huge, HUGE shortage of doctors. Doctors KNOW that Obamacare created many more problems than it fixed.
Already today about ten Liberal friends of mine, I live in Chicago so please forgive me for having so many Liberal friends (HAHAHA!!!), were outraged because their company raised what they had to pay for healthcare! WHY? as it was nicely put to them in an email from their company...."You can thank Obama for you having to pay more out of your pocket for your healthcare!!!!" I laughed for a little bit at the utter stupidity of Liberals to believe theirr messiah Obama was going to fix anything. however, I was sadden at the fact that this also affects me, my family, my friends, collegues, etc.
Obama is an utter disaster. This Obamacare thing will keep eating at his administration little by little. I know for a fact that today he lost at least 10 Liberals. No doubt that this story is being repeated all over the USA with countless of Liberals!
You act like nobody on
Submitted by NL207 on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 11:34am.
You act like nobody on Medicare or Medicaid is making a Living Will, Medical Election or DNR without this new regulation. That is simply horsecrap, a misrepresentation your part. Lots of people receiving Medicare and Medicaid have made such arrangements for themselves without the benificent intrervention of the state. There are doubtless many, many others who for whatever personal reasons of their own have declined to make such plans leaving their fate in the hands of their next-of-kin.
Like most myopic liberals, you think this regulation will be enforced as you perceive it to be written. That is delusional. It will be enforced at the discretion of government regulators, either in CMMS [my bet] or the IRS. The present CMMS administrator is Dr. Donald Berwick. We all know he supports assisted suicide for the terminally ill and admires the failed British NHS as a model for others to emulate. His interpretation of these regulations is what will be enforced and I cringe at what that might be given his other opinions. Who knows what his successor might decide. The IRS are ruthless tax collectors. If they enforce this regulation ...
What this new regulation has changed is precisely the voluntary nature of these arrangements by officially introducing the government into a previously decision making process. Doctors will no longer view these counseling sessions as optional. Indeed, litigation may cause them to be regarded as a required part of necessary and rerasonable treatment for the seriously ill, in which case, no doctor will dare to omit this for fear of malpractice lawsuits.
Some people are astute enough to read the Rep. Blumenauer email published by the NYT and comprehend its meaning : Palin was right. The NYT does not need to explicitly say Palin was right. when they publish evidence supporting her case. You imply NYT are such fools they did not realize that email supports Palin.
NL, you're making me roll my eyes
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 11:44am.
Indeed, litigation may cause them to be regarded as a required part of necessary and rerasonable (sic) treatment for the seriously ill, in which case, no doctor will dare to omit this for fear of malpractice lawsuits.
Exactly. And that's going to save money, right? Cookie cutter treatment for every patient.
And for those who don't know me as well as NL does, my question was totally sarcastic.
Rahm's brother was the author of quite a bit of the underpinning of the death panels. (We had it all linked on the HC Forum, alas it's gone.) Of course Palin was right about "Death Panels"....so right that the term entered the lexicon and has the democrat authors of this mess running scared at the mere mention of it.
LOL, Martha's talking about Death Panels on Fox right now.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde, Here's a couple of
Submitted by Hunter12 on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 12:59pm.
Blonde, Here's a couple of links to some of the things you mention, doctor's loosing autonomy to treat and a new federal bureaucracy created out of the stimulus bill to determine what treatments are cost effective, and more ominously, who should get what treatments. The second link is the Council's annual report to the President. A lot of talk about guidelines to doctor's and clinics about about "cost-effective" treatments and "sub-groups" to get priority on directed research and funding. Here's another agency created out of Obanacare and stimulus money to police the Councils CERs.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
Hunter
Submitted by Denny Crane on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 12:34pm.
Please put those links in the healthcare forum so we have quicker access to them. otherwise they get lost in the threads.
http://newsbusters.org/forums/topic-discussion/health-care-reform-la-socialists-part-deux-weve-lost-first-battle-not-war-34
We Are The 53%
The "death panel" has reviewed your comment, NL..
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 3:14pm.
and is regrettably pulling the plug on your post due to terminal lameness. For heaven's sake, cowboy, you've been posting comments for how many years?...at how many sites?...and the best strawman argument you can throw together is THIS:
"You act like nobody on Medicare or Medicaid is making a Living Will, Medical Election or DNR without this new regulation. That is simply horsecrap, a misrepresentation [on] your part...."
Gosh, except for the fact I neither stated, nor 'acted like', or even remotely implied anything of the sort, you may have had a point. As it is, you don't. Which, of course, also rules out any misrepresentation on my part
You are correct about one thing, however. Some people are indeed astute enough to read Blumenauer's email and comprehend its meaning. Alas, you are not one of those persons. There was clearly concern about widespread publicity triggering another round of "death panel" hysteria. It was not predicated on any acknowledgement that Palin was "right", however, but rather a recognition that she and her ilk [sorry, I hate that word, but I couldn't help myself] would revive the "pull the plug on granny" nonsense. It would appear those concerns were well-founded.
A more realistic appraisal of the regulation--including its genesis and application--can be found here.
Jer
I do not need to construct
Submitted by NL207 on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 11:16pm.
I do not need to construct strawmen since I have you. As usual, I have gutted your argument and you avoid ALL the salient points.
I made specific assertions about Dr. Donald Berwick's views, which you did not refute in any way. Why? Because you know them to be true : Berwick supports the RATIONING of healthcare to the detriment of patients selected by government criteria as practiced by the NHS in Britain. He also supports 'offing' terminally ill patients as in the Netherlands. The formula for determining if a procedure or treatment will be made available to a particular patient is mathematical and equates a year of patient life expectancy with a cash value and ignores all subjective and individual measures such as the patient's overall desire to live, etc.. If the treatment costs more, tough tittie for the patient, the care is denied. For those patients who might be helped but deemed not to be worth saving, death is the ulimate outcome. Any government bureau which makes such determinations is most certainly a 'death panel'.
Berwick, as administrator of CMMS can be counted upon to impose his view of medical ethics on the rules and regulations governing Medicare and Medicaid. Why else would Obama have appointed him? Why would Obama have recess appointed him except to avoid testimony to this effect at a confirmation hearing?
NL207, You said, " I do
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 1:03am.
NL207,
You said, "
I do not need to construct strawmen since I have you. As usual, I have gutted your argument and you avoid ALL the salient points. That is the understament of the century!!! LOL Jer avoids like the plague anything and anyone that sees through his lies and half-truths. It is quite easy to gut 100% of his arguments. however, it is quite hard for Jer to admit that his liberal beliefs are based on half-truths and lies. The only thing Jer has left is play at being dismissive and make jokes and attack those of us who know he is a poorly informed tool of the left. I pity the poor bastards that have had jer as a lawyer.Voluntary discussions
Submitted by Model850 on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 2:09pm.
With Medicare reimbursements being what they are (low) exactly how many doctors does anyone think will pass on the opportunity to bill the government for the annual "voluntary" discussion?
And how many end-of-life discussions does one person really need? Is it really necessary to talk about it with your doctor every year? But if Medicare is offering doctor's payment for it you can pretty much bet doctor's are going to conduct these "death talks" every year, with every eligible patient.
Jer, funny, you always
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 3:38pm.
Jer,
funny, you always claim to be well versed on all subject.
I guess you haven't done much research into the writings of Dr. Emanuel, yes, Rahm Emanuel's brother. If I am not mistaken, he is Obama's health Czar.
You might want to read up on his essays in which he admits AND promotes health care rationing for those individuals who are not considered productive members of our society.
the death panel claim is based on what Obama administration members and what left wingers have said and say.
Are you familiar with the ultra-Left winger Peter Singer? a left wing "philospher" who is praised and worshiped by Left wingers? A man who believes that a roach has the same rights as you and I? a man who believes that the value of a human being is based on how productive you are to society? he is a big hero amongst Left wingers. A man who believes that your medical care should be based on what you can give back to your community.
no, the death panel claim is RIGHT on and individuals like you are too partisan to admit it.
Liberallies, you're funny too...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 5:34pm.
Small world, isn't it?
Jer
Jer, HA! Just like I
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 11:14pm.
Jer,
HA! Just like I thought. You were clueless about Dr. Emanuel and his writings on his claim that healthcare needs to be rationed. The fact that he is part of the Obama administration doesn't bother you oen bit, right? You are also clueless about the Left wings' favorite philospher Peter Singer.
Please educate yourself on the subject matter that you opine on before making a complete ass out of yourself. Thanks for playing. LOL
Good grief, Liberallies...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 11:49pm.
Your memory is even more feeble than your polemics, if such is possible. There have been NewsBusters blogs regarding Singer--on which and about whom I commented. What I didn't know about him beforehand, I learned via research a couple of years ago.
Jer
Jer, well, since I don't
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 12:25am.
Jer,
well, since I don't spent 24/7 on NB like you do, I haven't read squat about radical and crazed out Peter Singer on here. Put up a link to the discussion and I will more than gladly retract my statement.
However, for you to claim that there is no death panels. That this is made up is perfect proof of how willing you are to lie in order to discredit the Left's favorite punching bag, Sarah Palin. Anything to make her look bad. How small and sad of you.
Death Panels, in healthcare, rationing of healthcare has been advocated by Liberal "thinkers" like Peter Singer, Dr. Emanuel for decades now. I ran into Peter Singer back in 1996 during my first philosphy class in college. He was a already a favorite of the Left, main stream Left and radical Left. Back then he was already advocating death panels and rationing of heatlhcare. Dr. Emanuel, who is older than Mr. Singer, has also been advocating this rationing and death panels for decades. If I am not mistaken, Mr. Singer is a government consultant who works at Harvard and Dr. Emanuel is Obama's health Czar. But heck, nah, Liberals, Obama would never push for death panels even though two of his most trusted consultants on this matter are pro-death panel and for healthcare rationing.
Just the other day I was debating a doctor who quoted Left winger after Left winger of why healthcare must be rationed and the elderly must make sacrifices. As he told me, quoting from Star Trek, the needs of the many are more important than t he needs of the one or the few. This is a radical, crazy, dangerous Left wing believe!
Liberallies...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 1:13am.
Just do a simple "Peter Singer" NB search. There are at least five blogs dating back to 2007 directly or indirectly involving Singer. All of the comments were eradicated in the site redesign. You'll just have to take my word that I commented on one or more of the blogs in question.
Your penchant for groundless generalizations and mistaken presumptions about me is the reason I generally avoid responding to your posts. Oh, and repeatedly calling me a liar. I don't care for that either.
Jer
Jer, LOL, 1) You are a
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 2:26am.
Jer,
LOL,
1) You are a liar. Whether it is on purpose or out of ignorance, only you know.
2) You love to make assumptions and come to the wrong conclusions about about Sarah Palin, about Republicans and Conservatives in general and you are going to cry and complain claiming that I am make assumptions and come to what you came are wrong conclusions about you? LOL only you Jer, only you with the double standard.
Liberallies...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 2:36am.
A liar is someone who deliberately and knowingly misleads, so it presupposes a purposeful action and would preclude ignorance as a factor.
Of course you didn't know that, which is another reason I generally don't respond to your posts: You're ignorant.
Jer
Jer, You try hard, but you
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 2:56am.
Jer,
You try hard, but you fail miserably.
You can lie by knowing that you do not know what you are talkign about, yet you claim you know and opine on the subject. In your case, you constantly claim to have done deep research on every subject that you opine on. it is obvious that you know very little of anything.
If you lie due to ignorance, you know you are ignorant, yet you opine. You are deliberatly misleading everyone around you by claiming to know about a subject that you know you know little about. Thus, making you a liar.
If you willfully and knowlingly mislead, you are also a liar. Either way, as I said, you are a liar.
in BOTH instances you are deliberately and willfully misleading! LOL
You don't engage me because you know I am your intellectual superior and I am much better versed on the facts and history than you. You can't stand being proven wrong, like most Liberals. As I said, I pity the bastards that had you as a lawyer.
Shoot, the college kids that opine here know more about the subject matters on NB than you. you just repeat like a tool the propaganda from the Left knowing that the Left is lying! liar.
Please, if you are going to attempt to insult me, try a lot harder. HAHA!! You are too easy Jer....now keep up with your lies about Sarah Palin and the Deaths panels.
Well the Jer you describe in
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 3:07am.
Well the Jer you describe in your post sure as hell isn't worth engaging in any dialogue or debate. So why don't you pack up that massive intellect of yours and go annoy someone else.
Jer
Jer, I am not enganging you
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 3:18am.
Jer,
I am not enganging you on the same intellectual level. I am engaging you as my toy. I am bored and I need someone with an inferior intellect to amuse me. You seem to be doing a good job.
I just completed a deep, intellectual, fact based debate on Theology, politics and philosphy.There was great respect for all sides and no one lied. If they didn't know about a subject, guess what, they admitted as much. There were no assumptions made and no one spewed out propaganda from anywhere. No tools were present. Don't worry, you wouldn't understand, it is beyond you. My brain needed a break and I needed to engage an inferior intellect, you are the logical conclusion. thanks for playing.
when I deem it appropiate and feel that you are lowering my IQ, I will disengage you.
HAHA!! as I said, you try hard, but you come across very poorly.
Did you seriously represent people in a court of law? How did you pass the bar exam? you fail miserably at logic and everything else that it is needed to pass the bar. Oh, I know....you cheated. LOL
Liberalllies...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 11:16am.
Please allow me to briefly summarize my view of you as well as my future intentions:
a. I admire your typing skills.
b. You are also a passionate and articulate defender of your faith, and I do have great respect for you in that regard.
c. You appear to be reasonably intelligent.
d. You also appear to have firmly-grounded and well-developed attitudes with respect to your family, and that is highly commendable and deserving of praise.
e. Otherwise, you are extraordinarily immature, and your interactions on the threads with me and other posters are, with rare exceptions, classic examples of how not to engage in productive discourse.
So, engage those whom you consider your intellectual equal; harrass and "toy" with me if you find that to be fulfilling; but I will not be responding further.
Good luck to you, Liberallies, and God bless.
Jer
Jer, To be honest, if you
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 4:28pm.
Jer,
To be honest, if you respected the opinion of those who you disagree with a lot more, you would receive the same respect back. However, you tend to be quite condescending and yes, I do engage in immature exchanges once the other poster starts with their, "I am better than you attitude..."
You constantly claim that I make assumptions about you and you are no different. I constantly read your exchanges with other posters on NB and you constantly come to conclusions and assumptions that are 100% wrong about the poster.
I thank you for your honest assestment of what you think of me. I believe it is spot on, yes even the last paragraph, complete immaturity on my part.
I would ask you Jer, to treat me with the same respect that you ask I give you. You seem to have forgotten, but in our very first exchange, in which I was addressing a general comment, you weren't exactly polite, understanding or mature.
However, we can all turn a new page and start all over.
I will give you the respect that is due to you. I only ask that you treat other posters, that you vehemenly disagree with, with the same respect that you want others to treat you with.
HAPPY NEW YEAR! and see you around NB.
May God Bless you and your family.
Hmmm....
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 3:59pm.
Maybe I misunderstood the meaning of the provision, but I thought that what was stricken from the original bill was that reimbursement would be rendered to doctors and the were encouraged to discuss end-of-life care on a bi-annual basis with their older or severely sick patients. My understanding of the regulation that just surfaced is that reimbursement would be made to doctors for end-of-life discussions with older and severely sick patients on an annual basis.
Now, given that the government will set the rate of reimbursement, and encourages the practice of these discussions, isn't it likely that doctors will feel obligated even if it is technically deemed voluntary? But beyond that, what kind of reputation would a doctor develop if he regularly recommends continued treatment for older or severely ill patients and the medicare panel keeps denying it, citing cost? It seems to me that the doctor would have no advanced notice that a particular procedure might be off-limits, especially if it's not across the board; so it's likely that the doctor will have to notify the patient that that possibility exists. "Yes, Mrs. Smith, there is is procedure that can help you walk again, but its actually quite expensive and I can't guarantee medicare will pay for it. But on the bright side, we can help facilitate your early demise if you chose to forego any additional treatments! Yippee! Just think how much money you'll be saving the Obama administration! (Nurse, go ahead an bill medicare for the end-of-life counseling I just administered.) Now Mrs. Smith, about that wheelchair..."
Bkeyser, My question
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 4:10pm.
Bkeyser,
My question is....why is the government doing any type of reimbursment for this type of consultation with a doctor? Why is the government encouraging doctors to bring this up?
I believe, that in 99% of the cases, if the patient doesn't not bring up end of life care, maybe it is because the patient is NOT interested in this type of care as of yet, correct?
Thus, why is the government encouraging this type of conversation? it makes zero sense unless the govenrment has a definite goal in mind.
It's part of the doctor's job.
Submitted by yutsnark on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 5:11pm.
Certainly, if the patient is terminally ill, the physician needs to find out what his wishes are. Beyond that, the patient doesn't have to receive any end of life counseling unless he wants it.
Yutsnark, As you said, it
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 5:17pm.
Yutsnark,
As you said, it is part of the doctors job if the person is terminally ill. However, this is NOT what the Obamacare is going to do. Obamacare is going to encourage, through money insentive, for doctors to speak with patients about end of life care.
Unless it is with a terminally ill patient....why bring it up?
EVEN with a terminally ill patient, it isn't any of the doctors business unless the patient asks about it. It isn't part of the treatment if the patient doesn't want it!
Liberallies
Submitted by yutsnark on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 5:36pm.
None of us knows when or how we're going to die. Many of us would like to make our wishes known in advance, lest we become incapacitated. Then again, some of us just don't want to talk about it. In the latter case, the physician can't force us to enter such a discussion. He can only offer.
Except for the fact that in
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 5:51pm.
Except for the fact that in many cases -probably most- the attending physician in a sudden potential end-of-life situation isn't PPO doctor on the insurance card, it's the emergency room physician or EMT that picked you up in the ambulance. So your wishes for end-of-life care, whether made known to your doctor or not, are likely not going to be immediately administered. So the EMT and the ER Doc save your life, then once your in a private room receiving care, your primary care doctor comes in, and with encouragement from Uncle Sam, offers to discuss the quickest way to free up the bed.
"Listen Mr. Johnson. That car accident was a real bugger. You've suffered damage to your spleen and kidneys. Oh sure, they'll heal...eventually. But it's going to take a lot of time and be quite costly. Not only financially, but physically as well. You're in for a lot of pain there buddy. Whattya say we just kinda... you know... think about the next generation and put them first, huh? You've been around for almost 63 years already. Don't you think that's long enough? Besides, you'll miss a lot of work and then in two years, you'll be sucking down more of Uncle Sam's money. Pretty selfish, don't you think. What's say we sign this little form here. Nah, no need to read it. I'd have to take those expensive bandages off anyway. Here's a pen..."
That'll be $1200.00 Medicare. Thank you for your prompt payment.
Well yeah, bkeyser, that's a
Submitted by yutsnark on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 7:12pm.
Well yeah, bkeyser, that's a worst case scenario. I can't imagine it happening, though. How much do you think a doc will be reimbursed for this counseling, anyhow? Enough that he'll put it on his calendar every year, whether the patient needs it or not? And will there be some clause that says that if Mr. Johnson opts for an early demise, the doctor gets to pocket the savings? If not, why wouldn't the doctor just give an objective opinion? Or no opinion at all? (Maybe the idea is to find out what the patient wants.)
yutsnark
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 10:30pm.
Well, I don't know how much the reimbursement will be but I'm pretty sure I know what it is now... And yes, I do think he'll put it on his mandatory electronic records that can will be overseen by the Medicare panel, every year. I don't however, think that ethical doctors will be advocating for an early demise -even though I was sarcastically playing that idea up in earlier comments. What I think they will do is simply make this part of their treatment plan for older patients. They come in for various medical checks on a regular basis, surely during one screening or another -at least one that is still deemed affordable- he'll "have the talk." And then he'll be compensated for his time. But he's not a lawyer, and end-of-life issues often have more to do with legal matters than simply medical ones.
And I suspect that ethical doctors will provide an objective review of the patients options, especially regarding treatment for a known illness. But as I said earlier, what if the doctor provides his best medical advice and medicare refuses to authorize it? At what point will uncooperative doctors (according to some unelected official on the Medicare oversight panel) be punished for not towing the line? Or how will his patients deal with the stress of their eventual demise if they are at first given a ray of hope by the person trained in medical science and then have it taken away by the person trained in bean-counting? And frankly, I woudn't continue to see a doctor who provided no opinion regarding medical issues.
I thought the idea of health care reform was to fix the issues deemed dubious on the part of the insurance companies. It seems, however, that HHS is just trying to perfect them.
Bkeyser, I don't think we're
Submitted by yutsnark on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 9:42am.
Bkeyser, I don't think we're really very far apart on this issue. Most likely, doctors will have their nurses routinely ask whether the patient has a living will. If the patient wants further counseling, the doctor can present options (e.g., aggressive treatment vs palliative care, vs anything in between), and possibly refer the patient to a social worker. Most physicians do that anyway, but now they'll be encouraged to offer the service, because they can bill for it.
I really don't see any reason to suspect that this will encourage the docs to behave in an unethical manner. "What if the doctor provides his best medical advice and medicare refuses to authorize it?" That happens all the time, with Medicare and private insurers as well. The patient can appeal the decision, or find some way to pay out of pocket.
What if doctors refuse to "toe the line"? Same thing that happens now. Patients will be grateful that the physician is in their corner; the insurer will refuse coverage. They won't "punish" the uncooperative physicians. On the contrary, it's the maverick docs that save the insurer the most money, by recommending procedures that will never be reimbursed. If the insurer repeatedly rejects reasonable claims, then the physicians and the patients will get together and put pressure on the insurance companies -- as they did, successfully, during the worst days of "managed care."
Bkeyser
Submitted by texusmc on Wed, 01/05/2011 - 4:22pm.
The docs you are describing in your masterfully put sarcastic way sure do sound alot like some of the Military Doctors (Not Corpsmen or Medics who are affectionately called Doc by us enlisted) I have run across.
"ooooo lookie broken finger that needs surgery? hey why not just apmutate since the sugery would take up too much time and you would miss your next deployment."
or
"ooo what is tha,...t shattered wrist? nooooo you dont need the mobility ...we will just fuse it all together and put a rod in there ..yes i do know of the new procedures that my civilian counterpart is doin and you would keep most of your mobility but hey that would take to long...this is cheaper! just sign here! "
And they think it wont go that way? it is already started.
sarcasm
Submitted by yutsnark on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 10:06am.
Any appearance of sarcasm was unintended. I try to avoid sarcasm online, since it's so easily misunderstood.
Sorry to hear that, about military doctors.
"Dr." Berwick, another proud graduate of the Joseph R. Mengele
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 7:41am.
...School of Medicine.
First these Godless heathens got America used to the idea of exterminating unborn, unwanted, and "inconvenient" children through abortion.
Now they are going to further the idea of exterminating the elderly - hopefully before they burn through too much in the way of Medicare and Medicaid cash, and particularly before they collect their first Social Security check.
The next target of these hideous government "health" NAZIs will be "special needs children" (as defined by government), whose parents cannot provide sufficient care to, and maybe even those whose parents can afford their care.
-And anyone who doesn't see that coming is a fool.
If this administration was to become any more nazified than it already is, Big Sis and her henchmen will have to start passing out swastika arm bands at the next DNC party rally.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
And then they'll make
Submitted by yutsnark on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 5:35pm.
And then they'll make marijuana illegal.
They will never apologize to her
Submitted by libertyswarrior on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 7:50am.
They will never apologize to her or the many others who talked about the death panels when talking about Obamacare. Pelosi said it best, "we have to pass it to find out what's in it" and now we finding out the awful truth about the bill.
Liberty's Warrior
Still, The ? Is
Submitted by kilrod on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 9:03am.
The question remains; What are you going to do about it? ---
Wait on another election?? ----- ROFLMAO>.~!~
(grins) kilrod "the Birther"
If an unborn child cannot trust you, why should I,??
That's it?
Submitted by yutsnark on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 3:55pm.
"a rule issued by the recess-appointed Dr. Donald M. Berwick, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, calls for the government to pay doctors to advise patients on options for ending their lives."
The rest of the article is Cal Thomas's paranoid fantasy about where this all could lead.
Pants on fire.
Yutsnark, Paranoid? really?
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 11:34pm.
Yutsnark,
Paranoid? really? It is already happening in Canada, England, Australia, Spain, etc.
No, not paranoid, rather learning from where this type of garbage has been implemented!
Your non-chalant attitude, dismissive attitude, is what is truly dangerous.
Show me the dead Canadians
Submitted by yutsnark on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 11:37am.
"The killings, uh, terminations, will take place out of sight so as not to disturb the masses who might have a few embers of a past morality still burning in their souls. People will sign documents testifying to their desire to die, and the government will see it as a means of "reducing the surplus population," to quote Charles Dickens." Paranoid. Really.Good grief
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 01/05/2011 - 8:59am.
But it cant happen here,, right? Do you ever look up any of your bs, or is spouting it the best you can do?
Yutsnark, Paranoid? really?
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 01/05/2011 - 3:57pm.
Yutsnark,
Paranoid? really? still with your silly dismissive attitude? do you bother to do research beyond the garbage you have obviously been fed by the Left?
Tell me if this is paranoid
As I said, what is dangerous, yutsnark , is your dismissive attitude of what will happen here in the USA since it is already happening in nations which are considered first world nations, but which have third world nation conditions in their hospitals. And what do these nations have in common? so called universal healthcare.
Incredibly that anyone would deny the disaster of universal healthcare and be so dismissive and claim that it is all paranoia. You might want to get out of your Liberal bubble once in a blue moon.
Tell us all, are you purposedly ignorant or do you just choose to ignore the facts that are slapping you in the face.
There are those of us who not only have read and studied the disaster that government run healthcare is, but we have also lived it. I can assure you, the yuppie Liberals who love to have everything done yesterday, who consider themselves smarter than those around them, who drink their lattes with their pinky raised, will hate Obamacare. However, these fools will come to realize it when it is too late. I would stand to the side and allow Liberals to experience first hand the disaster that this healthcare law is, but it would mean that I would have to allow my children and wife to experience the disaster too. No thank you.
Now, go do some homework and research and stop calling paranoid FACTS of government run healthcare.
Liberallies
Submitted by yutsnark on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 10:05am.
The link you sent is from a blogger who wrote How to be Right: The Essential Guide to Making Lefty Liberals History. He's now working on an anti-Obama book. Yeah, I'd say he's paranoid.
The Brits like natiional health care -- otherwise they'd switch over to our system. His argument to explain that is weak, don't you think?
Yutsnark, You are seriously
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 12:24pm.
Yutsnark,
You are seriously one dense individual. While the article was written by an anti-Obama individual, The study he cites is FAR from being anti-Obama. duh, duh...
the conditions he describes in hospitals, based on the study, are also FAR from being anti-Obama, but rather facts. But if there is something I have learned from the pro-radical, anti-human socialized medicine cultists like you is that they do not allow facts to get on their way of preaching for universal healthcare.
But don't worry, I have zero doubt that you also have dismissed all articles that are written by individuals that didn't like Bush or any President, right? LOL
So what the Brits like National Health Care. The Germans loved Nazi Germany. LOL It is rather a weak argument from you to claim, "Universal Healthcare is great because the Brits love it..." HA! 1) that's a lie, I have met enough Brits to know that they hate it 2) Just because blind masses like something it doesn't mean that it is good and/or moral.
Britain like France, like Canada like ALL other nations with universal healthcare have a huge problem with waiting times and individuals being denied healthcare by the government.
No doubt you are aware that while we are moving towards universal healthcare, in Canada the debate is the opposite...moving away from universal healthcare and into privatized healthcare. Geez, what do the Canadians know that we don't, eh?
Of course others have also put up links proving that your dismissive attitude is ridiculous andn that what is being said about Obamacare is FAR from being paranoid. I see you have ignored them.
Attempt to remove YOUR bias from the article I linked you to, forget the words of the author and go directly to the study of the English system. Yes, third world conditions. But not that the universal healthcare cultists care about third world conditions in hospitals, as long as everyone can see a doctor within their lifetime, it is ok.
Shoot, using your weak logic you should bow down to what I say since guess what...I WORK IN THE HEALTHCARE FIELD and 90% of the doctors I work with HATE Obamacare!!! and realize that universal healthcare will created dangerous conditions for Americans. But to the cultists of universal healthcare, who cares about dangerous conditions, shortage of doctors as long as you get to see one doctor in your life time using the money of others who cares. LOL
Next thing you are going to tell me is that Michael Moore is not a propagandist and his portrayal of the Cuban healthcare system versus the American is true. LOL
Liberallies
Submitted by yutsnark on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 1:08pm.
You know Brits who dislike their healthcare system. I know Americans who dislike our healthcare system. That really doesn't prove anything.
Britain, France, and almost all other developed nations have some form of national health care. Most of these countries are democracies, and none of them have gone back to our system. Yes, I believe that, if the system is popular with the "masses," then it's successful. I know of no better measure. Indeed, Republicans are saying "Obamacare" is a failure, because it's not popular with the masses.
Yutsnark, Another study for
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 1:28pm.
Yutsnark,
Another study for universal healthcare cultist to ignore.... Hey, appalling conditions in British hospitals...who cares, the national healthcare cultist tell us. Everyone will get to see a doctor for "free" before they die. LOL
I love how Leftist, such as yourself, use peer preasure by saying, "almost all other developed nations have some for of national healthcare..." SO WHAT?! only the foolish do things because the majority does it too.
You know of no better measure than the masses saying whether something is good or bad for them? WOW!!!
So, using your logic, Nazi Germany was the greatest thing on planet Earth since Germans LOVED Nazi Germany.
Just because something is popular with the masses or unpopular, it doesn't equate to good or bad! This is the poorest and most dangerous way to measure the success of ANYTHING!
Why do you choose to ignore studies and stories which prove that the NHS is but a sad disaster?
and Brits love the NHS? says who? our media, universal health care cultist. The reality, which I was attempting to get at, is completely different.
Britian, France, Canada which RIGHT NOW have some type of national care health are actually debating about going into a more private health care system!!!!
I was in Canada a few months ago listening to their Right wing and Left wing radio stations, it is a huge debate going on in Canada right now regarding the disaster that they health care system has become. There is a huge debate going on regarding the privatization of their healthcare. Should they do it? If they do it should it be all of it? Should they adopt a system like Spains which is half and half? Canadians, unlike you, do not have their head stuck in the sand. They realize that their socialist paradise of healthcare system DOESN'T WORK and they need something much better.
Hey, here is a question for you. If the NHS is so great, why is it that all those in England who can afford to receive treatment in the USA run to the USA for it and away from the NHS?
Can't have it both ways
Submitted by yutsnark on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 2:01pm.
You know Brits who hate National Health Care. You've heard the issue debated in Canada, and learned that it's not so popular there either. And lord knows, Americans don't want ObamaCare.
So, using your logic, Nazi Germany was the greatest thing on planet Earth since Germans LOVED Nazi Germany.
Yutsnark, Oh wow!! nice
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 2:23pm.
Yutsnark,
Oh wow!! nice try, but you fail miserably.
YOU are the one who first brought up that Brits love their NHS. I informed you that I know Brits that do not like it. Thus, making your assumptions that all Briths love the NHS WRONG!!
at NO POINT have I said, "because I know Brits who hate their system, then the NHS sucks" I haven't said this. I have actually used studies to prove to you that the NHS is horrific and it has caused third world conditions in British hospitals, a fact you have chosen to ignore.
It is YOU who claimed that the best measure of how good something is how much the masses like or dislike something. Using your radical and dangerous "logic" then Nazi Germany was great since the Germans LOVED Nazi Germany.
I am not even close to trying to have it both ways. I am not you, Yutsnark.
but nice of you to ignore all the links that prove you wrong and twist what I have said. Typical of a Liberal pro-national healthcare cultist. Once you know you have lost the debate, you start making things up about what someone else has said.
Liberallies
Submitted by yutsnark on Fri, 01/07/2011 - 1:49pm.
And I say again that the best measure of a health care delivery system is whether people like it. Case in point: one of the major arguments given by conservatives against "Obamacare" is that people don't like it. Moreover, if we don't pay attention to what people want, who is going to write our healthcare laws? Can't be our elected officials, because they may just be pandering to the majority. Maybe the Emperor? The Archduke? My rabbi?
Yutsnark, Here is another
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 12:59pm.
Yutsnark,
Here is another study for you to dismiss...
UK cancer survival rate is much lower than that of the USA. Yet, somehow, the universal healthcare cultist incist that NHS is better than our system and that people in England do not die because the horrific conditions that the NHS has created in their healthcare system. Where does England rank? towards the bottom with some of the poorest nations in Europe. So much for the NHS.
In fact, the USA has the highest cancer survival rate than all other nations in the study!!! Gosh, our healthcare system is so terrible compared to the rest of the world. We should really let those cancer patients die like the rest of the world does, right Yutsnark? LOL
let me know when your head comes out from ground and you start living in the real world where universal healthcare is an abomination to humanity.
Have you seen how
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 1:17pm.
Sweden performed? And they have a universal health care system.
troglodyt, I wouldn't be so
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 1:34pm.
troglodyt,
I wouldn't be so quick to praise the Swedish system.
LL
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 1:43pm.
I've pointed out our superior cancer survival rates to liberals before. They seem to not be impressed. They point to the mortality rate, disregarding the effect that gang violence, and other violent crimes has on it.
Of course, it also escapes their attention that the relentless class/race warfare engaged in by the left is one of the biggest causes of the violence.
Restless1, Yeap, the
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 2:01pm.
Restless1,
Yeap, the Liberals are socialized medicine cultist. Their slogan, "It doesn't matter that you will have to wait and maybe die during the wait, what matters is that you will see a doctor for free!" LOL
The mortality rate is also a lie from Europe.
Here is a good start on learning why the mortality rate thing is a lie. Nations way to measure mortality rates are NOT the same across the world. Practically all nations have different ways to measure this.
But once again, tell a Liberal this FACT of life and they deny it. These people are cultists and they do not care about the facts.
LL
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 1:50pm.
I'm not praising the swedish system but merely noting that your stats don't necessarily speak against a universal health care system.
Troglodyt, You are right,
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 2:07pm.
Troglodyt,
You are right, it doesn't speak against universal healthcare system because the Swedish system is NO longer universal healthcare! It stopped being so during the 1990s!
did you bother to read the link I put up regarding Sweden's healthcare system? WOW!
Why is it that nations have had universal healthcare for decades are now all about either leaving it completely or doing a hybrid of private with a national healthcare system? Why do Liberals ignore this fact?!
LL
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 2:51pm.
OK now I'm confused. So for you universal healthcare is an entirely tax based health care system with no private insurances at all? Secondly do you think the swedish system was given up for cost reasons or for reasons concerning quality?
Troglodyt, Nice attempt at
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 3:03pm.
Troglodyt,
Nice attempt at a red herring. You claimed that the Swedish being number two in cancer rate survival was prove that universal healthcare was not that bad.
Now that it has been shown to you that Sweden is NOT universal healthcare, that it stopped being so in the 1990s, that it is more of a weird, but failed, hybrid of private and government run healthcare you bring up irrelavent questions.
c'mon guy.
The point is that nations with universal healthcare have poor cancer rate survival.
and more so to the point of England's NHS, which is the most costly healthcare system in Europe, it has horrific cancer survival rate.
andn yes, as it has been defined by the government, media, Liberals, Conservatives and pretty much anyone with a brain, universal healthcare is considered to be one in which the government is the only provider of healthcare which is paid by taxes. Whether it is in the USA or Europe, government run healthcare and universal healthcare have become synonymous.
Regardless of why the Swedish gave up their universal healthcare system, they gave it up. It did not work! However, you aren't seriously buying the European and Liberal cultists propaganda that the Swedish system's quality was somehow superior, are you? It was given up due to both, cost and quality.
and what is the use of having great quality on a product if you can't keep up with the cost of selling the product? it is meaningless. And if you claim it was cost, hmmm....as it happens in all universal heatlcare systems, once you start cutting cost, quality goes too. this also goes in the private systems, not only universal. Unsure where you are trying to go with your irrelevant questions.
LL
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 3:53pm.
Not a red herring but rather confusion about the term "universal healthcare" by which I understand a system in which everybody is or rather has to be covered whether state wise or privately.
Btw: What health care system do you desire?
Troglodyt, I am not
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 5:35pm.
Troglodyt,
I am not answering ANY question that adds to your red herring.
The point is that the study shows that nations with universal healthcare, with government run healthcare, that England with its NHS have horrific cancer survial rates.
You have chosen to ignore this by asking irrelavent questions that you believe are relevant.
To this conversation, it is irrelavent what type of healthcare system I desire. No an issue with the FACT of what the study shows. The United States of America, which cultist Liberals claim has a poor healthcare system, has the highst cancer survial rate, while the LIberal cultist favorite nations with universal healthcare have some of the lowest cancer survival rates. If you refuse to address this fact, please stop with the red herrings, but also don't bother to address me anymore since I will not reply.
If you want to talk about what healthcare system I believe in and we should have, by all means let us have that debate either through private messages or in a forum that you can create and I will be more than glad to get involved in.
However, on this forum, stay focus like a laser beam and stop with the red herrings.
Ok
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 6:18pm.
now you appear to be totally confused. Sweden and Iceland both have government run health care systems, the former with a private but very much government controlled sector. They rank 2nd and 3rd in the stats you provided. How does that compute with your claims about universal health care being a universal failure?
Troglodyt, Eh...what? did
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 9:08pm.
Troglodyt,
Eh...what? did you read the link related to Sweden's system that I put up? The Swedish system is a complete failure! LOL
As you have chosen to ignore, Sweden IS NOT universal healthcare system ran by the government, this ended in the 1990s, it is a failed hybrid of government and private.
LOL
and say you were correct, which you are not. Two out of how many? England who is suppose to be the pride, example of how universal healthcare is ran, or Canada, they are towards the bottom.
Yes, universal healthcare is disaster and a failure, the pro-universal healthcare cultist refuse to acknowldge this.
Furthermore, my stat was in response to someone else claiming that the English system was so incredible, so great. Yet, they rank very low in my stats.
Then by our standards
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 01/07/2011 - 7:41am.
neither Canada nor England have universal health care as both have a private health care components incorporated into their systems. So what are you talking about again?
If you look at a broad range
Submitted by yutsnark on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 1:46pm.
If you look at a broad range of health studies, you find the U.S. doesn't fare too well.
Yutsnark, Health studies
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 2:18pm.
Yutsnark,
Health studies from who? By individuals, organizations and nations who want universal healthcare all over the world. PLEASE! talk about being paranoid. You are paranoid against the USA's healthcare system!
You dismiss the article that I put up regarding Obamacare because the author is anti-Obama, but now you want me to take into account studies carried out by pro-Obama, anti-USA, pro-national healthcare individuals, organizations and nations?
and you are telling me that I can't have it both ways? Yutsnark, it is you who is trying to have it both ways. According to you, we should take into account pro-Obama, pro-national healthcare studies and articles, but ignore anti-Obama and anti-national heatlhcare studies/article.
THE FACTS, not the propaganda, the FACTS speak for themselves. Universal Healthcare in all nations who have attempted it is a complete and utter failure. There is much that the USA's healthcare system can improve on, but the LAST direction it should go towards is the pure national healthcare system direction that the Liberal cultists want the USA to go. Sadly, we are on our way there thanks to the abomination that Obamacare law is.
How many Liberal cultists will have to die under Obamacare before you national healthcare cultists realize how evil, immoral and wrong national healthcare is? It took Canada about 30 years to realize how horrific their system is, how long will it take the Obamacare cultists?
I do enjoy your dismissive attitude, study after study is proving that national healthcare systems are FAR from great and all you can do, instead of admitting this fact, is turn around and attack the USA's? HA! You universal healthcare system, anti-USA healthcare system cultists are something else.
When the facts prove you wrong, instead of admitting defeat, all you can do is claim, "Well, USA is not any better." LOL
"Universal Healthcare in all
Submitted by Francisco on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 2:47pm.
"Universal Healthcare in all nations who have attempted it is a complete and utter failure."
Kind of a broad stroke, to say the least... Is the Swiss system an utter failure? How about the Norwegian (or Swedish, or Finnish, for that matter)? And the Australian? How about the Japanese? And the German? Heck, even the French... Since you claim all of these are utter failures per se, it should be easy to find studies or reports on all or most of these about this "utter failure" (and no, neither generic comments on the national economies or anecdotal evidence counts as such)... These systems are, of course, not perfect, or necessarily better than the US's, but a claim such as "all are an utter failure" requires some elaboration, don't you think?
I always found it interestening that, in the run up to the whole health care reform fiasco in the US, almost all references to universal systems in the media (specially from the right) were to the Canadian and British systems, which have been debated in policy circles for decades as examples on how NOT to do Universal Health care...
I don't necessarily defend UHC over a privatized system (which is more aesthetically pleasing to me), although since I have only been subjected to the former (with, IMO, very satisfactory results) I might be a bit biased on account of familiarity.
On the other hand, Obamacare does seems a bit like some sort of hybrid aberration and Congress should push the reset button ASAP...
Francisco, Hmmm...the
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 2:52pm.
Francisco,
Hmmm...the studies ARE easy to find proving that universal healthcare is a disaster!
by the way, before saying that one either debate with facts or with emotions, make sure that YOUR FACTS are actually facst. Sweden doesn't have universal healthcare system, it stopped being so in the 1990s. In fact, it is an example of what Obamacare is and what it will do to our nation, a weird hybrid of private and universal that has caused a disaster in the Swedish healthcare system.
Please make sure that before you come in here all sactimoneous, all high and mighty about how to debate, about facts, etc have your facts correct. thanks.
If you bother to read the thread, links have been put up to corraborate what is being said.
Like, don't like it, come in all sanctimoneous about it, universal healthcare is a complete and utter disaster in every nation that it has been tried. You know, just like communism. I am sure, however, that you will also want prove that communism is a failure, right? LOL
get your facts straight before being so sactimoneous about others providing facts. LOL
I did edit out immediatly the
Submitted by Francisco on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 3:30pm.
I did edit out immediatly the part of "facts and emotions" but somehow it got through... it was needlessly pedantic and i apologise for that...
but..
When you make such a strong claim like "all are an utter failure" you should be able to corroborate it (meaning document the failure of ALL, not get one or two dubious links and extrapolate or just say "studies exist" without further elaboration)... I made no claim, you did..
I live in Sweden, so your assertions don't look so impressive from where i stand... That Sweden does not have an Universal Health Care system is utterly ridiculous.. It doesn't have a Single Payer system, which is altogether a different issue...For instance, i was able to get medical care within a few months of moving here without having insurance or being a citizen (and not waiting to long, thank you very much). Does it mean anything? No, but anecdotes work both way...
In fact, most of the examples i gave in my previous post were of countries without a single payer system but with universal health care (the German, in particular, seems quite effective).. It is self-evident that communism is a failure... not so much for UHC..
Again, I'm not defending or attacking any system, either Swedish, American or any other... I understand you believe all others to be a disgrace, I was just curious on weather you could demonstrate it or it was just an article of faith...
And please, no need to get so worked up...
Francisco, 1) Nice to know
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 5:33pm.
Francisco,
1) Nice to know that you enjoy a healthcare system which you can use without having to pay for it. IN other words, you enjoy stealing from others. Thank you very much? So, you like to use a system that you do not DESERVE since you haven't put one penny into it. Tell use all, who paid for your abusive use of the system? Whose taxes did you steal from in order to get your healthcare needs taken care off?
Liberals love to steal money from others, but hate it when their money is stolen.
2) "Oh no, what am I going to do, Francisco is not impressed by my comments about Sweden!!! AHAHAHAHAH!!! It is the end of the world." LOL
A Liberal cultist isn't impressed with the facts? It is not the first time that a Liberal hates the truth, my friend. I do not care if you aren't impressed by my comments about Sweden. Do you think it matters to me that you claim that you live in Sweden or not? We can claim anything about who and where we are on the internet. Given your initial sanctimoneous post on here, believe me, you haven't made much of an intellecutal impression.
3) Sweden doesn't have a universal healthcare system. ONly the poorly informed and liars would considedr sweeden a good example of a healthcare system. Or those who believe that it is ok to use a service without putting their fair share into that system, you know lazy Liberal cultists who enjoy getting things for free.
4) It is self-evident that Universal Healthcare is a complete and utter failure. Only a Liberal pr-univeral healthcare cultist would claim other wise. I find it amusing that individuals like you come in here demanding that facts be backed up, yet all YOU have done is give anecdotal evidence, give your opinion and failed to back up with any unbiased source your claims.
Sorry Francisco, but you come across as a joke. You may not be, but I always find it amusing when sanctimoneous fools come in here demanding for evidence, links, etc when int TWO posts they provide none.
Your opinion is just that YOUR OPINION, not facts son.
1-) I'm a tax payer here. You
Submitted by Francisco on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 6:26pm.
1-) I'm a tax payer here. You might find this mechanism of paying for healthcare abhorrent , but it means I'm not "stealing" anything.
2-) By your comments, one would think you deem the Swedish system to be utterly disfunctional. I experience it first hand so I have a different take. Whether you believe I reside in Sweden or not is quite irrelevant.
3-) I never claimed Sweden has a good system (although it is my opinion, if you ask). In fact I claimed nothing about it (only that it is universal, which is non-controversial). You are the one who made a claim and I called you on it, that is it...
4-) It is _obvious_ you think of UHC as a self-evident failure. My question was if your opinion is based on data or is just an axiom from your ideology... the question still stands.. It might even be that UHC is a total disaster (which would make the US the only country with a non-disastrous HC system, a pretty bold claim). If you cannot back that up with hard data and serious studies, than it is just a statement of faith on your part...Again, I have made no claims (and if I did, please point out which ones)..
You seem to take these discussions very personally.. relax man, no need for insults. (and I do apologise for the my initial sanctimonious comment)
Francisco, Stop asking for
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 9:18pm.
Francisco,
Stop asking for what you have not provided, ok? I am not taking this seriously, I just find how you came in with your "holier and smarter than thou" attitude ridiculous.
You keep on asking me for evidence, yet you have provided no data, no evidence, other than your opinion regarding universal healthcare and the Swedish system. For someone who begs for data, you have provided ZERO.
On the other hand, if you follow this thread quite a few of us have provided links to articles and studies showing the failure of universal healthcare, I am not in the habit of cutting and pasting for someone who doesn't bother to go through a thread.
Of course you are stealing. If you pay the same into a system, but use more than what you paid into it, guess what, it is called STEALING! That the problem with Europeans, they get so used to entitlement programs that they get used to government sponsored theft. LOL Europe is a failed continent, morally, economically and health wise.
and before you keep on saying that because you live in Sweden you have some type of authority inf what you say. I lived in England, I lived in Spain. In fact, I am Venezuelan, born in Caracas. My father is from Spain with all of his family, whom I have lived with, in Spain.
Europe....so much history, so much potential yet nations who love their entitlement programs and prefer to live in tyranny than die free. Pathetic!
I already told you, it is irrelavent your claim that you supposedly live in Sweden, there is ZERO way for you to proof this over the internet and from what you have said so far, you hold very little credibly with me.
However, start providing data to back up your claims about universal healthcare and then, start clicking on the links that have already been provided through out this thread.
Lighten up, Francis
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 10:11pm.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Um, no more Death Panels
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 01/05/2011 - 11:03pm.
Seems they're as toxic now as they were during the debate.
Well BK
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 01/06/2011 - 10:00pm.
That just means, they will still try to end your life, just now you wont get any counseling