@Neo

“Duty to Die”

Exactly correct. These would be ghoulish “guilt trip” counseling sessions, where they do their best to convince you that it is best for for the children, your country, and family for you to take the “red white and blue” pill of oblivion, lie down, and die for the good of America.

Population control, end of life counseling, Obama and the Democrats must have been big fans of Soylent Green.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVpN312hYgU

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Check out what Ronald Reagan has to say about Socialism and specifically Socialized Medicine! Worth listening to for sure! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Mr. Gray, what rationing takes place today is but a drop in the bucket compared to what will go on under O’healthcare. By adding more than half the nation’s population to a financially unsustainable medical system, bloated with malpractice and red tape laws and regulations, the need to evaluate it’s financial health annually (correction, *twice* annually) to further cut costs is a reality.

And that reality resides in the totally separate WH written legislation, the Independent Medicare Advisory Council Act, which I blogged about on Aug 8th.

This group of health care czars, newly empowered with power wrested from Congress, has but one task alone…. to determine policy changes and payment reductions to Medicare in order to rein in the costs. While this group of appointees, who answer to the POTUS and are immune from the US court system, is charged only with the power to restructure Medicare to some semblence of financial stability, this same control will be given to another group of czars for the proposed sister public option for the under 65 crowd.

I might add that even the AARP is uncomfortable with the concept of IMAC. Which may explain why they…. as an insurance provider who will stand to benefit mightily from HR 3200 implementation… isn’t quite as “on board” as Obama lies about.

Yet there will be those who post here who find this prediction “fantasy”. The reality is, they cannot create the czars to manage a plan that does not yet exist. But a “new age Medicare” system will experience the same financial woes, and will require constant slashing in benefits and reimbursements that Medicare does.

So for those that think the “death panels” is a description only applicable to Sect 1233 of HR3200, I will say this… these panels still exist in a different form via the proposed IMAC legislation and creation of omnipotent health czars. To have the power to deny treatment is nothing short of a death sentence for all too many.

Nate… you are exactly right. Those who believe mandates will not come to pass because the details don’t exist in the text of the legislation are purveyors of fool’s gold. I told the story of the “choice” of seniors being that of enroll in Medicare, or lose your SS checks back on August 3rd. Included in that post is the players in the Hall v Sebelius lawsuit… well to do seniors who could save the system vast amounts of money annually if only even 1% of seniors were allowed to opt out. This was accomplished in 1993 by Clinton rules changes to the SSA… and not even published in the Federal Register for the review period.

Think that can’t… or won’t… happen again? With the health czars, they don’t have to publish the policy rule changes. The only way they can be stopped is if Congress (who does not have the power to approve changes in the power grab) manages a joint resolution of “disapprove” within 30 days of the POTUS approve of the czars’ recommendations. No resolution, no need to publish, and no way to stop their restructured changes.

Yet no one in the MSM picks up on this Medicare opt out as one of the “reforms” that needs to happen. While the CBO only sees a possible (if any) savings of $2 bil over several years by using the IMAC health czars to curb costs with bi-annual slash recommendations, almost that same amount could be saved immediately with an opt out annually… and at no government expense. Frankly, I would bet considerably more than 1% of seniors *would* opt out in favor of private insurance… but not at the cost of losing SS money that’s been stolen from them their enire working lives.

The only thing I can add to Nate’s stellar comments is that the push by the pro-O’care types is now to make the insurance companies the boogie man. They inaccurately suggest that insurers are making big bucks on higher premiums, and reduced coverage. What the liars using this tact do not tell you is that those insurers pay over 40% more for the same service a medicare patient receives. They have an average payout of 131% of baseline costs… prices charged by care providers to make up for the cost shifting and losses for servicing Medicare enrollees. But then, it’s much easier to demonize “corporate” insurance than to accuse the care providers of overcharging (that is necessary to stay in business).

Yes… read the bill as originally issued (who knows what it is now…). When you start putting the puzzle pieces together, you can see the future doesn’t contain improved quality care, but guarantees rationing will deepen, and care providers will get even less reimbursement for their services than they do today.

This is not the “change” people voted for.

And, BTW…. I am delighted to see the awakening of Jonas here. I commend you for your astuteness to the issue, made easier (and more painful) by reality living in your back yard. Hopefully you will take some time to educate those around you as well.

It is my ferverent hope that your two parents care will actually improve, and not degrade further with *real* reform that we, the people, intend to demand. And that certainly isn’t the bogus BS laid before us now.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Being opposed to provisions proposed in the formation of the Obamination Healthscare Bill, doesn’t necessarily mean one is “for”, or supports, or endorses, the private healthcare insurers and their current practices. There are many areas of reform, etc., that everybody could agree on. The President, his admin, and the DNC led congress, have chosen NOT to address this bill in any sort of wide, bi-partisan way, but have chosen a highly focused/targeted partisan path being as vague as possible about details, not listening to any other views, and attacking anyone who opposes the bill.

They could have chosen an entirely different path/route to this. That’s “their” fault. Not ours.

btw…Sept 11th, I’m declaring it “Obama’s Watch” day. Everything from that day forward (regardless of mistakes made in the past admins, regardless of what was left for him to deal with, regardless of what he “inherited” from the Bush admin) is going to be laid at his feet.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

People should know it’s not what the bill says now that you need to be scared to death of. It’s what the bill opens the door to. MataHarley mentions people being allowed to opt out of Medicare. No where in the original Medicare bill did it say if you refuse to participate in Medicare your social security benefits will be withheld. That is the law today though, not really even law, it is bureaucratic dictate. A couple seniors are suing the federal government for the right to opt out of Medicare without losing their SS. They aren’t asking for a refund or alternate care they just don’t want to participate. What kind of system on the brink of financial ruin refuses to let people not consume what little money is left? Why is the government to scared of people paying for their own care?

The original Medicare bill did contain very specific language about Medicare paying providers fair prices. When that become to much of a burden they just repealed that section then slashed provider payments so they don’t even cover the cost of care. They transferred billions in cost annually to private plans. At this point in time everyone was already in Medicare, all private options had been killed off, and refusal to participate meant losing your SS benefits. Members had no choice nor do most providers and no hospital does.

“Or do you just hate small business?”

Malcolm, if your going to respond to a blog post about liberals telling lies to cover up for their terrible reform bill you might want to get your basic facts correct.

Republicans for 15 years proposed AHP bills that would allow small businesses to group together like Union Taft Hartley plans to lower their cost and stabilize their benefits. The right saw the problem and tried to fix it. The Democrats were more concerned about protecting the advantages of their Unions and blocked it every year. The insurance problems of small business are 100% the fault of Democrats…who now propose the exact same solution they blocked for so long, makes you question their motives a bit.

No we don’t have HC rationed by carriers, they represent less then 25% of the market. We ration care the American way, by ones desire to earn it. If I want to go out in life and work hard I can buy pretty much all the care I want. That is what people are fighting to protect, the freedom to feed and provide for our families. I don’t want to live under a system like in the UK where I am told even if I can purchase the therapy with my own money I am not allowed to take it.

Old people with Chronic Diseases are covered by the government via Medicare, your mixing up your demigodary.

Factually, I am looking at the rate sheets, individual insurance tends to be cheaper then group counter to what you claim.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Let’s look at what Senator Grassley said about dropping the Obama lied, people will die portion of the boondoggle:

“We are working very hard to avoid unintended consequences by methodically working through the complexities of all of these issues and policy options,” Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a statement. “We dropped end-of-life provisions from consideration entirely because of the way they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly.”

Grassley said the end-of-life provision in the versions of the healthcare reform bill under consideration in the House would pay physicians to “advise patients about end-of-life care and rate physician quality of care based on the creation of and adherence to orders for end-of-life care.”

“Maybe others can defend a bill like the Pelosi bill that leaves major issues open to interpretation, but I can’t,” Grassley added.

Score one for Sarah Palin.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2009/08/13/score-one-for-sarah-palin-on-the-healthcare-reform-death-panels.html

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Mr. Gray, see post number 7. Read it until you understand it. Or have someone read it for you as your comprehension clearly sucks.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

By the way Herman, if the language in the House bill was so innocuous and benign then why did the Senate slice basically identical provisions from their version today?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Poor Herman

Obama made a secret deal w insurers and pharmaceuticals (see also secret meeting of Cheney w oil execs re energy policy), and now the single payer/govt option is on the table to be chopped. Why? Cause most Americans don’t want this bill. They know unlimited coverage isn’t fiscally feasible, and to limit coverage, someone will have to decide when to cut it off/when to let people die. Obama can’t decide on a dog for his kids let alone on something like this. SO, he passes the buck, gets to say he passed reform, and the unquestioning leftist base (Herman) is left out there in the cold again. Next thing ya know Obama’ll start torturing prisoners and doing renditions on em like Bushco did.

Oh wait….
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/11/target-of-obama-era-rendi_n_256499.html

DAMN, another leftist bitching point is gone. I blame Bush. Yeah, that’s it

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Herman

“Therefore, again, it does not justify the term “death panels,” That’s why she didn’t use the term again. she has walked back the loose and unsupported term and now left it adrift.”

The term is in the title of the post. She didn’t back off anything.

Like or Dislike: 0  0