Guest guest Posted January 10, 2010 Report Share Posted January 10, 2010 - there are NO " death panels in the bill and there wasn't ever any death panels in the bill. that is just another republican LIE . here is the REAL truth: the original Bill that was written by the Republican senator from Georgia that was passed in 2007, authorized us providers to get reimbursed by insurx companies and Medicare/medical to provide END OF LIFE COUNSELING that describes HOSPICE services and ADVANCE DIRECTIVES ; whx are legal docs that allow you to state what kind of medical care you want IF you can not speak for yourself.; And INFO on LIVING WILLS. That is it. Somehow it got twisted into this BS " death Panels " started by Palin. Even the Republican Georgian Senator stepped forward last summer and called her and the other idiots out and said that they were liars. Now, thanks to Palin and the other jerks, we providers will not get paid for spending a lot of time with patients and families discussing their options toward the end of their lives. Nancie From: Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 10:06 PM hypothyroidism Subject: Re:Rationing Hi, Chuck. Thanks for the correction and additional info. More below... .. .. > > Posted by: " Chuck B " gumboyaya@... > <mailto:gumboyaya@...?Subject=%20Re%3ARationing> gumbo482001 > <gumbo482001> > > > Fri Jan 8, 2010 7:28 am (PST) > > > > , > > You wrote: > > > > > > On another hypothyroid list [in the UK] it was stated that the TSH level > > had to be 7 or 8 there before the health care system would provide > > treatment... > . > > > > The official guidelines recommended by the British Thyroid Association > hold that a TSH below 10 is considered subclinical. If they see a 7 or > 8, they are supposed to wait until it gets higher. That policy probably > saves the NHS several months of prescriptions on every new hypoT > patient. Every little bit helps. .. .. And the patient goes without treatment for at least several more months. We presently have evidence [all anecdotal AFAIK] that lack of [ or delayed] treatment or undertreatment may be the cause of some of the " pure hell " that a small percentage of hypo patients who do not respond properly to conventional treatment endure. This is the same national healthcare plan that refused to provide treatment for a curable eye disease that always caused blindness until one eye had gone blind. Then the [very expensive] treatment would be provided to try to save the remaining eye. I believe that policy has now been changed. This is one of the " successful " national healthcare programs always held up as an example by supporters of a national healthcare plan [Obamacare] in the US. .. .. > > Even though NHS doctors will not normally prescribe Armour, it is much > cheaper there than in the U.S., even though it must be imported from > here. And, people can buy it by mail (out of pocket) without a > prescription. So, if a UK citizen buys Armour on their own, they will > presumably stop using the NHS prescription, again saving the system money. .. .. But that couldn't possibly happen here, right? Please excuse my cynicism. As you mention below the so-called " death panels " are still in the House bill. And also in the Senate or House [or both] bill{s} is the panel that is supposed to evaluate the effectiveness of various treatments [i don't remember what it's called]. You can bet the farm that treatments [like Armour; and hundreds or thousands of others] will no longer be covered when the exponential cost over-runs happen; as they inevitably will. .. .. > > But no one wants to call it " rationing. " OTOH, the " death panels " are > clearly still in the US House bill. > > Chuck .. .. There is no way in h*ll that we can add 15 million patients to medicade and not dramatically increase the cost. There isn't a snowball's chance in Miami that the government will " save " 400 or 500 billion dollars from Medicare and maintain anything like the present level of service. I can't understand the AMA supporting Obamacare. My doctors with whom I've discussed it say it will be an utterly total disaster. Regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2010 Report Share Posted January 10, 2010 , You wrote: > > I can't understand the AMA supporting Obamacare. My doctors with whom > I've discussed it say it will be an utterly total disaster. The AMA today only has about 15% of practicing physicians as members. About 20% of their membership is medical students. Historically their focus has tended to be on maintaining physician income by limiting the supply of doctors and attempting to restrict alternative approaches. This is similar to the function of a trade guild. Although they staunchly opposed Medicare through the 1960s, they now lobby for increasing Medicare payments and extended coverage. The equation is simple; which choice will increase physician incomes? They do oppose a single-payer system, which is consistent with their opposition to the Clinton plans in the 1990s. However, the latest version(s) promises to simply add government funding for uninsured patients, while leaving conventional insurance mostly intact, particularly keeping fees that are paid to doctors. This is more or less consistent with their historical positions. Chuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2010 Report Share Posted January 10, 2010 here is their opinion and support stance: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009.shtml From: Chuck B Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2010 7:51 AM hypothyroidism Subject: Re: Re:Rationing , You wrote: > > I can't understand the AMA supporting Obamacare. My doctors with whom > I've discussed it say it will be an utterly total disaster. The AMA today only has about 15% of practicing physicians as members. About 20% of their membership is medical students. Historically their focus has tended to be on maintaining physician income by limiting the supply of doctors and attempting to restrict alternative approaches. This is similar to the function of a trade guild. Although they staunchly opposed Medicare through the 1960s, they now lobby for increasing Medicare payments and extended coverage. The equation is simple; which choice will increase physician incomes? They do oppose a single-payer system, which is consistent with their opposition to the Clinton plans in the 1990s. However, the latest version(s) promises to simply add government funding for uninsured patients, while leaving conventional insurance mostly intact, particularly keeping fees that are paid to doctors. This is more or less consistent with their historical positions. Chuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2010 Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 Nancie, You wrote about the AMA position: > > here is their opinion and support stance: > http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009.shtml > <http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009.shtml> Please note that this refers to the Senate bill. All of our discussion to this point was about the house bill. According to this statement, support of a conference agreement is contingent on getting rid of exactly those parts to which I objected. Chuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2010 Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 and whx portions do you object to? coverage for all Americans? the right for all Americans to have decent health care? the right not to go bankrupt because of lack of coverage and high medical bills? the right of all American children to have quality health care? tell me what your objections may be? From: Chuck B Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2010 5:25 PM hypothyroidism Subject: Re: Re:Rationing Nancie, You wrote about the AMA position: > > here is their opinion and support stance: > http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009.shtml > <http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009.shtml> Please note that this refers to the Senate bill. All of our discussion to this point was about the house bill. According to this statement, support of a conference agreement is contingent on getting rid of exactly those parts to which I objected. Chuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2010 Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 I think the most important issue is that bigger government mean smaller " the people. " We have govt run healthcare and its a HOT mess. Why would anyone want the govt making those systems bigger? The progressives (republicans and democrats) who want socialized anything need to read our constitution. It does not guarantee the right to healthcare! CW -- Re: Re:Rationing Nancie, You wrote about the AMA position: > > here is their opinion and support stance: > http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009 shtml > <http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009 shtml> Please note that this refers to the Senate bill. All of our discussion to this point was about the house bill. According to this statement, support of a conference agreement is contingent on getting rid of exactly those parts to which I objected. Chuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2010 Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 The Constitution guarantees Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If I took away your ability to get healthcare for yourself how much of a life do you think you would have, how free do you think you would be and how much pursuit of happiness do you think you could embark upon with no health or any way to even try to get it?  The callousness of some Americans who have health insurance towards the ones that don't always amazes me. I bet you all contribute to charity and go to church, whicheverone that may be too, and consider yourselves good and caring people. That being said, how could you know that someone's child is very ill and turn a blind eye?  Just in case anyone wants to come back and tell me I want to give America away, I don't think illegals from anywhere should be allowed to remain here. I think they should be immediately deported. I don't think they should have access to any services whatsoever except a ride back to where thery came from. This country is not the savior for the whole world and we have plenty of trouble in our own country right now. We need to address ourselves to taking care of our own people, and infrastructure, and economy and business and homes, and banking, and food safety, and import safety, and increase exports and pay off our bills and what ever else we need to do, not house and feed and educate and care for illegals from the rest of the world right now. Roni <>Just because something isn't seen doesn't mean it's not there<> From: Crystal <sweetnwright@...> Subject: Re: Re:Rationing hypothyroidism Date: Monday, January 11, 2010, 7:51 AM I think the most important issue is that bigger government mean smaller " the people. "  We have govt run healthcare and its a HOT mess. Why would anyone want the govt making those systems bigger? The progressives (republicans and democrats) who want socialized anything need to read our constitution. It does not guarantee the right to healthcare! CW -- Re: Re:Rationing Nancie, You wrote about the AMA position: > > here is their opinion and support stance: > http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009 shtml > <http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009 shtml> Please note that this refers to the Senate bill. All of our discussion to this point was about the house bill. According to this statement, support of a conference agreement is contingent on getting rid of exactly those parts to which I objected. Chuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2010 Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 nancie barnett wrote: > > and whx portions do you object to? I already gave you the specific paragraphs. If those sections setting up a committee to ration care in the face of shortages are so benign, why did congress need to make expensive back room deals, the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, to get Democrats to vote for it? There are several causes for the current high costs of health insurance. One is covering the cost of frivolous law suits. Yet, there is no mention of tort reform in the bill. Nor did I see any provision for improving the competency of medical providers, which seems to be the most common complaint with the current system voiced on this list. Another major cost factor is that state governments have negotiated large price breaks for state employees in exchange for effective insurance monopolies. The result is that the favored few insurance companies in those states can raise rates with impunity to make everyone else subsidize the savings to the state. Some states are much worse than others, so the cost of care varies wildly from state to state. My son's family is one of the many who have been priced out of health insurance, because he lives in one state but is employed in California. My son and his company cannot afford the out of state rates, but they are not allowed to buy from a much more competitive company from my son's home state, at about half the price. We could cover a near majority of the estimated uninsured by simply prohibiting state governments from interfering with free trade and competition. Chuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2010 Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 Ah yes, promoting the " right " of some people to take by force from others for their own personal benefit. Slavery is alive in well in the socialist mental disease. Even more reason why it's time for a separation of " Economy and State " to leave the state to one only of protection, of protection natural rights and the country. Steve On 1/11/2010 12:44 AM, nancie barnett wrote: > and whx portions do you object to? coverage for all Americans? the right for all Americans to have decent health care? the right not to go bankrupt because of lack of coverage and high medical bills? the right of all American children to have quality health care? tell me what your objections may be? > > > From: Chuck B > Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2010 5:25 PM > hypothyroidism > Subject: Re: Re:Rationing > > > > Nancie, > > You wrote about the AMA position: >> >> here is their opinion and support stance: >> http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009.shtml >> <http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009.shtml> > > Please note that this refers to the Senate bill. All of our discussion > to this point was about the house bill. According to this statement, > support of a conference agreement is contingent on getting rid of > exactly those parts to which I objected. > > Chuck -- Steve - dudescholar4@... " The Problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of Other People's Money. " --Margaret Thatcher " Mistrust of Government is the Bedrock of American Patriotism " Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2010 Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 There are states that have played this socialist experiment with great expense. There should be NO federal program of any kind until several states are sucessful with theirs and their model of success can be used. Otherwise, we will get cow excrement for medical care. Any program should be a fully opt-in program both for benefits and taxes. This is the only way to preserve the constitution which the socialists are only so willing to discard or claim it has always been designed to allow the government to install communist-Marxists practices. Steve On 1/11/2010 8:51 AM, Crystal wrote: > I think the most important issue is that bigger government mean smaller " the > people. " We have govt run healthcare and its a HOT mess. Why would anyone > want the govt making those systems bigger? The progressives (republicans > and democrats) who want socialized anything need to read our constitution. > It does not guarantee the right to healthcare! > CW > > -- Re: Re:Rationing > > Nancie, > > You wrote about the AMA position: >> >> here is their opinion and support stance: >> http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009 > shtml >> <http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009 > shtml> > > Please note that this refers to the Senate bill. All of our discussion > to this point was about the house bill. According to this statement, > support of a conference agreement is contingent on getting rid of > exactly those parts to which I objected. > > Chuck -- Steve - dudescholar4@... " The Problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of Other People's Money. " --Margaret Thatcher " Mistrust of Government is the Bedrock of American Patriotism " Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2010 Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 So, you want the government to force you to work hard, every day, a full day's labor, and then to take ALL of your output which it will then allocate to maximize the " common " good. That way, all will get what they " need " ? And then have the audacity to imply that if one doesn't agree to the above, that they somehow are killing people who have needs? The Communist-Socialist view is " From each according to his ability, to each according to his need " , an enslaving practice. Roni, I have more money in the bank today than I need today. According to your scheme, the government should take all of it and spend it until there are no needs left. In other words, I will never have any money in the bank for tomorrow and will always need to struggle each day. I will have zero incentive to better my lot in life since any attempt to better myself will be taken by the government to benefit another. No matter how the argument is made, even if the amount " plundered " by the government is less that 100%, it is still evil. Why would I work harder if there are no benefits for me? Why would I start a small business and employ others if there are not benefits for me? How could I invest in productive enterprises if there are no benefits for me and I would have nothing to invest with? How could this country have ever become great if accumulation of capital is immoral and all excess capitol is spent for the " common good " ? How could any nation of free men ever exist if all of the benefits of freedom are destroy day by day? Socialism by any name is the greatest force for destruction of everything that has ever existed and as it grows, prosperity and benefits decline, not just for the wealthy, but for the poor citizens who would otherwise be much better off. The poorest in this country live far better than average elsewhere, and a freer America would produced many more economic benefits for the poor. In a fully free market (which we definitely do NOT have), anyone with a modicum of ambition to better their lives would be far better off than any variation of socialism (which is forced slavery for the " common " good) and the primary for for the destruction of a countries wealth. Steve On 1/11/2010 9:19 AM, Roni Molin wrote: > The Constitution guarantees Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. > If I took away your ability to get healthcare for yourself how much of a life do you think you would have, how free do you think you would be and how much pursuit of happiness do you think you could embark upon with no health or any way to even try to get it? > > The callousness of some Americans who have health insurance towards the ones that don't always amazes me. I bet you all contribute to charity and go to church, whicheverone that may be too, and consider yourselves good and caring people. That being said, how could you know that someone's child is very ill and turn a blind eye? > > Just in case anyone wants to come back and tell me I want to give America away, I don't think illegals from anywhere should be allowed to remain here. I think they should be immediately deported. I don't think they should have access to any services whatsoever except a ride back to where thery came from. This country is not the savior for the whole world and we have plenty of trouble in our own country right now. We need to address ourselves to taking care of our own people, and infrastructure, and economy and business and homes, and banking, and food safety, and import safety, and increase exports and pay off our bills and what ever else we need to do, not house and feed and educate and care for illegals from the rest of the world right now. > > > Roni > <>Just because something > isn't seen doesn't mean it's > not there<> > > > > > From: Crystal<sweetnwright@...> > Subject: Re: Re:Rationing > hypothyroidism > Date: Monday, January 11, 2010, 7:51 AM > > > I think the most important issue is that bigger government mean smaller " the > people. " We have govt run healthcare and its a HOT mess. Why would anyone > want the govt making those systems bigger? The progressives (republicans > and democrats) who want socialized anything need to read our constitution. > It does not guarantee the right to healthcare! > CW > > -- Re: Re:Rationing > > Nancie, > > You wrote about the AMA position: >> >> here is their opinion and support stance: >> http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009 > shtml >> <http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009 > shtml> > > Please note that this refers to the Senate bill. All of our discussion > to this point was about the house bill. According to this statement, > support of a conference agreement is contingent on getting rid of > exactly those parts to which I objected. > > Chuck -- Steve - dudescholar4@... " The Problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of Other People's Money. " --Margaret Thatcher " Mistrust of Government is the Bedrock of American Patriotism " Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2010 Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 - I deal with Medicare All the time and I never have any problems with Medicare vs. I have problems with PRIVATE insurx providing care for patients. talk about rationing- the privates ration all the time and you always feel like there is a " 3rd person " in the room with you. I never have to write a TAR aka treatment authorization request with my Medicare patients but I have to it constantly with every private insurx out there. It guarantees the right to LIFE and today that means the right to have healthcare so that if you are sick you can get medical care and then you can have a LIFE. EVERY civilized nation on the planet provides universal coverage for it's citizens, except for the USA. It is no wonder that over 40,000 Americans DIE every year for lack of healthcare insurx and that our life expectancy is worse than South Korea and the total cost of medical care per person is the highest in the world, @ $7,290 yet life expectancy is shorter than in most other developed nations and many developing ones. Lack of health coverage is a major factor in life span and contributes to an estimated 45,000 deaths per year. These figures are for 2007 so just imagine what the cost is now in 2010. Source: Gerard , professor at s Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public health who studies health insurance worldwide. so, you are saying that those 45,000+ Americans that die every year from lack to access to healthcare don't deserve to LIVE? Are you saying that those 46+ million people who don't and/or can't have/afford health insurx don't have a right to have the same options that you or I have just because we can afford to pay for health insurx?? From: Crystal Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 7:51 AM hypothyroidism Subject: Re: Re:Rationing I think the most important issue is that bigger government mean smaller " the people. " We have govt run healthcare and its a HOT mess. Why would anyone want the govt making those systems bigger? The progressives (republicans and democrats) who want socialized anything need to read our constitution. It does not guarantee the right to healthcare! CW -- Re: Re:Rationing Nancie, You wrote about the AMA position: > > here is their opinion and support stance: > http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009 shtml > <http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009 shtml> Please note that this refers to the Senate bill. All of our discussion to this point was about the house bill. According to this statement, support of a conference agreement is contingent on getting rid of exactly those parts to which I objected. Chuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2010 Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 no you didn't give me anything, chuck. I don't know what your views are prior to this email. From: Chuck B Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 8:32 AM hypothyroidism Subject: Re: Re:Rationing nancie barnett wrote: > > and whx portions do you object to? I already gave you the specific paragraphs. If those sections setting up a committee to ration care in the face of shortages are so benign, why did congress need to make expensive back room deals, the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, to get Democrats to vote for it? There are several causes for the current high costs of health insurance. One is covering the cost of frivolous law suits. Yet, there is no mention of tort reform in the bill. Nor did I see any provision for improving the competency of medical providers, which seems to be the most common complaint with the current system voiced on this list. Another major cost factor is that state governments have negotiated large price breaks for state employees in exchange for effective insurance monopolies. The result is that the favored few insurance companies in those states can raise rates with impunity to make everyone else subsidize the savings to the state. Some states are much worse than others, so the cost of care varies wildly from state to state. My son's family is one of the many who have been priced out of health insurance, because he lives in one state but is employed in California. My son and his company cannot afford the out of state rates, but they are not allowed to buy from a much more competitive company from my son's home state, at about half the price. We could cover a near majority of the estimated uninsured by simply prohibiting state governments from interfering with free trade and competition. Chuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2010 Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 I'm getting tired of this conversation. I have been deleting most of it but I would rather talk about hypothyroidism then health care since we have no control over what will and is going to happen. I have medicare and have been disabled for 15 years now because of a doctors mistake but I was able to forgive and move on. Doctors after all are only human and I don't believe in sueing the heck out of them either. That just raises health care costs. Medicare is a great benefit to have. They pay for everything, for me anyways. Also for $5.00 a month I get great prescription med coverage. I pay $1.00 for generic and $3.00 for name brand. When I had private insurance when working the costs were 10times that of Medicare. But I also feel I am entitled to to it for the work I did in the past in my occupation. I live on $650..00 a month. That is the amount I get in disability. So that is $7850.00 a year. How many of the US citiznes would live on that and be able to. Yes, I had to give up a lot. Hobbies, going to movies, going roller skating, shopping for clothes or heck even a new purse. Those days are gone for me. I was also married for 22 years and have 4 grown children. And now that jobs are scarce it is going to be harder on everyone. That is just the way it is. There isn't a damn thing anyone can do about it. ANd like someone said we are the only country that doesn't have everyone covered and the death rate is the highest in comparison to other countries. If it works for them, it should work for us and I am sure that we won't be running things like the other countries either. And I do try to respect my people in congress and office but it gets so hard because I believe 85% of our government are crooks. It is just the way it is. You folks debating back and forth aren't really reinforcing anything positive for the rest of us and it is only going to cause hurt feelings amoungst you that are involved in this conversation. Not one us, has control over what is going to happen. You are either going to have to excpet it or move to another country, is how I see things. No one knows exactly what is going to happen or how things are going to turn out but the way some of you speak you are just instilling fear into others and it isn't right. That is how rumors get started and the BS starts going around. I have great medical care for the amount of money I have coming into my home every month. Plain and simple and there isn't a damn thing I can do about it or change it for that matter. All I can do is sit back and try to enjoy my ride until the end. JMO from Illinois ________________________________ From: nancie barnett <deifspirit@...> hypothyroidism Sent: Mon, January 11, 2010 2:14:12 PM Subject: Re: Re:Rationing - I deal with Medicare All the time and I never have any problems with Medicare vs. I have problems with PRIVATE insurx providing care for patients. talk about rationing- the privates ration all the time and you always feel like there is a " 3rd person " in the room with you. I never have to write a TAR aka treatment authorization request with my Medicare patients but I have to it constantly with every private insurx out there. It guarantees the right to LIFE and today that means the right to have healthcare so that if you are sick you can get medical care and then you can have a LIFE. EVERY civilized nation on the planet provides universal coverage for it's citizens, except for the USA. It is no wonder that over 40,000 Americans DIE every year for lack of healthcare insurx and that our life expectancy is worse than South Korea and the total cost of medical care per person is the highest in the world, @ $7,290 yet life expectancy is shorter than in most other developed nations and many developing ones. Lack of health coverage is a major factor in life span and contributes to an estimated 45,000 deaths per year. These figures are for 2007 so just imagine what the cost is now in 2010. Source: Gerard , professor at s Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public health who studies health insurance worldwide. so, you are saying that those 45,000+ Americans that die every year from lack to access to healthcare don't deserve to LIVE? Are you saying that those 46+ million people who don't and/or can't have/afford health insurx don't have a right to have the same options that you or I have just because we can afford to pay for health insurx?? From: Crystal Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 7:51 AM hypothyroidism Subject: Re: Re:Rationing I think the most important issue is that bigger government mean smaller " the people. " We have govt run healthcare and its a HOT mess. Why would anyone want the govt making those systems bigger? The progressives (republicans and democrats) who want socialized anything need to read our constitution. It does not guarantee the right to healthcare! CW -- Re: Re:Rationing Nancie, You wrote about the AMA position: > > here is their opinion and support stance: > http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009 shtml > <http://www.ama- assn.org/ ama/pub/health- system-reform/ bulletin/ 23dec2009 shtml> Please note that this refers to the Senate bill. All of our discussion to this point was about the house bill. According to this statement, support of a conference agreement is contingent on getting rid of exactly those parts to which I objected. Chuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2010 Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 Steve you talk in theories. Theories are fine up to the point that they come up against reality. The reality of healthcare is that the only way the haves will not somehow pay for the havenots to get healthcare is to shoot them dead. Otherwise one way or the other their healthcare will be paid for. Roni <>Just because something isn't seen doesn't mean it's not there<> > I think the most important issue is that bigger government mean smaller " the > people. "  We have govt run healthcare and its a HOT mess. Why would anyone > want the govt making those systems bigger? The progressives (republicans > and democrats) who want socialized anything need to read our constitution. > It does not guarantee the right to healthcare! > CW > > -- Re: Re:Rationing > > Nancie, > > You wrote about the AMA position: >> >> here is their opinion and support stance: >> http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009 > shtml >> <http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009 > shtml> > > Please note that this refers to the Senate bill. All of our discussion > to this point was about the house bill. According to this statement, > support of a conference agreement is contingent on getting rid of > exactly those parts to which I objected. > > Chuck -- Steve - dudescholar4@... " The Problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of Other People's Money. " --Margaret Thatcher " Mistrust of Government is the Bedrock of American Patriotism " Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html ------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2010 Report Share Posted January 11, 2010 Steve please don't put your words into my mouth. I don't advocate any of what you are talking about. I'm trying to get you to open your eyes and your mind and realize that the people in this country are going to get healthcare one way or the other. They will either be included by one mechanism or another into the healthcare system, or they will go to ERs. In either case the ones who have will be paying for it in higher taxes, higher, doctor and drug bills, higher hospital bills and higher insurance bills. This is what's going on right now, so if you think you are not paying for them, you are sadly mistaken. Roni <>Just because something isn't seen doesn't mean it's not there<> > > > From: Crystal<sweetnwright@...> > Subject: Re: Re:Rationing > hypothyroidism > Date: Monday, January 11, 2010, 7:51 AM > > > I think the most important issue is that bigger government mean smaller " the > people. "  We have govt run healthcare and its a HOT mess. Why would anyone > want the govt making those systems bigger? The progressives (republicans > and democrats) who want socialized anything need to read our constitution. > It does not guarantee the right to healthcare! > CW > > -- Re: Re:Rationing > > Nancie, > > You wrote about the AMA position: >> >> here is their opinion and support stance: >> http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009 > shtml >> <http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009 > shtml> > > Please note that this refers to the Senate bill. All of our discussion > to this point was about the house bill. According to this statement, > support of a conference agreement is contingent on getting rid of > exactly those parts to which I objected. > > Chuck -- Steve - dudescholar4@... " The Problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of Other People's Money. " --Margaret Thatcher " Mistrust of Government is the Bedrock of American Patriotism " Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html ------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 Chuck, I agree there are frivolous law suits, but from what I see they come under the heading of female customer gets huge settlement for spilling hot coffee on herself. Â If a doctor did something that caused the death or total disability of one of your or anyone else's child that you knew, would you call that a frivolous law suit? Yet, if there is so called tort reform, that is what will be curtailed, the ability to sue for something that is anything but frivolous. Roni <>Just because something isn't seen doesn't mean it's not there<> > > and whx portions do you object to? I already gave you the specific paragraphs. If those sections setting up a committee to ration care in the face of shortages are so benign, why did congress need to make expensive back room deals, the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, to get Democrats to vote for it? There are several causes for the current high costs of health insurance. One is covering the cost of frivolous law suits. Yet, there is no mention of tort reform in the bill. Nor did I see any provision for improving the competency of medical providers, which seems to be the most common complaint with the current system voiced on this list. Another major cost factor is that state governments have negotiated large price breaks for state employees in exchange for effective insurance monopolies. The result is that the favored few insurance companies in those states can raise rates with impunity to make everyone else subsidize the savings to the state. Some states are much worse than others, so the cost of care varies wildly from state to state. My son's family is one of the many who have been priced out of health insurance, because he lives in one state but is employed in California. My son and his company cannot afford the out of state rates, but they are not allowed to buy from a much more competitive company from my son's home state, at about half the price. We could cover a near majority of the estimated uninsured by simply prohibiting state governments from interfering with free trade and competition. Chuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 So now Chuck, you have a perfect example of a family who doesn't have access to healthcare through no fault of their own. So do you think they should just be allowed to become ill (G-d forbid) and not have a doctor or hospital that would take care of them? According to you, they have no right to health care. Roni <>Just because something isn't seen doesn't mean it's not there<> > > and whx portions do you object to? I already gave you the specific paragraphs. If those sections setting up a committee to ration care in the face of shortages are so benign, why did congress need to make expensive back room deals, the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, to get Democrats to vote for it? There are several causes for the current high costs of health insurance. One is covering the cost of frivolous law suits. Yet, there is no mention of tort reform in the bill. Nor did I see any provision for improving the competency of medical providers, which seems to be the most common complaint with the current system voiced on this list. Another major cost factor is that state governments have negotiated large price breaks for state employees in exchange for effective insurance monopolies. The result is that the favored few insurance companies in those states can raise rates with impunity to make everyone else subsidize the savings to the state. Some states are much worse than others, so the cost of care varies wildly from state to state. My son's family is one of the many who have been priced out of health insurance, because he lives in one state but is employed in California. My son and his company cannot afford the out of state rates, but they are not allowed to buy from a much more competitive company from my son's home state, at about half the price. We could cover a near majority of the estimated uninsured by simply prohibiting state governments from interfering with free trade and competition. Chuck ------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 That is exactly what happens in the UK.. Their hospitals are overflowing! CW -- Re: Re:Rationing > > Nancie, > > You wrote about the AMA position: >> >> here is their opinion and support stance: >> http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009 > shtml >> <http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009 > shtml> > > Please note that this refers to the Senate bill. All of our discussion > to this point was about the house bill. According to this statement, > support of a conference agreement is contingent on getting rid of > exactly those parts to which I objected. > > Chuck -- Steve - dudescholar4@... " The Problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of Other People's Money. " --Margaret Thatcher " Mistrust of Government is the Bedrock of American Patriotism " Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html ------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 Really, Hawaii tried it in part - failed quickly as expected costs increased by orders of magnitude before year one was up. Is being tried in other states which now have the highest per person cost of health insurance. You can be sure that what ever you medical costs are now, they will increase to cover the Americans paying nothing for nothing now and they will increase more because of the special deals being made behind closed doors with the Obama administration. I guarantee that your medical benefits per health care dollar spent will decrease by half in the next 10 years. Those who work should not be forced to pay for those who don't, that's slavery. If you want to use another word, then serfdom. The serfs were tied to the land and had to pay the landowners rents that kept them in poverty for life. Those that take risks, work hard, and plan ahead usually have more success than those who don't and what your saying is that those who work hard should be serfs to those who don't, a form of slavery. Any such system of wealth redistribution should be an opt-in solution. There are many wealthy liberals yelling for socialism and many poor people who prefer to keep their personal choices so you should get similar representation in both systems, the " forced " system and the " free " system with out pointing a gun at someone and saying " give me your money " . Steve On 1/11/2010 2:15 PM, Roni Molin wrote: > Steve you talk in theories. Theories are fine up to the point that they come up against reality. The reality of healthcare is that the only way the haves will not somehow pay for the havenots to get healthcare is to shoot them dead. Otherwise one way or the other their healthcare will be paid for. > > > Roni > <>Just because something > isn't seen doesn't mean it's > not there<> > > >> I think the most important issue is that bigger government mean smaller " the >> people. " We have govt run healthcare and its a HOT mess. Why would anyone >> want the govt making those systems bigger? The progressives (republicans >> and democrats) who want socialized anything need to read our constitution. >> It does not guarantee the right to healthcare! >> CW >> >> -- Re: Re:Rationing >> >> Nancie, >> >> You wrote about the AMA position: >>> >>> here is their opinion and support stance: >>> http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009 >> shtml >>> <http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009 >> shtml> >> >> Please note that this refers to the Senate bill. All of our discussion >> to this point was about the house bill. According to this statement, >> support of a conference agreement is contingent on getting rid of >> exactly those parts to which I objected. >> >> Chuck > -- Steve - dudescholar4@... " The Problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of Other People's Money. " --Margaret Thatcher " Mistrust of Government is the Bedrock of American Patriotism " Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 I wasn't born into a wealthy family through no fault of my own. My dad used to complain that the poor people in the area (frequently on welfare) often owned expensive cars (Cadillacs were the car of choice then) that he could not afford and he was the highest ranking civilian on the military bases were he worked having started is a private in the Army, when to law clerking, and worked his way up. I wasn't given a free education and had to work and go to night school at the same time so my earning capacity is greater than those who are not willing to work and go to school (80 hours a week combined). I wasn't told what career the government had selected for me and had to decide the one I wanted and get the education and take the risks on my own. I didn't pick pumping gas (which no longer exists). I wasn't given perfect genes and have to deal with it. I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth and had to go earn one on my own, the old fashion way, by working for it. If you want my silver spoon, bring your gun and take off your safety. I don't take well to slavery. Utah has the most free gun laws in the nation; I can carry openly in my holsters of choice in plain view of any and all. Steve On 1/11/2010 7:10 PM, Roni Molin wrote: > So now Chuck, you have a perfect example of a family who doesn't have access to healthcare through no fault of their own. So do you think they should just be allowed to become ill (G-d forbid) and not have a doctor or hospital that would take care of them? > According to you, they have no right to health care. > > > Roni > <>Just because something > isn't seen doesn't mean it's > not there<> > > >> >> and whx portions do you object to? > > I already gave you the specific paragraphs. If those sections setting up > a committee to ration care in the face of shortages are so benign, why > did congress need to make expensive back room deals, the Cornhusker > Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, to get Democrats to vote for it? > > There are several causes for the current high costs of health insurance. > One is covering the cost of frivolous law suits. Yet, there is no > mention of tort reform in the bill. Nor did I see any provision for > improving the competency of medical providers, which seems to be the > most common complaint with the current system voiced on this list. > > Another major cost factor is that state governments have negotiated > large price breaks for state employees in exchange for effective > insurance monopolies. The result is that the favored few insurance > companies in those states can raise rates with impunity to make everyone > else subsidize the savings to the state. Some states are much worse than > others, so the cost of care varies wildly from state to state. > > My son's family is one of the many who have been priced out of health > insurance, because he lives in one state but is employed in California. > My son and his company cannot afford the out of state rates, but they > are not allowed to buy from a much more competitive company from my > son's home state, at about half the price. We could cover a near > majority of the estimated uninsured by simply prohibiting state > governments from interfering with free trade and competition. > > Chuck -- Steve - dudescholar4@... " The Problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of Other People's Money. " --Margaret Thatcher " Mistrust of Government is the Bedrock of American Patriotism " Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 Actually you are, it's just a matter of degree. I'm taking it to it's logical conclusion. Socialism is a slippery slope. As to the right to ER care, how many people choose not to purchase insurance since the know they have that as a backup? No doubt, that is a significant portion of the uninsured since it turns out that the majority of the uninsured can purchase health care, they just choose to spend their money on other things, faster internet, more frequent cell phone purchases, unlimited calling, new electronic equipment every quarter, frequent means out, etc. Steve On 1/11/2010 2:19 PM, Roni Molin wrote: > Steve please don't put your words into my mouth. I don't advocate any of what you are talking about. I'm trying to get you to open your eyes and your mind and realize that the people in this country are going to get healthcare one way or the other. They will either be included by one mechanism or another into the healthcare system, or they will go to ERs. > In either case the ones who have will be paying for it in higher taxes, higher, doctor and > drug bills, higher hospital bills and higher insurance bills. This is what's going on right now, > so if you think you are not paying for them, you are sadly mistaken. > > > Roni > <>Just because something > isn't seen doesn't mean it's > not there<> > > >> >> >> From: Crystal<sweetnwright@...> >> Subject: Re: Re:Rationing >> hypothyroidism >> Date: Monday, January 11, 2010, 7:51 AM >> >> >> I think the most important issue is that bigger government mean smaller " the >> people. " We have govt run healthcare and its a HOT mess. Why would anyone >> want the govt making those systems bigger? The progressives (republicans >> and democrats) who want socialized anything need to read our constitution. >> It does not guarantee the right to healthcare! >> CW >> >> -- Re: Re:Rationing >> >> Nancie, >> >> You wrote about the AMA position: >>> >>> here is their opinion and support stance: >>> http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009 >> shtml >>> <http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009 >> shtml> >> >> Please note that this refers to the Senate bill. All of our discussion >> to this point was about the house bill. According to this statement, >> support of a conference agreement is contingent on getting rid of >> exactly those parts to which I objected. >> >> Chuck > -- Steve - dudescholar4@... " The Problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of Other People's Money. " --Margaret Thatcher " Mistrust of Government is the Bedrock of American Patriotism " Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 Steve, I'm glad your planning has worked out for you. I'm glad you haven't be sideswiped by illness, injury or financial bad fortune. I'm glad you have lots of money. All that being said, if you live in a society and enjoy the fruits of that society, then it would seem to me that you would feel an obligation to give back some to the society, instead of just taking from it. There are people who have jobs that are essential for your lifestyle that pay them small wages with no benefits, from whom you are able to live and plan and do your thing. Not every one is on top, there have to be people working at all levels. I don't see that you acknowledge their input into your comfortable life, nor care whether they can at least live at their own level. You don't want them to have a decent minimum wage, or health care.  I hope you are just speaking rhetorically when you talk about the socialists, democrats, republicans that you discuss. The reason everything goes up is because the ones that have it are busy keeping it and engaged in getting more, and refuse to give up a little for the others. You have not clue what slavery is, and yet you feel justified in bristling about it. Roni <>Just because something isn't seen doesn't mean it's not there<> >> I think the most important issue is that bigger government mean smaller " the >> people. "  We have govt run healthcare and its a HOT mess. Why would anyone >> want the govt making those systems bigger? The progressives (republicans >> and democrats) who want socialized anything need to read our constitution. >> It does not guarantee the right to healthcare! >> CW >> >> -- Re: Re:Rationing >> >> Nancie, >> >> You wrote about the AMA position: >>> >>> here is their opinion and support stance: >>> http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009 >> shtml >>> <http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009 >> shtml> >> >> Please note that this refers to the Senate bill. All of our discussion >> to this point was about the house bill. According to this statement, >> support of a conference agreement is contingent on getting rid of >> exactly those parts to which I objected. >> >> Chuck > -- Steve - dudescholar4@... " The Problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of Other People's Money. " --Margaret Thatcher " Mistrust of Government is the Bedrock of American Patriotism " Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html ------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 Let's take a look at the aftermath of Katrina. Over 1 billion dollars were given in private donations. Most of These monies went to private aid programs. The govt gave 6.3 billion and a quarter of that went to scammers (you know people in cemeteries and prison). People who were affected were being put into hotels and being reimbursed for it. The people were using the money to buy ridiculous things like diamonds and porn! Let's not forget about the " lost " debit cards which was a loss of over 700,000. We should rely on other private citizens to help. I don't think when Steve says that we use tax payer dollars to help poor people is wrong that he means he would choose to help the people in need. When you see street peddlers would you rather give them food or money? Working in the welfare system at one point I can tell you its those same people who stand on the street corner who also are on food stamps and social security. One local street person who was taken in for public intoxication was found with over 200,000 in his fanny pack. Not many people have that much saved up! Grover Cleveland ( a democrat) stated that the government should NOT support the people, but that the people should support the government (this was in response to a Texas drought). This is because it's the people who should help each other. It was the citizens of TX who donated 10 times more money than the govt did. We can help others who need it better if the govt was not involved! CW -- Re: Re:Rationing >> >> Nancie, >> >> You wrote about the AMA position: >>> >>> here is their opinion and support stance: >>> http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009 >> shtml >>> <http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009 >> shtml> >> >> Please note that this refers to the Senate bill. All of our discussion >> to this point was about the house bill. According to this statement, >> support of a conference agreement is contingent on getting rid of >> exactly those parts to which I objected. >> >> Chuck > -- Steve - dudescholar4@... " The Problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of Other People's Money. " --Margaret Thatcher " Mistrust of Government is the Bedrock of American Patriotism " Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html ------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 I would not presume to say how a person should earn their living. I for one would never be able to stand on a street corner even if it made me a million dollars a year. As long as they are not forcing themselves on people, it's as good as working at Mc s, in factory, an office of some type, an oil rig or anything else a person does. It's not up to us to say what anyone should be allowed to do. If the guy can make a bundle by standing ona street corner, more power to him. That has nothing to do with health care. Roni <>Just because something isn't seen doesn't mean it's not there<> >> I think the most important issue is that bigger government mean smaller the >> people. "  We have govt run healthcare and its a HOT mess. Why would anyone >> want the govt making those systems bigger? The progressives (republicans >> and democrats) who want socialized anything need to read our constitution >> It does not guarantee the right to healthcare! >> CW >> >> -- Re: Re:Rationing >> >> Nancie, >> >> You wrote about the AMA position: >>> >>> here is their opinion and support stance: >>> http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009 >> shtml >>> <http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/health-system-reform/bulletin/23dec2009 >> shtml> >> >> Please note that this refers to the Senate bill. All of our discussion >> to this point was about the house bill. According to this statement, >> support of a conference agreement is contingent on getting rid of >> exactly those parts to which I objected. >> >> Chuck > -- Steve - dudescholar4@... " The Problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of Other People's Money. " --Margaret Thatcher " Mistrust of Government is the Bedrock of American Patriotism " Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html ------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.