Obama's "Death Panels" to kill elderly and disabled?

[faethor]

Here again I have to use the examples I know to be true (me, my family, friends, co-workers) and cannot agree (at least not entirely) with your statement that health coverage has been reduced. I recall Hillary's efforts at a national health care system. Whatever the reasons for its failure, I have not seen a reduction in my health care (quality or quantity) but I do admit that premiums have increased.

Perhaps this is the problem. The problem isn't bad enough yet to impact enough people so therefore some conclude it's not a problem. Why are your healthcare costs doubling in a under a decade? Part of the reason is you are paying for the uninsured. They get care in Emergency Rooms. This results in more expensive bills to all. And of course to deaths and over all worse outcomes for them.

I'm willing to participate in a health care debate provided there is opportunity to have a genuine debate. While the left is quick to point out those who oppose their efforts, they don't seem to mind trying to ram various bills down our throats without really discussing the matter (and let's not forget Obama's famous "time online before I sign" which I have yet to see either). Problems all around if you ask me.

We also have to blame the TeaBaggers here. They show up to shout down town halls. A type of verbal terrorism to an honest discussion.

There are good Senators out there.

 

[Glaucus]

Frankie Boyle had a good comment on this:
"The only time British life expectancy is lower then the Americans is when we're doing joint military excersises."



and of course if you can stay conscious.

Even if all that is true Fade, that would not necessarily be indicative of all public health programs and even in the UK where this is allegedly happening red flags are being thrown and is likely to be a hot political issue. Chances are the UK will improve it's system and they won't resort to private health care to do so. Meanwhile the US will lumber along with it's badly broken system because guys like you are scared of progress. No one said public health care is perfect, but a great many say it's better then private.

 

[Glaucus]

16 years ago the Clintons looked at healthcare. It failed. We were told that the industry would improve. Well, they did in a way, they improved profits. While reducing covered Americans and reducing the depth of coverage of Americans.

Here again I have to use the examples I know to be true (me, my family, friends, co-workers) and cannot agree (at least not entirely) with your statement that health coverage has been reduced. I recall Hillary's efforts at a national health care system. Whatever the reasons for its failure, I have not seen a reduction in my health care (quality or quantity) but I do admit that premiums have increased.

I'm willing to participate in a health care debate provided there is opportunity to have a genuine debate. While the left is quick to point out those who oppose their efforts, they don't seem to mind trying to ram various bills down our throats without really discussing the matter (and let's not forget Obama's famous "time online before I sign" which I have yet to see either). Problems all around if you ask me.

Regards,
Ltstanfo

Something's wrong here, or maybe my browser goofed. But this post reads like a Ltstanfo post, but the site says the author is faethor. Too weird. I was starting to think faethor switched sides on us! :-D

 

[Glaucus]

You beat me to the punch on this one Fade. I was going to post this same link and offer the comment that this type of situation is precisely why there are concerns in the US over a government run ("public option") health care system.

Is the logic here that Americans believe their government is worse than the UK's government at providing services? And of course it's interesting to hold up the UK exception while ignoring the other 28 countries who are ahead of us on quality of Healthcare.

Well, I think you're kinda right there. During this whole recession/stimulus thingy I heard much commentary about how the French were much better at handing out stimulus then Americans simply because they're just used to handing out cash. In France the money flow is from the people, to the government, and then back to the people in the form of services. In the US the money flows from the people, to the government and then to the military industry, intelligence industry, prison industry, policing industry and recently to big banks and other organized criminals. However, I'll leave it up to Fade to tell us that the US can't learn new tricks.

 

[JoBBo]

Something's wrong here, or maybe my browser goofed. But this post reads like a Ltstanfo post, but the site says the author is faethor. Too weird. I was starting to think faethor switched sides on us! :-D

Right. Instead of replying to feathor's post, Ltstanfo probably hit the "edit" button by accident. There is a downside to having moderator rights, I suppose.

 

[redrumloa]

Something's wrong here, or maybe my browser goofed. But this post reads like a Ltstanfo post, but the site says the author is faethor. Too weird. I was starting to think faethor switched sides on us! :-D

Right. Instead of replying to feathor's post, Ltstanfo probably hit the "edit" button by accident. There is a downside to having moderator rights, I suppose.

That happened to me once on Amiga.org, embarassing it was :shocked:

 

[ltstanfo]

Something's wrong here, or maybe my browser goofed. But this post reads like a Ltstanfo post, but the site says the author is faethor. Too weird. I was starting to think faethor switched sides on us! :-D

Right. Instead of replying to feathor's post, Ltstanfo probably hit the "edit" button by accident. There is a downside to having moderator rights, I suppose.

That happened to me once on Amiga.org, embarassing it was :shocked:

YEP... I goofed. I hit the edit button instead of reply. I wish those two buttons were not next to each other! Apologies to Faethor!

Regards,
Ltstanfo

 

[Fade]

Per Glaucus
"However, I'll leave it up to Fade to tell us that the US can't learn new tricks."
-----------------------------

How about I just point out some more examples as they seem to put you in a thither.

Overdue woman sent home from UK hospital only to deliver baby 3 hours later.

Bed shortage in UK forces 4,000 mothers to give birth in lifts, offices and hospital toilets

And lets not forget good ol' socialist Canada. Ever heard of George Zeliotis? He's the old codger who waited over a year to get a hip replacement and sued the Govt. to allow private payment for the operation and get out of the public queue. Guess what. He won his case in the Canadian Supreme Court. I reckon he just wanted to do a little more walking before he croaked.

Other problems in Canada;
Need drugs? Buy some insurance, or pay for it yourself.
Want a private room? Pay for it yourself dummy, what are you trying to hide.
Go to the doctor too often? Go back to the rear of the line sucker, you're abusing the system.

Things not usually covered;
Cosmetic surgery, pay for it yourself, that mole on the end of your nose looks good!
Dental care, gum it, pay for it yourself or get insurance. Soup is good food.
Elective surgery, live with it. That extra finger doesn't really get in the way.
Vision care, pay for it yourself, buy insurance or a magnifying glass.

 

[Robert]

Socialist Canada? Hahahahahaha.... :roflmao:

 

[faethor]

Even if all that is true Fade, that would not necessarily be indicative of all public health programs and even in the UK where this is allegedly happening red flags are being thrown and is likely to be a hot political issue. Chances are the UK will improve it's system and they won't resort to private health care to do so. Meanwhile the US will lumber along with it's badly broken system because guys like you are scared of progress. No one said public health care is perfect, but a great many say it's better then private.

The masses in the UK like their system. All systems have detractors. As they are the next nation under the US the outcomes between the 2 systems are statistically insignificant. What is statically significant is we spend over twice as much money per person accomplishing the same quality.

 

[faethor]

YEP... I goofed. I hit the edit button instead of reply. I wish those two buttons were not next to each other! Apologies to Faethor!

Regards,
Ltstanfo

Understandable.... Thanks!

 

[faethor]

Gus Porter, American doesn't want your Canadian Commie Medicine. :roflmao:

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Overdue woman sent home from UK hospital only to deliver baby 3 hours later.

Bed shortage in UK forces 4,000 mothers to give birth in lifts, offices and hospital toilets

Yup. These are the usual cherry picked talking points that are injected into the "debate" by the PR companies that the insurance companies hire.

Other problems in Canada;
Need drugs? Buy some insurance, or pay for it yourself.

In the US if you need drugs you buy some insurance or buy them yourself from Canada where they are more affordable.

Want a private room? Pay for it yourself dummy, what are you trying to hide.

Want a private room? Go to a hotel!! Private room is optional, not necessary care. Want to make the system more expensive without increasing care?

Go to the doctor too often? Go back to the rear of the line sucker, you're abusing the system.

Wait, you're talking about what private insurers do to their trouble (over-user/profit impacting) clients, right?

Things not usually covered;
Cosmetic surgery, pay for it yourself, that mole on the end of your nose looks good!

And why the heck SHOULD it be covered? That just takes resources away from people who actually NEED medical care. Plus it burdens the medical care system by creating more people who need care. Surgery isn't risk free, after all. However, the mole on the end of your nose is a minor surgery at best and will often be handled in a visit to your GP. My doctor has removed several moles for me (takes almost no time) and it is covered. ole removal is a special case though as they can turn cancerous and it's such a simple procedure they're willing to do it just to be on the safe side. It's a lot less expensive to cut out a mole than treat cancer. (Or, in a profit system - it's much more profitable to cure cancer than to remove a mole).

Dental care, gum it, pay for it yourself or get insurance.

The problem with the Canadian system is that it is like the US system? I agree.

Elective surgery, live with it. That extra finger doesn't really get in the way.
Vision care, pay for it yourself, buy insurance or a magnifying glass.

Uh huh. It's ELECTIVE - not necessary.

 

[ltstanfo]

There are good Senators out there.

I give credit to Franken for conducting a rational meeting with (presumably) his constituants (sp?). I do have two nits to pick however:

1. When asked if he is going to vote the way the people want he appears to say no, he will vote the way he wants. On the surface,that seems somewhat arrogant to me in that he appears to be going against the will of the people who put him in office. Will be interesting to see how that plays out in 2010, if he really is apparently brushing off the voters in that sense.

2. His comment about doctors being greedy I have concern about. I take his comment to be a global one which I find (again) arrogant of him. If we really are going down the health reform route part of this effort better include tort reform as doctors are being insured (against malpractice) to death. Here again I draw on first hand experience and can list several doctors who pay horrendous premiums for liability insurance. I don't see greed in this case. Perhaps Franken intends differently but it isn't how I understood him.

Regards,
Ltstanfo

 

[faethor]

I give credit to Franken for conducting a rational meeting with (presumably) his constituants (sp?). I do have two nits to pick however:

1. When asked if he is going to vote the way the people want he appears to say no, he will vote the way he wants. On the surface,that seems somewhat arrogant to me in that he appears to be going against the will of the people who put him in office. Will be interesting to see how that plays out in 2010, if he really is apparently brushing off the voters in that sense.

Glad you liked it. It was one of the better sessions we've seen.

I agree with this one. A better explaination would be 'I have voters who are against reform and I have voters who are for reform. The question is how to best decide between the two positions. I do that through independent thought ....'

2. His comment about doctors being greedy I have concern about. I take his comment to be a global one which I find (again) arrogant of him. If we really are going down the health reform route part of this effort better include tort reform as doctors are being insured (against malpractice) to death. Here again I draw on first hand experience and can list several doctors who pay horrendous premiums for liability insurance. I don't see greed in this case. Perhaps Franken intends differently but it isn't how I understood him.

I'd have to watch again to see the exact use of this. Malpractice insurance could use a bit of reform. From my understanding even if somehow eliminated it wouldn't save that much. It's about 2% of total spending. Of course certain professions are hit harder than others. OB-GYNs are one of these.

 

[redrumloa]

Is the logic here that Americans believe their government is worse than the UK's government at providing services? And of course it's interesting to hold up the UK exception while ignoring the other 28 countries who are ahead of us on quality of Healthcare.

One could make the arguement in your first statement (not that I am necessarily agreeing). As for other countires being ahead of us on "quality" of healthcare, I don't see anyone here denying it. My point was simply that for all the proponents espousing various models (including the UK NHS) all it takes is one (factual) report like the link Fade provided and it becomes difficult for a number of Americans to so readily agree with the proponents.

Regards,
Ltstanfo

On top of the fact we are not those other 28 countries, the USA is a whole different story. You have to look at the all ingredients before drinking the Koolaid.

 

[redrumloa]

We also have to blame the TeaBaggers here. They show up to shout down town halls. A type of verbal terrorism to an honest discussion.

Legal peaceful demonstrations are "verbal terrorism" when you disagree with it? I see.

 

[redrumloa]

The masses in the UK like their system. All systems have detractors.

The masses in the USA like their system. All systems have detractors.

 

[faethor]

We also have to blame the TeaBaggers here. They show up to shout down town halls. A type of verbal terrorism to an honest discussion.

Legal peaceful demonstrations are "verbal terrorism" when you disagree with it? I see.

Shouting down and not allowing people to voice their opinion is not civil discourse.

The masses in the USA like their system.

The lowest poll I've seen is 46% most are in the mid-60% area of people who would like some sort of reform. So, no I'd disagree that the masses like the system.

 

[cecilia]

There are good Senators out there.

I give credit to Franken for conducting a rational meeting with (presumably) his constituants (sp?). I do have two nits to pick however:

1. When asked if he is going to vote the way the people want he appears to say no, he will vote the way he wants. On the surface,that seems somewhat arrogant to me in that he appears to be going against the will of the people who put him in office. Will be interesting to see how that plays out in 2010, if he really is apparently brushing off the voters in that sense.

the woman asked him if he was "going to vote the way obama wanted him to"

he explained that he was going to think for himself and vote the way he felt it was going to be best for the country and his state. and spent some time explaining what that means. Good for Al, he's very eloquent and we could use more like him.

Thanks for this vid