Health Care Reform Bill fiasco
Has anyone been paying attention to all the uproar occurring in the current town hall meetings in the USA over the Health Care Reform Bill? People are worried and upset...and rightfully, they should be.
Anyone who is "elderly" and "disabled" with Cerebral Palsy, Autism and any other chronic medical condition will be considered too great of a burden for the Federal Government and "disgarded" like human garbage rather than given appropriate and proper medical care. In addition, anyone 55 years and older will be considered "elderly" and will need to have periodic discussions with a medical doctor concerning their personal death. It sounds like a plan based on the Science Fiction film, "Logan's Run."
This Health Care Reform Bill apparently is designed to serve ONLY the young, employed and individuals in good health...with an
emphasis on those under age 55.
Bear in mind, the news media in heavily biased and will only provide information they want you to hear...
Other than Hannity and Bill O'Reilly there's nothing wrong with Fox News. I really get sick of hearing people parrot that left-wing slander. The truth is, the rest of the media is so incredibly liberally biased, that Fox's extremely moderate, slightly right-of-center stance only LOOKS far right by comparison.
I haven't seen the Obama health care plan spelled out in any detail (Washington never wants the public to see the fine print), but it might be that the groups ZsaZsa specifies are not included in the new health care bill because they already receive health care and other benefits from other government programs, like Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.
I have also seen reports to the effect that Right-wing organizations are intentionally salting the Town Hall meetings with ringers sent to stir up controversy and incite public opinion against the Obama plan, so who can tell what the truth is? I think any nation that elects a leader they know absolutely nothing about because he looks good on TV gets what they deserve.
Don't worry about seeing the fine print unless you have time to read a 10,000+ page bill.
My big question is "Who is going to pay for this?" The politicos claim that it will be the rich (defined as a family with an income over $250,000) but that was the same comment used in 1916 to bring in the income tax in the first place.
I also demand that my senators/rep read the bill, not simply take comments from their staff. I elected them, not their staff. If they cannot read the bill in time for a vote, then maybe it may not be a good bill.
I haven't seen the Obama health care plan spelled out in any detail (Washington never wants the public to see the fine print), but it might be that the groups ZsaZsa specifies are not included in the new health care bill because they already receive health care and other benefits from other government programs, like Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.
I have also seen reports to the effect that Right-wing organizations are intentionally salting the Town Hall meetings with ringers sent to stir up controversy and incite public opinion against the Obama plan, so who can tell what the truth is? I think any nation that elects a leader they know absolutely nothing about because he looks good on TV gets what they deserve.
It's not just those two, it's the general "news" as well. They will flat out lie and use some pretty shading tactics to get their opinions across. For the most part, though, they are preaching to the choir so they get away with it.
And I'm not saying that the other networks are innocent. I don't watch ANY television news or read newspapers. I get my news from the internet. If I read a story, I will generally put in the effort (if it is interesting enough to me) to research the article's accuracy through other sources before deciding it can be trusted as fact. Television news is about ratings, not truth.
As far as voting for Obama...for me it had nothing to do with being charismatic. As a general rule I find the overly charismatic types to be untrustworthy. I voted for him (the only time I have voted for a president) because of his ideas and policies. I also felt that the way he ran his campaign was honest and stayed focused on who he was, rather than who the other guy was. He stuck to the issues at hand. McCain, however, did the usual mudslinging song and dance, much to his chagrin.
Thanks for the laugh.
Fox News and MSNBC:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a777c/a777c7fb95d29f6693fe38cc599ee3424b3c88d7" alt="Image"
Everything that conservatives say about MSNBC is true. Everything that liberals say about Fox News is true.
Here's the only article I could find on the topic. The tone is rather hysterical and I can find not one shred of documentation to back it up.
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Most Americans have probably never heard the name Ezekiel Emanuel, but he could have the power to shape the health care landscape for the disabled. Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, is an Obama advisor and a chief architect of the Congressional health care plan.
Emanuel is the health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.
One respected pro-life advocate says Americans should be worried because Emanuel appeared to support rationing health care for disabled Americans. That could lead to euthanasia.
Bradley Mattes, the director of Life Issues Institute, says Emanuel was quoted in 1996 saying medical benefits of a government-controlled healthcare plan would not be given to “individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens.”
Emanuel clarified his stance by adding, “An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”
As Mattes says, "If you don't think the healthcare plan of Barack Obama and the leaders in Congress will result in widespread rationing of medical services," then he urges Americans to pay attention to Emanuel.
"So who else will be killed by medical neglect under such a health plan? It will likely be patients with Down syndrome, Parkinson’s or one of many other debilitating illnesses," Mattes continues.
He points to more recent comments from Emanuel defending discrimination against senior citizens in an article that appeared in the January 31, 2009 issue of the medical journal Lancet.
“Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious [offensive] discrimination," Emanuel wrote.
As Mattes says in an email to LifeNews.com, "The 'allocation' he’s talking about is healthcare services -- many of which are critical to sustaining life or at the very least, a better quality of life. We're talking about everything from life-saving bypass surgery to joint replacements."
Chuck Colson, a pro-life syndicated columnist, has also noticed Emanuel's quotes and goes further in complaining about them.
"I'm sorry, but this is the same logic the Nazis used to exterminate the physically and mentally handicapped," Colson.
He says Emanuel's view forgets the worth and dignity of human beings -- "a dignity that is not derived from the majority’s opinion (or a government definition) about the quality of their life or their contribution to society."
He worries Emanuel's vision of health care allows "every decision about the allocation of health care-and indeed about any area of life" to become "an occasion for the young and strong to impose their will on the old and weak."
Betsy McCaughey, a former Lt. Governor of New York State and a prominent patient advocate, has also sounded the alarm on Emanuel.
"Emanuel bluntly admits that the cuts [rationing in health care] will not be pain-free," she said.
She points out that Emanuel wrote that health care cost savings will require changing how doctors think about their patients.
Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others," Emanuel complained in the June 2008 edition of JAMA.
"Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else," McCaughey says in an editorial. "Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time."
Zsazsa wrote:
A “town hall” meeting is just that. It is intended for the residents of the town to meet and debate. WHY are generally Republicans from other towns coming to a town hall meeting they are not a resident of and WHY are special interests paying for their transportation?
This Health Care Reform Bill apparently is designed to serve ONLY the young, employed and individuals in good health...with an
emphasis on those under age 55.
Bear in mind, the news media in heavily biased and will only provide information they want you to hear...
Can you or can you not back this up with some sources or links? You apparently have much better sources. I will be waiting with bated breath to know what they are.
southwestforests
Veteran
Joined: 18 Jul 2009
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,138
Location: A little ways south of the river
Here's the House of Representatives Comittee considering one version of the bill
http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.p ... &Itemid=85
Here's where one version of the bill can be downloaded; - all thousand plus pages, hope you have a day and a half to download it
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin ... 3200ih.pdf
Here's some page number and line number assessments of what's in it;
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2009/07/whats-in-healthacre-bill.html
A “town hall” meeting is just that. It is intended for the residents of the town to meet and debate. WHY are generally Republicans from other towns coming to a town hall meeting they are not a resident of and WHY are special interests paying for their transportation?
Here's a story on that and then the original source:
In the meeting, Scott lost his temper and began yelling at a crowd that included two people who came forward during the question-and-answer portion of the meeting to ask Scott about his stance on the health care plan proposed by the White House and being debated on Capitol Hill.
The city of Douglasville taped the event and you can see Scott become increasingly agitated after a question about health care.
Interesting that the insinuated infiltrator turns out to be a Doctor residing in the Congressman's district and apparently not even a Republican.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/08/08/atlanta-tv-exposes-dem-congressman-yelling-healthcare-questioner
Original source
http://www.11alive.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=133599&provider=top
Side-by-Side Comparison of Major Health Care Reform Proposals
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/sidebyside.cfm
_________________
"Every time you don't follow your inner guidance,
you feel a loss of energy, loss of power, a sense of spiritual deadness."
- Shakti Gawain
Anyone who is "elderly" and "disabled" with Cerebral Palsy, Autism and any other chronic medical condition will be considered too great of a burden for the Federal Government and "disgarded" like human garbage rather than given appropriate and proper medical care. In addition, anyone 55 years and older will be considered "elderly" and will need to have periodic discussions with a medical doctor concerning their personal death. It sounds like a plan based on the Science Fiction film, "Logan's Run."
This Health Care Reform Bill apparently is designed to serve ONLY the young, employed and individuals in good health...with an
emphasis on those under age 55.
Bear in mind, the news media in heavily biased and will only provide information they want you to hear...
Where are you getting that people with Autism have a chronic medical condition? and that they will not be given proper medical care?
Please, cite your sources.
southwestforests
Veteran
Joined: 18 Jul 2009
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,138
Location: A little ways south of the river
Some polls worth looking at from this polling agency;
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/
Among them:
Monday, August 10, 2009
Email a Friend Email to a Friend ShareThis
Advertisement
Thirty-two percent (32%) of voters nationwide favor a single-payer health care system where the federal government provides coverage for everyone. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% are opposed to a single-payer plan.
Fifty-two percent (52%) believe such a system would lead to a lower quality of care while 13% believe care would improve. Twenty-seven percent (27%) think that the quality of care would remain about the same.
Forty-five percent (45%) also say a single-payer system would lead to higher health care costs while 24% think lower costs would result. Nineteen percent (19%) think prices would remain about the same.
There's wide political disagreement over the single-payer issue. Sixty-two percent (62%) of Democrats favor a single-payer system, but 87% of Republicans are opposed to one. As for those not affiliated with either major party, 22% favor a single-payer approach while 63% are opposed.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/dad18/dad18ce6f87114237746ae1874094c582eb26745" alt="Arrow :arrow:"
Other things worth looking at there;
Recent polling has shown that the public is fairly evenly divided about the health insurance proposals being made by the president and congressional leaders of his party. However, those who feel strongly about the issue are more likely to oppose the effort.
As Congress has debated potential reforms, confidence in U.S. health care system has increased. Just 19% of Americans now rate the overall system as poor while 48% say it’s good or excellent.
Voters are fairly evenly divided in their views of the protesters at town hall meetings, but 49% believe they are genuinely expressing the views of their neighbors. Thirty-seven percent (37%) believe the protests are phony.
Most voters believe that middle class tax cuts are more important than new spending on health care.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/01906/019061dce958ebe68d7af20855b11eac0adcdd23" alt="Idea :idea:"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/dad18/dad18ce6f87114237746ae1874094c582eb26745" alt="Arrow :arrow:"
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/july_2009/the_public_s_view_of_health_care_debate
Friday, July 31, 2009
Email a Friend Email to a Friend ShareThis
Advertisement
Over the past few months, Rasmussen Reports has conducted many surveys on the topic of health care reform. As July comes to an end and Congress prepares to take a break from Washington, the following reports highlight public attitudes on a variety of health care topics.
Just 47% Favor Congressional Health Care Reform, 49% Oppose
23% Believe Health Care Costs Will Go Down if Reform Passes Congress
Only 18% Say Those With Chronic Conditions Should Pay More in Health Insurance
Cost, Not Universal Coverage, is Top Health Care Concern for Voters
50% Oppose Government Health Insurance Company
78% Say Health Care Reform Likely to Mean Higher Taxes for the Middle Class
Massachusetts: 26% Consider State’s Health Care Reform a Success
Americans Evenly Divided Over Urgency of Health Care Reform
Americans Support Universal Health Coverage, But Not If It Covers Illegal Immigrants
Congressional Consensus on Health Care Gets Mixed Reviews from Public
31% Say Healthy Should Be Required to Buy Health Insurance
50% Support More Taxes on Alcohol To Help Fund Universal Health Care
42% Favor Free Health Care For All Americans – Unless Their Own Coverage Has To Change
56% of Uninsured Rate U.S. Health Care System as Poor, 26% Receive Poor Care
32% Would Pay Higher Taxes to Provide Health Insurance for All
35% Rate U.S. Health Care Good or Excellent
70% of Insured Rate Health Insurance Coverage As Good or Excellent
Most Arizona Voters Put Immigration Over Health Care as More Important Reform Goal
ShareThis
_________________
"Every time you don't follow your inner guidance,
you feel a loss of energy, loss of power, a sense of spiritual deadness."
- Shakti Gawain
southwestforests
Veteran
Joined: 18 Jul 2009
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,138
Location: A little ways south of the river
"Fast Facts about the Health Care Bill - H.R. 3200"
http://www.fairtaxkc.org/health_care_fast_facts.php
Screenshots of bill pages, highlighting of relevant text on those pages, and evaluation of content.
On page 16, it states that if you try to get new health care, or change employers (and thus health care plans), after the HR3200 Bill goes into effect, you [i]cannot keep your health care. You have to go into the government controlled plan.[/i]
This is also stated on page 19, that after Y1 (2013) you must get your health care through the government controlled system.
On page 125 and 59, the government is coming up with "innovative payment mechanisms" so that the government can dip directly into your bank account so as to have folks make payments via EFTs.
In addition, on page 58, the government is trying to allow "real time adjudication of claims" and your "financial responsibility" via an ELECTRONIC IDENTIFICATION CARD. So, what information is on that card... your SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER? Your BANK ACCOUNT INFORMATION?
On page 109 and 110, the Government will impose taxes upon you and your employer if you are not in an "APPROVED" government plan, or you employer is not providing a government approved plan, or if a health care provider is not providing "ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE". Remember the EFTs? How the government can dip into your bank account? Now the government can dip into your bank account if they need to collect taxes.
On page 167 and 168, the Government will tax you at 2.5% of your income if you are not in a government approved plan. Remember those EFTs where the government can dip into your bank account?
On page 71, the Government shall deny coverage, if it is determined that the "government controlled health care system" is "OUT OF MONEY".
On page 424 and 425, the Government can decide that it is going to run out of money (remember page 71) and provide "END OF LIFE COUNSELING" -- "EVERY 5 YEARS" (read the top of page 425) and "HOSPICE CARE" to seniors. In other words, it is in the best interest of the government to "SAVE MONEY", and to do that, counsel seniors to just "end their life". Read it and weap. (can you say "EUGENICS"? and can you say "SAVE MONEY ON HEALTH CARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY?")
_________________
"Every time you don't follow your inner guidance,
you feel a loss of energy, loss of power, a sense of spiritual deadness."
- Shakti Gawain
Anyone who is "elderly" and "disabled" with Cerebral Palsy, Autism and any other chronic medical condition will be considered too great of a burden for the Federal Government and "disgarded" like human garbage rather than given appropriate and proper medical care.
I've seen this meme going around, but it's ironic since our current system operates exactly this way. Pre-existing condition == no (or unaffordable) insurance. Medicare (socialized medicine) came into existence because the private insurance industry wouldn't cover seniors. What's being proposed now (though it isn't at all finalized) will hopefully not allow exclusions or pricing-out for pre-existing conditions.
There are billions of dollars in profit at stake in this health care fight -- many of the 'anti' arguments saturating the media now have little to do with the truth, and everything to do with protecting corporate profits. The media, being mostly corporate, is not helping. HR3200 is available for download so you can yourself check if claims about it are lies or not.
The counseling is to let people's physicians know, for instance, if they want to be kept alive for years and years by machines if they're in a coma. People should have already discussed such things with their doctors since under our current system such a scenario could bankrupt your family. There is nothing about encouraging people to die.
emphasis on those under age 55.
Our current private system only supports healthy people. The disabled and seniors and so forth at least have Medicare to fall back on if they private system locks them out. And Medicare is socialized medicine; it is a "public option."
southwestforests
Veteran
Joined: 18 Jul 2009
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,138
Location: A little ways south of the river
Worth noting:
* AUGUST 7, 2009
France Fights Universal Care's High Cost
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124958049241511735.html
The most important aspect of Mr. Sarkozy's latest health-care legislation, passed this summer, focuses on reducing costs at state hospitals. About two-thirds of France's hospitals are state-run, and they are seen as ripe for efficiency savings. Among other things, Mr. Sarkozy has asked them to hire more business managers and behave more like private companies, for instance, by balancing their budgets.
The proposals didn't go down well.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/dad18/dad18ce6f87114237746ae1874094c582eb26745" alt="Arrow :arrow:"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b6fef/b6fef77bf7fb565c34261726c6df2f6a782beb1a" alt="Question :?:"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/46d7d/46d7d8a84602e7f4ab6c1dab0ff1ea001b593d30" alt="Shocked 8O"
Since France began building up its universal health-care system, in 1945, successive governments have been faced with the challenge of balancing the national health insurance budget without going back on the original promise of taking good care of the entire population. For the past three decades, small reductions in health care coverage and incremental increases in health-care taxes have been the main recipe.
1976 -- Coverage of ambulance costs is reduced.
1977 -- Coverage of some medications is reduced. Some hospital beds are closed.
1982 -- Patients must pay a "moderating fee" of 20 francs (3 euros) out of pocket when they are hospitalized.
1985 -- Coverage of some paramedical procedures is reduced.
1986 -- Increase in health-care payroll taxes.
1987 -- Letters sent to the national health insurance must be stamped.
1988 -- Creation of a special tax on medication advertising to help fund health care.
1990 -- Introduction of the CSG, a new tax levied on all types of income to help fund health care.
1991 -- Increase in health-care taxes levied on payroll.
1993 -- Increase in CSG rate. Coverage of doctor consultation is reduced.
1996 -- Increase in health-care taxes. A new health-care tax is levied on private health-care plans.
1999 -- New tax levied on drug makers when their revenue exceeds a pre-defined level.
2000 -- Doctors are required to explain to the national health insurance why they granted a worker sick leave.
2003 -- The "moderating fee," which was increased over time, is raised to 15 euros.
2004 -- Patients must register with a "preferred" general practitioner who will reroute them toward specialists when necessary, or face lower reimbursement for care.
2005 -- The national health insurance deducts 1 euro off doctor consultation fees before it starts calculating how much it must reimburse patients.
2008 -- The national health insurance deducts 50 cents off every pack of medicine before it starts calculating how much it must reimburse patients.
Source: WSJ research.
_________________
"Every time you don't follow your inner guidance,
you feel a loss of energy, loss of power, a sense of spiritual deadness."
- Shakti Gawain
Wow! The biggest problem with the debate is that no one has any clue as to what they are talking about. Read the bill first, then by all means discuss what's wrong and what's right. I believe you can find it at opencongress.org. Yes, it's long, but a fairly quick read since a lot of it is simple organizations and definitions. There is no plan whatsoever to reduce care for the elderly and disabled. The reason all the crap spewing out of the mouths of Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and all the rest of them sounds like science fiction is because it is fiction. I agree that a lot of liberal spin can be found on MSNBC, but what Fox News delivers isn't even spin, it's complete and outright lies. We need to educate ourselves before we can have an intelligent conversation about anything. Yelling "Get your hands off my Medicare" at a town hall meeting is really my case and point.
southwestforests
Veteran
Joined: 18 Jul 2009
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,138
Location: A little ways south of the river
This makes me suspicious:
http://www.boston.com/business/healthcare/articles/2009/07/28/drug_makers_consider_funding_ads/
In August, PhRMA will be running television commercials in states where pharmaceutical companies have operations, asserting the importance of the drug industry for the economy, Johnson said. The drug makers, by offering to lower drugs costs by $80 billion over 10 years, became one of the first industries to reach an agreement with the Obama administration in its efforts to revamp the healthcare system. The drug makers also would oppose legislation allowing the government to negotiate prices on medicines sold through the federal drug program of Medicare.
“We are always preparing to fight back against bad public policy that would hurt patients and our ability to discover and develop new life saving medicines,’’ Johnson said Friday in a telephone interview.
Okay, now we know why they're doing that
_________________
"Every time you don't follow your inner guidance,
you feel a loss of energy, loss of power, a sense of spiritual deadness."
- Shakti Gawain
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Navigating the health care system |
26 Feb 2025, 11:20 pm |
Bill Gates never accepted before now to be ASD. |
06 Feb 2025, 3:40 am |
In Love with A.I. (Bill Maher) |
15 Feb 2025, 12:20 pm |
Bill Gates states what has long been suspected |
28 Feb 2025, 9:52 am |