Specifics!!!! The lack thereof!!!

[Guest]

See the below article for a major difference compared to the Obama administration or the WH or Obama himself. The current administration is still using the old feel good make 'em a promise and pat 'em on the head and they will go away happy routine as in the run for the presidency. Seven months later they should recognize that doesn't fly anymore. Their style has been had.

The following article demonstrates the use of specifics:

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=116471698434

I know, many will dwell on Palin and not the object of the thread....SPECIFICS!!!
But try and stick with the issue, not the party or person.

The article takes Obama's general rhetoric and debunks it by quoting chapter and verse from the bill itself.

Now doesn't it make you wonder why the prime proponents of the bill DO NOT quote the bill chapter and verse when they are trying to ward off the opposition? Or trying to convince us why we should not worry?
It is their legislation. If it is being interpreted incorrectly according to the administration why not get specific?

Because when one gets specific and quotes anything in writing....they have to live by it....very, VERY UN-POLITICIAN AND UN-LAWERLY.

The he/she said VS the other he/she said doesn't take much research or COMMITTMENT!

Details? Specifics? Let's see if Obama and his ready team have learned anything yet about the town hall forums. He and his team should know by now the old sweet talk 'em of 2008 is no longer effective.

You can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time.

We the people are finally starting to stand and be counted....I hope they have the stamina and don't buy Obama's snde, sneering dis-crediting generalities.

I have written my representatives and advised them the same way....generalities will get them defeated....specifics and standing for the will of the people might get you re-elected......MIGHT!!!


btk

[Guest]

...I have written my representatives and advised them the same way....generalities will get them defeated....specifics and standing for the will of the people might get you re-elected......MIGHT!!!...Good idea, except I'm not sure any one of the 435 has earned the right to another term.

Working from the general to the specific in your opening post...

I agree with you that the proposed healthcare reform bill seems to be the most mis-managed exercise in legislation that I've ever observed. I've tried to figure out why, with legislation that is no where near being complete or final, some people are speaking of it's content with great certainty and others are complaining about not enough detail. Somewhere in there must lie the truth. I hope they don't enact anything that both the members of Congress and the public understands before it becomes the law of the land.

While I believe that the reform legislation should be crafted with adequate time and care and study, I think I'm also observing the special interest groups using the time it's taking to try to get Congress the feather their nests with the new bill. The resistance of the majority of members of Congress to consider, let alone discuss, the need for medical tort reform is one example. It sure would appear that the trial lawyers have the members firmly under their control. The resistance of many to a "government option" is another red flag to me. Now many are talking about a "co-op" owned insurance company (one neither owned or funded by the government) to offer alternative policies and premiums. If the co-op is owned by the insurance companies already competing privately, how is that different? In fact, I saw a former senior executive of a healthcare insurance company explained that the idea came from the insurance lobbyists and that such an option will never work because the co-op would always be undercapitalized and it's operations always underfunded. He opined that the insurance companies that will be "co-op owners" will see to that. He explained that's why Congress is now talking about this option and the insurance companies are going along with the idea--which was theirs in the first place--because they know it can't and won't work and certainly would be no competitive threat to their existing business. Notice that the insurance companies are all foursquare behind offering insurance to all citizens, legal, illegal or otherwise. Do you think the fact that as they lose the baby-boomers as customers as the move to Medicare, that their profits will be threatened? Of course, and that's why a law requiring another 40-50 million be insured is a good deal for them.

This is maddening to the nth degree, knowing that the people elected to represent us are in fact representing themselves and the special interests that pay them off on a subject as important as healthcare reform. It seems as though they act first to posture themselves politically for re-election, second to satisfy the wishes of the special interests, and then if they can accomplish all that, enact laws that will benefit the citizens who they're supposed to represent.

On the specific subject of how the proposed HR 3200 "requires" end-of-life counseling, speaking for myself I don't think that's a bad idea. I'm taking care of an elderly lady and had to do my own research on the differences between "palliative care" and "hospice care" offered by her nursing home. Her doctor never told me (I'm her medical and durable power of attorney) a thing. He just kept ordering tests, admitting her to the hospital, prescribing more drugs, and increasing the frequency of his billable visits to her in the nursing home. Based on the Medicare bills I receive, he's visiting her at about 2-3 time the frequency that he did in prior years and isn't doing a thing other than increasing his income to deal with her advancing dementia and increasing frailty. It's easy to see how some sort of required education on end-of-life issues might be beneficial to most Americans. If that's what the section of HR 3200 referred to accomplishes, I think it's a good idea that over time probably would reduce the costs of care being provided to patients near the ends of their lives for whom such care would accomplish little.

Another end-of-life example that probably should be addressed in the law is who should make the decision to cease care for patients either very close to death or even clinically dead? Should it be the family, with either insurance companies or the government paying for further care, the way it is now? Or should it be medical professionals who are trained to know life expectancies and the probabilities of success of additional treatment? Should all individuals be required to execute a Living Will so that whatever care is administered is their decision, not that of the family or even the medical professionals? Any of these choices would reduce the huge end-of-life costs being incurred with the existing system.

[Guest]

Good idea, except I'm not sure any one of the 435 has earned the right to another term.

Working from the general to the specific in your opening post...

I agree with you that the proposed healthcare reform bill seems to be the most mis-managed exercise in legislation that I've ever observed. I've tried to figure out why, with legislation that is no where near being complete or final, some people are speaking of it's content with great certainty and others are complaining about not enough detail. Somewhere in there must lie the truth. I hope they don't enact anything that both the members of Congress and the public understands before it becomes the law of the land.

While I believe that the reform legislation should be crafted with adequate time and care and study, I think I'm also observing the special interest groups using the time it's taking to try to get Congress the feather their nests with the new bill. The resistance of the majority of members of Congress to consider, let alone discuss, the need for medical tort reform is one example. It sure would appear that the trial lawyers have the members firmly under their control. The resistance of many to a "government option" is another red flag to me. Now many are talking about a "co-op" owned insurance company (one neither owned or funded by the government) to offer alternative policies and premiums. If the co-op is owned by the insurance companies already competing privately, how is that different? In fact, I saw a former senior executive of a healthcare insurance company explained that the idea came from the insurance lobbyists and that such an option will never work because the co-op would always be undercapitalized and it's operations always underfunded. He opined that the insurance companies that will be "co-op owners" will see to that. He explained that's why Congress is now talking about this option and the insurance companies are going along with the idea--which was theirs in the first place--because they know it can't and won't work and certainly would be no competitive threat to their existing business. Notice that the insurance companies are all foursquare behind offering insurance to all citizens, legal, illegal or otherwise. Do you think the fact that as they lose the baby-boomers as customers as the move to Medicare, that their profits will be threatened? Of course, and that's why a law requiring another 40-50 million be insured is a good deal for them.

This is maddening to the nth degree, knowing that the people elected to represent us are in fact representing themselves and the special interests that pay them off on a subject as important as healthcare reform. It seems as though they act first to posture themselves politically for re-election, second to satisfy the wishes of the special interests, and then if they can accomplish all that, enact laws that will benefit the citizens who they're supposed to represent.

On the specific subject of how the proposed HR 3200 "requires" end-of-life counseling, speaking for myself I don't think that's a bad idea. I'm taking care of an elderly lady and had to do my own research on the differences between "palliative care" and "hospice care" offered by her nursing home. Her doctor never told me (I'm her medical and durable power of attorney) a thing. He just kept ordering tests, admitting her to the hospital, prescribing more drugs, and increasing the frequency of his billable visits to her in the nursing home. Based on the Medicare bills I receive, he's visiting her at about 2-3 time the frequency that he did in prior years and isn't doing a thing other than increasing his income to deal with her advancing dementia and increasing frailty. It's easy to see how some sort of required education on end-of-life issues might be beneficial to most Americans. If that's what the section of HR 3200 referred to accomplishes, I think it's a good idea that over time probably would reduce the costs of care being provided to patients near the ends of their lives for whom such care would accomplish little.

Another end-of-life example that probably should be addressed in the law is who should make the decision to cease care for patients either very close to death or even clinically dead? Should it be the family, with either insurance companies or the government paying for further care, the way it is now? Or should it be medical professionals who are trained to know life expectancies and the probabilities of success of additional treatment? Should all individuals be required to execute a Living Will so that whatever care is administered is their decision, not that of the family or even the medical professionals? Any of these choices would reduce the huge end-of-life costs being incurred with the existing system.

We can agree to disagree about changing tort law. Even if caps on malpractice award went down to $1,000 a claim, it will not stop "defensive medicine." Caps have not proven effective in reducing health care costs in any jurisdiction with caps. The only person penalized is the one who is harmed. Better to go after the source - those who practice "defensive medicine" - for intentional affliction of physical and emotional distress and perhaps criminal battery. Oh yeah, these are "healers" and above reproach! And again, we have the federal government wanting to take over an area under state laws, and that takeover can only happen if all health care workers become federal employees.

The "living will" counseling has another "nasty detail." The "living will" legal world is under State, not federal, jurisdiction. The more logical approach is for the state to legislate an application algorithm/formula similar to when person dies intestate - no "living will," then the state law applies. That approach is simpler, would provide uniformity and clarity, and withstand court challenge.

What HR 3200 is demonstrating is that Congress (as it always seems to) and this Administration are hellbent to make the federal government omnipotent on every life (and death) issue, and remove state government from practical existence. That is so counter-Constitution, but that seems to be the plan. Congress passes laws, funds it via taxation, and gathers all power within the DC beltway, and there it remains until challenged in court - where Congress and the Administration get their collective hands slapped more often than not. Meanwhile, "we, the people" pay through the nose for these power-grabs.

I like state government. If I don't like the way things are done in Florida, I vote to change things here or move elsewhere. If I wanted cradle-to-grave government, I'd live in California. If I wanted euthanasia support, I'd be in Washington State. If I wanted legal prostitution, Nevada beckons. If I wanted to be taxed to death, I would have stayed in Maryland. The list goes on.

The Founding Fathers were smart, because they realized that when it comes to what people want from government, one size does not fit all. That's why the federal government only has the limited amount of power the Constitution allows it to have, and the states rule the rest. An omnipotent Federal government has never worked anywhere on this planet that it has been tried (failing miserably with the USSR).

[Guest]

...I like state government. If I don't like the way things are done in Florida, I vote to change things here or move elsewhere...I guess I didn't realize how much there was to dislike about Illinois until I moved to Florida. From a greater distance I was able to see a scumbag Governor, a dysfunctional state legislature, budget problems that are bad, but not quite California-like, and now even an unethical and unprincipled board of trustees and senior academic officers of the state university. (If you haven't read about it, the scandal wherein all these people were complicit in admitting unqualified applicants to the undergraduate, graduate and professional schools at the University of Illinois in exchange for contributions or other political favors will probably cost each and every one of them their jobs.)

I do like Florida state and Sumter County government. They seem to be polar opposite of Illinois.

P.S. All we can hope for regarding the "omnipotence" problem is that whatever enabling legislation passed in this Congress can be undone, improved or modified by a future Congress. That's probably not the way the founding fathers intended it to work, but at least it's possible. All we need to do is accomplish the mission of throwing this bunch out on their keisters.

[Guest]

I guess I didn't realize how much there was to dislike about Illinois until I moved to Florida. From a greater distance I was able to see a scumbag Governor, a dysfunctional state legislature, budget problems that are bad, but not quite California-like, and now even an unethical and unprincipled board of trustees and senior academic officers of the state university. (If you haven't read about it, the scandal wherein all these people were complicit in admitting unqualified applicants to the undergraduate, graduate and professional schools at the University of Illinois in exchange for contributions or other political favors will probably cost each and every one of them their jobs.)

I do like Florida state and Sumter County government. They seem to be polar opposite of Illinois.

P.S. All we can hope for regarding the "omnipotence" problem is that whatever enabling legislation passed in this Congress can be undone, improved or modified by a future Congress. That's probably not the way the founding fathers intended it to work, but at least it's possible. All we need to do is accomplish the mission of throwing this bunch out on their keisters.

Amen! :beer3:

[Guest]

What HR 3200 is demonstrating is that Congress (as it always seems to) and this Administration are hellbent to make the federal government omnipotent on every life (and death) issue, and remove state government from practical existence. That is so counter-Constitution, but that seems to be the plan. Congress passes laws, funds it via taxation, and gathers all power within the DC beltway, and there it remains until challenged in court - where Congress and the Administration get their collective hands slapped more often than not. Meanwhile, "we, the people" pay through the nose for these power-grabs.

I like state government. If I don't like the way things are done in Florida, I vote to change things here or move elsewhere. If I wanted cradle-to-grave government, I'd live in California. If I wanted euthanasia support, I'd be in Washington State. If I wanted legal prostitution, Nevada beckons. If I wanted to be taxed to death, I would have stayed in Maryland. The list goes on.

The Founding Fathers were smart, because they realized that when it comes to what people want from government, one size does not fit all. That's why the federal government only has the limited amount of power the Constitution allows it to have, and the states rule the rest. An omnipotent Federal government has never worked anywhere on this planet that it has been tried (failing miserably with the USSR).

On paragraph 1 above I wholeheartedly agree! As for the rest, it is similar to what I've said all along, we the people are "free to Choose". Lets not let the Federal Government do a power grab that thwarts our individual rights to choose.

[Guest]

you have each made great points and i agree with all of them!

VK - re the number of doctor visits, i would probably contact someone at the state's board of medical examiners and report my concern that the doctor is bilking medicare. the state board might be more likely to have investigators to review and do something than the medicare agency would. that doctor is one of the reasons medicare is in the shape that it is.


Get Rid of Incumbent Politicians

[Guest]

get rid of incumbent politicians

amen

[Guest]

I do not know the details as well as some but I cannot get past what I think is factual....

We want to disrupt and make major changes for 80% of americans so that we can insure 5% of americans and then STILL not insure everyone nearly AND in the meantime further disrupt the economic future of this country !

[Guest]

I do not know the details as well as some but I cannot get past what I think is factual....

We want to disrupt and make major changes for 80% of americans so that we can insure 5% of americans and then STILL not insure everyone nearly AND in the meantime further disrupt the economic future of this country !

Sounds about right to me! OB wants to upset the entire apple cart for what amounts to a small percentage of people that can't or won't buy insurance. The Feds can't even keep the theft, graft and corruption out of Medicare and Medicaid. How can they possibly, overnight, create a system that is not rife with more problems that we already have. A lot of devils advocacy is needed in government before giving away the farm to foolish, unthoughtful programs.

The systems are already there, the aforementioned Medicare and Medicaid systems, that can cover the 5-15% not covered. Expand THEM for those that truly can't afford health insurance, means test to insure that it is needed and create systems that will catch ripoffs BEFORE they occur. Everyone else needs to step up to the plate and insure themselves.

A new, expensive, bureaucracy is the last thing we need in these tough economic times, let alone that we need LESS government in our lives, not more!:cus:

[Guest]

Sounds about right to me! OB wants to upset the entire apple cart for what amounts to a small percentage of people that can't or won't buy insurance. The Feds can't even keep the theft, graft and corruption out of Medicare and Medicaid. How can they possibly, overnight, create a system that is not rife with more problems that we already have. A lot of devils advocacy is needed in government before giving away the farm to foolish, unthoughtful programs.

The systems are already there, the aforementioned Medicare and Medicaid systems, that can cover the 5-15% not covered. Expand THEM for those that truly can't afford health insurance, means test to insure that it is needed and create systems that will catch ripoffs BEFORE they occur. Everyone else needs to step up to the plate and insure themselves.

A new, expensive, bureaucracy is the last thing we need in these tough economic times, let alone that we need LESS government in our lives, not more!:cus:

Oh, Gnu, you and Bucco are making too much sense! Bureaucrats just don't possess that sense of logic!

I think I am going to ask my Congressman [who is a co-sponsor of the House legislation] why, if savings for this bill will be gained from rooting out the fraud and corruption in medicare and medicaid, hasn't some administration gone after it before now? Why have the fraud and corruption knowingly been left to exist? Hmmmm...........

Get Rid of Incumbent Politicians