Obamacare, Units and Neurosurgical Intervention

[Guest]

I was going to post this in response to the defenders of Obamacare in another thread. I decided it really needed its own discussion. Did you know that you have been dehumanized (does Third Reich sound familiar) by Obamacare? For administrative efficiency you are now a "unit". I guess it's much easier to pull the plug on a "unit" then grandpa.

In this video, a neurosurgeon called in after coming from a conference in Washington and revealed information not yet ready for public consumption. The video is going viral and has not been disputed......yet.

The brain surgeon said that at that meeting, they were advised that under Obamacare, "if you're a "unit" above a certain age (70) you will get comfort care instead of advanced neurological intervention. Further, permission must be obtained from an ethics panel of administrators who are NOT doctors. I believe he's referring to the Independent Payment Advisory Board. Sarah Palin had a name for those panels whether you like her or not.

I would not be surprised if this link mysteriously disappears before too long. Be sure to keep your mind open and listen to the entire video all the way to the post commentary where they disclose that the caller has been vetted and he is who he says he is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKRsBSTgprU

[Guest]

Meadow Muffins is the polite term that can be used for this "informative" video clip.

If it were actually true, there would be many, many more clips and articles from that supposed conference on the "death panels', etc.

Also, don't forget about "selective hearing". People hear want they want to hear and filter out anything else.

[Guest]

Meadow Muffins is the polite term that can be used for this "informative" video clip.


Also, don't forget about "selective hearing". People hear want they want to hear and filter out anything else.

So.....you represent yourself as the resident expert on "meadow muffins" and "selective hearing". Interesting. I'd love to engage you here.....but.....I'm off for a tee time at Juliette Falls.

Have a nice day.

[Guest]

What's really scary is how people simply refuse to believe it could happen, because they trust and have faith in, without questioning anything, their politician-pastor and his preaching.

[Guest]

Even if I'm disinclined to believe it, there's nothing wrong with forcing those behind the bill to point out why something terrible WON'T happen.

Remember - this is the bill that was bigger than the Manhattan phone book and it shouldn't have to be up to the citizenry to ferret out every possible clause that might be wrong (or worse yet, intentionally bad).

This SHOULD be addressed just like the whole 'death panel' issue was.

But, from finally getting to listen to this (I had some problems earlier), I have several questions. Like who is this guy? This is an ANONYMOUS caller to a radio show. He then goes on to claim that this hasn't been published anywhere yet - even though the bill WAS passed into law. I'll be most interested in any response that the College of Neurosurgeons has to say about this since he DOES mention then - specifically that one of his colleagues is the HEAD of that organization.

[Guest]

Even if I'm disinclined to believe it, there's nothing wrong with forcing those behind the bill to point out why something terrible WON'T happen.

Remember - this is the bill that was bigger than the Manhattan phone book and it shouldn't have to be up to the citizenry to ferret out every possible clause that might be wrong (or worse yet, intentionally bad).

This SHOULD be addressed just like the whole 'death panel' issue was.

But, from finally getting to listen to this (I had some problems earlier), I have several questions. Like who is this guy? This is an ANONYMOUS caller to a radio show. He then goes on to claim that this hasn't been published anywhere yet - even though the bill WAS passed into law. I'll be most interested in any response that the College of Neurosurgeons has to say about this since he DOES mention then - specifically that one of his colleagues is the HEAD of that organization.

Mark Levin did mention that they had vetted and checked the guy's credentials before putting him on the air.

[Guest]

Mark Levin did mention that they had vetted and checked the guy's credentials before putting him on the air.

Is it not reasonable to assume that IF this were true we would be hearing about it on every newscast? Reading it in every news magazine? And PLEASE do generic liberal left media comments. Those have been posted ad nausem... I feel the same way about posts like this as I do with those weight loss ads...if THEY worked they would be headline news worldwide.

[Guest]

This is what the neurosurgeon was referring to - the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).

by Doug Schoen, in Huffington Post

.....For conservatives, Independents and a growing number of Democrats, the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) that was created with the passage of last year's health care law represents the worst of health care reform. IPAB would allow an unelected board to singularly enact spending cuts in the Medicare program through binding recommendations to reduce Medicare spending.

Last weekend, Reps. Tim Bishop of New York and Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas were the latest Democrats to join the increasing bipartisan effort that opposes IPAB as they signed on as co-sponsors of Rep. Phil Roe's bill to repeal it. Quite simply, IPAB has so many opponents because it embodies centralized planning from Washington, D.C., and enables unelected bureaucrats to make decisions about people's health care. The contrast couldn't be more clear: a new government body (IPAB) charged with taking resources away from the beloved Medicare program.

Further, IPAB is a threat to critical medical treatments and services for all Medicare beneficiaries. Proponents of the board have argued that IPAB will improve the quality of care as a result of the cost-cutting measures it enacts in order to save. However, it is doubtful this will happen because the board will have to make cuts that reach annual targets. Thus, standard line item cuts will result, which will only reinforce systemic problems, not fix them, and create unsustainable savings.

Major changes in the Medicare program should be decided by elected officials who will be held accountable for their decisions. Such an arbitrary system lacks transparency and oversight, and according to the Congressional Budget Office, IPAB will save no money over the next decade because Medicare spending won't hit the threshold level to activate its powers.

Health care reform gets far greater savings from ideas that no one objects to, like developing new approaches to delivering health care services and creating policies that support medical innovation. The president can help health reform's sustainability by tossing the unnecessary baggage and leaving the primary engine intact.

When the health care bill was still working its way through Congress, more than 70 Congressional Democrats sent a letter to Nancy Pelosi asking that IPAB be excluded from the final legislation. Today, many Congressional Democrats share doubts and concerns held among conservations and Independents regarding IPAB, but they are reluctant to move against the preferences of President Obama.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-schoen/ipab-could-be-president-o_b_909213.html

[Guest]

This has been mentioned in similar discussion here on TOTV.

Here's something I posted from a previous discussion:

If you have time and really want to see where our current health system is headed, listen to lectures and talks on You Tube by Dr. Don Berwick and others at his Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Or read about the overhaul of the healthcare system in Wales or tests of this in places like Oregon. Dr. Berwick was instrumental in this overhaul.

It is called Triple Aim. I personally think some of their ideas are great...with one big downfall. It is ALL controlled by the government and controlled by this think tank geared at saving money and redistributing the government's funds for government controlled healthcare around the world. The Triple Aim is improving the experience of care, improving the health of populations, and reducing per capita costs of health care world wide.

It goes much deeper than just these three things. It is all about changing how the world, not just America, but the world and how we look at and think about healthcare. It is a total overhaul of the current system by changing the current thinking by the pharmaceutical, industry, nurses, doctors, home healthcare workers, attorneys, and most importantly, the patient. It is a savings oriented program. Hospital stays are shortened. From Dr. Berwick's IHI website:

"The Best Care, for the Whole Population, at the Lowest Cost

"The annual cost for healthcare in the United States is about $2.2 trillion with up to 30% of the total health care dollars, or $700 billion, representing care that could be eliminated without reducing quality. Research has shown a wide variation in utilization of certain tests and procedures without differences in quality between high and low utilizing regions. The majority of the variation is not explained by differences in rates of illness, fees, or other population factors. Variation occurs in procedures for which there is often no clear “best option” because of multiple trade-offs between quality of life and risk considerations."

The following is where people get the "rationing" of healthcare. A better way to describe it, IMHO, is to say, for instance, my husband has severe knee pain. Our current thinking in the world is to do whatever is possible to get the best medical care that is available to him.

This isn't fair if some people can afford better care than others. It's like medical science has advanced, but only for people with good health insurance. So, instead, let's start thinking about medicine in a different way.

The goal is to get rid of the pain. Most of the time this means knee replacement. Maybe knee replacement isn't the best thing anymore since everyone can't afford the surgery.

Under this new ideal world Dr. Berwick and others have come up with, we would have a local centered care group talk to my husband about various other options and explain the major drawbacks of a knee replacement; ie costs, need to redo surgery later, pain, rehab time. etc. They will then help him find alternatives to the knee replacement. Cortisone, lose weight, better eating habits, more exercise...etc.

TThe National Priorities Partnership (NPP) of the National Quality Forum has set a series of goals for transformation of healthcare including nine areas where utilization can be reduced without impacting quality. For the prototyping initiative, IHI will focus efforts within two of these nine areas:

Diagnostic procedures: cardiac computed tomography (non-invasive coronary angiography and coronary calcium scoring); lumbar spine MRI prior to conservative therapy, without red flags; uncomplicated chest/thorax CT screening, bone or joint x-ray prior to conservative therapy, without red flags; chest x-ray, preoperative, on admission, or routine monitoring; and endoscopy.
Procedures: spine surgery, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA)/Stent, knee/hip replacement, coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), hysterectomy, prostatectomy.

IHI is launching prototyping under the umbrella of our Triple Aim Initiative, and seeks interested and capable organizations to join this effort.

http://www.ihi.org/IHI/Programs/Stra...reServices.htm

If you go to the bottom of the above linked page and go to " Opportunities to Learn More." You can listen to a tele-conference call about a big part of the overhaul plan.

Here is an article about the Triple Aim. You will be hearing more about it in the future. If we don't our children sure will if the world keeps spinning. Note, this isn't a negative scare monger type article. It is a proponent of the plan and just spells it out. It tells how to get the plan implemented in the world.

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2010/0...he-triple-aim/


How could the United States move toward the Triple Aim? Berwick, and two of his collegues laid out the following steps:

"If we could ever find the political nerve, we strongly suspect that financing and competitive dynamics such as the following, purveyed by governments and payers, would accelerate interest in the Triple Aim and progress toward it: (1) global budget caps on total health care spending for designated populations, (2) measurement of and fixed accountability for the health status and health needs of designated populations, (3) improved standardized measures of care and per capita costs across sites and through time that are transparent, (4) changes in payment such that the financial gains from reduction of per capita costs are shared among those who pay for care and those who can and should invest in further improvements, and (5) changes in professional education accreditation to ensure that clinicians are capable of changing and improving their processes of care."

https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30266&highlight=berwick

Here's another shorter discussion on TOTV on the subject awhile back:

https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30565&highlight=berwick

Don't forget the end of life discussions:

https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34644&highlight=berwick

[Guest]

Mark Levin did mention that they had vetted and checked the guy's credentials before putting him on the air.

I don't believe that for a minute. The announcer was too surprised and, again, no names were quoted at all. Not even the associates of the caller who are supposed to be the heads of major trade associations (College of Neurological Surgeons).

If the credentials had been verified, why not publicize them? Why not prove that the *incredible* claims are true?

The post that ilovetv provided is ambiguous but it's a start. It says the IAPB *was* created but seems to put it's most onerous possibilities in the *future*. The only thing I can think of is that the IAPB is currently only allowed to gather information for making recommendations. There seemed to be no hard reference to what their authority is now or would become in the future.

[Guest]

Once again, this YouTube bit was nothing more than "GLURG". No truth to it whatsoever.

[Guest]

And, sure enough, now it's proven to be false.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/neurosurgery.asp

The response from the *real* American Association of Neurological Surgeons:


On November 22, 2011, an individual claiming to be a "brain surgeon" made several statements referencing neurosurgical care on a Mark Levin radio show segment. The American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS) reviewed this segment and found that it contained several factual inaccuracies which we wish to clarify.

The AANS and CNS are unaware of any federal government document directing that advanced neurosurgery for patients over 70 years of age will not be indicated and only supportive care treatment will be provided. Furthermore, in conducting our own due diligence, it appears that the caller who identified himself as a brain surgeon may not actually be a neurosurgeon, nor was there any session at the recent Congress of Neurological Surgeons' scientific meeting in Washington, DC at which a purported government document calling for the rationing of neurosurgical care was discussed.

Neurosurgeons are committed to providing timely, compassionate, and state of the art treatment for all patients - regardless of age - who have neurosurgical conditions. As such, we have requested that this podcast be removed from Mark Levin’s website as it portrays inaccurate information which could potentially be harmful to the patients that we serve.

[Guest]

rather than spending the keystrokes and brain cells on trying to discredit the topic/speaker/presenter....how about approaching the issue as presented as a hypothesis.

The hypothesis: first patients being referred to as units; secondly that a governing body could determine to not provide a surgeon recommended care based on age.

Now, see if some of you can take your persistent partisan goggles off and address the hypothesis.

I fear much useful dialogue never gets to a discussion point when a loyalist is personally affected by an issue. One can tell when this occurs because the only sound is silence. At some point partisanship has no value to add, especially for those not invested in the issue. At some point even a loyalist will one day be confronted with an unacceptable decision stemming from a hypothesis proposed above. Maybe when they or a loved one are on the table and they hear those dreadful hypothesized words...sorry but your unit does not........

btk

[Guest]

Yours is just a REGURGITATION of a November posting that was totally discredited by Snopes.com. http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/neurosurgery.asp

[Guest]

surprised that someone who pretends to be an intellectual would post something patently false. :sad:

[Guest]

Maybe one of his grandkids hijacked the computer and is reposting some of his material.

[Guest]

rather than spending the keystrokes and brain cells on trying to discredit the topic/speaker/presenter....how about approaching the issue as presented as a hypothesis.

The hypothesis: first patients being referred to as units; secondly that a governing body could determine to not provide a surgeon recommended care based on age.

Now, see if some of you can take your persistent partisan goggles off and address the hypothesis.

I fear much useful dialogue never gets to a discussion point when a loyalist is personally affected by an issue. One can tell when this occurs because the only sound is silence. At some point partisanship has no value to add, especially for those not invested in the issue. At some point even a loyalist will one day be confronted with an unacceptable decision stemming from a hypothesis proposed above. Maybe when they or a loved one are on the table and they hear those dreadful hypothesized words...sorry but your unit does not........

btk

Here is one of several posters who constantly claim that the "liberals" who write here do not use any facts to support their claims. So in this case, several important facts have been presented which completely debunk the original Mark Levin Show claim. Instead of accepting the facts, or (perish the thought!), acknowledging that the original claim was false, the thrust now is to try to give some credit to the claim as a HYPOTHESIS!
Please, let's just recognize garbage for what it is.

[Guest]

ijusluvit...your interpretation and re-stating of what others present to compliment your objective. You are entitled to your opinion however when comes to you re-stating my objective in your words, then presenting them as mine then criticizing is pure BS....

"...the thrust now is to try to give some credit to the claim as a HYPOTHESIS!" The thought never entered my mind....believe it or like it or not. Feel free to level any criticism your heart desires, but how about dispensing with putting forth your interpretations of my posts as a basis of for your partisan snipping.

I guess there is something in your ilk that just refuses to accept the fact there are issues that can be discussed without having to take a partisan position. After a while (and some of us are there) it just comes across as so much noise....and that is how I see and hear it without having to re-state something you said to make it so!

btk

[Guest]

rather than spending the keystrokes and brain cells on trying to discredit the topic/speaker/presenter....how about approaching the issue as presented as a hypothesis.

The hypothesis: first patients being referred to as units; secondly that a governing body could determine to not provide a surgeon recommended care based on age.

Now, see if some of you can take your persistent partisan goggles off and address the hypothesis.


Except the HYPOTHESIS is based on a false premise. The presenter is lying. IN other words, what you appear to be saying is "Ok, so he's lying but what if the lie were the truth?"

And before you accuse me of having blinders on, remember please, I am no fan of the way Obamacare ended up. To me, it's unconstitution, welfare for insurance companies and does NOTHING to address the real underlying causes of our health care crisis.

So why did I post this? Because if you're trying to discredit the law with lies, you're just killing your own credibility. Use the truth.

[Guest]

Definition of HYPOTHESIS
1
a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2
: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences
3
: the antecedent clause of a conditional statement

No requirement for a qualification of subject matter. My hypothesis was presented under the definition of 1a above....an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument....made for the sake of argument!!! Trying to take the subject out of the constant arbitrary partisan snipping mode with the hope of a discussion....the single biggest challenge on this forum.

btk

[Guest]

however it is a false hypotheses,hence worthless in any way shape or form.

[Guest]

So, BTK is saying that he knows the YouTube submission is a complete lie and he knows that the statements were never really presented at a neurosurgery convention - but WHAT IF they were true? Wow, that means absolutely zero.

[Guest]

The only thing certain about the claim of looming "comfort care only" for elderly "units" is that:

If it is one of the policies buried in the obamacare law that's bigger than the Manhattan phone book.......

this is not going to be released by the feds in a presidential election year, nor before Obama is securely sworn into office for a 2nd term.

Anything is possible with these politicians.

[Guest]

Looks as though some are decided on who will win in 2012. I agree.

"this is not going to be released by the feds in a presidential election year, nor before Obama is securely sworn into office for a 2nd term."

[Guest]

Looks as though some are decided on who will win in 2012. I agree.

"this is not going to be released by the feds in a presidential election year, nor before Obama is securely sworn into office for a 2nd term."

The statement beginning with "IF" implies a hypothetical situation.

[Guest]

Wait a minute...not so fast. Some of your hip shooting, predictable responses, with rare exception, seem to speak with a finality that precludes rebuttal. The first observation I made based on your links and citations raises a legitimate question. There is direct evidence of a walk back in the Snopes quote and the AANS statement. In fact, with little research effort, I found two versions of the "official" response. One states emphatically:

"it appears that the caller who identified himself as a brain surgeon is not a neurosurgeon"

The other watered down version says a lot. It leaves open the possibility the the caller "may" be a neurosurgeon although it is cleverly framed in the most negative context.

"it appears that the caller who identified himself as a brain surgeon may not actually be a neurosurgeon"

The first seems to be an emphatic conclusion that the caller was not a neurosurgeon. The second opens the door of possibility that he might be.

The Snopes version hedges its conclusion by going with the "may not". This one is not over yet. Why two versions of the same "official" response? They're easy to find with a little Google work. Lawyers?, lawsuits?, Mark Levin himself a litigious Constitutional attorney? Did someone actually find out it was a neurosurgeon that called? That would explain the AANS and Snopes walk back.

An old professor once told me "words do not mean....people mean". Given that context, I have to wonder why the AANS in the same document did not outright deny the existence of documents suggested by the caller. There position is:

"The AANS and CNS are unaware of any federal government document directing that advanced neurosurgery for patients over 70 years of age will not be indicated and only supportive care treatment will be provided".

Why didn't they flat out deny the existence of the document? Kind of gives them plausible deniability if that document should surface. Actually it is rather Clintonesque. You know.....it depends on what the meaning of "is" is. The use of the word "unaware" certainly gives them wiggle room should someone eventually provide the document. Kind of like the guy who gets caught with a trunk full of blow and says he was "unaware" it was there.

Point two - Anyone who pins the essence of their arguments to Snopes does so while dismissing the copious debatable controversies that paint Snopes as a biased tool of the liberal left. Full disclosure, the right has disinformation sources as well. Try Googling Snopes-liberal bias.

In the OP, I suggested using an open mind and indicated rather clearly that the video had not been disputed ......yet. I presumed vigorous rebuttal but was surprised how long it took. The "open mind" part suggested a debatable topic for those motivated to express honest opinions. I accepted a degree of tolerance for the inevitable party line assassins and their cheap sniping at posters instead of issues.

Political and court challenges notwithstanding, the full impact of Obamacare will not be felt for two years or more. There is sufficient credible documentation that medical care rationing is a major component of the system. It is that point that gives the neurosurgeon story street credibility.

In the final analysis, we each have to draw our own conclusions tempered with our own biases. I do not believe we have definitively heard the end of the neurosurgeon story or the rationing of Obamacare that it purports. That's just me though.

Have a good day in the Villages.

[Guest]

ijusluvit...your interpretation and re-stating of what others present to compliment your objective. You are entitled to your opinion however when comes to you re-stating my objective in your words, then presenting them as mine then criticizing is pure BS....

"...the thrust now is to try to give some credit to the claim as a HYPOTHESIS!" The thought never entered my mind....believe it or like it or not. Feel free to level any criticism your heart desires, but how about dispensing with putting forth your interpretations of my posts as a basis of for your partisan snipping.

I guess there is something in your ilk that just refuses to accept the fact there are issues that can be discussed without having to take a partisan position. After a while (and some of us are there) it just comes across as so much noise....and that is how I see and hear it without having to re-state something you said to make it so!

btk

Why do you have to resort to an ad hominem attack, (an even more prevalent technique than claiming that liberals don't use facts.)?
I'm not part of an "ilk".

Your original statement which drew my response could only be interpreted on it's face: you ask that instead of others spending keystrokes on facts they should look at the claim as a "hypothesis". That's ignoring the facts and turning things around.

I you really just want to debate, you might have started your comments a little like this, as I have done a couple of times commenting on your stuff: "OK, point well taken that the claim about Obamacare is not true, but why don't we consider..."

[Guest]

Wait a minute...not so fast. Some of your hip shooting, predictable responses, with rare exception, seem to speak with a finality that precludes rebuttal. The first observation I made based on your links and citations raises a legitimate question. There is direct evidence of a walk back in the Snopes quote and the AANS statement. In fact, with little research effort, I found two versions of the "official" response. One states emphatically:

"it appears that the caller who identified himself as a brain surgeon is not a neurosurgeon"

The other watered down version says a lot. It leaves open the possibility the the caller "may" be a neurosurgeon although it is cleverly framed in the most negative context.

"it appears that the caller who identified himself as a brain surgeon may not actually be a neurosurgeon"

The first seems to be an emphatic conclusion that the caller was not a neurosurgeon. The second opens the door of possibility that he might be.

The Snopes version hedges its conclusion by going with the "may not". This one is not over yet. Why two versions of the same "official" response? They're easy to find with a little Google work. Lawyers?, lawsuits?, Mark Levin himself a litigious Constitutional attorney? Did someone actually find out it was a neurosurgeon that called? That would explain the AANS and Snopes walk back.

An old professor once told me "words do not mean....people mean". Given that context, I have to wonder why the AANS in the same document did not outright deny the existence of documents suggested by the caller. There position is:

"The AANS and CNS are unaware of any federal government document directing that advanced neurosurgery for patients over 70 years of age will not be indicated and only supportive care treatment will be provided".

Why didn't they flat out deny the existence of the document? Kind of gives them plausible deniability if that document should surface. Actually it is rather Clintonesque. You know.....it depends on what the meaning of "is" is. The use of the word "unaware" certainly gives them wiggle room should someone eventually provide the document. Kind of like the guy who gets caught with a trunk full of blow and says he was "unaware" it was there.

Point two - Anyone who pins the essence of their arguments to Snopes does so while dismissing the copious debatable controversies that paint Snopes as a biased tool of the liberal left. Full disclosure, the right has disinformation sources as well. Try Googling Snopes-liberal bias.

In the OP, I suggested using an open mind and indicated rather clearly that the video had not been disputed ......yet. I presumed vigorous rebuttal but was surprised how long it took. The "open mind" part suggested a debatable topic for those motivated to express honest opinions. I accepted a degree of tolerance for the inevitable party line assassins and their cheap sniping at posters instead of issues.

Political and court challenges notwithstanding, the full impact of Obamacare will not be felt for two years or more. There is sufficient credible documentation that medical care rationing is a major component of the system. It is that point that gives the neurosurgeon story street credibility.

In the final analysis, we each have to draw our own conclusions tempered with our own biases. I do not believe we have definitively heard the end of the neurosurgeon story or the rationing of Obamacare that it purports. That's just me though.

Have a good day in the Villages.

I respect that you are convinced that there will be health care rationing under Obamacare, but instead of trying to reinterpret the snopes finding that this is false, I would ask that you present language from the law which makes your case. Thank you

[Guest]

let me see not only are you telling me what I said you are now telling me how I should have said it....

what part of for the sake of argument

is so damn difficult to grasp?

I did not claim one single thing except for the sake of argument.

If some of you want to continue to make banquets out of ham sandwiches....knock yourself out. Turn it all around anyway you like that either makes you feel good all over or suits your position!!!

Eventually there will be a subject you folks are allowed to discuss without going partisan soapbox.

btk

[Guest]

I have read some of the replies to original post and yes I sat and read the obamacare before it was voted into law and one thing folks dont want to admitt is you will be refused treatment after a certain age. One which if you are told you have cancer you will be give pain meds to make you comfy. Doesnt that make you feel warm all over. If it's your wife or mother you will look at it differently. It's time that people need to read some of this stuff and understand what the administation is trying to do to you . I get to talk to a lot Canadians and they always say the same thing. We don't know how good we had it till the full force of obamacare hits us. It's time to see what really is going on. Pull your heads out the sand, I could have said some thing else, and face facts. As the old saying goes read it and weep. And other thing Romney is going to do the same thing watch your back.

[Guest]

ijusluvit ...The principles and intentions of Obamacare are captured in the philosophy of its architects. I'm surprised you missed that in my post. One more time.......in their own words.

I originally posted this in early December. Except for the tenacious believer, ijustluvit, the silence from the left was deafening. Maybe it was the approaching holidays....so....Obamacare champions....here's an opportunity to have another go at it. Here is the slightly re-edited version.

READ A BOOK
More importantly, the spinners should read the books, papers and public comments of their very own liberal architects of Obamacare. I wouldn't expect them to read anything that might offer balance and a more intellectually honest analysis of the issues in medical care.

Take for example Tom Daschle, Obama's first choice for Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. Benevolently, lets say his candidacy ran into some legal issues and he dropped out. He wrote a book entitled, Critical:What We Can Do About the Health Crisis. Daschle models his Federal Health Board, some call it a "death panel", on Britain's NICE agency. You should really read up on that one. it warrants its own thread. Anyway, the would be architect of Obamacare spells out a policy that evaluates treatments for....drum roll please.....clinical and cost effectiveness. It's that "cost effectiveness" thingy that raises more questions then answers. If the spinners would just pick up the book written by one of theirs, perhaps we wouldn't get the cheap, talking point hip shots. Where's the bug spray?

Critiques, sometimes you have to hear the other side, say that indeed cost effectiveness comparisons would save taxpayer dollars.......at the expense of limiting patients access to medical treatments. Folks, this just scratches the surface. The real impact is in the "rationing" implications. Spinners.....read the book.

Then there's your.....I mean Obama's one of 39 CZARs, Cass Sunstein, the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. I think they stole the title from Moscow. Of course he's out of Chicago Law School. Spinners, you have just got to read this guy's papers....then come back and try to spin. His end of life/health care policies are evident throughout Obamacare. He holds that:

Human life varies in value.......really? I wonder if party or political affiliations will factor in the equation of deciding values? I hope the panel doesn't read TOTV or some people will.........?

He advocates that health benefit calculations will likely result in lower benefit calculations for elderly people.....you know, those pesky seniors who live in The Villages, and higher benefits for those who are younger and more productive. You really need to fully absorb this concept...re-read it if necessary. Honest.....that is what he believes.

Spin this....Sunstein believes and advocates for "presumed consent". Sounds harmless enough on the surface. It means that the government has a right to "presume" you have consented to have your organs transplanted. In other words, the government owns your organs and can use them as they see necessary unless you legally opt out. Can organs be taxed? They will be.

Sunstein is one of the architects of Obamacare and a cost/benefit advocate.

Then there is the other Emanuel and architect of Obamacare, also out of Chicago, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel. Ezekiel echoes Sunstein on the necessity to limit and ration health care options for seniors. He is an advocate of "liberal communitarianism". Spinners, you really need to research this one yourself.

Emanuel quite openly advocates healthcare rationing by age and disability. He must be a real hoot in nursing homes and cancer centers who work so hard to give extended quality life to those afflicted.

Of course any response I can offer to the spinners in this forum is substantially restricted. My intent clearly is to provoke those who like to respond to posters who possess inquiring minds with worn out party line snippets and sound bites that neither inform or contribute to an intellectual exchange of ideas. Where's the bug spray?

I've made an attempt, over a period of time, to read about Obamacare and its architects. I admit posting some of the more provocative aspects to annoy, arouse, excite and evoke responses from its intransigent supporters. I oppose rationing of healthcare in any form but realize there are compelling arguments to the contrary.

Maybe one or two true believers will enlighten this forum. I am sure there are practical arguments for health care rationing, but please, spare us the obvious party line that goes something like this, "but, we're already rationing." Tell us where you draw the line on the rationing that Obamacare architects advocate for. Who will get the new heart or organ transplant and who won't? Who will get the latest most expensive wonder drug treatment and who will not? Who will get the newest, most costly cancer treatment and who will not? Who gets to make these decisions? ijustluvit, I am sure there are a few redeeming benefits like the ones you described, IF, the system delivers as you suggest. What about the big picture that predicates the system on healthcare rationing based on cost/benefit analysis because that is the core of Obamacare from the lips of its creators to your ears. The "humanizing", feel good surveys and initiatives you cite are nice but first you have to get past the cost effectiveness formula to receive their benefit.

Finding team Obama support for Obamcare, medical care rationing and the subsequent phase in over a period of years is not difficult. With a little objective research, in fact, it is a target rich environment. Take one more Obama nominee,,," in May of this year(2010), the president nominated Dr. Donald Berwick, a professor at Harvard Medical School, to head Health and Human Services' Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. CMS covers over 100 million Americans and has a budget larger then the Defense Department. He is enhusiastically, openly candid in his support of Britain's socialistic National Health Service. In a 2008 speech to British physicians, our new health czar said: "I am romantic about National Health Service. I love it (because it is) 'generous, hopeful, confident, joyous and just.'" Cato Institute.

That "just" National Health Care Service decides which care can be too costly for the government to pay. Its real-time decider of life-or-death outcomes is the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Here is how "nicely" it works, described by Michael Tanner, senior fellow and health-care expert at the Cato Institute;

"It acts as a comparative-effectiveness tool for the National Health Care Service, comparing various treatments and determining whether the benefits the patients receives - SUCH AS PROLONGED LIFE - are cost-efficient for the government" (lifenews.com, May 27). "....

Unlike the president, Berwick tells it like it frighteningly is in a June 2009 interview for the magazine, Biotechnology Healthcare: Dr. Berwick "It's not a question of whether we will ration health care. It is whether we will ration with our eyes open." This from the lips of the nominated Obamacare health czar who was in love with national health care and the socialistic British Health Service (please someone start a thread on that beast).

"Recent reports suggest that the recently passed health-care bill will be far more expensive than originally projected. As it becomes apparent that Obamacare is unsustainable, the calls for controlling its costs through rationing will grow louder. With Donald Berwick running the government's health-care efforts, those voices have a ready ear" (dailycaller.com, May 27).

ijusluvit, the language you are looking for will come when"the centralized planning of medical delivery is complete - with cost-containment boards controlling the standards of care and the extent of coverage for both the private and public sectors - insurance companies, HMOs and the government will be able to legally discriminate against the sickest, most disabled and most elderly in our country. In other words, those whose care is most expensive. Cato Institute.

Czar Berwick's served in an acting capacity briefly before his nominatiion was derailed by Republicans in spite of Obama's strong defense of Dr. Berwick.

Cabo says those who look only for the smoking gun may get clobbered in the back of the head with a Louisville Slugger.

Thanks for the exercise. Always a pleasure ijuslovit

[Guest]

So, as I understand what BTK is saying, it makes NO DIFFERENCE as to the correctness of the issue but only a WHAT IF it might be true.

Well, that is about the same as stating your belief that growing pineapples in the winter in Minnesota is ideal. Everyone knows that Minnesota is not the ideal place to grow pineapples in the winter but WHAT IF it were true?

Exact same logic that BTK used and just wanted to "hypothesize".

[Guest]

cobo,

I read all of the posts you wrote on this subject and I appreciate your warning us about how the government is going to deny us healthcare.

If I am incorrect however, that not a single word you quoted is from the law, would you please cite that actual law language I missed.

[Guest]

So, as I understand what BTK is saying, it makes NO DIFFERENCE as to the correctness of the issue but only a WHAT IF it might be true.

Well, that is about the same as stating your belief that growing pineapples in the winter in Minnesota is ideal. Everyone knows that Minnesota is not the ideal place to grow pineapples in the winter but WHAT IF it were true?


How I Became a Minnesota Pineapple Farmer

http://simplegoodandtasty.com/2011/01/18/how-i-became-a-minnesota-pineapple-farmer

[Guest]

great tactic called a red herring or lateral arabesque...meaning dodge, weave, restate, accuse, restate again, turn the crank and same old same old comes out the other end.....partisan slant no matter what...their belief = good....any other = bad, verbal onslaught...and at all times completely avoid the subject/issue!!

btk

[Guest]

Often the truth is so heinous, evil, and in-human, that upon hearing it we shake our heads and say..."it can't be true!"

[Guest]

Katz,
If you are referring to the bogus YouTube clip, it was proved to be untrue. It never happened.

BTK was only using it as a jumping off point to start a disjointed discussion as a WHAT IF IT WERE TRUE, then it would be terrible. BUT IT IS NOT TRUE. THERE WAS NO CONFERENCE WHERE THE WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE. IT IS NOT REMOTELY TRUE.

[Guest]

Cabo,
That was actually very funny. I also have done that with pineapple tops and with lemons. I once grew a lemon tree from a seed and the tree lived about ten years and survived three moves.

I have a Myers lemon tree, a pink lemon tree, and a key lime tree in The Villages in my yard. All are doing great.

[Guest]

great tactic called a red herring or lateral arabesque...meaning dodge, weave, restate, accuse, restate again, turn the crank and same old same old comes out the other end.....partisan slant no matter what...their belief = good....any other = bad, verbal onslaught...and at all times completely avoid the subject/issue!!

btk

The lady doth protest too much, me thinks!

[Guest]

Buggyone~ I was referring to the near victory that was almost enjoyed by the Third Reich. The atrocities that occurred under that regime command were "poo poo"ed as too awful to be true, until it was almost too late...Check out the book "Bonhoeffer" by Eric Metaxis. It is an incredible biography that contains great history lessons, including the seduction of Germany and deception of the rest of the world, almost to the point of no return. Those who refuse to learn from history, are usually doomed to repeating it.

[Guest]

Cabo,
That was actually very funny. I also have done that with pineapple tops and with lemons. I once grew a lemon tree from a seed and the tree lived about ten years and survived three moves.

I have a Myers lemon tree, a pink lemon tree, and a key lime tree in The Villages in my yard. All are doing great.

Dear Mr. Buggy,

Please be informed that, as we speak, Snopes is working on verifying the above claims. Preliminary indications are that they could be true, or,
they could be false.

[Guest]

I have read some of the replies to original post and yes I sat and read the obamacare before it was voted into law and one thing folks dont want to admitt is you will be refused treatment after a certain age. One which if you are told you have cancer you will be give pain meds to make you comfy. Doesnt that make you feel warm all over. If it's your wife or mother you will look at it differently. It's time that people need to read some of this stuff and understand what the administation is trying to do to you . I get to talk to a lot Canadians and they always say the same thing. We don't know how good we had it till the full force of obamacare hits us. It's time to see what really is going on. Pull your heads out the sand, I could have said some thing else, and face facts. As the old saying goes read it and weep. And other thing Romney is going to do the same thing watch your back.

...and the difference between Medicare rationing your care and your insurance company dropping you because you've become too expensive is... What?

[Guest]

...and the difference between Medicare rationing your care and your insurance company dropping you because you've become too expensive is... What?


Lets see.....my wife getting treatment for cancer versus driving without insurance......hmmmmmm

[Guest]

...and when the insurance company decides that your wife has cost too much?

...or when they decide that your treatment is NOT covered and suddenly you get stuck with the bill despite the initial go-ahead from them? (This happened to me in 1992)