Obamacare: Treating People Right

[Guest]

There's a thread here which purports to show that the new health care laws are designed to dehumanize us. Of course that sounds scary and depressing, but it is no more certain to become the reality for you or me than these other provisions:

Did you know that the new laws require hospitals to provide survey information from all released patients which includes very specific information about how they were treated? The attention is focused on how much information was provided the patient, how long did treatment take, how comforting was the staff, how was the food, etc. These happen to be among my favorite topics when in a hospital.

The important thing is that Medicare funding will be based on the survey results. Hospitals are already scrambling to train staff to be more attentive, and just plain nice. Menus are being radically revised. This sounds like REHUMANIZATION to me!

Will it be much better on my next hospital visit? I don't know. But the chances are probably better that I won't be treated as a "unit" as I was before Obamacare. If I, as well as other patients are treated better, how could I not think this is real progress?

[Guest]

Good luck with that.

A Short Course in Brain Surgery - Canada:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_Rf42zNl9U

Timely Medical Alternatives is the only medical brokerage company of it’s kind in all of Canada. We help Canadians from every province obtain urgently needed diagnostic imaging and surgical procedures. If you are in need of anything from a routine MRI to a medically necessary surgery, we are here to help.

Since 2003, Timely Medical Alternatives has helped thousands of Canadians leave the increasingly long public waiting lists, and take matters into their own hands. We help Canadians from every province obtain virtually any type of medical procedure.

If you are in need of a surgical or diagnostic procedure, contact us and we can give you a quote within 24 hours.

Timely Medical Featured on CBC News Program “The National”.....

http://timelymedical.ca/

[Guest]

Certain people have certain skills...I prefer a surgeon who knows how to skillfully do the surgery without a great bedside manner over one who is courteous and unskilled...nuff said!

[Guest]

...and you do not think that you can have both courteous and skilled doctors instead of one or the other?

[Guest]

No, I think we should get both! Great doctors are usually the people who have spent their lives with their nose in a book to learn what they are passionate about. The great ones often have very little social skills and bedside manner. Just saying that we could lose some incredible doctors over this.

[Guest]

It is my opinion that the health care legislation was the biggest mistake the president made, and not for the reasons most people beleive. His mistake was in spending the first months of his presidency, and much of his political capital focusing on healthcare, to the exclusion of other things which could have benefited the country more immediately. In the end he got the worst of all possible outcomes - a bartered piece of legislation which pleased no one, and is so complex and far reaching that virtually no one really knows what is accomplished by it. The far right can attack it with impunity, as it is so convoluted as to be almost impossible to defend. The far left doesn't like it because it failed to provide pure socialized healthcare. There are parts of the plan which will be beneficial to the public good, and there are parts which will cause problems, and will probably have to be amended, but virtually no one embraces the whole.

[Guest]

what has not kicked in yet that way too many folks forgot is the assumption made by Obama's plan...that $500,000,000,000 will be found in savings to offset the costs.

Do we need any more proof than the last budget fiasco when a super dooper committed was formed to find $1.2 trillion....words to get the subject off the screen....just like words to find $500,000,000,000 in savings for Obamacare...

Does anybody REALLY need much more proof it ain't gonna happen???

ANd those costs will be recovered how? Higher taxes and premiums....as forecasted and which will happen. The cheapest and best medical service you will EVER have going forward is what you have NOW. Enjoy it as it WILL NOT LAST!

btk

[Guest]

The taxes start now but the cost don't really kick in until 2014. When they do I imagine even myopic liberals will say "Holy S**t!!"

[Guest]

The taxes start now but the cost don't really kick in until 2014. When they do I imagine even myopic liberals will say "Holy S**t!!"

If the 2012 election goes right, we will not have to worry about 2014 tax increases.

[Guest]

Here's an idea. Call your congressman and tell him you want to abolish medicare. That's what republicans have been trying to do for 40 plus years. Abolish it for everbody - current recipients and future recipients. Think of the money that will save. And abolish The Affordable Care Act, and throw in social security while you're at it. This will be a wonderful platform for the republicans to run on in 2012. The deficit will be wiped out in no time without raising taxes on the wealthy. Let me know how shopping for healthcare goes with your voucher when you're 80 years old and have a pre-existing condition.

[Guest]

The US government has already taken millions from American tax payers to fund Social Security and Medicare. The government who didn't handle that money properly so that it was more securely there as the name implies...SOCIAL SECURITY. This money is OWED to those taxpayers.
Now the same government wants to scam us again with Obamacare?! ...duh?

[Guest]

Katz, there's another way to look at it.

Social Security never was a 'lock box' or a savings account. It was always a 'pay as you go' system. However, many seniors have the stance that, since they paid into it for so long, they damn well deserve to get their share out of it. Quite frankly, I have no problem with that.

But when it's reversed and you're getting more than 'you' paid for, there doesn't seem to be the willingness to say "Well, we got more than our share so I should pony up". A good example right now is our infrastructure, especially our roads. The gas taxes have not "paid' for the roads in many years - meaning the difference is being made up from general revenues (which means, these days, funded by everyone including the Chinese).

I've read that the problems with Social Security could be solved entirely with something around an eventual 20% cut in benefits. As I understand it, this is done by looking at a simple formula of expected tax revenues versus benefit payout. When Social Security "goes broke", it's not like there's no money - just not enough to pay 100% of the promised benefits.

So, just like teachers in Ohio and Wisconsin, there's money - just not enough to keep the checks coming at large as they had been.

Are you willing to take a cut? If so, how much?

I have to say that it's easy for me to say I will because I'm still at least 17 years from retirement. I know I'd be more nervous if I were 17 months away. I also feel pained when my mom screams about a lack of COLA increases but doesn't say a word about the last COLA increase she got which was more than inflation and that she got no reduction in benefits when the CPI actually went down. That double-standard gets to me a bit.

[Guest]

Amazing to consider that in the late 30's or early 40's the concern in this country was the vast amount of money in the SS fund

[Guest]

Katz, there's another way to look at it.

Social Security never was a 'lock box' or a savings account. It was always a 'pay as you go' system. However, many seniors have the stance that, since they paid into it for so long, they damn well deserve to get their share out of it. Quite frankly, I have no problem with that.

But when it's reversed and you're getting more than 'you' paid for, there doesn't seem to be the willingness to say "Well, we got more than our share so I should pony up". A good example right now is our infrastructure, especially our roads. The gas taxes have not "paid' for the roads in many years - meaning the difference is being made up from general revenues (which means, these days, funded by everyone including the Chinese).

I've read that the problems with Social Security could be solved entirely with something around an eventual 20% cut in benefits. As I understand it, this is done by looking at a simple formula of expected tax revenues versus benefit payout. When Social Security "goes broke", it's not like there's no money - just not enough to pay 100% of the promised benefits.

So, just like teachers in Ohio and Wisconsin, there's money - just not enough to keep the checks coming at large as they had been.

Are you willing to take a cut? If so, how much?

I have to say that it's easy for me to say I will because I'm still at least 17 years from retirement. I know I'd be more nervous if I were 17 months away. I also feel pained when my mom screams about a lack of COLA increases but doesn't say a word about the last COLA increase she got which was more than inflation and that she got no reduction in benefits when the CPI actually went down. That double-standard gets to me a bit.

Social Security tax is a specific deduction for a specific purpose. As such it's ostensibly a "tax fund". The fact that the federal government has decided to flow that money into the "general fund' doesn't change the definition and it should be thought of as a "dedicated fund".

But, given that everyone now agrees that the so called "Social Security Tax" is just thrown on the pile of general tax revenue of the Federal Budget with no real dedicated purpose, how is it these same people say that the Social Security fund is in danger?

if Social Security is just part of the federal budget, with no budget or trust fund of its own, then it’s just part of the federal budget. How can there be a Social Security crisis? All you can have is a general budget crisis. You might say that Social Security benefit payments might be one reason for that crisis, but it’s hard to make the case that it will be central.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/about-the-social-security-trust-fund/

[Guest]

A Short Course in Brain Surgery - Canada:

Why people put so much faith in central government is beyond comprehension.

Governments don't solve problems they create problems. All I can do is shake my head on how gullible and ignorant some Americans can be with their freedom and how quickly they are willing to give it up.

[Guest]

Why people put so much faith in central government is beyond comprehension.

Governments don't solve problems they create problems. All I can do is shake my head on how gullible and ignorant some Americans can be with their freedom and how quickly they are willing to give it up.

......while they scream and decry "Big Business", "Big Pharma", and Wall Street "Greed" they would crawl across hot coals to give more control to Big Government.

It makes no sense.

[Guest]

Especially when it's the government that's truly screwing them... and us. Blame everyone else when the real problem slips right under their nose.

[Guest]

Richie: You know as well as I do there IS a 'trust fund' - just not one in the way you, me or anyone else normally thinks of it.

There IS a ledger out there with all the FICA taxes coming in and all the benefits going out. For decades, the excess was placed into T-Bills. Those T-Bills, the ones owned by the Social Security Administration, were (and are) the 'trust fund'. Now there's not enough FICA coming in to cover the benefits going out - we knew this was going to happen when the baby boomers started retiring and it's been aggravated by the increase in lifespans and different benefit programs.

Roosevelt specifically designed Social Security this way to make it more unassailable - he wanted a separate tax so that it would be far harder to play with. He wanted it completely separate form the Federal budget. It wasn't until LBJ, if memory serves, that the government started using FICA surpluses to mask the true size of the deficit (I want to say it was because of the increasing costs of the Vietnam War but my memory could be fuzzy on that).

[Guest]

Social Security tax is a specific deduction for a specific purpose. As such it's ostensibly a "tax fund". The fact that the federal government has decided to flow that money into the "general fund' doesn't change the definition and it should be thought of as a "dedicated fund".

But, given that everyone now agrees that the so called "Social Security Tax" is just thrown on the pile of general tax revenue of the Federal Budget with no real dedicated purpose, how is it these same people say that the Social Security fund is in danger?

if Social Security is just part of the federal budget, with no budget or trust fund of its own, then it’s just part of the federal budget. How can there be a Social Security crisis? All you can have is a general budget crisis. You might say that Social Security benefit payments might be one reason for that crisis, but it’s hard to make the case that it will be central.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/about-the-social-security-trust-fund/

Excellent points RichieLion!
PLUS...I was just pointing out that no one had a choice to pay into SS or not. It is and was a SCAM. The answer is NOT to call those who collect "socialists" NOR is the answer to cut their income. I have only about 7 years until retirement...I would be thrilled at this point to be able to opt out and invest on my own. No one likes me and cares enough about my future as much as I do! We can't even say "it was good while it lasted", but lets cut the loss and give the American youth back the freedom to decide their own future.

[Guest]

Katz, you said you have about 7 years until retirement. That would put you in your 50's - and you are a pretty savvy person as demonstrated by your writings.

Do you honestly feel as though the workers just starting out in the workforce would actually save on their own from each paycheck for a retirement account and manage it well enough to have a comfortable retirement?

Personallly, I believe that they would not save in a retirement account and would realize when they are in their late 40's or so that they had better start - and by retirement age would have very little saved for retirement income to last the rest of their lives. Of course, this is not 100% of the people but a good percentage - in my opinion.

At that time, without money to come in automatically each month, would you expect the Federal or State government to give you the money you need for shelter, food, clothing, etc or would you say it is your fault and accept living under a bridge in a refrigerator carton?

[Guest]

Katz, you said you have about 7 years until retirement. That would put you in your 50's - and you are a pretty savvy person as demonstrated by your writings.

Do you honestly feel as though the workers just starting out in the workforce would actually save on their own from each paycheck for a retirement account and manage it well enough to have a comfortable retirement?

Personallly, I believe that they would not save in a retirement account and would realize when they are in their late 40's or so that they had better start - and by retirement age would have very little saved for retirement income to last the rest of their lives. Of course, this is not 100% of the people but a good percentage - in my opinion.

At that time, without money to come in automatically each month, would you expect the Federal or State government to give you the money you need for shelter, food, clothing, etc or would you say it is your fault and accept living under a bridge in a refrigerator carton?

Under the privatizing plan that was introduced by President George W. Bush that was subsequently much maligned by knee-jerk liberals, a portion of an employees Social Security deduction could have been designated by said employee, if he chose to, to be invested in approved funds. This would have taken that money out of the hands of government and into the auspices of private investments. (Gee, I wonder why Democrats hated this idea)

(A worker who trusted the government more than private enterprise, like maybe you, could have opted to stay in the current system.)

The dedicated investment plan, if chosen, would have stayed the property of the worker to invest as he saw fit, within government guidelines, and with the added advantage of being able to be passed down to his heirs in the future.

That would have addressed your fears Buggy.

[Guest]

Richie, I know of Junior Bush's plan and I am kind of surprised you would support it since it was to allow only a portion of retirement to be invested in an approved fund within government guidelines.

What I meant in my post was an opportunity for the employee to opt completely out of any government retirement plan and do it 100% on their own - investing in whatever they wanted to to (legally, of course). This is the completely government out of my business approach that it seems most conservatives would like. The employee would be able amass whatever fortune their investments would pay.

Of course, the 100% opt out would not let them back in at a later date and would not offer any government remedy if they did not have anything to live on when they got old (except maybe the refrigerator carton).

Do you think that is a good idea or not - and would you recommend that for your children?

[Guest]

Richie, I know of Junior Bush's plan and I am kind of surprised you would support it since it was to allow only a portion of retirement to be invested in an approved fund within government guidelines.

What I meant in my post was an opportunity for the employee to opt completely out of any government retirement plan and do it 100% on their own - investing in whatever they wanted to to (legally, of course). This is the completely government out of my business approach that it seems most conservatives would like. The employee would be able amass whatever fortune their investments would pay.

Of course, the 100% opt out would not let them back in at a later date and would not offer any government remedy if they did not have anything to live on when they got old (except maybe the refrigerator carton).

Do you think that is a good idea or not - and would you recommend that for your children?

Experiencing your own knee jerk liberalism come hell or high water, I would be willing to bet that you were virulently opposed to the Bush plan and undoubtedly were of the opinion that people were too ignorant to invest even a portion of their Social Security deduction on their own.

I know of no one advocating a 100% opt out at this point. In this failing economy and with many people scarcely able to keep their roofs over their heads and pay their bills and the ever escalating taxes and fees associated with daily living, I think it's probably a bad time to discuss savings accounts and investments.

George W. Bush's plan is still a great idea. Miss him yet?

(Taxpayers for Barack Obama are like chickens for Colonel Sanders)

[Guest]

Buggyone~ I think that living in a free society, everyone should be free to decide their future...sort of a "Freedom of Choice" thing if you will. I happen to know numerous "janitors" who are now millionares due to the meager amount they have socked away each week for years. Would these be the type of uneducated people that aren't smart enough to plan for their futures that you are referring to?

[Guest]

Katz, no where did I say uneducated people in my posts.

I asked a question if you would go along with employees taking care of their own retirement 100%. If that did not prove to be enough to live on after retirement - it is no one's problem but that person's own problem and there would be no government assistance at all.

You answered the question.

Thank you.

[Guest]

Buggyone~ I wrongly assumed that if a person wasn't going to look to the future that you meant they weren't educated enough to know better. Sorry.
As far as those who live without preparing for the future...I also know of those who probably wouldn't. But I think that without the government so easily available to bail everyone out, that people would learn to be more accountable to take care of themselves. Family and friends would also be counseling those people to do what was needed. Then there are always going to be poor amongst us. It is my opinion that the church has alot of answering to do for how they are taken care of. Monies spent on mega-churches and other unecessary fluff would/should be better spent to help the poor. Not a catholic myself, but I have a great deal of respect for the Cathollic church for helping the poor and downtrodden as commanded by Christ.

[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.

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.

There's a thread here which purports to show that the new health care laws are designed to dehumanize us. Of course that sounds scary and depressing, but it is no more certain to become the reality for you or me than these other provisions:

Did you know that the new laws require hospitals to provide survey information from all released patients which includes very specific information about how they were treated? The attention is focused on how much information was provided the patient, how long did treatment take, how comforting was the staff, how was the food, etc. These happen to be among my favorite topics when in a hospital.

The important thing is that Medicare funding will be based on the survey results. Hospitals are already scrambling to train staff to be more attentive, and just plain nice. Menus are being radically revised. This sounds like REHUMANIZATION to me!

Will it be much better on my next hospital visit? I don't know. But the chances are probably better that I won't be treated as a "unit" as I was before Obamacare. If I, as well as other patients are treated better, how could I not think this is real progress?

Here's an idea. Call your congressman and tell him you want to abolish medicare. That's what republicans have been trying to do for 40 plus years. Abolish it for everbody - current recipients and future recipients. Think of the money that will save. And abolish The Affordable Care Act, and throw in social security while you're at it. This will be a wonderful platform for the republicans to run on in 2012. The deficit will be wiped out in no time without raising taxes on the wealthy. Let me know how shopping for healthcare goes with your voucher when you're 80 years old and have a pre-existing condition.

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?

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. 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.

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 quality life to survivors.

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 will enlighten this forum.

[Guest]

Thank you for your post, Cabo.

[Guest]

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?

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. 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.

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 quality life to survivors.

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 will enlighten this forum.

Well written, well researched and well done CABO

Here is the problem...you are asking folks that take their lead from bias locations...have no time or inclination to do any of their own research and simply spout party lines.

This health care bill is going to put the noose around everyones neck....a bill conceived with blackmail and in back rooms

Do not expect any response to this other than the normal little cute remarks but no substance because they wont even read your references.

GREAT POST

[Guest]

To Cabo and Bucco,

No amount of denial or claims you make about others who don't do research, don't present anything of substance, etc, etc., will change the facts:

Among a number of positive, sensible provisions of the new health care laws are the requirements for hospitals to treat their patients with respect and provide very professional care, at the risk of losing Medicare funding. It's in there. Just read it. Clearly spelled out requirements like these trump the tons of rhetoric, surmising and theorizing about things like your 'death panels'.

[Guest]

Having been in the healthcare business since 1973, I can assure you that 99.9% of the time patients are treated with dignity, respect, and compassion. Plus 99.9% of the time, the healthcare workers go above and beyond in order to do whatever it takes to improve the patient's well being and save their lives. Plus, I will add, they continue to do these things in the midst of a culture where reimbursements from medicare have continued to drop until currently it is fractions of pennies on the dollar. Physician friends that I have, are losing money by doing the exact same volume of business. Several have told me that they love their patients and will not drop those with Medicare (the reason for lost revenue) BUT the cannot afford to take on new Medicare patients.
Could it all be orchestrated to break the back of the healthcare system and force the socialist agenda?