Here comes - the bribe to seniors
 

Seniors are rapidly becoming suspicious and unhappy with Obama's Healthcare. They look at that $400,000,000,000 to $700,000,000,000 cut in Medicare to pay for the lion's share of the trillion dolllar bill and ask themselves what is being cut from their current benefits, benefits they have paid into for many years. Not to worry though, Congress and the President feel your pain and concern compounded by the COLA freeze on Social Security. They are giving seniors a $250 bribe to bring you back into the fold.

Many seniors believe death panels are real and will only be labeled euphemistically as Government appointees to a council who will ration care and use formulas that include cost of service and treatment against the projected end of life. Cost effectiveness not extension of life is the principle for determination of approved care. Daschle still has Obama's confidence and is a main player in the Obamacare push. It's all in Tom Daschle's book folks. I resurrected one of my old posts that explains the point in more detail.

Message to Congress and the White House - Keep the 250 bucks, it will not buy my soul or my vote.

Keep your powder dry....this isn't over.

[QUOTE=cabo35;229449]Seniors are rapidly becoming suspicious and unhappy with Obama's Healthcare. They look at that $400,000,000,000 to $700,000,000,000 cut in Medicare to pay for the lion's share of the trillion dolllar bill and ask themselves what is being cut from their current benefits, benefits they have paid into for many years. Not to worry though, Congress and the President feel your pain and concern compounded by the COLA freeze on Social Security. They are giving seniors a $250 bribe to bring you back into the fold.

...I resurrected one of my old posts that explains the point in more detail.

[B][I]Message to Congress and the White House - Keep the 250 bucks, it will not buy my soul or my vote.]

Wow. It seems you will say anything, even repeating the absurd death panel smokescreen, ANYTHING to stay in that negative rut.

Accept for the suggested Social Security bonus, there is no news today, yet you again trot out a bunch of old speculation and non substance.
And do you actually believe that the bonus was conceived as a bribe?!

Relax. Go take a nice walk and check out all the beauty around you. Wait till there's news again and if you want to make negative comments about it then why not give a reason or some facts to support your position.

ps. why not donate your 250 bucks to charity. It will immediately go back into the economy, (as intended).

ijustluvit, speak for yourself not me.

I have heard Team Obama acknowledge at various times, anywhere from 400 billion to 700 billion in Medicare cuts to pay for Obamacare. Sarah Palin nailed "the Federal Council", you know, the board that "approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit." with embellished hyperbolic rhetoric i.e., "death panels". What rock have you been under?

Yes, I believe the White House is afraid of losing the prolific senior voting block. The proposed Medicare cuts and the COLA freeze is a problem for them. Their answer, throw money at the problem. Buy them off. The timing is not coincidental at least to those who tossed their rose colored glasses in 1972.

Instead of your desperate ad homonym attacks and arrogant presumptuousness, I suggest you read a book. Try Tom Daschle's "Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis" on a rainy day so you won't miss checking out all the "beauty around you". No apology intended for responding to you in kind with your own words.

If I choose to listen and live to the beat of Dylan Thomas....

"Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light".

.....that is my concern...not yours. I welcome your opinion but not your advice on how to live my life.

Have a great day in The Villages.

Right on, cabo:agree:.
And who is going to make the determination of what treatments are "medically necessary", and which are "elective", and thus not covered/allowed? Some politically appointed "board", or maybe a Czar or two? Another name for "death squad"? Sure would seem that way.barf

Death squad is a rather exaggerated term for the people who will make the decisions on our health care and is very offensive to our left sided posters, so I won't use the term here.

But, as some of us feel about government managed care, we don't want some bureaucrat sitting in a Washington office doing cost vs gains calculations on whether we get care or not. I for one don't want it and it's only one of a few reasons that I don't want governments intrusion into my health care. I've read many arguments on this and other forums about the pros and cons of health care reform and still cannot agree that reform, as presented so far, is what I want.

___________________________________________
Is the name "death squad" another name for the medical insurance companies who determine who gets "what treatment" and "what medications" and "how long you can be hospitalized"? Just wondering if the insurance companies have a another name. You folks with good insurance don't realize how lucky you are. Remember not everyone has the best coverage with their insurance co. (That is if they have insurance!!) So if the government does not have separate medical insurance run by them, then I would say nothing has changed.

It is sad to see that this death squad lie being repeated as fact. The proposed healthcare does not now nor never did include a death panel. It did include a clause to paid for a consultation on end of life issues. This was a benefit which Fox Noise and the Republican party distorted in order to scare seniors.

Shame on you for repeating this vicious lie.

You suggest an ambiguous, hypothetical fact pattern. I have to reply on the premise your coverage more than likely depends on what you or your employer are willing to pay for it. Some people would rather have a new flat screen TV or a car instead of paying those pesky premiums. Good insurance is available to those that are willing to pay. Some people feel healthy and don't buy any insurance and than reach for the government lifeline when illness hits. The taxpayer picks up the tab. You label folks lucky who have good insurance without recognizing that they personally or through their employers by hard fought contracts are paying for that good extra coverage. In essence, people make their own luck by putting a priority on health insurance instead of the new car, boat, bigger house or TV. I worked hard, contributed and paid for my "luck" for decades.

Personally, I have always found a way, to fund extra coverage for my family on top of what an employer may offer. I paid and continue to pay extra for enhanced coverage. Why would a person who puts a low priority on personal health insurance have an expectation to enjoy the same coverage someone has invested and sacrificed for.

The problem with the public option is that it penalizes those who have been farsighted enough to pay tens of thousands in premiums and riders by taxing them or reducing their benefit in "spread the health" dictates. Many who have good plans covered by employers will lose those plans when employers decide its cheaper to go with a diminished public option or pay the fine than continue to pay employee premiums. Incidentally, many believe that is Obama's strategy and path to "single payer" insurance. The other side of that coin is those who were more self indulgent are delighted at the prospect of Obama's free health care at the expense of others. Who's being greedy now? Do you still wonder why Obamacare is distressing to so many hard working Americans?

Can you see how the concept of government councils, boards or other political appointees who are given the authority that "approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit." raises the ire of so many Americans who faithfully paid into the system only to have the government decide what their options are in their golden years?

I know I've oversimplified this rebuttal but, I was just working with what you offered.

Call it what you will. With the enourmous costs that
 

are going to be experienced, with no funding there will definitely be some form of priority applications.
There will be no allocation of who gets what in the bill just like there will be no coverage for illegals.
Words! I believe the supporters want to believe with all their heart and soul that what is being said is what will happen/not happen. They do know for sure that support whoever one wants....there is no immunity to the higher costs to come....no immunity to the reduction in services to come....no immunity to the what ever you call it process that will determine whether you are worthy of a treatment or not.

No funding....insufficient funding....no more doctors or facilities than we have today...increasing costs....just how does this translate into other than reduced coverage and services? Save your time....IT DOESN'T!!!

btk

cologal, this will be the third time I've posted this Bloomberg link. You really need to read it and tell us how you interpret the context. Perhaps you agree and that at least is an opinion.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aLzfDxfbwhzs

As noted in the link, Dashle's book is even more telling of the sinister scheme to.....reduce the costly care of "seniors", his word not mine.

What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make. Death panels?

The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system. Pay special attention to the recommendation to "slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs." Can you tell me that is not the coldest suggestion you have heard lately?

Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt. Does that mean we shouldn't fight for an extra year or two, may five or more? Doesn't the Declaration of Independence say something about the "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? The emphasis is on "life".

The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis. Crystal clear to me. No wonder seniors are "scared." Well they should. The liars are the ones who are telling them not to worry. Their coverage will not change under Obamcare. Want to buy a bridge?

Daschle was Obama's #1 choice to head up Health and Human Services to push Obamacare until he had a little legal problem. Tax evasion to be precise. It looks like its a prerequisite for an Obama cabinet appointment. Daschle is still an Obama advisor on health care.

I respect your opinion even if it diverges significantly from mine on this issue.

death to seniors
 

IF YOU DO NOT SEE THE DEATH TO SENIORS In Obama care you cannot read.

Pricing your remaining years to determine treatment is death to seniors.

THIS IS CLEARLY OBAMA'S PLAN.

Robert Reich, an advisor to the President on economics, and Secy of Labor to President Clinton is quoted here....

"Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin got pilloried for suggesting that the government-run health care system set up under the bills in Congress would lead to "death panels." But, now, a video has surfaced showing Obama economics advisor Robert Reich essentially admitting Palin was right.

Reich, the former Clinton administration Labor Secretary has been caught on tape making a death panel confession.

In a 2007 speech at the University of California at Berkeley, Reich began his address by saying he was going to deliver a refreshingly honest talk about health care from the vantage point of an insider who would never run for president.

“In other words, this is what the truth is," he said.
Reich admitted: "If you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life. It’s too expensive...so we're going to let you die."

http://www.lifenews.com/bio2982.html

Stunning revelation coming from a Democrat, an Obama advisor and Clinton Labor Secretary. Timely post Bucco. Significant and profound enough to warrant its own thread.

Will the left, even on this board, have the courage to read and acknowledge beyond what reinforces their political bias?

Will they allow their disbelieving eyes to watch the video you linked, a video that contradicts everything they believe about Obama health-care from one of their own?

It will be interesting to see how they will attack the Democrat Reich for breaking ranks and telling the truth.

They can't even accept their own Tom Daschle's convictions regarding "The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit.Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis."

Daschle is at least up front with his convictions. Obama and his Health-Care surrogates use, misinformation, lies, fabricated denials. distortions and empty promises forged on deception to advance the most diabolically insidious health-care agenda in history. It is coldly cost effective and efficient though.

Nothing I've posted suggests that we don't have a legitimate need for reform. I just don't agree with the Draconian mess that's on the table.....and yes, I have previously posted reform objectives I can support.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aLzfDxfbwhzs

Yes the writting is on the wall. What an insult to give $250 to the seniors and hope they are happy. :swear::swear:

In my normal fair and balanced approach to things.....
 

what do the supporters of Obama have to say about the $250 pittance he is trying to buy the old folks off with???

Everything in Washington is measured in tens of billions and trillions.....for the seniors he gets down to 3 figures.....how utterly un-noble.

Even the Dems in the news this morning iterated they hoped it would be the grese to move the negative sentiment toward health care reform to a more positive position with the elders. How utterly stupid and lame....do they really think seniors can be bought for $250? REALLY?

I am going to use my whole $250......all of it....every last penny.... to get signs and t shirts made up to vote out incumbents!!!!

The $250 won't cover the increase in Medicare Part D increase that will hit us next year.....just like the increase we got last year did not cover the premium increases for 2009.

What we need to do is find some wording for seniors that incorporates the notion of a "bail out" is required. Then maybe we can get up to (dare I say it?) 4 figures!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If it were possible to get upwards to 80+% participation, I would vote for sending it back to Obama's personal mailing address with a pointed commentary across the check.

btk

Actually he should be honest and tell seniors that because the cost of living hasn't gone up this year so under the law there will be no cost of living adjustment.

End of story...but instead he offers $250.00.

And you all are p***ed about it. Would you prefer nothing? That's what I got this year for a raise.

Cabo....you ask for my opinion and as I respect you I will answer. My answer will be seen for what is it...not a political statement. I really wish we could meet over coffee to have a heart to heart about this...but failing that here it is. I have spent all of my adult life in working in hospital throughout this country and the world. (Jersey Shore Medical Center is the latest.) During my lifetime I have lost 4 brothers, 1 sister, both my parents and numerous other relatives. My family is very Catholic and very medical...whenever a family member was in danger we always had member of the religious and a medical type in attendance to make decisions. In my fathers case when the doctors explained his condition there was no treatment which would do no harm...so the family decided to do nothing but make my father comfortable. A few years later it was my turn to make the decision about treatment for my mother. The doctors told my sister the only choice was to put my mother on a vent...I knew that should they do that my mother would not survive being taken off the vent. I called my Aunt the nun and my nephew the doctor and after that consult I told the doctors NO. 48 hours later my mother recovered and was released from ICU. Several months later her condition again was grave and the nursing home asked if we wanted her transferred to the hospital this time we said NO. Give her the antibiotics and make her comfortable. Within a few days she was at peace. At this point you might be asking what does this have to do with anything. It is a fact that in a patients final days is when the most money is spent. Doctors are trained to treat conditions but not patients. Quality of life is important and sometimes they should remember to do no harm. The best thing seniors can do is to make clear to the family, in writing what they want. I am only 59 but I have already done that. And that was the purpose of the funding for senior counseling on end of life issues. Unfortunately, the person that who first distorted this clause into the death panel charge was Betsy McCaughey. She has fought against healthcare reform for years. Here is a link for you:

http://news.muckety.com/2009/08/17/b...e-reform/19161

the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research, is not in the enforcement business. The legislation specifically states it cannot mandate coverage or create clinical guidelines. There treatment guidelines out there but they are a good thing. Like the clot busting guideline for stoke victims....if you give it to late...not a good thing. How about the treatment guidelines for HIV...it works.

There was a speaker at a Anti-Healthcare Reform rally here in Pueblo, CO who compared ObamaCare to Hitler final solution. I really hate when any political party uses fear as a weapon. Do I like the healthcare bill...not sure. I think it should include negotiated pricing for drugs. I think the public option is the only way to insure competition but would be ok with a trigger. I would favor tort reform as a part of the bill and the illegals issue has to be solved.

Hopefully, I have answered your question...

We already have "death panels" in this country.

We call them Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO)

You can't convince me of the Government Death Panel rhetoric after what I had to experience with my grandmother. We were all in the damn room saying our goodbyes to a woman who was in the middle of a practically day-long heart attack. She signed and we all witnessed her signing the DNR orders with the doctors.

To make a very long and painful story short so that I don't get too worked up over this...

They ignored the orders and forced more treatment on her, literally in the middle of the night when we were sleeping - defying the orders. They scheduled her for QUINTUPLE bypass surgery after they told us (myself, my adoptive mother along with several aunts, uncles and cousins) she was too weak to take the surgery (and the DNR orders would prevent it anyway).

They put her through that and then five years of debilitating "recovery" where she lost her mobility, had a series of strokes and made her life - if you can call it that - a LIVING HELL for FIVE YEARS. And DON'T get me STARTED on what this did to the family!

Who was at fault? The bloodsucking doctors and hospital who were looking to suck on the Medicare teat some more and needed more "DRG" days to bill for. My adoptive mother scorched their ceilings screaming at them that if they were only interested in MONEY that there were DOZENS of other diagnosed conditions she had that she could be billed for - and that was just off the top of her head! But, no, they picked the MOST intrusive, the MOST debilitating, the MOST expensive, the BIGGEST physical insult to the body - on a 75 year old woman who had already made her peace with the world.

And this was in Boston. The supposed center of medical care in this country.

I spent 7 years working at Boston's Beth Israel Hospital. The things I learned there gave me quite an education in how health care "works" in this country.

....and how do the things you learned temper the prospect of 15 million to 45 million new patients who will be entering the system under Obamacare? Sorry about the numbers...they've been at best elusive and I believe...understated.

What I learned, first and foremost, is that it took us over 50 years to get into this mess and we're not getting out of it all at once. There are a large number of things that have to be attacked ALL AT ONCE in order to *really* solve the problems - and those are only the problems as I saw them (and see them now). I am, by trade, someone who looks for answers and solves problems (I do it with computers, I design, write and implement software, databases, etc).

Malpractice. This got so bad in the late 1980s and early 1990s that, if you lived on Cape Cod and got pregnant and didn't already have an OB/GYN, you could not get one. There were NONE accepting new patients. That's just the bad example we had locally. Out in the midwest I heard of worse horror stories. One thing that a "public option" would do is cut the cost of malpractice awards since, in a sense, the victim would no longer need a huge award to cover the cost of care for the rest of their lives.

Supply/Demand. I hear this a lot. It's one of the contributing factors to high medical costs. Did you know that the government regulates the supply of doctors? Probably the most shocking thing I learned at Beth Israel was how the teaching hospitals get the grant money that, quite frankly, is their bread and butter. The government basically says "you will graduate this many GPs, this many heart surgeons, this many neurosurgeons, etc, or you won't get the grant and research money". For the record, and those who don't know, Beth Israel Hospital is now Beth Israel/Deaconess and, as far as I know, is still affiliated and part of Harvard Medical School.

Payment. Insurance companies pay a set price per day per patient. It doesn't matter if you're in for an aspirin or bypass surgery. If you're in overnight, the insurance companies pay $X/night for you. And the hospitals are at their mercy if they want to be on the insurer's "approved" list. Now, these number are quite old, but we were going through budget cuts at BI trying to figure out how we could continue to provide our level of care at the $1600/nt rate that we had negotiated with several companies. The next year they started coming in at $1200 and we were in meetings lamenting about how we would LOVE to have the old "hardship" prices.

You read that right. At a time when premiums were going up 10-20% per year, the insurance companies were cutting what they were paying to hospitals. I have no doubt this is continuing. Where is that money going? Look at the balance sheets.

Class Envy. If you're going to have a "public option", then you're going about it all wrong in how to pay for it. Sure, you're going to get savings from cutting fraud and I'm all for that. (Someone elsewhere said to trash Medicare because of all the fraud - that's throwing out the baby with the bathwater) But one is naive to think that'll pay the whole way. I'll get back to this part in a bit.

I hear people screaming that they don't want to ruin the best health care system in the nation. Problem is, they're defending a ghost. Depending on who you talk to we're ranked around 37th in the world. Not that the UK NHS (National Health System) or the Canadian single-payer system is the best (though they're ranked around 17th and 7th, respectively). But actually *France* seems to be top-rated and they have a combination public and private system setup.

We *do* however, pay more than anyone else does. Part of that is due to the fact that we are the R&D center for the world Drugs cost more here (to recoup the R&D costs) than they do in other countries and, to be honest, I'm getting tired of that. It's time for other developed nations to foot the bill we've been covering.

Which brings me back to paying for whatever system comes up. In Canada they have what is basically a sales tax. Pure and simple. No pitting the middle class against the rich or the poor - everyone pays. Period. If you have to have "progressivity" in the system, you can make an allowance in the income tax structure for the poor. If you're unemployed, well, then, there's an incentive to get employed again - but at least you still have access to health care. Of all the pungent methods of paying for health care, this seems to be the least painful. Cry me no croccodile tears for this being on the backs of the poor with sales taxes being regressive because, as I said, you can rectify that in the income tax code and, let's face it, the poor also make poor decisions (smoking, drinking, poor health choices). Quite frankly, if the poor had access to proper care and didn't have to use the ER as their primary care physician, those that are NOT making bad choices but ARE victims of circumstance would probably be in better shape to improve their lot.

Everyone talks about the cost involved. But, I'm sorry, that can't be taken seriously when we have a situation where we have spent over $36,000 for every man woman and child in Iraq (over a trillion dollars before this year is out, depending on which accounting you pay attention to) destroying and rebuilding that country.

If we got our spending priorities realigned, cost would be a non-issue. We operate 160 bases overseas and I think it's time that the countries who's bacon we've saved start paying the freight.

It's not just a "Can Medicaid handle the influx" question. We already ARE handling it. These people, no matter what the number, are in our Emergency Rooms. They're staying sick when they could be getting better and (presumably) being more productive. They're spreading illnesses instead of getting innoculated. Their lives are being shortened because they can't afford preventative care.

We are the country that put a man on the moon. Why are we now the country that CAN'T do anything? Why can't we look at what France, Canada and the UK have done and say "we can do that better"? Why do we have people saying "keep government out of Medicare" (showing their ignorance)? Why are people saying medical decisions should stay between a doctor and patient when that DOES NOT EXIST NOW? (Those decisions are between your doctor and an insurance clerk) Why are we protecting a system that encourages hospitals to torture the sick just to help their bottom line (ok, that was my personal experience, I grant you)?

Do I have all the answers? Certainly not. But I *do* know that jingoism and sloganeering isn't going to solve the problem. It'll only make it worse.

I waded through your prolific response for an answer to a simple question. You talk around it with canned talking points we are all familiar with. You dismiss the question with a "we are already handling it", regarding the "influx" as you put it. However, that is not honest because it does not address the antiicpated new influx of full coverage patients, not just emergency room treatment cases.

I will try to simplify the question for you although I believe you understood it the first time around.

How will America handle the influx and addition of up to 15 million to 45 million individuals( fickle but often repeated numbers) with full coverage to a medical system already threatened by bankruptcy and insufficient human resources like...you know....doctors, nurses ?