My wife said she read where Tom Daschle, Obama's flawed and rejected choice for implementing his national health care system, advocated a program that would put the elderly at the back of the bus for health care with a formula that would treat younger patients first and base treatment on a formula that calculated life expectancy and potential productive years.

Wow....that's callous and cruel in so many ways.

Could this be a harbinger of Obama's change?

This is what Daschele said and I have included the source and Stimulus reference in the link provided so Tony doesn't put me in jail.

Elderly Hardest Hit

"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.

Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464). "

"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"


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

So....we old folk should just accept, disease, debilitation and let death take its course without a fight or treatment so others defined by Obama and his cohorts can get treatment. I wonder who would be at the top of his socially or should I say politically engineered list......pause for reflection. Is it just me at 68 that is offended?

Hmmmm......I would have liked to put more thought into this post but, I have a 9:30 tee time. Please excuse typos, I'm running late. I would be interested in your thoughts after the 19th hole.

What gripes me is that people like Daschle will not ever be affected by programs and decisions they make regarding others. They just buy whatever care they need, or go to the front of the line at Bethesda Naval Hospital and receive special care.

But none of this is a surprise. When government feels the most vulnerable at the front end of human chronology are disposable, it's no great leap to apply the same 'disposable' label to those at the back end of the time line.

Isn't this the change everyone wanted?

Personally I'm scared to death what this man is going to do to us. Me being 50, that will put me right about the perfect timeline to have the government decide what treatments I can have or not have.

ARE YOU PEOPLE READING THIS!!!

Hi Cabo...

Well even though I am in the healthcare industry I am in favor of some type of subsidized standard healthcare insurance. Business needs it to be competitive, all the other industrialized nations have it, with the rest of the world. The people whose employers don't offer healthcare and we need them to have it cause we are playing anyway.

I am taking a wait and see attitude.....

Extremely poor timing. It adds to the perception that is scaring most of us, especially Wall Street to death.... that the POTUS is unfocused and in some kind of frenzy of "let's do it all in the first 100 days. We'll throw everything I promised against the wall right now and see what sticks." He appears out of control and reckless. Healthcare reform announcement---> another 300pt drop in the DOW.

Originally Posted by rshoffer

Extremely poor timing. It adds to the perception that is scaring most of us, especially Wall Street to death.... that the POTUS is unfocused and in some kind of frenzy of "let's do it all in the first 100 days. We'll throw everything I promised against the wall right now and see what sticks." He appears out of control and reckless. Healthcare reform announcement---> another 300pt drop in the DOW.

Good post.

Yesterday on one of the financial stations they alluded to the "scattershot" 6 weeks of this Presidency !

Perhaps it is poor timing. The flip side is a lot of these things have been languishing for years with no one willing to approach volatile issues that are way past needing change but a political and PR mindfield. Change is tough and probably the most difficult thing in life for human beings.
Business as usual has not worked in some of the issues, especially healthcare. Whoever decided to address these things was in for a rough ride and condemation from opponents. With massive failures of multiple arms of our system it is time to make some adjustmants and no one is immune from some of the pain (except perhaps members of congress)as we as a people have deal with the the missteps and mistakes of the past that we all tolerated as long as the financial picture was holding up. There is no way everyone will be happy because the old way of doing things has to change, and we will all end up sacraficing to some degree to right the ship.

Originally Posted by serenityseeker

Perhaps it is poor timing. The flip side is a lot of these things have been languishing for years with no one willing to approach volatile issues that are way past needing change but a political and PR mindfield. Change is tough and probably the most difficult thing in life for human beings.
Business as usual has not worked in some of the issues, especially healthcare. Whoever decided to address these things was in for a rough ride and condemation from opponents. With massive failures of multiple arms of our system it is time to make some adjustmants and no one is immune from some of the pain (except perhaps members of congress)as we as a people have deal with the the missteps and mistakes of the past that we all tolerated as long as the financial picture was holding up. There is no way everyone will be happy because the old way of doing things has to change, and we will all end up sacraficing to some degree to right the ship.

I agree with most of your comment, except the "we will all end up sacrificing..." line. The "we" is going to be the one/third who actually pay taxes, and the remaining two/thirds will be there either with their hand extended palm-up or watching from the sidelines.

Health care is one of those emotionally-charged items used by politicians to raise the fear-level. Of the 45 million claimed by some to not have health insurance, this includes roughly 15 million or so illegal aliens, and why should citizens and legal residents be responsible for them anyway?

The remaining 30 million (which includes head-of-household, spouse and children) constitute approximately 10% of the population. With an unemployment rate average of 5% (yeah, it's higher now, but the concept isn't affected), an insurance plan which covers only those (and their family members) who are receiving unemployment benefits would cover a sizable number.

Now, the balance of uninsured folk have been whittled down to a number which offers even more flexible choices which are more logical than nationalizing (and actually diluting services) the health care industry.

I knows this seems like a very simple approach to what has been marketed as a complex problem. However, until we examine the actual numbers in relation to the entire population, a true solution cannot occur.

For those who say that their health care premiums are too high, that solution is also straightforward. If we can give tax credits for a myriad of things from "green" programs to kid quantum, then providing dollar-for-dollar (or other ratio) reduction in income tax for paying health care premiums is an option. This keeps folk with their coverage without increasing the size of the federal government to "run" a program with the typical government "efficiency" when government inserts itself into the private marketplace.

However, the current administration seems hell-bent on establishing a "health czar" office which would need assets to manage in order to "czar" over an empire. As those federal assets don't currently exist except for selected portions of the population, the need for more federal offices to be created becomes inherent to czar-ism.

In the end, as health care, banking, and other industries are nationalized one-by-one, we would all be working for the government. That's the ultimate socialist goal.....

Excellent post Steve.

Let's also add in TORT reform. Frivolous lawsuits and malpractice insurance for doctors drive health care costs enormously high. Not to say some lawsuits are warranted but I know there are many that are totally frivolous and we all pay for those in a big way.

Why don't we have TORT reform? Because many in congress and their friends are lawyers and that's how they get rich. Why don't we go after them for $$ instead of demonizing all the companies that provide us jobs and health care plans.

If the jokers in congress get their hands on private hearth care we are in big trouble.

There are so many things that can be done yet the only solutions presented by the current administration is government control. People, we are being scammed.

Originally Posted by SteveZ

I agree with most of your comment, except the "we will all end up sacrificing..." line. The "we" is going to be the one/third who actually pay taxes, and the remaining two/thirds will be there either with their hand extended palm-up or watching from the sidelines.

Health care is one of those emotionally-charged items used by politicians to raise the fear-level. Of the 45 million claimed by some to not have health insurance, this includes roughly 15 million or so illegal aliens, and why should citizens and legal residents be responsible for them anyway?

The remaining 30 million (which includes head-of-household, spouse and children) constitute approximately 10% of the population. With an unemployment rate average of 5% (yeah, it's higher now, but the concept isn't affected), an insurance plan which covers only those (and their family members) who are receiving unemployment benefits would cover a sizable number.

Now, the balance of uninsured folk have been whittled down to a number which offers even more flexible choices which are more logical than nationalizing (and actually diluting services) the health care industry.

I knows this seems like a very simple approach to what has been marketed as a complex problem. However, until we examine the actual numbers in relation to the entire population, a true solution cannot occur.

For those who say that their health care premiums are too high, that solution is also straightforward. If we can give tax credits for a myriad of things from "green" programs to kid quantum, then providing dollar-for-dollar (or other ratio) reduction in income tax for paying health care premiums is an option. This keeps folk with their coverage without increasing the size of the federal government to "run" a program with the typical government "efficiency" when government inserts itself into the private marketplace.

However, the current administration seems hell-bent on establishing a "health czar" office which would need assets to manage in order to "czar" over an empire. As those federal assets don't currently exist except for selected portions of the population, the need for more federal offices to be created becomes inherent to czar-ism.

In the end, as health care, banking, and other industries are nationalized one-by-one, we would all be working for the government. That's the ultimate socialist goal.....

The beginning of this thread, the comment from Daschle caught my eye. I can give you a real scenario. My mother has been ill and passed away earlier this month. The explanation of benefits from medicare/ blue cross arrived yesterday. The bill was over $4600. Out of pocket expenses would be $0. I'm sure other bils from specialists with trickle in. Meanwhile, the average Joe before medicare but with healthcare would not have a zero bill. Think about it. If you are 96 years old you have been blessed and lived a pretty full life. Expensive surgeries at that age are not cost effective nor would the chances of surviving some procedures would be risky. So if two folks needed a kidney transplant- one was 16 and the other was 96 which recipient would more than likely enjoy quality of life from such a procedure.

I don't know about the accuracy of the 1/3 pay the taxes for the remaining 2/3. That would mean 200 million Americans get a free ride? I do know there are too many loopholes in the tax system that favor the wealthy. I wonder how those were added? We all need to make sacrifices. If you have been collecting medicare for awhile who do you think is footing that bill now that you are no longer working?
Speaking of politicians, how about a referendum that their pensions and medical coverage are in line with everyone else. The same goes for postal workers.
Lobbyist control our country. Big oil, insurance companies, the casino-like NYSE fueled on fear and greed, pharmaceutical companies, big banks. That doesn't even touch the issues with the Federal Reserve and the possible insolvency of the FDIC. It isn't a Democrat or Republican issue. Both wink and look the other way.

The sage advice of Ron Paul sounds better right now.

Originally Posted by mitchbr47

The beginning of this thread, the comment from Daschle caught my eye. I can give you a real scenario. My mother has been ill and passed away earlier this month. The explanation of benefits from medicare/ blue cross arrived yesterday. The bill was over $4600. Out of pocket expenses would be $0. I'm sure other bils from specialists with trickle in. Meanwhile, the average Joe before medicare but with healthcare would not have a zero bill. Think about it. If you are 96 years old you have been blessed and lived a pretty full life. Expensive surgeries at that age are not cost effective nor would the chances of surviving some procedures would be risky. So if two folks needed a kidney transplant- one was 16 and the other was 96 which recipient would more than likely enjoy quality of life from such a procedure.

I don't know about the accuracy of the 1/3 pay the taxes for the remaining 2/3. That would mean 200 million Americans get a free ride? I do know there are too many loopholes in the tax system that favor the wealthy. I wonder how those were added? We all need to make sacrifices. If you have been collecting medicare for awhile who do you think is footing that bill now that you are no longer working?
Speaking of politicians, how about a referendum that their pensions and medical coverage are in line with everyone else. The same goes for postal workers.
Lobbyist control our country. Big oil, insurance companies, the casino-like NYSE fueled on fear and greed, pharmaceutical companies, big banks. That doesn't even touch the issues with the Federal Reserve and the possible insolvency of the FDIC. It isn't a Democrat or Republican issue. Both wink and look the other way.

The sage advice of Ron Paul sounds better right now.

From what I'm reading on this one, most of us "elderly" would just like to have access to health care so that we might be as fortunate as your mother to live to be 90+. Most any surgeon that I know of will not do procedures on anyone that they know the probability of them not making it or having a quality of life exists. At what age would you like to exclude care? Many young ones receiving the care you are talking about die early deaths anyway from other causes. None of us has a guarantee on life. Those of us on medicare pay premiums for healthcare through our SS checks. That's what the Part B premium is, so we certainly aren't getting anything for free. That is better than all of us paying for the illegals that have not and do not contribute a dime. Just because we are not rich (just working stiffs all our adult lives...I started paying at 16 when I was old enough to get a job) and cannot afford to pay big bucks for private insurance does not mean that we should just go away. If you can afford to do your own thing, good for you.

Originally Posted by mitchbr47

Speaking of politicians, how about a referendum that their pensions and medical coverage are in line with everyone else. The same goes for postal workers.
Lobbyist control our country. Big oil, insurance companies, the casino-like NYSE fueled on fear and greed, pharmaceutical companies, big banks. That doesn't even touch the issues with the Federal Reserve and the possible insolvency of the FDIC. It isn't a Democrat or Republican issue. Both wink and look the other way.

The sage advice of Ron Paul sounds better right now.

We should be so lucky to have their pensions and medical care.

In 2006, the Tax Foundation said that 41% of all americans are outside the tax system meaning they dont pay taxes or get refunds equal to what was deducted !!!!!

This was what they concluded in this report....

"Conclusion
These findings raise serious questions about the future of the U.S. income tax system, and the possibility of base-broadening tax reform when the majority of the federal tax burden is borne by a shrinking pool of taxpayers. As Congress considers tax reform proposals during the coming year, this is an issue lawmakers should begin to debate."

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1410.html

Also as of 2006, the top 10% income earners pay 70.79% of the TOTAL income tax.

Originally Posted by dklassen

Excellent post Steve.

Let's also add in TORT reform. Frivolous lawsuits and malpractice insurance for doctors drive health care costs enormously high. Not to say some lawsuits are warranted but I know there are many that are totally frivolous and we all pay for those in a big way.

Why don't we have TORT reform? Because many in congress and their friends are lawyers and that's how they get rich. Why don't we go after them for $$ instead of demonizing all the companies that provide us jobs and health care plans.

If the jokers in congress get their hands on private hearth care we are in big trouble.

There are so many things that can be done yet the only solutions presented by the current administration is government control. People, we are being scammed.

Remember the guy who cheated on his cancer riden wife as he was trying to become the Democratic nominee for president??? aka John Edwards.... he made his fortune suing physicians.

Originally Posted by mitchbr47

The beginning of this thread, the comment from Daschle caught my eye. I can give you a real scenario. My mother has been ill and passed away earlier this month. The explanation of benefits from medicare/ blue cross arrived yesterday. The bill was over $4600. Out of pocket expenses would be $0. I'm sure other bils from specialists with trickle in. Meanwhile, the average Joe before medicare but with healthcare would not have a zero bill. Think about it. If you are 96 years old you have been blessed and lived a pretty full life. Expensive surgeries at that age are not cost effective nor would the chances of surviving some procedures would be risky. So if two folks needed a kidney transplant- one was 16 and the other was 96 which recipient would more than likely enjoy quality of life from such a procedure.

I don't know about the accuracy of the 1/3 pay the taxes for the remaining 2/3. That would mean 200 million Americans get a free ride? I do know there are too many loopholes in the tax system that favor the wealthy. I wonder how those were added? We all need to make sacrifices. If you have been collecting medicare for awhile who do you think is footing that bill now that you are no longer working?
Speaking of politicians, how about a referendum that their pensions and medical coverage are in line with everyone else. The same goes for postal workers.
Lobbyist control our country. Big oil, insurance companies, the casino-like NYSE fueled on fear and greed, pharmaceutical companies, big banks. That doesn't even touch the issues with the Federal Reserve and the possible insolvency of the FDIC. It isn't a Democrat or Republican issue. Both wink and look the other way.

The sage advice of Ron Paul sounds better right now.