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.

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

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.

Originally Posted by buggyone

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by djplong

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.

Originally Posted by ilovetv

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.

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-s..._b_909213.html

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."

Let the Health Care Rationing Begin!!

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

U.K. looking for ways to "decentralize" their failing National Health Care.

Don't forget the end of life discussions:

Beware the "end of life" discussions with your

Originally Posted by ilovetv

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.

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

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.

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

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

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