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

Originally Posted by buggyone

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 ladydoc

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.

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

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?

Originally Posted by janmcn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Headed for the bunker preparing for incoming.

Well written Cabo! AND just the tip of the iceberg called Obamacare. Finding a bunker is a great idea, finding a way to hit old age as healthy as possible is even better.
Obamacare requires all health facilities to convert to EMR-electronic medical records. This will make it easier for government to keep an eye on what we do or don't do to "comply" with "medical advice". Already doctors offices and hospitals are updating their records on each of us by asking interesting questions and adding our pictures to the files. Ultimately, if one doesn't maintain the "recommended" weight, proper levels of cholesterol, blood sugar, blood pressure, etc., it could land one in the non-compliant category. If one is non-compliant it could limit one's eligibility/coverage. Hmmm...
To quote another poster on this forum...WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!!

Originally Posted by KatzPajamas

Well written Cabo! AND just the tip of the iceberg called Obamacare. Finding a bunker is a great idea, finding a way to hit old age as healthy as possible is even better.

GREAT POST CABO. We do no hear much about all the WAIVERS fortune 100 companies like McDonalds were given from OBAMACare. I am so curious for you libs to tell me HOW and WHY they granted so MANY waivers.
Regarding the above post.... I am and I think many villagers are more concerned about their kids and grandkids future rather than finding a bunker to hide in from this..... what???? Does anyone really think he is even a Democrat?

Obamacare: Impact on Seniors
By Robert Moffit, Ph.D.
May 20, 2010

According to surveys, no group of Americans is more skeptical of Obamacare than senior citizens—and with good reason.......

....Medicare Advantage plans, which currently attract almost one in four seniors, will see enrollment cut roughly in half over the next 10 years. Senior citizens will thus be more dependent on traditional Medicare than they are today and will have fewer health care choices.

Initial Provisions
Under the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, Congress deliberately created a gap in Medicare drug coverage (the so-called “donut hole”) in which seniors would be required to pay 100 percent of drug costs up to a specified amount........

Fewer Plan Choices
With the freezing of Medicare Advantage payments in 2011, Congress has set the stage for a progressive reduction in seniors’ access to, and choice of, the popular Medicare Advantage health plans.

In 2012, the law will begin reducing the federal benchmark payment for these plans. In 2014, these health plans must maintain a medical loss ratio of 85 percent, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services is to suspend and even terminate enrollment in plans that miss this target.

Enrollment in Medicare Advantage by 2017 is estimated to be cut roughly in half, from a projected 14.8 million (under current law) to 7.4 million. Since there are serious gaps in Medicare coverage, including the absence of catastrophic protection, roughly nine out of 10 seniors on traditional Medicare already need to purchase supplemental insurance, such as Medigap.

Without Medicare Advantage, millions more seniors will have to go through the cumbersome process of paying two separate premiums for two health plans.....
http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...act-on-seniors

.....AARP is the nation’s leading provider of Medigap plans and has a contract in which AARP financially gains for every additional Medigap enrollee.

Based on low, mid and high-range estimates, AARP stands to financially gain, over and above the millions of dollars they currently receive from United, between $55 million and $166 million in 2014 alone as a result of new Medigap enrollees stemming from the health care law’s cuts to MA, which AARP strongly endorsed.

Under the mid-range estimate and under their current contract, AARP’s financial gain from the health care law could exceed $1 billion during the next 10 years. This is because AARP will see their royalty payments increase as seniors are forced out of MA plans and buy AARP Medigap plans instead.....

http://republicans.waysandmeans.hous...umentID=232179

Cabo, I believe I've made my opinions on Obamacare quite clear.

I oppose the mandate.

I oppose the scheme in general as welfare for health insurance companies.

I dislike the fact that the law appears to do nothing concrete to address or curb the incredible hikes in health care costs - especially in the prescription drug area.

I *do* support the part allowing me to cover my kids as health insurance is, by and large, not offered to workers in entry level positions. That's about it.

whenever there is an issue that affects Obama supporters negatively there is always the consistent silence.

I do not believe either dedicated or loyal is appropriate for such silence.!

btk

I'll be very honest. I don't know what it does or does not do for us. I do know this: if it doesn't address costs it is a failure. Some say we have the best healthcare in the world. Fine,but if the cost of it is not regulated in some way only the rich will be able to afford it.

Originally Posted by billethkid

whenever there is an issue that affects Obama supporters negatively there is always the consistent silence.

I do not believe either dedicated or loyal is appropriate for such silence.!

btk

Are you talking to me? I'm too busy today watching the republican party self-destruct in Iowa to read this drivel.

my post was a general comment in the spirit of the thread....from my view.

The new health care does not provide for ANY actions to reduce the cost of health care. As a matter of fact it includes an assumption that there will be $500,000,000 of savings from reduced waste in Medicare. Every single attempt by the current administration to offset costs have either failed or as per usual in politics, not materialized. The last effort was side lined by a super duper committee that totally failed to meet their task of reducing spending.

Therefore we know with absolute certainty there will be no $500,000,000 savings from Medicare reduced spending.

And those of us who are realists know the real work of reducing spending by the politicians will come about via reduced services. We also know that a good number of us who want to retain parity of health care coverage will take out additional coverages will will be made available.

The fraud in Medicare and the distorted profits in pharmaceuticals will continue.

Enjoy the health care coverage you have now at the cost that you have now as long as it lasts because it is currently the best coverage at the lowest cost (to individuals) that we will see in our foreseeable future.

This was all known and discussed when the Obamascare health plan was being ram rodded through the approval process. Remember when Nancy Pelosi solicited...let's get this bill passed so we can see what is in it. Does anybody think anyone in congress has done so since passage.

This subject will be kept as muted as possible by the democrats in the coming campaign.

Nothing new here what so ever.

btk

Originally Posted by janmcn

Are you talking to me? I'm too busy today watching the republican party self-destruct in Iowa to read this drivel.

LOL - me too. Watching Newt go from front-runner to also ran in the span of two weeks. Reminds me of Rudy 911 who went front runner to quitting the race in about the same span of time. But, at least Rudy 911 didn't start crying.

"Newt Unloads: Romney A Liar"

"Santorum: Ron Paul is Disgusting".

Originally Posted by waynet

I'll be very honest. I don't know what it does or does not do for us. I do know this: if it doesn't address costs it is a failure. Some say we have the best healthcare in the world. Fine,but if the cost of it is not regulated in some way only the rich will be able to afford it.

Herein lies the problem IMHO. Obama spent a great deal of his first year in office and of his political capital to push health care reform. In the end, after all the interest groups got their hand on the product, we wound up with a law that is ambiguous and no one can understand, or fully appreciate. The benefits are unclear, as are the potential downsides. Virtually everyone who tries to explain it is coming from a hard right or hard left viewpoint, and their conclusions are suspect at best. In other words he blew his best opportunity to bring the change he sold to the public, on something that satisfied neither the left, the right, nor the middle.

cabo Your post illustrates that far too many voters take what they read in the paper or hear from TV political pundits as being fact. They fail to verify. Far too many have lost their individuality, their sense of responsibility and a failure to admit when we are wrong.

The Supreme Court will decide in March if the Affordable Care Act will stand as is, so I'm not wasting my time reading 906 pages and trying to understand it. The supremes get paid to do this stuff and are much smarter than me.

Originally Posted by janmcn

The Supreme Court will decide in March if the Affordable Care Act will stand as is, so I'm not wasting my time reading 906 pages and trying to understand it. The supremes get paid to do this stuff and are much smarter than me.

I haven't done a search, but havent you consistently defended OBAMA CARE ?

So you now say you dont understand it but defend it anyway ?????

PS.....Sound like our congress and the Speaker at the time...gotta pass it BEFORE you read and understand it

Originally Posted by Bucco

I haven't done a search, but havent you consistently defended OBAMA CARE ?

So you now say you dont understand it but defend it anyway ?????

PS.....Sound like our congress and the Speaker at the time...gotta pass it BEFORE you read and understand it

I defend what I've heard about the Affordable Care Act, but I'm confessing I haven't read all 906 pages. I'm also admitting that the Supreme Court knows more than I do, and they will decide whether it stands.