Rubicon, it doesn't matter. The Democrats don't give a rat's a** about the budget or the deficit or whether Medicare is going to fail. They'll just play to the public's fears that they can identify to gain and increase power.

Republican's are the only ones worrying about the future financial health of the plan, and all the Democrats will do is play the fear game and tell everyone that the callous Republicans want to throw Grandma under the train because they are horrid people who get pleasure that way.

The major liberal media will assist their Democrat comrades with this strategy.

Somehow the Republicans have to get their message understood, or do what I would do.
I'd take a page from the Democrat playbook and say I'm for whatever the majority wants, when it comes to this issue, and then when I've taken the Senate and hopefully the White House I would resurrect Ryan's plan. Deception is what the Democrats do well, and maybe we should emulate.

Wellit is my understanding that nancy Pelosi is so committed to ObamaCare that 1 out of 5 waivers come from her district. Soooo how much do you believe these waivers are adding to her kitty fund? Doctors are fleeing the state of MA. One more thing Ryan's Medicare plan is a copy of the medical plan Congress has now. When I read that it caught my attention. If the final draft comes out that way 54 year old would be silly to turn their backs on it.

My, my, my. It seems you have everything backwards. Republicans have always had the reputation of using fear to gain votes and Democrats are the ones who care about those less fortunate in our society. It wasn't a Democrat who talked about "pulling the plug" on Granny. It wasn't a Democrat the coined the phrase "death panel".
So, your argument falls on deaf ears just as mine will to you. :doh:

Socialized medicine means inevitable rationed care (or death panels, if you will) Nice try, but the educated know the truth. Dem's only convince the ignorant on this issue.

Looks like everyone can make a mistake...ya think. LOL

Now a question what was the percentage of the votes the previous Republican candidate polled?

A.North of 50?
B.North of 60?
C.North of 70?

Richie: We have 'death panels' now, except they're employed by private insurers.

Among other things, how many people get kicked off their insurance plan when they come down with leukemia?

How else do you come up with record profits when you're in the health insurance business? When you can 'cherry pick' your subscribers, you can make sure you only take the ones you make money on.

No argument there, but the Democrat talking point about Obamacare having no "death panels", is deceiving. They just don't like the term, and who can blame them. But no one can deny that massive numbers of previously uninsured citizens and non-citizens will result in "rationed care", as in every other socialized medicine society. Rationed care will result in decisions as who should receive treatment with the finite sources of care available. That is tantamount to "death panels".

The big difference in our points is that in your present day insurance company decision against further treatment, you can sue the insurer to compel treatment or for recourse.

You will not be able to sue the government for denial of health services. You can only cry and go home.

(Unless, of course, you have friends in high places. The elite always have recourse)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
EXACTLY, dklassen! I am in the district and voted on Tuesday. No one seems to be talking about this.

We have socialized medicine now. And where are the Death Panels? This phrase was made up by the Repubs to scare the elderly. And it was repeated via the republican talking points. Now the shoe is on the other foot.

What is in the plan is payment for a planning session with a doctor to allow you express your wishes at the end of life. Mine are all in order on file with my local hospital. My family is well aware of my wishes. We should all do this.

No "Death Panel" forced me into anything!

Chris Lee won this district with 76% of the vote in 2010. The 3rd party candidate only scored 9% in 2011. So something changed.....just do the math!

There was absolutely no challenge to Chris Lee in 2010. My guess is that not too many people even remember who Chris Lee ran against. He ran against a man by the name of Phil Fedele. How much did Fedele put up for the election as opposed to Kathy Hochul........and Jack Davis? The whole thing was a nightmare here in WNY. Lots of $$$ spent by all 3 candidates.......and it was getting way too obnoxious no matter what candidate you were for. It was indeed a 3-way race, though.

Wasn't it Sarah Palin who first used the phrase of "death panel"? Chances are she had some speech writer draft it for her, though. No, I am not going to be Palin bashing (right now, it is just too easy).

Truly, private insurance companies now decide who will get treatment and who won't. They will decide if a Skid Row (is that still a term) bum gets a liver transplant or if the available matching liver will go to someone like Mickey Mantle.

Definitely, all people should have a joint discussion (when faced with a serious illness or operation) with their family and doctors to decide what kind of measures should be taken to either prolong life on a machine or to go out with dignity. Quality of life counts. Would you rather be hooked to medical machines and comatose for 10 years or have life ended? What choice would you advocate for a loved family member? It is a personal choice. I advocate the inclusion of such a discussion in any healthcare law. The doctors and hospitals abide with the family decision.

Obamacare has hardly taken effect yet. The bulk of the provisions that are going to anger the hell out of people don't take effect until after 2014, (or after, you hope, "The One" is elected again). I'm not talking about you deciding your end of life treatment issues. An unelected government official is going to decide whether you should receive treatment for your ailment or not in our great Obama socialized society where only those who matter will be protected.

Richie: I'm not being sarcastic here. I've heard of VERY few cases of people successfully suing their insurance companies, largely because the legalese in the contracts stipulate that only 'gross negligence'-levels of malfeasance qualify (not to be confused with suing a doctor for malpractice).

In California, they said you couldn't kick people off their plans due to a new cancer diagnosis - so now they kick you off with NO explanation, coincidentally when you get cancer. The law of unintended consequences at it's worst.

It's easy find numerous references to the number of people being kicked off their health plans (one reason is from 'lifetime maximums they never knew about that were a lot smaller than one would think). Sincerely, can you point me to some references regarding what you're talking about? I don't think it's terribly common - especially suing a health insurer successfully.

And as a side note, maybe these 'lifetime maximum' limits wouldn't be so bad if we were paying comparable prices to the rest of the world (as in my example where an ER visit cost 1/5 the 'local' price when I went to a hospital in Montreal as opposed to the Greater Boston area)

Total BS :doh: