Obama Advisor Admits: 'We Need Death Panels'

page: 1
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   
OBAMA ADVISER ADMITS: 'WE NEED DEATH PANELS'
www.wnd.com...
A top Democrat strategist and donor who served as President Obama’s lead auto-industry adviser recently conceded that the rationing of heath services under Obamacare is “inevitable.”
Steven Rattner advocated that such rationing should target elderly patients, while stating, “We need death panels.”
Rattner serves on the board the New America Foundation, or NAF, a George Soros-funded think tank that was instrumental in supporting Obamacare in 2010. Soros’ son, financier Jonathan Soros, is also a member of the foundation’s board.
Rattner was the so-called “car czar,” the lead auto adviser to the Treasury Department under Obama.
Last month, Rattner penned an opinion piece in the New York Times titled “Beyond Obamacare” in which he proclaimed “We need death panels” and argued rationing must be instructed to sustain Obama’s health-care plan. His comments have been virtually ignored by traditional media as the president campaign’s for a second term.
“We need death panels,” began Rattner. “Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health-care resources more prudently – rationing, by its proper name – the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget.”

Continued Rattner: “But in the pantheon of toxic issues – the famous ‘third rail’ of American politics – none stands taller than overtly acknowledging that elderly Americans are not entitled to every conceivable medical procedure or pharmaceutical.”
Rattner lamented how Obama’s Affordable Care Act “regrettably includes severe restrictions on any reduction in Medicare services or increase in fees to beneficiaries.”
Rattner said the numbers don’t add up unless Obamacare utilizes rationing.



edit on Tue, 02 Oct 2012 07:56:57 -0500 by JacKatMtn because: Mod Edit: All Caps Title – Please Review This Link.




posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   
I wish we had a time machine for how many people against this nightmare of a Health Care plan were called stupid, ill-informed or incapable of rational thought entirely by suggesting the system being designed would NEED rationing as a pure matter of resources and requirements. The design doesn't leave much room otherwise. Of course, it took one of his own saying it, right? Anyone up to this moment who said such a thing WAS roasted... I wonder how many threads sit in archives on this very site with just such examples.


The problem is....Romney just plans to tweak things a little and carry right on. So...it's going to be dangerous to get old or very ill in this nation regardless of who wins at this point. (sigh) The time to fight it was back when we were being told we had to pass it to see what was in it....and they were making open jokes of people who demanded they READ what they were signing into binding law.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   
This article is being taken completely out of context.



Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently — rationing, by its proper name — the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget.


He then goes on to criticize Obama:



Most notably, President Obama’s estimable Affordable Care Act regrettably includes severe restrictions on any reduction in Medicare services or increase in fees to beneficiaries. In 2009, Sarah Palin’s rant about death panels even forced elimination from the bill of a provision to offer end-of-life consultations.


So that means the entire "death panel" issue is crap to begin with! But he continues......



Now, three years on, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, Paul D. Ryan, has offered his latest ambitious plan for addressing the Medicare problem. But like Mr. Obama’s, it holds limited promise for containing the program’s escalating costs within sensible boundaries.




The Obama and Ryan plans are not without common ground; both propose an identical formula for capping the growth in Medicare spending per beneficiary. And both dip into the same toolbox (particularly lower payments to providers) to achieve a reduction of nearly $1 trillion in Medicare expenditures over the next decade from projected levels.


Sounds to me like he is right, but chose to start with a dumb statement...."we need death panels".

Link
edit on 1-10-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   
It's almost like this Author has an agenda or something.
www.wnd.com...

This is a great example of someone
Homeland Security should have on their radar.
Especially between now and Nov.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Heading towards Soylent Green - dead people being recycled into food! Anyone over 35 recycled into food.
Or should it be called Pink slime.or GMO-human proteins. Yum! Yum! Human - Auto-recycled - Meat - ham for short.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   
All but the stupid knew there was going to be death panels, had to be. But those who voted for Obama will now be subject to DEATH PANELS. While it may be particularly targeted to the older, it will also affect YOUNGER PEOPLE AS WELL. Expensive operations to save one's life will be a thing of the past. So much for the sanctity of life. That is how DEMOCRATS CONSIDER LIFE... nothing of substance, the same exhibited by their stance on abortions.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Surfrat
 




THERE ARE NO DEATH PANELS!

Call me stupid of you want......there are no death panels! Period.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Surfrat
All but the stupid knew there was going to be death panels, had to be.
I Guess we should have seen this coming.

With Palin and Limbaugh behind the Breaking Story on Death Panels, it has to be true.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Does this mean the old die because of cost and risk assessments? Or a young adult with a possible productive life in society gets to live? Does a child born with conditions such as a bad heart valve or in need of an organ transplant get to the top of a donors list or onto an operating table befor a middle class working man? How can a 15 member panel decide who lives and who dies like a battlefield medic? Where the most serious conditions are left to die, the least serious conditions are left to fester, and the ones they feel they can save now receive all of the attention. Can they really tax the phamacudical companies(which the gov. helped create their monopoly through contracts on drugs) and the American people enough to save everyone or will they resort to more "treasury bonds" to fill the void? Anyone with knowledge on this topic please continue the discussion, thanks.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Wait.

20 years from now you will se panels juding how much health care people receive based on how much money they can make



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   
There is an easy way around this contract.
When you find yourself old and begging for health care that
will be denied.
Commit a crime that places you on death row,
and live another
11-15 years thru the appeals process.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


Allow me to ask you this....

What exactly do you think "rationing" of healthcare means?

Let me help you...

It means YOU will be viewed as a business decision. Why spend money on someone who is 80 years old and is no longer able to continue to produce in return? That would be a poor business decision. So someone in that case will not receive the best possible treatment they can get. Instead, treatments that could potentially save your life will be held from you. Now if someone with the same condition is 20 years old, it is a good business decision to save that life and you can squeeze another 40 working years out of that person as they can produce and give back to the system for another 40 years.

Now we may not call it a "death panel", but what exactly would you call those in charge of deciding who gets potentially life saving treatment and who doesn't?

At the end of the day, this is what we are talking about.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal

Now we may not call it a "death panel", but what exactly would you call those in charge of deciding who gets potentially life saving treatment and who doesn't?

At the end of the day, this is what we are talking about.


insurance company



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I wish we had a time machine for how many people against this nightmare of a Health Care plan were called stupid, ill-informed or incapable of rational thought entirely by suggesting the system being designed would NEED rationing as a pure matter of resources and requirements.


You do .. at least here at ATS. The people who said these things .. and who continue to say these things ... are all on record in past threads. It's very easy to find them. In fact, in the not too distant future, someone here can start an 'I told you so' thread about death panels and Obamacare. Pull past quotes ... post 'em in the thread.

That is .. if we still have the freedom to be on the internet in the future.
That could be gone or controlled as well ...



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 06:24 AM
link   
We already have death panels, it's called privatized healthcare. People will not go to the doctor when their insurance only pays a fraction of the cost. People will not go to the doctor if they have no insurance. People cannot afford to buy their prescriptions. As a result, they DIE!

Also privatized dental care....if you have rotting teeth, you're gonna get heart disease and die.

www.buzzle.com...

It's funny how none of these republicans care about REAL ACTUAL death panels, only the ones that exist in their imagination.

edit on 2-10-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 

There are hundreds of different types of insurance options you can have, its a gamble. If you should be covered on whether its good pricing on pills or a low cost ambulance ride, even gambling on you out of pocket Max and deductible. You are your own death panel. If you have a form of insurance you will get treatment, its just the matter of how much your going to end up paying in the long run is determined on how well you bet on your coverage.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 07:55 AM
link   
Let me tell you my experience with DEATH PANELS.

My wife has been diagnosed with Gestational trophoblastic disease.

This is 100% curable if it has not metastasized.

After a discussion with the gynecological oncologist the best treatment was low dose Chemotherapy. Namely Methotrexate delivered by intravenous push.

The Oncology clinic contacted the DEATH PANEL to make sure they would cover the procedure. They got a green light.

My wife has now had two of at least four rounds of this treatment that she needs.

Last week we received a letter from the DEATH PANEL stating that they will not cover treatment as it is "experimental" and "Unproven". Every peer reviewed study for over twenty years has shown this is the best treatment for this disease.

Without treatment, the tumor in my wife's uterus will rupture causing her to bleed out and the tumor will metastasize and will spread to her brain, liver, lungs etc.

The DEATH PANEL in question is UNITED HEATHCARE.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Surfrat
Continued Rattner: “But in the pantheon of toxic issues – the famous ‘third rail’ of American politics – none stands taller than overtly acknowledging that elderly Americans are not entitled to every conceivable medical procedure or pharmaceutical.”


I agree with this 100% .As some of you know I dont pay into social security nor will I draw any S.S medicare or Medicaid. If I cannot afford health care and I need it, I will fix myself with OTC or natural means or I will Die, and thats fair, thats the way it should be. The elderly is not entitled to every conceivable medical procedure or pharmaceutical unless they can afford it. We already have SS and medicare, medicaid. We are trillions of dollars in debt. People expect this money to come out of thin air. It's not the governments job to provide these things - never has been especially out of others tax payers money.

Do we help these people, of course if we can but we have already stretched these resources too thin and they are ripe with corruption. We need Government to get out of the health care handout business and We The People need to devise other ways to fund these things for the elderly and poor. I can agree to having government incentives for privately funded projects that do help the elderly and poor but thats as far as government involvement should be.
edit on 2-10-2012 by JohnPhoenix because: sp



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by BritofTexas
After a discussion with the gynecological oncologist the best treatment was low dose Chemotherapy. Namely Methotrexate delivered by intravenous push..


How on earth can Methotrexate be considered to be 'experimental'??
It is widely used. Lots of people I know who have autoimmune diseases use it.
MANY people with Sjogrens have to use it. It's not an 'experimental' drug.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


It actually isn't the Methotrexate itself they are arguing about. It's the delivery system. They claim it should be administered by inter-muscular injection not intravenous push. Because of this they are not covering any of the procedure.

Studies show intravenous push has a higher success rate.

We are of course, fighting it..





new topics
top topics
 
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join