It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Turns out there really are Death Panels...here comes the spin

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by theantediluvian
 


And pay taxes you will. Your choices are to pay up front via an Obamacare plan you and most everyone else cannot afford or to pay in hidden taxes that will rob you a death by a thousand paper cuts scenario. Ever compare the cost of living between the US and UK? Not pretty. Did you actually think that health care was free? Of course not. You're paying for a work force that employs more than www.itv.com... vice/" target="_blank" class="postlink">1.7 million people which is more than the US military and quite a few for an island with a population the size of England's.

Imagine what would happen if we tried to bring that kind of system here ...


The entire country would work for health care or be a slave to paying for it.


... at least your beer is cheaper in the UK.
edit on 24-10-2013 by ketsuko because: 'cause




posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 10:42 PM
link   
I can tell you that most, if not all, hospital's have ethics panels made of of medical professionals and a few lay people in their community right now. They really are ethical. They do not override the patient or the family wishes. They make recommendations based on the patient and circumstances. Money is not in question...at least for lay people. It is possible for the indigent they care for who have no family but I have personally seen no evidence of this.

This is from and interview with Mark Levin link

Tonight, a brain surgeon called into Mark Levin’s radio show and said that he had just recently visited Washington DC to review Obama’s new health care plan for advanced neurosurgical care for patients over 70 years old, issued by HHS. The plan, that included “ethics panels”, stated that if your were over 70 years old and on government supported healthcare and you visited an emergency room, you get “comfort care”:

Here’s an expert from the call:

Caller: Basically what the document stated was that if you were over 70 and you’d come into an emergency room and you’re on government supported health care, that you’d get “comfort care”.

Mark Levin: Wait a minute…what’s the source for this?

Caller: This is Obama’s new health care plan for advanced neurosurgical care.

Mark Levin: And who issued this? HHS?

Caller: Yes. And basically they don’t call them patients, they call them units. And instead of – they call it “ethics panels” or “ethics committees”, would get together and meet and decide where the money would go for hospitals, and basically for patients over 70 years of age, that advanced neurosurgical care was not generally indicated.

Mark Levin: So it’s generally going to be denied?

Caller: Yes, absolutely. …If someone comes in at 70 years of age with a bleed in their brain, I can promise you I’m not going to get a bunch of administrators together on an ethics panel at 2 in the morning to decide that I’m OK to do surgery.


Nearing 70 and being perfectly healthy with no meds, only supplements this disturbs me.

For a distant (say federal) panel to make a blanket recommendation...no matter what they call it, it is not ethics, to make a decision based only on one component of a person: age. It is a matter of money saved for the government. When I signed up for medicare, the person I spoke with from 'Secure Care' with United (now AARP) said the government paid them 600-800 dollars per month per patient. Considering thus far I have used 2-300 dollars a year, it is a boon for the insurance company, so they would not be for this.

If overall health is not considered, and I have not seen evidence of this on a federal level, then this is indeed a death panel.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by liveandlearn
 


Thanks for the info. That sure explains why the doctor just told my husband he was TOO OLD to have the testing done that he needed.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 11:40 PM
link   

crimvelvet
reply to post by liveandlearn
 


Thanks for the info. That sure explains why the doctor just told my husband he was TOO OLD to have the testing done that he needed.


So sorry to here that. Maybe they feel they are safe figuring in age prior to Obamacare.

A few years ago when I was working, they would have been more concerned about lawsuits because ethics was not just about one component, it considered the whole person. At least one person on the committee had access to the chart and all patient information.

Hope your husband is able to overcome and show them they were wrong.



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 12:02 AM
link   
It's been done in the USA and and Europe, for years, but not with anything as formal as a panel. It's done with medications, and the alleged humane DNR.
Anyone who doesn't think this exists, has never seen how hospitals and the western medical establishment treat the elderly.

Putting a DNR in place, at this point in time, has very little to do with just not doing CPR if a patient goes into cardiac arrest.
They withhold, ALL life saving intervention, even if the patient is viable.

Like say you put a DNR on your dad after he has a major operation, he's fine, but needs dialysis for a week to turn around. They withhold the dialysis.
Oh yeah they do.
They also give them drugs they would never give to their own parents.
Seen it with my own eyes.
Obama absolutely intends to broaden all of this, and get rid of the "wasteful" elderly population.

edit on 10/25/13 by PtolemyII because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 04:12 AM
link   
If the government is in charge of paying for your health care, including extorting money from you to pay it, then they have a vested interest in having control over not only your finances but also every action, behavior and habit you have or have ever had. As well the cost to benefit ratio of your very life will be determined much the same way as any other government-funded grant or project. If you are not deemed to be worth the cost then diseases will be allowed to run their course without treatment.

The youth of the country in the public schooling system is already being taught that the medical costs of caring for our older citizens are robbing the funds for the students' higher education. This has been fostering a bitter hatred of older people. This rhetoric has been so successful that some young students on the fringe are calling for outright extermination of older people to make way for them and to free up funds for their education. No joke.



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 07:52 AM
link   

theantediluvian
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


You are a very confused person. Please allow me to disabuse you of some of your more ridiculous beliefs.

Fox News is the MSM. Fox News has a larger share of the cable news market than all other cable news channels COMBINED.

Glenn Beck is also part of the MSM. He's got one of the top 10 radio shows in the country. Political talk radio is almost exclusively the domain of conservatives. As a matter of fact, the top 2 radio shows in the country are hosted by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

When you make ludicrous statements about what Glenn Beck was saying while the MSM was bashing Fox News, you're very hard to take seriously. Did you even bother to read any of the other posts or did you just see "death panels" and feel compelled to go on a nonsensical rant? Maybe you're suffering from the effects of conservative MSM brainwashing in the form of key words and phrases repeated thousands of times. You've drawn asinine comparisons to Hitler and claimed that liberals view Obama as a "messiah" as well--basically all you've demonstrated is that facts don't inform your beliefs.

If you could please point out anything in the ACA that establishes a death panel, I would personally love to see it and then maybe I could be enraged too. Try substantiating your argument with evidence, not pleas to ignorance.


Well let's see just where the the messiah image came from....


June 5 2010, Newsweek editor Evan Thomas appeared on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews, and explained Obama’s exalted status and role in the world. Thomas said Obama has a very different job than President Reagan, who, Thomas said disdainfully, “was all about America”. Thomas said Obama is “we’re above all that now.” Then, he waxes positively Danish: “I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God.”


Obama in the 2007 New Hampshire primary said "You will have an epiphany, that light will shine through the window and tell you to vote for Obama".

Hmm, Obama says you will have an epiphany, the light will tell you to vote for Obama? Was he speaking metaphorically? Was Chris Matthews speaking metaphorically about the tingle going up his leg?

I could spend hours poring over every speech, every image and every video from the liberal side who has presented this, but it will take too much time. Exactly who was drawing the paintings of him as messiah? Oh right, liberals were. Exactly who has been making the comparisons of him and Jesus? Oh right, the liberals were.

It wasn't the conservatives who were presenting this, conservatives were saying "He's not god", but as much as the conservatives have said it, the liberals with their tee-shirts, posters, yard signs, bumper stickers and every other accoutrement have embraced an image that most didn't even question what it means.

It came from the liberal side, so stop accusing conservatives of giving bites. The liberals swallowed it hook, line and sinker and then can't figure out how they were caught. He's the liberal messiah, so let the liberal messiah save them.



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by 0001391
 





...This rhetoric has been so successful that some young students on the fringe are calling for outright extermination of older people to make way for them and to free up funds for their education. No joke....


You are correct. My brother became a Marxist in college.

After my mother became ill with cancer, anytime Dad spent money on her he and his wife would scream at her she was wasting their inheritance. This was never done in front of Dad.

When Dad became ill, Brother took him out of the hospital to 'Die at home" the Doctors gave Dad 6 months to live, he was dead in six weeks. I visited every week (1000 mile trip) One weekend I was called and told not to bother to come because Dad was in a coma. I sent my father's Pastor (120 mile trip) to give last rites. The pastor call me to tell me Dad was NOT in a coma, in good shape, walking talking etc. A few days later Dad was dead. This happened to at least seven of my brother's elderly relatives. They died a few days after making a will leaving everything to Brother.

This is one of the reasons I think Marxism is a giant hoax. It is a return to feudalism where the peons are viewed as cattle and everything is owned by the 'State' otherwise know as the Aristocracy.

The information below shows the Articles I linked in my first comment shows killing off the 'Useless Eaters' was no 'Accident' It was calculated and deliberate.

George Bernard Shaw was a founding member of the Fabian Socialist now the largest political group in the UK

This is what he had to say:

USE OF GAS CHAMBERS

“We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living, and to leave living a great many people whom we at present kill. We should have to get rid of all ideas about capital punishment …

A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them.”
Source: George Bernard Shaw, Lecture to the Eugenics
Education Society, Reported in The Daily Express, March 4,
1910..



KILLING THOSE “UNFIT TO LIVE”
.

“The moment we face it frankly we are driven to the conclusion that the community has a right to put a price on the right to live in it … If people are fit to live, let them live under decent human conditions. If they are not fit to live, kill them in a decent human way. Is it any wonder that some of us are driven to prescribe the lethal chamber as the solution for the hard cases which are at present made the excuse for dragging all the other cases down to their level, and the only solution that will create a sense of full social responsibility in modern populations?”
Source: George Bernard Shaw, Prefaces (London: Constable
and Co., 1934), p. 296.

These are not isolated statements made at some point in his
life. These statements and many others were made over
decades consistently and repetitively. Here’s another:

.

“Under Socialism, you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live, you would have to live well.”
George Bernard Shaw: The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to
Socialism and Capitalism, 1928, pg. 470) .

In the video below, in a clip from a highly recommended
documentary called ‘The Soviet Story’ you see and hear Shaw
clearly state his murderous ideology....

SOURCE: The Real George Bernard Shaw – Fabian Socialist


This mind set is not found in just Shaw but also in another founding member H.G. Wells you know two authors held in high esteem by the American School system. Sidney and Beatrice Webb, two other co-founders were also founders of the London School of Economics that had graduates such as David Rockefeller J.F. Kennedy, George Soros and many other world leaders.

From How eugenics poisoned the welfare state A century ago many leading leftists subscribed to the vile pseudo-science of eugenics, writes Dennis Sewell, and the influence of that thinking can still be seen today


... the origin of Britain’s welfare state begin with the Minority Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws, drafted by Sidney and Beatrice Webb during the first decade of the 20th century. Beneath their seemingly compassionate rhetoric, the founders of the Fabian Society were snobbish, elitist and harboured a savage contempt for the poorest of the poor. Both husband and wife were enthusiastic supporters of the eugenics movement, which held that most of the behavioural traits that led to poverty were inherited. In short, that the poor were genetically inferior to the educated middle class....

...Beatrice Webb regarded eugenics as ‘the most important question’ of all, while her husband revealed the statist and dirigiste character of the movement with his declaration that ‘no eugenicist can be a laissez faire individualist… he must interfere, interfere, interfere!’....

...Leonard Darwin set about lobbying the government to act. He wanted to set up flying squads of scientists, armed with powers of arrest over the poor, to tour the country weeding out the ‘unfit’. T...were to be segregated in special colonies or sterilised. One politician who supported such draconian measures in parliament was the Labour MP Will Crooks, who described the targets of the eugenics campaign as ‘like human vermin’...

Another Fabian eugenicist, the writer H.G. Wells, vented his frustration and indignation in a direct address to the working class. ‘We cannot go on giving you health, freedom, enlargement, limitless wealth, if all our gifts to you are to be swamped by an indiscriminate torrent of progeny,’ he complained, ‘…and we cannot make the social life and the world-peace we are determined to make, with the ill-bred, ill-trained swarms of inferior citizens that you inflict upon us.’ ....

In 1913, the eugenicists succeeded in getting the Mental Incapacity Act through parliament. As a result, some 40,000 men and women were incarcerated without trial, having been deemed to fall into various specious categories such as ‘feeble-minded’ or ‘morally defective’. This latter description was used to imprison petty criminals, unmarried mothers or those displaying homosex-ual inclinations — all, allegedly, clear signs that they possessed the sort of defective genes believed to be conducive to pauperism....

... the act was frequently used as an instrument of oppression against the chronically poor. That suited the eugenicists just fine. They were by no means reticent in declaring their true agenda — the containment and segregation of what they termed the ‘social residuum’....

NASTY!



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 08:12 AM
link   

0001391
If the government is in charge of paying for your health care, including extorting money from you to pay it, then they have a vested interest in having control over not only your finances but also every action, behavior and habit you have or have ever had. As well the cost to benefit ratio of your very life will be determined much the same way as any other government-funded grant or project. If you are not deemed to be worth the cost then diseases will be allowed to run their course without treatment.


And now that the SCOTUS has set a horrible precedent of allowing you to be taxed for not engaging in commerce (Obamacare), what else can you be taxed for not doing ... for the greater good of course?

We see from your grocery shopping records that you didn't buy the necessary servings of fruits and vegetables for your household ... TAX.

We see that you bought too much of the sugary drinks ... TAX.

We see that you bought too much refined grains and processed food products ... TAX.

It's all in the name of preserving the public health of course.

And there is a bell curve that exists designed by Ezekial Emmanual as part of the LIVES system which basically gives priority to young, healthy people over the very young and the very old. Health care priority begins to rise sharply at age 5 until a person reaches 18 and peaks in their 20 s before leveling off to a plateau that drops off sharply right around a person's retirement years ... wonder why that is? Maybe because they cease to become tax payers at that time and are thus a burden to the state who pays for all?


That's pretty sick from a society that has all kinds of special days and observances aimed at "valuing" our elders. At the point where you do that, it starts to look just so much lip service.



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 





And there is a bell curve that exists designed by Ezekial Emmanual as part of the LIVES system which basically gives priority to young, healthy people over the very young and the very old.


Killing the Useless Eaters, otherwise known as Eugenics. The laws were enforce until the 1970s when the REPUBLICANS put in force equal rights.



A Bitter Fight Over Forced Sterilization

Riddick is one of an estimated 7,600 North Carolinians sterilized under the state’s eugenics program. On the books from 1929-74, its goal was to keep those deemed to have undesirable traits from having kids. The vast majority marked for sterilization were minorities, poor, undereducated, institutionalized, sick, or disabled. Eighty-five percent were female, some as young as 10 years old.


The Progressives turn around is explained by George Bernard Shaw.
"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul."

History of Democrat Racism

All too easily, America has fallen into the posture of believing racism is solely the property of Republicans and Conservatives. The truth is much different. Few know, or acknowledge, the Republican Party’s efforts to bring about Civil Rights legislation. The first article below has the timeline of Civil Rights Legislation. Click the link, and if you are interested only in the modern-day Civil Rights Act of 1964, skipped down the list to that year.

Then follows a listing of links.

Of interest is this comment. It is a great Rrnt and full of facts. This woman KNOWS her Black history and it is not the propaganda fed to school children.

Rhonda
August 11, 2011 at 7:17 pm

In answer to PL, The Republicans NEVER abandoned the Blacks. I think you assume the opposition to labor unions was racist. Who BROUGHT labor unions to the US? The communists did.

Once you have labor unions in control of a private business, the rest of the country suffers because prices go up to cover the fat salaries and retirement packages. The union organizers used the black worker. Obviously, you haven’t looked into real historical documentation.

They used them in their protesting and picketing and then incited violence leaving the scene only to leave the black members to take the beating and get arrested. There were several notable blacks who left the Communist Party (behind union organization in the US) because they KNEW they were being used. They KNEW the union bosses had contempt for them.

Why do you think Johnson passed the Welfare and Food Stamp Acts! Why do you think he said, as he signed one of the civil rights bills, “We lost the Black Vote” Why did he say that? Because the Republicans pushed for the Civil Rights Bills.

Did you know that it was Eisenhower while in command of the military during WWII, desegregated the Military? Did you know that it was Eisenhower who introduced the FIRST Civil Rights Bill in 1957? Did you know that the voting records of Congress are a matter of public record and that Johnson AND Kennedy voted NO? Did you know that it was Democrats who stripped that Bill of its protections which is why they had to write two more bills in the 60s?

And YES, MLK WAS a Republican until the Democrats promised him a line of BS. The KKK was the violent arm of the Democrap Party. I spent the first 30 voting years of my life as a Democrap; now I’m angry because I’ve been lied to by those slimy cretins. What the Republicans care about is that EVERYONE has an equal opportunity. The Democraps want equal outcome. Take a look around, the “monied elite” are ALL uber liberal progressives. They control the media, Wall St & all trial lawyers are liberal elites. The liberals put the moniker of “racist” on the Republicans without proof.

If Republicans don’t want affirmative action it’s because it doesn’t create young people who want to work harder and become successful on their own merits. It creates an entitlement generation, folks who think they are owed something. No one owes ME anything. I can stand on my own feet, I EARN the accolades I receive. Affirmative Action doesn’t create excellence. Our Constitution and other documents were written for a reason and if we don’t adhere to them as our founders intended, we end up with big government, one that resembles socialism, the very antithesis of what was intended.

They were very intelligent men who understood that the role of government should exist ONLY to protect the rights of citizens, their individual liberties which they laid out in the Bill of Rights. The role of the federal government was meant to ONLY develop a military to protect our borders and prevent invasion or attack. A strong military is intimidating to a would be attacker. ALL other control was meant to be with the People at each states level. When you have an over-reaching government, it resembles a dictator, a monarchy.

Our founders had it right the first time creating a level playing field but the Democrats won control of Congress and continued slavery until war was inevitable. They’ve deceived, lied, robbed, killed, tortured and to this day, they lie, deceive and rob. They stir up hate where none exists to throw suspicion off of themselves. They stink with the filthy odor of deceit. Your president who claimed to be the “great uniter” has been anything BUT that. To this day, after many requests from Dr Wayne Perryman, the Democrat Party has refused to apologize for their racism. They lie to the Press and tell them the Rev is asking for money but his documented missive merely requests an apology.

THIS is YOUR Democrat Party,sir. The Democrat Party you claim is omnipotent as you place blame on the Republican Party. Shame on you.

It’s obvious your sources are all liberal ones from some elitist university professor, on the dole; one who continues to spread the lies about our countrys history. You say, not so? Then tell me, why is the history of the Reconstruction Period to THIS DAY eliminated from our textbooks? Why do we not learn who Revels was, or Rainey, Long, DeLarge or Elliot? You know the answer is because the Democraps don’t want school kids to learn the racist history of their Party and that the Republicans ARE the champions of the colored race. The shame is on YOUR Party, sir, NOT mine. By the way, ALL of my black family members have switched political parties to the Republican Party.
LINK



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Com mon people is not such thing as Death panes, the political criminals wants to be political correct and they rather call it End of life counseling

Yes I am been sarcastic, we all know that this has been on going for a long time, but now the elderly are the ones to be targeted the most.
edit on 25-10-2013 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


I get your sarcasm, so the rest of this is just for people who don't think about things fully before commenting...


And where would the line be drawn? I have Multiple Sclerosis, so what happens why my body breaks down to the point I can't get out of bed, but my mind still works? I would have then become a useless eater. But what about people with ALS, they go very quickly. So where will the line be drawn? What about children who are born premature? There is a great amount of money spent on keeping them alive until they can thrive.

My grandmother was 72 years-old and had liver cancer. After it was determined that she was too old to have radiation treatment, we were told by her doctor, and not a panel of medical experts, that the best we could do is keep her comfortable until she died. She had to sign the DNR papers, but not with the doctor, with me as I was her health care power of attorney. The decision was left to her because she was in her right mind and I had to honor her wishes. But I had to take care of her at home until she died. I could only keep her as comfortable as I could, but I could not in any way think to over-medicate her with the Morphine and neither could I deprive her of food. That would have been wrong to do.

She was allowed to die with dignity, in her own bed. But she had to say that's what she wanted. We sometimes think it is more merciful to euthanize someone at the end of life. But as long as they are alive, they have last words to say, and we should allow them the dignity to have those last words.

My grandmother died in her own bed, in her own home, with us present to tell her at the end that she was loved and it was OK to not fight any more against the disease. But never could we think about taking her life, that would have been so wrong to do.

When faced with our own mortality do we begin to think of what dignity we would like. That's why we should make living wills, we choose the dignity of our deaths. There is simply no dignity in death panels who make the decision to end our lives without ever knowing us.

But where would the line be drawn? A premature baby at least has the chance of thriving, not all do, but there is hope that they can. What if it is determined the cost is too great for premature babies, so no premature baby gets health care? And in what group of people would be targetted by the death panels to say which baby gets to live? Will the line be drawn against the poor? Different races? Just where does it get drawn?

These are just a few of the questions to think about.
edit on 10/25/2013 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Yep.

I have chronic migraine. I'm lucky. I found a neurologist who worked with me, and after about five years, we found a medication and figured out my triggers well enough that now my migraines are back to normal incidence. But, the medication I use is one not well tolerated by most people who try using it for migraine prevention, so in countries with socialized health care, it's about the last option that is tried, assuming they ever get to try it. In the respect, I'm an outlier.

I'd be still curled up in a ball in the dark trying my best to sleep my life away. Is that the definition of useless eater?

My own grandmother had Felty's Disease (auto-immune disorder where the immume system attacks the red blood cells) and it finally led her to have a heart attack. At the hospital, they offered her surgery for it but warned her that her chances of survival were not good (20%) and her chances of regaining her independence afterward were also not good. She also was having back trouble and knew that would have to be addressed assuming she came out of the heart surgery and recovery.

Since she was lucid, she opted to not have the surgery and spend what time remained comfortable and saying good-bye to her family. She lived for another couple of weeks, and it was discovered that the back pain everyone thought was a slipped disc was actually an aggressive sarcoma that would have been fatal anyhow.

But the point is that she had the option and the control. They were fully willing to proceed with whatever direction she chose to go in.



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


Thank you for posting the link to Howard Dean's WSJ op-ed. Having previously read this piece, I was already familiar with the Mr. Dean's concerns regarding the efficacy of the IPAB, though I'm sure there are those who are not.

The IPAB is not a "death panel." The American Medical Association (AMA), a credible source opposing the IPAB has a resource page detailing the composition, function and authority of this board which can be viewed here. The AMA also provides the same information in .pdf form here.

- The purpose of the board is to extend Medicare solvency and reduce spending growth (for Medicare).

- "The IPAB is prohibited from submitting proposals that would ration care, 
increase revenues, change benefits, modify eligibility, increase Medicare beneficiary cost sharing 
(including Parts A and B premiums), or change the beneficiary premium percentage or low‐income 
subsidies under Part D" (quoted from above source)

- The board is only triggered if the Chief Actuary of the CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) determines that Medicare’s per capita spending growth rate in the following
two years will exceed a targeted rate.

- The board submits a proposal to reduce Medicare spending to the Chief Actuary for certification. If the board's proposal fails to be certified, the Secretary of Health and Human Services must submit a proposal.

- Congress can enact resolutions to override either proposal under a fast-track procedure.

- The IPAB was designed as a replacement for the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), an advisory board established by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. The critical difference being that the IPAB proposal goes into effect unless Congress votes to override it. This is a measure intended to mitigate the influence of interest groups over Congress.

In summary, the purpose of this board is to keep Medicare within budget and it's proposal can be nullified by Congress. Private insurers have actuaries of their own who perform a similar function while also considering the company's profit margin and without any oversight by Congress or an explicit mandate of preserving the quality of care for patients. I don't recall seeing any conservatives outraged by "death panels" STILL employed by private insurers who are at least limited in their ability to deny coverage by protections contained within the ACA.

Anyone who is cognizant of the relevant facts and still labels this board a "death panel" is being disingenuous. It stands to reason that somebody is ultimately responsible for determining what services will be covered and the fee that will be paid in ANY healthcare system. Concerns that the board's proposals could lead to what is effectively "rationing" are justifiable but if projected Medicare spending exceeds it's budget, there are only two avenues to reconciles these figures: cutting costs or increasing the budget.

edit on 25-10-2013 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


And what about black people with Sickle Cell Anemia? That's a genetic disorder as well as Tay Sachs.

The government will determine who is a useless eater. If they want to kill me before I become a useless eater, then do it before I am left as just a quivering mass on my bed, if that's how they want to view me. They better do it quickly if that's what they are going to do, but I am talking about me and not someone else, I don't have the ethical right to say it applies to all of us or some of us.

As long as there is hope, then we have no right to determine who should go. You would think the governments of the world would be able to set up the abilities to grow more food, but making more medicine has been favored.

Sometimes I think this way, as I know the outcome already of Multiple Sclerosis, then why can't I present myself right now as someone with a healthy mind and tell them to kill me now and save the costs in the future. But they can't kill me now, it's simply wrong to do. Well, if the point is to save money, then wouldn't they have that money in the future if they take me now?

Cost prevention is an element of the current debate, that's why there is an anti-smoking campaign, that's why there is a no sugary drinks campaign. That's why they use the food pyramid campaign, it is for future cost prevention.

You do realize my comment is purely tongue-in-cheek. But if we are talking about a future plan, then what would they consider to be cost preventive in the future?



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Anything that can put money into the system is good.

Anything that only takes money out is bad.

It will be as simple as that. What a lot of people don't realize is that the US is the world's major source of new drugs. There is no place else that researches them right now, not like we do. That's part of the reason why they're so stupid expensive. We research them and develop them, and then every other country legally buys them at a dead discount and we have to subsidize that while letting the pharma companies make their profit.

If we socialize our health care, what do you think will happen? The R&D on new drugs will plummet because there won't be anyplace for a long time that will be as developed for the pharma companies to make their new medicines in, and the highly touted government research doesn't churn out nearly as much new medication as everyone pretends it does.

We better get used to the state of 2013 medicine. We're going to be stuck here for a long, long time to come.



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 10:49 AM
link   

theantediluvian
reply to post by crimvelvet
 



In summary, the purpose of this board is to keep Medicare within budget and it's proposal can be nullified by Congress. Private insurers have actuaries of their own who perform a similar function while also considering the company's profit margin and without any oversight by Congress or an explicit mandate of preserving the quality of care for patients. I don't recall seeing any conservatives outraged by "death panels" STILL employed by private insurers who are at least limited in their ability to deny coverage by protections contained within the ACA.


edit on 25-10-2013 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)


And just what is determined to keep it within budget? What measures are taken to keep it within budget?

I am on Medicare, I can tell how it is not really effective, and that our health care services are way below that of private insurance. As someone who has been on both sides of this, I will explain how this works...

Under private insurance, you are given better treatment now, however there is a lifetime limit to what is available. And this is contingent upon you having that private insurance for life. Most people do not have one plan for life, because people switch jobs and then take other private insurance plans.

Then you have the insurance plans sold on television. Those plans might be directed at certain groups, but within those plans, you can only receive treatment for what they determine, as long as you pay for it.

Medicare is for as long as you are deemed disabled. But you cannot have Medicare and work, which is only right to do, you shouldn't be able to work if you are so disabled you couldn't work in the first place. But Medicare doesn't allow the patient as many privileges as regular insurance, and you are stuck with it. That's why Medicare is now suggesting you take other insurance, also backed by the government.

In Medicare, you get stuck in a closed loop, one in which doctors raise their rates to cover the lack of what Medicare really pays. My neurologist visit costs $275, but under private insurance it only cost $85. In my ten years of Multiple Sclerosis and being on private and government insurance, I can tell you that Medicare health care stinks and costs too much, but private insurance only allowed a life time benefit, as long as I kept that insurance.

And since most people who are on Medicare are also on Social Security Disability (I worked and paid into it), Medicare deducts the cost of the insurance from SSD. So while the average person receives $750 (I worked and paid in more), think of this, of that $750, $100 is deducted, leaving the person with $650 to live on for a month, but then enter each state's Medicaid, which pays the deductible. So while you might recoup that hundred dollars, now you are caught in the Medicaid system at the state level. And you might have a spend down plan, which means you pay for your medication, under Medicare and Medicaid, and then you have to spend a certain amount of money before it is counted toward you.

So let's say this, a person with a Medicaid spend down plan, receives $700 a month, they cannot be forced to pay for housing more than a third of their income. So their rent or mortgage costs $300 a month, leaving the person with $400 a month to live on. But now that person has a spend down, they have to pay first for their medication, and if their medication costs $250 a month, then that person is left with $200 a month to live on before Medicaid begins to pay for their medication. If your medication costs less than $1 than the yearly amount allowed, that you have missed the yearly deductible by only $1, then you forced into poverty worse than just having SSD in the first place.

And that's government insurance.

And it is within these guidelines that the Medicare budget is determined. I know people who have worked 40+ years paying into the Social Security system and only receive a third of what they paid into it. That's clearly against the purpose of Social Security Disability, but yet it that by which Medicare makes their budget by. If the states chose to discontinue with Medicaid, then there is no more guideline for Medicare.

And whatever government backed insurance you have, they each have a formulary of which medications they are willing to pay for and what services. To get the best medication and services, you need private insurance, one of which allows only a lifetime amount, and if you suffered a catastrophic illness of which you go into a health care facility, you then have to give up your car and all your property to pay for it first, before Medicare even takes effect.



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


A lot of us are stuck there now.

It is a rip-off now.



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 





Obama in the 2007 New Hampshire primary said "You will have an epiphany, that light will shine through the window and tell you to vote for Obama".

Hmm, Obama says you will have an epiphany, the light will tell you to vote for Obama? Was he speaking metaphorically? Was Chris Matthews speaking metaphorically about the tingle going up his leg?

I could spend hours poring over every speech, every image and every video from the liberal side who has presented this, but it will take too much time. Exactly who was drawing the paintings of him as messiah? Oh right, liberals were. Exactly who has been making the comparisons of him and Jesus? Oh right, the liberals were.

It wasn't the conservatives who were presenting this, conservatives were saying "He's not god", but as much as the conservatives have said it, the liberals with their tee-shirts, posters, yard signs, bumper stickers and every other accoutrement have embraced an image that most didn't even question what it means.

It came from the liberal side, so stop accusing conservatives of giving bites. The liberals swallowed it hook, line and sinker and then can't figure out how they were caught. He's the liberal messiah, so let the liberal messiah save them.


What? "You will have an epiphany, that light will shine through the window and tell you to vote for Obama" is CLEARLY a metaphor.



Was Chris Matthews speaking metaphorically about the tingle going up his leg?


Is there a biblical passage that states something to effect that Jesus caused a tingle to go up somebody's leg?



liberals with their tee-shirts, posters, yard signs, bumper stickers


So conservatives don't have t-shirts, posters, yard signs, or bumper stickers? I don't remember seeing any of these things bearing slogans or imagery equating Obama to Jesus or inferring that he was a "messiah." Let's discuss how the Tea Party and conservatives in general have hijacked words, concepts, images, and historical figures and events such as freedom, patriot/patriotism, liberty, all of the founding fathers, the U.S. Constitution, the American flag (last one to put on his flag lapel pin isn't a patriot!), the Tea Party, etc.

As for the unfortunate comments of Evan Thomas--this is the most cited reference for the myth that liberals view Obama as a Messiah--an overly exuberant metaphor of one man on one occasion. I am a liberal and I've never referred to Obama as a messiah nor do I know of anyone among those of my friends who are liberal who have nor would I support or even entertain the notion that any politician is a "messiah."

Your claims are spurious rhetoric intended to distract from your lack of a substantive argument. You also utterly failed to account for your equally baseless assertions that Fox News and Glen Beck are not part of the MSM. Furthermore, I find it ironic that in light the sheer verbosity you've dedicated to socialism you have the audacity to express sympathy over concern for limits that may be imposed by the ACA on Medicare, a social insurance program. You drone on about socialism, obviously insinuating that the ACA is a big step toward socialism and yet in other posts, you are in favor of Medicare, a program that conservatives FOUGHT TOOTH AND NAIL for being socialist. How do you reconcile this obvious contradiction?



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


What you are discussing now is reforming Medicare. Since you persist in these rants about who determines who should die, let me point out something you're sure to be aware of:



“What he should do is whatever he wants to do,” Paul replied. “That’s what freedom is all about, taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to prepare to take care of everybody…”

“Are you saying society should just let him die?” Blitzer asked.

The audience responded with shouts of “Yes!”

“We’ve given up on this concept that we might take care of ourselves, assume responsibility for ourselves, our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it,” Paul explained. “This is the reason the cost is so high… We have lack of competition. There’s no competition in medicine. Everybody’s protected by licensing ”


www.rawstory.com...

My father has ESRD (end-stage renal disease) and is also on Medicare.



In 1972 the United States Congress passed legislation authorizing the End Stage Renal Disease Program (ESRD) under Medicare. Section 299I of Public Law 92-603, passed on October 30, 1972, extended Medicare coverage to Americans if they had stage five chronic kidney disease (CKD) and were otherwise qualified under Medicare's work history requirements. The program's launch was July 1, 1973. Previously only those over 65 could qualify for Medicare benefits. This entitlement is nearly universal, covering over 90% of all U.S. citizens with severe CKD.[1]


Why does this program exist? This program exists because the private insurance companies whose plans you are so enamored with weren't covering people. Both of my parents are registered Republicans and one of the few times I can remember my dad making any concession was when he pointed out the irony of his own political views juxtaposed against his relief at starting dialysis paid for by Medicare.

The paleoconservative views that have become popular again among the radical right dictate that it is your own responsibility to provide for your own healthcare and if you don't and you can't beg money from your friends, family or church--nature should be allowed to takes it course.

I don't feel that way. I believe that we should institute a system whereby everyone is offered an equal opportunity to have the best quality healthcare available.
edit on 25-10-2013 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join