An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Obama’s Health Care Reform Will Decimate Our Population

No wonder Americans are increasingly opposed to Obama’s socialist, radical vision of a nationalized health care system.

Just look at what Obama will do to you, to me and to our loved ones if we allow him to succeed with his downright evil plan.

In the first place, Obama’s diabolical health care plan would kill many of our children even before they are born, because Obama will force pro-life doctors, nurses, and other professionals to perform abortions using our federal tax dollars.

Should our babies escape the abortionist’s knife, they still face a bleak future as, under Obama’s plan, our babies suffering from an illness, disorder or disability will have to stand in front of Obama’s death panel so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their level of productivity in society, whether they are worthy of health care.

Should they be fortunate enough to pass this Obama “test,” they will face many more obstacles through the rest of their lives.

For example, they will have to beg for health care under an Obama plan where bureaucrats have the power to ration treatment and medicine, where government bureaucrats and panels will come between you and your children’s doctors, where health choices commissioners will decide what care our children get.

As they continue to struggle to get essential medical care, our children and others will be forced to compete for scarce, rationed medical care with millions of illegal aliens, as our taxes are raised, trillions are wasted and our health care gets worse or non-existent.

Even those families who have some funds left will not be able to obtain health care as Obama’s plan will make private insurance, private plans, illegal.

Obama’s nationalized healthcare will not let doctors and their patients decide what’s best. Nationalized health care will mean fewer treatment options, and it will mean that real people might not make it if Obama is allowed to inflict his nationalized health care on America.

Particularly cruel is the fact that more American women are going to die of breast cancer if you and I surrender to President Obama’s nationalized health care onslaught. That’s at least 300,000 women who, facing cancer in the future, are likely to suffer under Obama’s health care plan.

Some of our young people may escape the clutches of Obama’s killing machine by joining our armed forces, where our troops and their dependents traditionally have had excellent medical care. But even this last, sacred bastion of decent medical care may be compromised.

First, because of how this socialized health plan costing over $10 trillion every year will probably bankrupt our nation in just a few years.

Second, an effort to reduce the veterans’ population may have already started. The Department of Veterans Affairs has a manual out there, a “Death Book for Veterans,” through which the Obama administration is pressuring veterans to end their lives prematurely, telling our veterans stuff like, “Are you really a value to your community?” and, you know, encouraging them to commit suicide. So, even our brave veterans may not make it.

As if matters weren’t tragic enough, Obama might use his overhaul of our present health system as a tool to deny medical treatment to Republicans. Obama could check voting registration records, possibly resulting in GOP voters being discriminated against for medical treatment in a Democrat-imposed health care rationing system.

The grim reality is that roughly 120 million Americans will be deprived of their current health care coverage.

Why? Because nationalized healthcare does not let doctors and their patients decide what’s best. Because nationalized health care means fewer treatment options under faceless government bureaucrats. Because nationalized healthcare means huge costs and higher mortality.

The rest of us—those who survive the early stages of the Obama plan—will have to fight for our health care from doctors working for the government at measly wages and where the government will decide what treatment we can have or can’t have.

Those of us who make it till Medicare can take care of us; don’t bank on it. Because in order to pay for his excuse of a health plan, Obama plans to slash benefits by cutting $500 billion from Medicare, which will mean long waits for care, cuts to MRIs and other imaging services, and will result in the government, not doctors, deciding if our seniors are worth the cost and effort.

Under Obama’s Medicare, cancer patients over 70 will only get end-of-life counseling and not chemotherapy.

There is, however, one glimmer of hope in Obama’s plan: The suffering of our seniors will not be protracted.

You see, Obama’s plan will make it mandatory that every five years, people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner, how to decline nutrition, how to decline being hydrated, how to go into hospice care in order to cut their lives short.

Even for those who want to continue life, it will be difficult, as Obama’s plan will start us down a treacherous path to government-sponsored euthanasia—a plan where government will tell us when to pull the plug on Grandma.

So you see, we are talking infanticide even before birth and euthanasia during our golden years. During the in-between years, government will be making life and death decisions; government will be making decisions about whether or not you get health care or don’t receive health care—government will decide who lives and who dies.

No wonder more and more Americans oppose Obama’s plans.

“Decimate” may be too kind a word.

Note: Most of the language used in this post has been taken verbatim or with minor modifications from statements made by GOP officials, personalities and organizations and by individuals and organizations opposed to health care reform.

The author does not subscribe to those perceptions.

  • elrod
    Wow, you've captured wingnut sentiment quite well. Impressive!
  • elroy2010
    I thought this was a site for moderate reasonable people. I see that ignorant fanatics are also welcomed.
  • Silhouette
    I've been dealing with public-funded health care for my children for decades now. They got regular checkups and serious problems were dealth with instantly...the same day.. and less serious problems we waited a week tops for assistance. With the goverment tapping harmful substances like tobacco, minimally nutritional snack foods and sodas, and alcohol for tax revenues, a small montly premium from everybody, we should have excellent health care.

    On the other hand I know a gal who has paid private insurance all her life, came in with no preexisting conditions and when she developed a life-threatening condition in her 50s, was promptly jacked on premiums until she was dropped. She now has to have a company where her premiums are so expensive and her deductable so high that she might as well just not have insurance at all. So she chooses between groceries and the procedure she needs, making her house payment and the downpayment for the surgery she has to have to stay alive. She's dying and will be dead soon. I feel certain that with public access she would recover and live at least another 20 years.

    No compromise. Public option or else...
  • SteveK
    Well said Dorian... I can't wait to read what our local shills will write to "prove" you wrong.

    You'd better watermark this thread with "This is a condensed version of LIES being perpetrated by the Health Industry and Republicans" because before you know it someone will be linking to your article to "prove" that Obama really wants to kill us all.
  • perfecthealth
    Let's see,

    Pro-lifers protect life from inception to birth...then kill humans in fake wars, bankruptcy, suicide from mental stress from no health care and returning soldiers with stress disorder. Oh yeah, this country voted for a murderer--twice.

    The "Death Panel" lady was exposed--she's a lobbyist--SURPRISE!

    47 million people are "begging" for health care now.

    We don't have to worry about rationed care and killing seniors, current health care does it now.

    Read this-

    "..Why? Because nationalized health care does not let doctors and their patients decide what’s best. Because nationalized health care means fewer treatment options under faceless government bureaucrats. Because nationalized health care means huge costs and higher mortality."

    Or you kidding me? We have this NOW!!

    If government health care is good for Congress, then it's good for us. Really, would members of Congress sign up for killing their own grandmothers? Get real.
  • D. E.Rodriguez
    Thanks, Steve. You may be right, some right wing nuts may actually do that. Hopefully, if they do, they'll be "uninformed" enough to retain the kind of "disclaimer note" at the bottom
  • elroy2010, you obviously didn't read Dorian De Wind's entire post. He ended it by saying:

    "Note: Some of the language used in this post has been taken verbatim or with minor modifications from statements made by GOP officials, personalities and organizations and by individuals and organizations opposed to health care reform."

    Reading is fundamental...
  • D. E.Rodriguez
    Shucks! The very first commenter unmasks me.
  • D. E.Rodriguez
    Thanks.

    You may be right SteveK.

    I was hoping that the "kind of dsiclaimer" note at the bottom might do the trick.

    Hopefully, if some right wing nut decides to quote me, he'll be "uninformed" enough to leave that note in his quote.
  • D. E.Rodriguez
    Thanks for helping out, TS

    Dorian
  • HemmD
    Dorian

    You forgot to mention that Obama wants to take away people's birthdays too.

    I know TMV is devoted to debating both sides of issues, but I have never understood how those opposing reform could look at the current smear campaign and not second guess themselves. It's sort of like arguing against affirmative action and finding that everybody else on your side is wearing hoods.
  • jcstegmaier
    Dorian, I agree with Steve. I believe many will miss the dark humor. You need to let people off the hook a little sooner. Having said that, this is by far the most clever article you've written (of those I've read). By condensing all the fear mongering into one "birth to cradle" article, you've really aimed the spotlight on the desperation of the reform opponents.
  • D. E.Rodriguez
    Hey, jcstegmaier. Nice to see your comment.

    You may be right, I just found it difficult to "let people off the hook a little earlier."

    Any recommendations will be appreciated.

    Thanks and Take care

    Dorian.
  • D. E.Rodriguez
    HemmD.

    Thanks. You are probably right that people believe that Obama wants to take away their birthdays, too---and many other things.

    I just wanted to foucs this one on health care.
  • mikkel
    Well as someone that is opposed to the way that the reform is shaping up because I feel it will do little to improve the situation at great cost, I can't agree more. My thought when I read this post was how sad it was that the anti-reform side literally sounds like that...just like how I spent several years reading stuff about the economy from forward thinkers, saw it play out exactly like they called it, saw our response to it (like they foresaw) and read how they were warning it'd lead to worse problems sometime in the next 2-3 years at most. Many underlying statistics are continuing to support their view.

    So here is this small group of academic professionals with reams of empirical data and explanations that seem to be much more accurate than anyone else, and they are way outnumbered by complete nutcases while trying to get the message out. So instead we just hobble along status quo and don't get any real reforms and the problems are getting worse.
  • roro80
    Hey DE -- Great post! Unfortunately, as you've already acknowledged, it's hard to tell the satire from the real stuff when the real stuff runs right over the border between doubt-fomenting and out-right crazy fear-mongering. If I were coming to this site for the first time, without any knowledge of you, I might think you were writing in earnest; it is just that nuts these days.
  • D. E.Rodriguez
    roro80:

    Thanks.

    I hope I have taken care of your valid concern.

    Unfortunately, nothing is "fail safe." We'll see
  • mikkel
    Dorian, I'm opposed to winking at the audience in most satire because that's the point. Real satire is about an undercurrent of anger and frustration at the status quo that is straight faced because it's trying to goad other people into realizing how stupid it is that they are considered acceptable arguments.

    The fact that as a society it's become nearly impossible to distinguish between satirical mockups and serious arguments is pretty much a meta critique of how messed up things are. This why the Daily Show, which used to be highly satirical, now gets most of its humor from just playing clips outright that directly shows (it doesn't expose anything, face value is ludicrous enough) hypocrisy and craziness with large amounts of outright mocking. Mocking is the last bastion of comedy, and Jon Stewart has given interviews where he's discussed how at times it's very hard to think of doing things in a non-mocking way.
  • DLS
    "Reading is fundamental..."

    As is comprehending, as is understanding, as is thinking. But, shhh. The Demmies don't want that and are exploiting the lack of that, as usual.
  • ordinarysparrow
    "The crazy person always makes the decision, says my husband the divorce lawyer. "If you have two partners--and one is sane and the other crazy--guess who always wins?"

    "The one who screams the loudest?" I ask, knowing this because I come from a family of crazy people.

    "You betcha.". . . . "That's what I think about the health care ruckus. The Republicans will say just about anything to derail progress. The Democrats are too reticent. Not that they don't have corrupt Blue Dogs with their hands in the pockets of the health care profiteers. They do. But all their talk--and the president's--of compromise is like arguing with a crazy person who will say anything. Forget reasoning. Just push the damn thing through."

    Erica Jong concerning healthcare. . .

    for the rest of the article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erica-jong/dont-l...

    After reading this Dorian, i am thinking Erica got it right. . .
  • ksterling
    In case you haven't noticed, we're fighting two wars in earnest now. Obama has done NOTHING to change that. In fact, he has kept to George Bush's schedule re: Iraq pullout, and has escalated the war in Afghanistan. So if you dislike "fake wars," start screaming at the current administration to do something about it. Instead, we still have nearly 200,000 troops in Iraq, and the country has become more destabilized since Obama became "commander in chief." What a laugh that title is.
  • CStanley
    Mikkel, while I agree that the state of rhetoric in our country is sad, I honestly don't think that the proreform side has been any more honest. Most people who support the current reform options seem to also have bought into fearmongering rhetoric about the status quo, so that they support a rush toward accepting a really flawed plan. I really don't see how that's any better- and at least the fearmongerers on the right are just trying to stop something, which would give us a chance to possibly start over and get it right (so although I don't agree with the tactics, I actually think the result will be far less harmful than if the extremist rhetoric from the other side wins out.)
  • tidbits
    "Obama might use his overhaul of our present health system as a tool to deny medical treatment to Republicans."

    Hmmm. That would result in some cost savings (about 27%). :)
  • Actually, as I was reading Dorian's post, I realized that there's a flip-side that's being overlooked -- the boost to some sectors of business!

    For instance: I foresee an enormous boom in specialized "knee cushions", so that grovelling ill persons can at least kneel in comfort in front of the death panel overlords. (Perhaps a special size for prostration as well?)

    And how about new Halloween costumes hitting the racks in late September? Along with the standard fare (Nixon masks, skeletons, etc), one might expect some ghoulish "death panel" robes?

    Another possibility that pops into my mind here -- specialized restraints to transport pregnant women to their abortion appointments. Why... that alone might just kickstart our industrial base again!

    Those are just off the top of my head, of course. No doubt a whole host of other successful businesses will grow from the new, Marxist-Nazi plans (whatever the heck they actually are).
  • roro80
    @CStanley: "seem to also have bought into fearmongering rhetoric about the status quo"

    CStanley, could it be possible that the proreform side are more likely to believe that we really, really need reform because we have spent the last few decades actually paying attention to what health care costs our own families? This is what always gets me about this debate: health care is something that most people actually deal with on a regular basis. How can people not notice that their out-of-pocket costs have gone up by 400% in the last decade (those are my personal premium increases)? Do we have some sort of collective amnesia about this? I'm one of the lucky ones with awesome health insurance, mostly paid for by my company, but I still can look at the invoices I get sent after a major procedure. $20,000 for a broken arm? That's not including the months of physical therapy. I remember seeing that number, giving a quick prayer of thanks that I have insurance, while at the same time thinking about those without the options I have.

    I guess that rambled a bit, but my point is: most people who have been sick or injured in the last year understand the value of health insurance. Those who have been adults for 20 years might have to strain their brains to remember how the costs have ballooned, but it wasn't *that* long ago. Why would you think that those of us who take the time to do the math about our personal health care costs are merely the victims of lefty fearmongering?

    I do tend to agree with your concern about rushing through something that isn't good, but that is an entirely separate issue from the belief -- via personal experience and not fearmongering -- that the problem is pretty desperate.
  • roro80
    ksterling -- It seems that you feel a person cannot be concerned and active about more than one thing at a time. This is incorrect. There's nothing inconsistent about taking a stand on both health care AND our need to get out of the Middle East. This is a thread about health care, so perfecthealth talked about healthcare. It's possible he or she is also writing letters about and responding to blog posts having to do with Iraq and Afghanistan -- I don't know -- but that doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with his or her stand on health care, does it now?
  • CStanley
    roro- my complaint is that fearmongering tends to shortcircuit people's ability to actually evaluate a solution that's being offered. Instead of considering whether or not the proposal will actually address the problems correctly (and whether the net effect will be positive), too many people who are driven toward emotional reactions tend to ignore the real analysis of the proposal and to believe the strawman argument that those who don't agree with this reform plan are 'anti-reform.'
  • roro80
    Polimom -- Love it!
  • Anna
    Do you honestly think that talking about how the status quo will bankrupt us in the not-too-distant future is "fear-mongering" on par with "death panels" and "pull the plug on Grandma"? At least talking about the status quo bankrupting us is based on truth and the others are complete fabrications so there is a false equivalence there. Considering there really is no single "plan" yet (I assume you are referring to the House bill since there isn't really one out of the Senate yet), we can't know about what flaws might make it to the final bill until it exists.

    I also think you have a false assumption about what happens if healthcare reform in general is stopped. You say that it "would give us a chance to possibly start over and get it right". Considering the loudest voices on the right (see Dorian's post) seem to have no interest in reform, do not want Obama to accomplish anything of note and have not (all) been honest brokers so far, I think the possibility of starting over is slim to when does hell freeze over?

    I will add, however, that I think the current Congressional leadership of Reid & Pelosi has got to go. They are a a big part of the problem.
  • roro80
    CStanely -- That's a totally fair argument to make, and I would agree. I wish that those who opposed the current plan would say it like that instead of all the outright lies we've been seeing; perhaps we could actually get a good compromise without all the nastiness. I tried to concede this point in my last comment, while at the same time taking umbrage with labelling the talk about the status quo as "fearmongering". I don't think it is off base at all to say we're in pretty deep doodoo, and most of us did not need to be "fearmongered" into figuring that out.

    I would strongly disagree that there's any "strawman" in labelling the most vociferous critics of the plan as "anti-reform". That's exactly what we're seeing from the GOP politicians -- most are NOT looking to find a solution, and they freely admit as much. This isn't everybody who is against the proposed plans, of course, but it certainly isn't a strawman.
  • CStanley
    At least talking about the status quo bankrupting us is based on truth and the others are complete fabrications so there is a false equivalence there.

    Anna, actually just about every one of the 'fears' expressed in Dorian's satirical piece has a kernel of truth, so I reject your assertion of false equivalence on that basis. On the basis of hyperbole though, yes, there's much more of that in the conservative assertions that Dorian lampoons here.

    But back to your point about the status quo bankrupting us. The problem with that argument as a support for the current plans (and yes, there are 'current plans'- and the House bill 3200 is a relevant one to critique since it made it out of committee- if we can't debate bills at that point then when the hell is the public supposed to weigh in on them??) is that the proposal doesn't bend the cost curve in the right direction according to the best nonpartisan analysts we have, the CBO. And yes, I've heard the arguments about the CBOs modelling (which curiously were never an issue for GOP proposals) but at minimum a reform plan should be cost neutral at this point and this doesn't even come close.

    So explain to me again why the fearmongering over current costs bankrupting us isn't a problem, when the proposed solution doesn't address the real concern that people have over this?
  • HemmD
    CS

    "too many people who are driven toward emotional reactions tend to ignore the real analysis of the proposal and to believe the strawman argument that those who don't agree with this reform plan are 'anti-reform.'"

    There is no proposal out there for your "real analysis." In the mean time, lot's of people are whipped up into a political froth because of the utter BS being served. So why do you suppose the private health industry has pushed so hard to fabricate completely incendiary rhetoric to scare people?

    NO ONE on the private insurance side is interested in rational debate. If they were truly working in good faith, where are the public discussions of their positions? What we do see from them is the drivel as seen above. The problem I have is not with your rational approach, but with the total systematic fear tactics coldly being propagated in lieu of rational debate.
    As I said earlier, association should make one at least reconsider one's position. Are you pro reform? Then consider that private health doesn't want to have the very rational discussion you favor. Why would that be?
  • D. E.Rodriguez
    I understand whaT you are saying, mikkel, and I agree.

    Thanks

    Dorian
  • CStanley
    Hemm, I'm sorry but a lot of that is nonsense, considering how many corporate interests have been promoting the Obama/Dem Congressional healthcare reform plans. You can't just claim that 'industry' is behind the 'scare tactics' when a lot of the industries are lining up for the faux reform that's being offered.
  • CStanley
    Well, roro, a few points.

    First off, when people on the proreform side choose to highlight the extreme rhetoric from their opponents, they certainly aren't helping the cause of promoting more reasonable dialogue. People on the conservative side see that the loudmouths' tactics are working, and that moderates are more interested in spoofing those people than in engaging in real debate with the reasonable people from across the aisle. Both sides are using extremism to their advantage- the right is doing so because it works, and the left is lampooning those people instead of acknowledging that there are more reasonable people who oppose these 'reform' plans.

    That's exactly what we're seeing from the GOP politicians -- most are NOT looking to find a solution, and they freely admit as much.
    Oh please. I've listed the GOP bills several times here, so stop pretending that there is no credible opposition. I suppose you're referring to the people who've admitted that their political strategy is to stop this Dem led reform plan, but so what? That's nothing new- and it's typical of how the minority party strategizes. The GOP is so far in the minority that they have to stop the freight train before they can start trying to win public opinion toward their own versions of reform.
  • mikkel
    What "fearmongering" are you referring to? Over generalizations? Yes. Misguided sympathy pleas? Yes. Disingenuous statements about how much will change? Sure. Partisianship? Yes. Sure there is emotional based messaging, but there always is.

    And I've written many posts saying why I don't think the reform will work and how everyone has expectations that are unrealistic and will regret the current path that they are going down. But there is a fundamental difference between that (basically inaccurate accounting measures) and the idea that the government has a conspiracy to kill people or at least that the streets will be full of dying people that can't get treatment.

    I have a problem with false equivalencies, and thus only looking at amount. If by "more honest" you mean completely accurate, then yeah the proreform side isn't, but at least the vast majority of arguments have a rational basis that can be addressed. When I've heard friend and family say how it's a shame that the bill isn't getting passed I point to the CBO report and anecdotes and their opinion is swayed. Deaths panels can't be addressed -- and that's the point, to just create noise.

    Really there is no defending that rhetoric at all, and HemmD gave a perfectly common response that tons of rational people: if the other side seems to be dominated by crazies then you won't even listen. [The conservative example of this is all the stuff on environmentalism/energy/consumerism that was seriously discussed by academics and scientists until it got picked up by the hippie/liberalism of the 60s into Carter and then "conservatives" defined their mindset as opposed to that because they thought the supporters were crazy for other reasons. Of course now all those issues are coming to a head, because they were right, and a growing number of conservatives are realizing that the issues are fundamentally in their camp.]
  • DLS
    "Do you honestly think that talking about how the status quo will bankrupt us in the not-too-distant future is 'fear-mongering' on par with "death panels" and "pull the plug on Grandma"? "

    It is indeed fear-mongering, not merely "talking," as your statement incorrectly implies.

    It is fear-mongering we've seen all year with other things as well, in rationalizing the rush to pass bad legislation.

    The fear-mongering and mischacterization of the opposition (i.e., the growing public and mainstream opposition to defective and activist behavior by liberal Democrats in Washington) dwarfs the extreme behavior occasionally by the opponents themselves, while general opposition includes a wealth of facts and previous experience that leads naturally to rational and obvious concerns about rationing, denial care, and (once again) infusion of medicine (as a scientific and related field) with left politics.

    The Democrats and others (I'm being overly kind and keeping this in third person) have ignored or denied the obvious truth here to their detriment, again (as with so much else) by their own hands.

    They're failing, they resent it, and rather than admit they're wrong and be mature and wiser, they attack the opposition. (It's not worth proceeding into related topics such as the totalitarian tinge...)
  • mikkel
    the right is doing so because it works, and the left is lampooning those people instead of acknowledging that there are more reasonable people who oppose these 'reform' plans


    "All thinking people are for you!"

    "That's not enough. I need a majority."
  • DLS
    "the proposed solution doesn't address the real concern that people have "

    It threatens to make it worse, as well as worse in other ways.

    It is apparent that many proponents aren't necessarily dishonest in their support (though there is a wealth of such and related misbehaviors), but they may be incompetent (and ripe for exploitation).

    The ironic thing is that so much the public is dissatisfied with how things are and would accept real, constructive reform, and would still do so if the Dems grew up, and became safe and sane as well as mature. (As I wrote some time ago, they currently lack adult supervision.)
  • horst666
    I admire your use of fear. You are quite the expert.
  • CStanley
    Really there is no defending that rhetoric at all, and HemmD gave a perfectly common response that tons of rational people: if the other side seems to be dominated by crazies then you won't even listen. [The conservative example of this is all the stuff on environmentalism/energy/consumerism that was seriously discussed by academics and scientists until it got picked up by the hippie/liberalism of the 60s into Carter and then "conservatives" defined their mindset as opposed to that because they thought the supporters were crazy for other reasons. Of course now all those issues are coming to a head, because they were right, and a growing number of conservatives are realizing that the issues are fundamentally in their camp.]

    Actually I was about to respond to what Hemm said, and I feel you are both making my point for me!

    I think it's completely wrong to say that when the 'other side is dominated by crazies' you should ignore the other side completely. Shouldn't that be the take home lesson in your examples?? You point out that some of what the radicals were saying in the 60s should have been heeded but was ignored because of their apparent 'craziness', and that's exactly what I see Dorian advocating (and many of you agreeing with) in the current situation.

    It's also misleading to say who is dominating, when part of the reason that the 'crazies' appear to dominate is that the left now finds it convenient to highlight those elements just as the right previously highlighted the loony left elements in order to discredit them.

    I'll add that part of my concern over this mindset is because at times I have been on the flip side of this- ignoring things that were said by people on the left because I felt that the extremists on their side discredited them.


    And lastly, you appear to be disagreeing with my assertion that there really ARE kernels of truth to the 'crazy' arguments. Death panels is absurd hyperbole but that doesn't mean there isn't legitimate concern over govt authorized panels to decide on comparative effectiveness of medical treatments. The current bills are a long, long way from what the opponents are screaming about, but it's still not correct to say that there is NO legitimate basis for concern- there are even real world examples of policies which have led to life or death decisions being made by govt bureaucrats when healthcare decisions and funding are made by govt entities.







  • roro80
    "when people on the proreform side choose to highlight the extreme rhetoric from their opponents"

    The proreform side isn't "choosing" to do this. News shows and their supposed "experts" are taking every crack-pot lie and repeating, repeating, repeating. What are those who are looking to reform the system supposed to do? Just sit on their hands and look at their feet when they are asked questions about "death panels"? When they say offering up a public option is taking away freedom? How are they supposed to refute the outrageous claims without talking about the outrageous claims? You say that "reasonable" people don't like the bill. I have no problem with that, and have agreed with you on that point more than once already on this very thread. The significant moderate input into the bills as they are shaping up leads me to believe that the Dems are, indeed, engaging those people and their reasonable stances, as well as encorporating additions and subtractions that they suggest. That doesn't make the evening news as often because ratings are riding so high on the endless cycle of "Obamacare will keep you from breast cancer treatments!" "It will not!" "Yes-HUH!".

    "Oh please."

    Oh please yourself. We've got GOP pols on TV every night talking the same bull that we hear from the townhall teabaggers. How does one negotiate in good faith with someone who, in their public appearances, basically spews a bunch of lies? Call it tenacious political strategy if you want, and it very well may be just that, but let's not pretend that there is any good-faith policy making going there.
  • HemmD
    CS

    "considering how many corporate interests have been promoting the Obama/Dem Congressional healthcare reform plans. "

    Bribing blue dogs is not nonsense, nor is it reform.

    I suggest you're flat wrong on this. Maddow has had a number of segments tracing just how industry consultants have been directly linked to the current unrest at town hall meetings. Here's a link to one of her expose's.

    http://www.appletreeblog.com/?p=6578

    I suggest you listen to this before you call it nonsense. Sorry, CS, but the guys on your side all have hoods....
  • CStanley
    Roro- TV and the rest of the media is certainly part of this problem. There's not a conspiracy there to support one side or the other, but instead the problem is that controversy sells.

    I have no idea who decides on which congressmen to book on the shows. Is it that the GOP who have sponsored reform bills aren't invited on, or are they laying low for now? Could be either, or both.
  • CStanley
    You can suggest that I'm flat out wrong all you'd like, Hemm, but putting up a one sided argument from Rachel Maddow isn't going to convince me. Let me know when you've looked at the other side, all of the astroturfing by unions and the industries that have been bought off to support this proposal (like the pharm companies who are giving money for ads.)
  • casualobserver
    Here's an alternative plan for you, roro and I will pay you $10,000 if it does not immediately increase acceptance by the public.

    Take away the tax increase.......the word "public option" is as big a freakin' lie as anything the opponents may be using as there is no "option" for me.......I pay for the public option no matter what choice I make.....conservatives may be dumb, but we're not that dumb.

    If you are going to pay for adding in the illegal immigrants with "savings and efficiencies" from Medicare, then lay out exactly what those savings and efiiciencies will be......or withdraw the plan until you do.......old people may be dumb, but we're not that dumb.

    Have the freakin' guts to make the plan stand on its own.........people who want in......pay for it themselves.

    Throwing your whims onto the pocketbook of others who want no part of it is why it is not going anywhere. And don't give that public roads nonsense in response.
  • roro80
    "Is it that the GOP who have sponsored reform bills aren't invited on, or are they laying low for now?"

    My thought is that the reasonable conservatives are there negotiating with the reasonable progressives, which is why the bills have become increasingly more moderate since the beginning of the process. Again, maybe that means that we're all winning on this, that progress is actually being made, and that valid concerns are getting taken into account, even as the TV screamers keep on screaming. That's a nice thought. Perhaps incorrect, but nice none the less.
  • D. E.Rodriguez
    CStanley:

    "You point out that some of what the radicals were saying in the 60s should have been heeded but was ignored because of their apparent 'craziness', and that's exactly what I see Dorian advocating (and many of you agreeing with) in the current situation."

    Could you please explain exactly what I am "advocating"? I thought I was just quoting what those on the right are saying.

    Thanks

    Dorian





  • mikkel
    "I think it's completely wrong to say that when the 'other side is dominated by crazies' you should ignore the other side completely."

    I'm not saying what "should be" I'm saying what is. Yeah I spend a ton of time learning all the nuances of all the sides and filtering out what appears to be valid and what isn't and coming up with an approximate understanding. I also am increasingly feeling like it is a complete waste of my time because it doesn't matter -- the vast vast majority of people don't give a flip. Unless you have gobs of money or political power, what you think personally doesn't really matter, so if you want to be involved the only thing that matters is how the vast majority of people think and how to influence that.

    "You point out that some of what the radicals were saying in the 60s should have been heeded but was ignored "

    No not that we should listen to radicals, but that they pounced on ideas that had much scientific, economic and demographic merit that were developed by people that had expertise and foresight. Those are the people that got ignored improperly. I am not complaining that hippie communes were ignored, just that because a scientist or demographer said something that the hippies also said that they were lumped in.

    "Death panels is absurd hyperbole but that doesn't mean there isn't legitimate concern over govt authorized panels to decide on comparative effectiveness of medical treatments."

    Everyone agrees that one of the largest problems is the lack of effectiveness data. The authorization is only to start a branch that will help collect and analyze this for general use at this point. We shouldn't give credence to absurdity just because it something could possibly happen if everything else in our politics completely changed.

    Trust me, I get more pissed off than anyone that prescient people are ignored just because they are contrary (and thus radicals adopt some of the language) but I see the problem as being that the mainstream is allowing the craziness to drive the debate, not that individuals haven't properly read hundreds of hours of applicable theory to determine what is relevant.
  • roro80
    casual -- I'm not going to get into an argument with you about how the brown people are just ruining everything. Sorry. I'm also not going to indulge in your thinking that "my whims" are somehow coming out of "other people's" (yours?) pocketbooks. Do we have to have another discussion on how taxes work? I know we've had it in the past, and frankly, it's boring.
  • D. E.Rodriguez
    DLS, I forgot to mention that under Obama's plan our health care system would be modeled after the Socialist British National Health Servive, under which people such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance; where the British National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.
  • HemmD
    I take it you took the ten minutes to watch the clip. So your assertion of the specific linkage detailed between health care players and the astro turf is untrue. You are also asserting that the links to right wing Republican operatives such as those who ran the swift boat campaign and the current health care scare tactics are outright lies on her part?

    Really? You really have to explain how the linkage demonstrated in the piece is "slanted." You may not like her tone, but the links can and have been verified.
    You can deny all you want, but I would hope your celebrated objective analysis would win out.
  • Zzzzz
    Death panels is absurd hyperbole but that doesn't mean there isn't legitimate concern over govt authorized panels to decide on comparative effectiveness of medical treatments.

    This "concern" is a slippery slope argument. Basically, they are saying that the current proposals could, eventually- at some unspecified point in time, lead to "death panels" or whatever, and ignore the fact that getting there would involve a whole new debate and legislative process. I think that kind of argument is bogus, regardless of which side is making it.
  • Zzzzz
    If you are going to pay for adding in the illegal immigrants with "savings and efficiencies" from Medicare, then lay out exactly what those savings and efiiciencies will be......or withdraw the plan until you do.......old people may be dumb, but we're not that dumb.

    Except that NONE of the proposals involve financing care for illegal immigrants. Argue in good faith, please.

    Have the freakin' guts to make the plan stand on its own.........people who want in......pay for it themselves.

    I would especially love this for Medicare. As it stands, seniors have only paid a fraction of what they consume in healthcare dollars. We should also kill the disgrace that is Medicare Part D.
  • Rambie
    Reading this porst, I thought for a second there I thought you had been hacked. Then I saw, "The author does not subscribe to those perceptions. "
  • DaGoat
    Basically, they are saying that the current proposals could, eventually- at some unspecified point in time, lead to "death panels" or whatever, and ignore the fact that getting there would involve a whole new debate and legislative process.

    These government panels are already being touted as part of the cost-saving process, why would they require a whole new debate and legislation?

    To clarify, I am probably in the minority in that I think there SHOULD be review of obviously futile care and the government needs to occasionally say no to people similar to what private insurance does. To my knowledge though the makeup and powers of these boards are not well defined, and I think they ought to be.
  • Zzzzz
    These government panels are already being touted as part of the cost-saving process, why would they require a whole new debate and legislation?

    What legislation are you talking about? The house bill doesn't call for that at all. The piece that people were latching on to as leading to 'death panels' was the part a conservative put in the legislation to allow patients to meet with their doctor to discuss living wills and the like. I, personally, think it would be great if QUALYs were used to make decisions about which care gets funded. However, that isn't being proposed in the legislation.
  • DLS
    "I forgot to mention that under Obama's plan our health care system would be modeled after the Socialist British National Health Servive"

    There are no limits to what your side is willing to believe, or to say. Desperation, desperation.

    And were it the case (we'll get something more like our own nation in Flavour, you see), I wouldn't be a celebrity or have political connections in order to avoid the rationing and denial-of-care (and related concerns) that have always been fact based, no matter what depths people descend to evade them.
  • DLL83
    My friend seems to believe most of this nonsense. I want to say to him, "I can't believe you actually believe this stuff!" But he says he's been reading the actual health reform bill online and that all this stuff that is being denounced as lies is actually in there and I should go look for myself. I'm assuming that the sections he's referring to are there, but that the crazies are making unwarranted leaps of logic and assuming implications that really aren't backed up by evidence. But for me, this is still an assumption since I haven't actually read it. Now, I don't expect I'll have time to go read the 1000+ pages of the bill, but I would sure love to shut him down with some proof. Does anyone know of a place where the myths are debunked by using actual citations from the bill? Because most of what I hear in response to the far-right is something to the effect of, "you're crazy, that'll never happen." As much I believe that's true, it's not really enough to win an argument. It just makes the crazies even more angry.
  • HemmD
    Sorry, but the "Kernels" we got side tracked on are debating tactics employed to deflect the more obvious points for discussion. Examining the efficacy of current medical procedures is no more "a kernel of truth" in the Death Panel charge than counciling end of life options is "killing grandma." Don't waste your time chasing that canard. It's not designed to argue in good faith, it's meant to incite the ignorant and distract from the point.

    And the point is simple, health care is huge money to a relatively small group of people, and they will say and do anything to maintain their stranglehold on the market.
  • Slamfu
    In Elroy's defence there was so much repetitive drivel it was sorta hard to make it all the way to the bottom.
  • DaGoat
    What legislation are you talking about? The house bill doesn't call for that at all.

    I'm going by what Obama is saying in his town hall meetings. You tell me what he means I guess.
  • D. E.Rodriguez
    DLL: For starters try http://www.factcheck.org/

    There are many more
  • D. E.Rodriguez
    Slamfu:

    "there was so much repetitive drivel"

    Thanks for catching it, That's exactly the point

    Dorian





  • DLS
    "These government panels are already being touted as part of the cost-saving process"

    The formative efforts are already there in the stimulus legislation. This destroys immediately any naive faith anyone may have had up to now in the solution to any problem being more government benefits. This is not the early to mid 1960s or earlier. The people who admit that yes, there have been death panels in the past but that expansion of federal entitlements solves the problem are being incredibly naive or dishonest when they support efforts by the Dems to reduce and restrict them.

    And "futility" decisions by hospital ethics boards already exist, and experience in the past with rationing and denial of care (such as the famous Seattle panel for early dialysis there) is common knowledge (or at least, should be [scowl]).

    The related politics and threats that are raised by the politics and history of those behind the current health care effort have existed for decades, and have created concerns ever since the later 1960s.

    http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/healthplan/priorlist/...

    http://www.discovery.org/a/3452

    [Koop -- does that name mean anything?]

    http://www.amazon.com/Right-Live-Die/dp/0842355936

    http://www.amazon.com/Whatever-Happened-Human-R...


    Do the proponents actually believe everyone else should be not merely naive or immature (wanting rushed, sloppy DemCare as soon as possible), but also ignorant, or dishonest, or amoral or immoral?

    [sigh]
  • DLS
    "As it stands, seniors have only paid a fraction of what they consume in healthcare dollars. "

    The "premiums" that are paid, are bogus: they only account for one-quarter of the expenditures.

    ("About 75 percent of SMI Part B and Part D expenditures are paid from Federal general fund revenues, with most of the remaining costs covered by monthly premiums charged to enrollees.")

    http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

    Note that the "solution" many want (such as in the Conyers Medicare For All bill) is to just poof! make all funding "mandatory" out of general revenues (leaving it to others actually to raise them).

    (HR 676 also, somewhat, addresses the intent of what kinds of new taxes are to be sought.)

    (b) Annual Appropriation for Funding of USNHI Program- There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act such sums as may be necessary.

    (c) Intent- Sums appropriated pursuant to subsection (b) shall be paid for--

    (1) by vastly reducing paperwork;

    (2) by requiring a rational bulk procurement of medications;

    (3) from existing sources of Federal government revenues for health care;

    (4) by increasing personal income taxes on the top 5 percent income earners;

    (5) by instituting a modest payroll tax; and

    (6) by instituting a small tax on stock and bond transactions.


    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:1:./...
  • Silhouette
    "Polimom" writes,
    ****
    "Actually, as I was reading Dorian's post, I realized that there's a flip-side that's being overlooked -- the boost to some sectors of business!

    For instance: I foresee an enormous boom in specialized "knee cushions", so that grovelling ill persons can at least kneel in comfort in front of the death panel overlords. (Perhaps a special size for prostration as well?) "
    ********
    Good, can my dying 50-something year old friend have a pair? Right now she's on her hands and knees begging her private insurance company to let her eat, keep her house and get well. So far they aren't listening. She'd like to beg them to lower her insane deductables and ever-skyrocketing premiums and not drop her like the insurer before them did, after decades of faithful premium payments.

    So, yeah, send a pair of those kneepads this way.. Funny you also brought up Halloween costumes, skeletons and such. She'll probably be dead by then..
  • Almoderate
    Very well played, Dorian! I always enjoy a good satire.
  • D. E.Rodriguez
    "You'd better watermark this thread with "This is a condensed version of LIES being perpetrated by the Health Industry and Republicans" because before you know it someone will be linking to your article to "prove" that Obama really wants to kill us all."

    Steve K, you were right. I am finding several anti-abortion, anti Obama-health-care sites ar indeed quoting specific excerptstjat suit their purposes from the post.

    However, they also provide the link to the original article and those who follow it may be in for a suprise. Maybe, maybe not
  • Zzzzz
    I'm going by what Obama is saying in his town hall meetings. You tell me what he means I guess.

    Obama isn't writing the legislation. Congress and the Senate are. That is how it is supposed to be, seperation of powers and all that.
  • Father_Time
    If large numbers of Americans actually believes this crap then that should be ample prove that we need to spend MUCH MORE money on education. Education reform anyone?
  • Zzzzz
    The "premiums" that are paid, are bogus: they only account for one-quarter of the expenditures.

    I wasn't just talking about their premiums (which should be higher). I was talking about their tax contributions over their working lives. Link below:

    http://blog.american.com/?p=3990
  • DaGoat
    Obama isn't writing the legislation. Congress and the Senate are. That is how it is supposed to be, seperation of powers and all that.

    Ok thanks for the civics lesson. I'll stop paying attention to what Obama says.
  • DLS
    "Obama isn't writing the legislation. Congress and the Senate are."

    That's how should be, but in practice the Executive branch likes to involve itself in this process.

    There are even people who actually want this fusion or mixing of powers to occur (such as if they are dissatisfied with the nature or pace of legislation in Congress).

    "I was talking about their tax contributions over their working lives."

    This applies to Social Security, too, not just to Medicare.

    In fact, I routinely decline to address this and concentrate instead on the dependency ratio and the future liabilities and the tax implications for the taxpayers who will suffer greatly in the future, but what we have with these benefits is a large-scale income and wealth transfer from others to the elderly.

    http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus...
  • DLS
    "Zzzzz": Others choose to be ignorant, rude, etc., because it demolishes their delusions (including making us more like Europe), but:

    http://csis.org/program/global-aging-vulnerabil...
  • westbeach80
    Obama is doing the right thing to start nationalizing health care. Many Americans have been fed propaganda that Obama's plan would cause a medical emergency. Health care is a right for every citizen. Currently, 50 million Americans have no health care coverage. That is simply unacceptable.

    In the US, "health care is a privilege attainable by the wealthy, a benefit provided solely at the discretion of an employer, a government subsidized insurance plan for the elderly or a charitable gift provided based on the goodwill of others." (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0843/is_...)

    As a Canadian, I love our universal health care system. I had ruptured my Achilles tendon 3 months ago and had surgery 5 days later with an awesome surgeon in Vancouver. My recovery has been excellent and I received no medical bill.

    Name one country that has been successful at meeting the needs of every citizen with privatized health care? Can you imagine if America privatized all of its water sources. It would be a disaster.
  • D. E.Rodriguez
    Westbeach 80:

    Thanks for your "on-the-ground" comments on the Canadian health care system.

    In spite of a (paid) TV ad to the contray, and in spite of what some others have said/will say, I have heard and read a preponderance of favorable comments on your health system.



  • ksterling
    Did you bother to read the comment? a rant about fake wars. My point
    is, don't complain about the previous admin and fake wars when this
    admin is doing the same thing. The other person brought up the topic
    first; did you reprimand them also?
  • Silhouette
    Westbeach80 writes,
    **
    "Currently, 50 million Americans have no health care coverage. That is simply unacceptable."
    **
    Actually they do have "coverage". It's called the ER-room. And guess who ultimately picks up that tab? That's right, we the taxpayers are already footing the bill for the 50-million uninsured. So as a member of that shareholder's group, I vote that we rein in our existing expenses on this wasteful procedure and put money into covering and oversight for this unwieldy system. I'd like to see my money go towards first legitimizing the baby with a sirname "public option" and then overseeing it's upbringing to a fully functioning system over the next 10 years or so.

    I want what already exists to be named and streamlined. Preventative care that is accessible to all saves money. Also, I don't know how we the taxpayers can continue to foot the bill for those people who are currently on private insurance but who will be denied and dropped from the rolls arbitrarily and lose their homes, their jobs etc. over the issue. They will need somewhere to sleep and something to eat. And guess who will pay that bill too? Yep, that's the taxpayer again. We can't afford to deny what already exists...the ER-public option and bankruptcy from private health scams have nearly bankrupted us. That boulder has sent a real ripple out in the pond.
  • perfecthealth
    On Bush's war, I agree. Obama is wasting his time in Iraq and Af.
    I voted for Obama but I am VERY disappointed on the war issue.
    Thanks for your reply.
  • perfecthealth
    Yes, we should leave Iraq and Afghanistan.
  • perfecthealth
    Nice post. To be fair, is there anything that doesn't work in your system.
  • Ooo, can I play too?

    We need health care reform NOW! There's no time to debate it. Just pass it. Those who have concerns don't know what they're talking about because there is no bill yet. But we need to pass it now, even though it doesn't exist yet. If you have a concern, you shouldn't because the bill doesn't exist. But let me tell you all of the great things that are in the thing that doesn't exist yet, and how it is deficit neutral. And we're not cutting medicare benefits, just that pesky "inefficiency" known as Medicare Advantage. And this is the only way to decrease our deficit, despite the fact that the CBO says it will increase the deficit. What do they know? Remember, the bill doesn't exist yet, so how could they have scored it? We need more choice, and how can there be more choice unless we have a public option? It has the word "option" in it, so it must be the only way to provide more options. If you support Medicare, or even recognize the practical impossibility of repealing it fairly, you can't possibly be opposed to a public option. The very fact that Medicare is an entitlement that cannot be undone is evidence that we in fact need more entitlements, not less. And if you receive Medicare benefits, you lose your right to oppose anything the government wants to do from that point on. If you receive Medicare benefits, you can no longer suggest that any government program might be socialistic. And if you do, we will mock you instead of address your underlying concern that you didn't state very well. No, it doesn't matter that you paid into the program by force and feel entitled the benefit you paid and planned for. If you don't like our plan, we should take away the Medicare benefits that you paid and planned for (yes, that was suggested). Let me tell you about the time my insurance company said they might not cover something. Yes, after a few phone calls the issue was resolved, but still, they suck. They don't add anything worth-while to our health care system, which is why we need a system that makes sure that everyone can get it.

    Ok, I'm no good at that. Dorian is a much better writer than I, and I admit that it's true that the rhetoric from the right seems more inflammatory than what's coming from the left these days. But both sides are spinning and deceiving. Maybe the left is just better at doing it more subtly.

    (My intent is not to stir people up. I was just letting out some pent-up frustration, as was the author of this post I think. This was not a serious attempt at portraying the views of most of the people on the left, just as the post was not--I hope--a serious attempt at portraying the concerns of most on the right.)
  • CStanley
    Hemm, I skimmed through the clip but if you insist on having me watch 10 full minutes of Maddow's smugness I will try to stomach it (have to get to work soon but will try to watch it all later today.) My quick overview of it turned up a few things that actually have been proven false or highly exaggerated, but that wasn't even what I said to you in my first reaction to it. What I called it was 'slanted', and I stand by that 100%. That's mostly what MSNBC does, just as it's mostly what Fox does- presenting one side of an issue only and calling out anyone on the opposing side while ignoring all kinds of shenanigans from the side of the supporters of their preferred views.

    Read my comment again- what I said was that I was unconvinced by her one sided argument, and then I added:
    " Let me know when you've looked at the other side, all of the astroturfing by unions and the industries that have been bought off to support this proposal (like the pharm companies who are giving money for ads.)"

    To which you replied something about the Blue Dogs being bought off, but what I was referring to is the degree of industry support for the Obama/Pelosi version of reform. You are aware, aren't you, that the administration got the pharmaceutical industry to put up millions in advertising money, apparently as quid pro quo for dropping the ability to negotiate drug prices?

    My point is that there aren't any clean hands with regard to backroom dealings and lobbying here. I think that the majority of healthcare industry money probably is on the side of blocking the Dem reforms, but then on the Dem sides there are tons of lobbyists and astroturfers representing unions and other special interests. One particularly repugnant thing about the union support for the current plans is that they're preventing any consideration of levelling the tax playing field on employer based plans, because the unions have fought for gold plated insurance plans from their employers and they refuse to allow taxation which would take away from those benefits. I say that's repugnant because I think that one step of starting to dissassociate health insurance from employment would go farther than just about anything else in actually reforming our system and reinstating some price competition.
  • CStanley
    Mikkel- I think you're still missing my point a bit. You say that you take the time to actually listen to real opposing arguments, even when there are other wacko elements latching on to a theme. That's great, but the reality is that most people don't. I pointed out that I've caught myself doing this in the past- ignoring serious arguments because of all the noise on the other side which led me to believe that the whole issue was not legitimate. Since I've caught myself doing that, I now realize I need to be more careful- ignore the noise, but still examine whether or not the noise is there for a real reason.

    So what I was talking about is that posts like this one which seek to ridicule, are basically advocating that we should all ignore a whole side of the debate if/when there are ridiculous people on that side. That was how I read Hemm's comment where he basically said that I should think about the company I'm keeping. Imagine feeling that way if you were anti-Iraq War, for instance, and someone like me said that you shouldn't put any credence in those sentiments because of idiot war protesters like the Code Pinkers. That's just dumb- just because people whom you'd rather not be associated with latch onto a cause, doesn't mean the cause or the political position itself should be declared illegitimate. And I get that you don't think that way- but there are an awful lot of moderate/independent thinkers here who ARE allowing themselves to be swayed by that kind of thinking.
  • CStanley
    Gee, Dorian, think of it as a compliment- I was assuming that you don't spend your time writing for no good reason, nor would I think you would just wake up in the morning and throw darts at a wall to decide what to write about.

    In other words, I assume you decided to 'quote what those on the right are saying' for a reason, no?

    And was that reason not to ridicule them? That's what satire like this generally is intended to do. If you saw some other reason to write this piece, I guess I can't figure out what that reason could be.
  • D. E.Rodriguez
    CStanley

    "In other words, I assume you decided to 'quote what those on the right are saying' for a reason, no?
    "
    Of course, for a reason: To, through satire---and by using verbatim quotes---expose the exaggerations, lies and fear mongering by the "right wing nuts."

    BTW, adelinesdad, good try!
  • mikkel
    Well we obviously agree on the problem, but you were still missing my point. It's impossible to argue with irrational hyperbole or hypocrisy yet that's what the vast majority of the "debate" is, so it drowns out all the legitimate complaints. Ideally the guardians of messaging wouldn't play into this, but the point is that the media and politicians are (the Dems version is "big corporations" or "think of the children/poor").

    As such I really see no other way except ridicule to try to get people to ignore it (or maybe just relieve frustration haha)...and I didn't see Dorian's original post as ridiculing the opposition in general, just the outlandishness of the arguments. In fact on other threads he has been very responsive to rational arguments against it.

    I've been kind of doing that in my personal life more and more where supporters will be like "well we have to get the big insurance companies out of it because their profits are making everything too expensive" or the whole "look at all the poor people without coverage we have to help them!" And don't get me started on the ram it through argument which I was considering writing a post on. I mean I agree with the underlying premise of all those statements but they don't reflect reality in the slightest. So I bring this up and most of the time it gets them thinking and wanting to learn more but a few times people have said that it "can't be" and such and then admit they haven't actually read any analysis or anything...hopefully they did. Of course I've never mocked someone to their face about the issue yet because I don't think I'd waste my time talking to someone that would just keep repeating the same thing over and over in person.

    I'm not sure if you've watched anything on the Daily Show about it, but the majority of the segments have been showing how bumbling the Democrats are. Also I agree with your perception that the big medical companies want the bill to pass because it'll give them more money and subsidize things so people will stop complaining for a while...and backroom deals show that.
  • mikkel
    No adelinesdad that's pretty accurate and seems to be the level that most of the pro-reform discourse is on, just like Dorian's is pretty representative of most of the right rhetoric (I'm not sure if most of the people are on either side, just the amount of noise). Still there is a fundamental difference between that and acting like the government is goign to going to kill grandma.
  • D. E.Rodriguez
    Mikkel, thanks for perhaps more eloquently, patiently and thoughtfully responding on some of the comments.

    Dorian

  • westbeach80
    The best reform is starting exercise programs at work, school, and home. In the past, we moved around a lot to do things, but now many of us just sit and consume information. Think about it, 5 days out of the week if you are working a regular office job, you wake up in bed, sit and eat breakfast (if you even have any and studies show eating a healthy breakfast improves your diet), get in the car, drive to work, sit at the desk for 8 hours, get in the car, drive home, sit and eat dinner, and then sit on the couch watching TV or reading a book.

    We often have a short term vision for health care and not a long term. If the government and private sector started encouraging people to exercise, it saves the health care system millions of dollars in the long run: less hospital visits, and paying for medication. In Vancouver, exercise and eating right is promoted everywhere. The City of Vancouver recently closed one lane of Burrard Street Bridge for cyclists only to encourage people to bike to work. The university I work at has recently changed all their vending machines to healthy snacks and removed all junk food.
  • CStanley
    Of course, for a reason: To, through satire---and by using verbatim quotes---expose the exaggerations, lies and fear mongering by the "right wing nuts."
    Well, that is what I meant when I referred to what you were advocating- because by attempting to 'expose', I assume you advocate that reasonable people should ignore those who make these exaggerated claims.
  • justmy02cents
    WHEW! I am really exhausted from reading this thread.....

    For a supposedly moderate thread, there seems to be a majority of throwbacks to the past 8 years of the Presidential Administration....especially those with BDS...

    So while reading through this swapping-spit festival with Dorian, I MUST have overlooked any post that actually examined the substance of the proported satire.

    Did I miss it somewhere?

    Nevertheless, I digress. For the record, I do not support any of the present healthcare reform proposals.

    Each has serious failings and combining the "best" from each still leaves a lot to be desired.

    Nowhere has anyone explained the difference between healthcare reform and healthcare insurance reform. It seems that these terms are used interchangeably when they are very different issues.

    Let me start with healthcare insurance reform. I'll admit that there are pandemic problems with today's healthcare insurance industry.....some of which may be remedied with minor surgery...(pardon the pun).

    For example:
    allow insruance to travel with an employee across state lines

    make insurance ala carte....I DO NOT NEED TO PAY FOR MATERNITY COVERAGE...those days are over for me...there are many other mandatory coverages that I will NEVER NEED yet I STILL MUST PAY FOR THEM

    eliminate the odious "pre-existing condition" and force the insurers to add all insured to the pool of covered participants.

    Eliminate "waiting periods"

    OK now it is YOUR turn to be a moderate voice and suggest some additional changes that will save money and improve coverage....instead of slobbering over Dorian's sad attempt at satire.

    Regarding eligibility for private coverage, I believe that coverage should only be available to:
    legally employed
    unemployed US Citizens
    unempoyed Legal Residents
    (oops there goes the new voting block the left was counting on)

    By no means do I think that this is anything more than a small start at a reasonable approach to reform

    Just My $0.02
  • CStanley
    Ugh...just wrote a fairly lengthy reply and then lost it.

    Short version is that I think we disagree on the value of ridicule. I think that even people making absurdly exaggerated claims really do have some basis for their concerns. Sometimes the concern might be completely unfounded and you can show them why; other times it's a valid concern but being blown out of proportion. I think it's important to try to validate real concerns while separating those from the ones that are completely off the wall. And while we may also disagree about validity of concerns from the right, I do happen to agree with some of the core principles about govt involvement in allocation of health resources. To date, the govt insurance programs haven't rationed much at all with some populations (seniors) due to the political clout of those groups, while they do provide inadequate resources for other groups with less clout (veterans, the disabled, and Native Americans). Adding more groups under the govt umbrella will likely lead to higher and higher expenditures and then turf battles over who gets the highest quality care and who has to give up more- and to some degree senior citizens are probably going to have to give up the most from what they have now (and that's not altogether bad or wrong either, but I don't really trust the decisions to be well made.)
  • justmy02cents
    Dear CStanley,

    It is my FIRM belief that the receipt of healthcare SHOULD NOT DEPEND on POLITICAL CLOUT!

    period

    finit

    c'est sa

    A perfect example of where EACH and EVERY ONE of the current crop of reform proposals will lead us to.

    One has only to examine where the portion of $787 billion stimulus that have been committed to date have gone....80% as "rewards" to supporters of the current administration.

    Did I just hear a chill run down your spine?

    the following is from PatriotPost.US Monday 8/31/2009

    Please take the time to read it and then understand that this is NOT about healthcare reform, healthcare insurance reform or any other type of reform.....

    "read my lips" it is about POWER

    TO he central government FROM the citizenry.

    "Chicago politics is not about ideology. It is about, 'Who Gets What, When, and How,' to quote the inimitable Harold D. Laswell, one of the outstanding political theorists of the last century. The sine qua non of Chicago politics is power, getting it and keeping it. Everything else is incidental. Even corruption is a byproduct of power and is functional only if it enables you to stay in power. In Chicago politics, you don't make waves, you don't back losers, and you 'don't talk to nobody nobody sent.' Chicago politics is always about hierarchy and centralization. ... If you want to understand Obama's health care policy, you need to start where Obama starts. You need to start with Chicago. You need to look at constituent interests. Obama won in 2008 because, among other things, he mobilized the electoral periphery. He mobilized young voters and minority voters, people who traditionally had a lower probability of showing up on Election Day. Chicago politics is about mobilizing the vote. 'Vote early and often' is the city's sardonic refrain. Obama needs his newly socialized base. He needs them to keep coming to the polls. In the vein of Chicago politics, he needs to deliver benefits to them. Unrewarded, the electoral periphery will revert back to apathy. Health care is a reward to this base of people who are on the economic as well as political periphery. ... Obama understands that his objective is to provide his base with the spoils of power -- in this case insurance. ... If all that Obama wanted were to insure those who fall between the cracks, he could put them into the same wonderful program that Congress created for itself by subsidizing their premiums. This would neither require a thousand pages of legislation nor a new series of bureaucracies. But building a new power base resulting from the mobilization of the political and economic periphery requires redefining the nation's health problems as the nation's health catastrophe. Health reform is Chicago politics on a national level." --University of Cincinnati emeritus professor of political science Abraham Miller

    "Power to the People"

    JustMy02cents
  • mikkel
    I think it's important to consider the source of such concerns. I would never approve of ridiculing an individual that is concerned about death panels and such out of ignorance and asks politely and listens (and aggressively challenges incorrect stuff) but when it comes to political or media leaders, or those that are just shouting epithets...

    I guess I feel that regardless of the validity of your concerns, if you don't present them "well" (i.e. either rationally factual or calm...I say either because I don't think it's a vice be angry when you are actually being truthful) then you don't deserve to have them addressed. Of course the concern you have is completely valid to debate and you may never trust the government to handle it, but you stated it logically instead of saying that the government was conspiring to kill people. Tone matters.

    I guess my problem is more about the people that know better that are spreading this to get people riled up, not so much the people that believe it. I don't see any reason why they should be "allowed" to do this.
  • mikkel
    Try going here and following some of those links.
  • westbeach80
    Some good articles to read.

    August 30, 2009 - Former U.S. president Bill Clinton swooped into Toronto yesterday, praising Canadian health care during an hour-long speech to just under 12,000 people.

    Although Clinton's talk focused on the growing divide between the world's cities and its rural areas, he acknowledged Kennedy's passing.

    "I hope that his lifetime dream, that America will finally follow Canada and every other advanced nation in the world in providing affordable health care to all of our people, will pass."

    Source: http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/canada/2009/08/...

    "Among the OECD's 30 members -- which include Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom -- there are only three lacking universal health coverage. The other two happen to be Mexico and Turkey, which have the excuse of being poorer than the rest (and until the onset of the world economic crisis, Mexico was on the way to providing healthcare to all of its citizens). The third, of course, is us.

    As the study suggests, our grossly inflated and poorly managed health budget results from a variety of pathologies, including a greater prevalence of obesity and other chronic illness, a powerful pharmaceutical lobby that keeps prices high, and the profit-making imperative of the private insurance companies that still dominate American health policy, more than four decades after we established universal coverage for the elderly and the poor. Looking forward, the OECD advocates many of the same incremental reforms contemplated by the Obama administration."

    Source: http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/3/9/18277/26800

    "A single payer system could save $286 billion a year in overhead and paperwork. Administrative costs in the U.S. health care system are substantially higher than those in other countries and than in the public sector in the US: one estimate put the total administrative costs at 24 percent of U.S. health care spending."

    Source: ^ Public Citizen. "Study Shows National Health Insurance Could Save $286 Billion on Health Care Paperwork:" http://www.citizen.org.

    ^ Reinhardt UE, Hussey PS, Anderson GF (2004). "U.S. health care spending in an international context". Health Aff (Millwood) 23 (3): 10–25. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.23.3.10. PMID 15160799. http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/fu....
  • CStanley
    I think the issue though, mikkel, is what is effective and what is not. It doesn't matter if people 'deserve' to have their concerns answered. What matters is that if you really believe that reform is important, and that it's being blocked by varying degrees of misinformation from both sides (perhaps worse on one side or the other but even that doesn't really matter) then you still have to look at efficacy when deciding whether or not to engage people's arguments. And while I agree that it's more egregious when people who know better use the dishonest arguments, by engaging them you still are able to help persuade all of the people who've been misinformed (well, not necessarily you, or I- but if one of us were a public official who could go on the cable shows and choose whether to ridicule the townhall protesters or engage the arguments that they're using, for example.)
  • justmy02cents
    Sorry???? I am very new to this and did not find any links....

    Please understand, I am NOT contending that these things were not said.....what I'd like to know is are any of them TRUE or close to TRUE (no parsing of words allowed here...right?)

    JustMy02Cents
  • CStanley
    Hmm...I'm not sure whether you addressed that to me because you understood my point about political clout or if you misread me. I think it's wrong for allocation of resources to be done according to political clout, and I think that's one of the main dangers of govt power over the resources to begin with.

    I do think though that to some degree, healthcare resources have already been misallocated to senior citizens and end of life care. The problem is though that there is naturally going to be some skewing toward that end of the spectrum when care is most needed- but somehow we need to come to terms with the fact that none of us are immortal and the finite worldly resources can't keep every individual alive as long as we'd necessarily like. I'd rather have the power of govt left out of the calculus for that as much as possible, but the fact is they're already in it because of Medicare and the current cost trajectory is already unsustainable.
  • justmy02cents
    Thank You...I will read each

    Can we assume that President Clinton will be opting into the public option?

    sorry in advance, but please stop throwing marshmellows....lol

    justmy02cents
  • justmy02cents
    Please see my post re: Chicago politics....Yes I agree...get the government out of my life...except for security and disaster relief....

    anything else is unconstitutional
  • "Still there is a fundamental difference between that and acting like the government is goign to going to kill grandma."

    Agreed. I admitted that the rhetoric from the right is more inflammatory. That seems to be a pattern with the party that is out of power (see the 911 conspiracy theorists on the left when Bush was in power which have similar poll number to the current Birther's movement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_opinion_polls...) The party in power wants to look calm and calculating, to give the impression of control and confidence (hows that for some alliteration). The party out of power wants to make it seem like the world is going to end tomorrow (but if it doesn't, vote us into office as soon as possible so we can fix it). So yes, we can expect a different type of rhetoric from both sides, but beneath the rhetoric are the same distortions.
  • D. E.Rodriguez
    Westbeach80:

    Thanks for the links and for the other constructive and helpful comments you have made.

    Dorian
  • westbeach80
    Definitely, there are weaknesses to the universal health care system like
    longer wait times; losing talented doctors to private sector (a number of
    Canadian doctors are heading to the US because of better wages); not enough
    beds; and less equipment available like MRIs. The great thing about
    privatized health care is that if Americans have the money, they will get
    the best treatment. The problem is those who cannot afford insurance and who
    don't get treatment. I hear stories in the US where patients are denied
    service at one hospital because they won't accept their insurance and they
    have to drive to another hospital. That to me is just crazy.

    "Despite these stories emanating from the press and pressure groups (mostly
    from the US) about the weakness of the universal health care, the fact
    remains that most Canadians are satisfied with the health care system. 85.2%
    of Canadians reported that they were "satisified" or "very satisfied" with
    the way health care services are provided in their country and an even
    higher number (89.8%) rated their physician in the same way though slightly
    lower ratings were awarded to hospitals (79.9% being "satisified" or "very
    satisfied")." (Source: "Healthy Canadians: Canadian government report on
    comparable health care indicators<http://www.healthcoalition.ca/index-eng.pdf>
    ". http://www.healthcoalition.ca/index-eng.pdf.)

    I believe the benefits of having universal health care outweigh the costs.
    Universal health care is socialized health care and to many Americans that
    scares them that the government would be in control. Socialism just does not
    go right with the Republicans, but the Democrats lean to the left and are
    open to ideas. Obama's plan scares Americans because they feel he will
    cripple America's health care when in fact the system is already crippled in
    not being able to provide health care to all citizens regardless of one's
    income.

    Many Americans are buying prescription drugs from Canadian distributors,
    either over the Internet or traveling there to buy them in person, because
    cost is substantially lower than they would pay in the US. Cross-border
    purchasing has been estimated at $1 billion annually.

    I believe some government control is better for a country in certain sectors
    and not just free enterprise. All you need to look at is what happened with
    America's banks (mortgages handed out like free candy). There are thousands
    of banks in the US with little to no regulation, and now look at where the
    current state of the US economy is in. I'm not being biased about how great
    Canada is, but I do believe in some form of socialism. Canada has less than
    100 banks that are fully regulated and have been a model to countries around
    the world. Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister of Canada, was asked by
    journalists from other countries how did Canada's banks stay healthy and
    make profits. He responded that government regulation was key to making sure
    banks don't take major risks. Canada is in a recession, but not as badly as
    many countries around the world.
  • D. E.Rodriguez
    Westbeach80:

    "...the fact remains that most Canadians are satisfied with the health care system. 85.2%
    of Canadians reported that they were "satisified" or "very satisfied" with
    the way health care services are provided in their country and an even
    higher number (89.8%) rated their physician in the same way though slightly
    lower ratings were awarded to hospitals (79.9% being "satisified" or "very
    satisfied")."

    I have seen similar figures elsewhere. They are also pretty good in England and other European countries. And, guess, what, they are lower in the US

    Thanks
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC