PDA

View Full Version : APP - 'Death panel' is not in the bill... it already exists



Canceled2
08-15-2009, 10:11 AM
Here it is...we are all a bunch of suckers!


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin has come under fire for her Facebook post (http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=116471698434) accusing President Obama and the Democrats of including a "death panel" provision the health care bill. The Associated Press recently ran a ‘Fact Check' (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090811/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_end_of_life_q_a) article rebutting Palin's claim.


AP argues that the bill's end-of-life counseling provision has been mistaken as a promotion of euthanasia and thus the death panel assertion by Palin and many other conservatives is false and misleading.


The New York Times has joined in the death panel bashing (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/health/policy/14panel.html?_r=2). Jim Rutenburg and Jackie Calmes assert the following:


There is nothing in any of the legislative proposals that would call for the creation of death panels or any other governmental body that would cut off care for the critically ill as a cost-cutting measure.


The AP is technically correct in stating that end-of-life counseling is not the same as a death panel. The New York Times is also correct to point out that the health care bill contains no provision setting up such a panel.


What both outlets fail to point out is that the panel already exists.


H.R. 1 (more commonly known as the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, even more commonly known as the Stimulus Bill and aptly dubbed the Porkulus Bill) contains a whopping $1.1 billion to fund the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. The Council is the brain child of former Health and Human Services Secretary Nominee Tom Daschle. Before the Porkulus Bill passed, Betsy McCaughey, former Lieutenant governor of New York, wrote in detail (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs) about the Council's purpose.


Daschle's stated purpose (and therefore President Obama's purpose) for creating the Council is to empower an unelected bureaucracy to make the hard decisions about health care rationing that elected politicians are politically unable to make. The end result is to slow costly medical advancement and consumption. Daschle argues that Americans ought to be more like Europeans who passively accept "hopeless diagnoses."


McCaughey goes on to explain:

Daschle says health-care reform "will not be pain free." Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them.


Who is on the Council? (http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/os/cerbios.html) One of its most prominent members is none other than Dr. Death (http://www.nypost.com/seven/07242009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/deadly_doctors_180941.htm?&page=1) himself Ezekiel Emanuel. Dr. Emanuel's views on care of the elderly should frighten anyone who is or ever plans on being old. He explains the logic behind his discriminatory views on elderly care as follows:


Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years.


On average 25-year-olds require very few medical services. If they are to get the lion's share of the treatment, then those 65 and over can expect very little care. Dr. Emanuel's views on saving money on medical care are simple: don't provide any medical care. The loosely worded provisions in H.R 1 give him and his Council increasing power to push such recommendations.


Similarly hazy language will no doubt be used in the health care bill. What may pass as a 1,000 page health care law will explode into perhaps many thousands of pages of regulatory codes. The deliberate vagueness will give regulators tremendous leverage to interpret its provisions. Thus Obama's Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein will play a major role in defining the government's role in controlling medical care.


How does Sunstein approach end of life care? In 2003 he wrote a paper (http://aei-brookings.org/admin/authorpdfs/redirect-safely.php?fname=../pdffiles/phprW.pdf) for the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies arguing that human life varies in value. Specifically he champions statistical methods that give preference to what the government rates as "quality-adjusted life years." Meaning, the government decides whether a person's life is worth living. If the government decides the life is not worth living, it is the individual's duty to die to free up welfare payments for the young and productive.


Ultimately it was Obama himself, in answer to a question on his ABC News infomercial, who said that payment determination cannot be influenced by a person's spirit and "that at least we (the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research) can let doctors know and your mom know that...this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller."


Maybe we should ask the Associated Press and New York Times if they still think we shouldn't be concerned about a federal "death panel."


Article located here (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/death_panel_is_not_in_the_bill.html)

Fish
08-15-2009, 10:35 AM
I fail to see how this is a death panel, but...



Daschle's stated purpose (and therefore President Obama's purpose) for creating the Council is to empower an unelected bureaucracy to make the hard decisions about health care rationing that elected politicians are politically unable to make.


Let me rewrite this paragraph.

Dachle's stated purpose (which says nothing about President Obama's purpose) for creating the Council is to take health care decisions out of the hands of government and insurance industry bureaucrats and put them in the hands of actual doctors who make decisions on how treatment actually effects quality of life.


Similarly hazy language will no doubt be used in the health care bill.

Thanks for that assumption, random guy who writes a blog who's opinion I certainly trust.



How does Sunstein approach end of life care? In 2003 he wrote a paper (http://aei-brookings.org/admin/authorpdfs/redirect-safely.php?fname=../pdffiles/phprW.pdf) for the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies arguing that human life varies in value. Specifically he champions statistical methods that give preference to what the government rates as "quality-adjusted life years." Meaning, the government decides whether a person's life is worth living. If the government decides the life is not worth living, it is the individual's duty to die to free up welfare payments for the young and productive.


The abstract to this paper states, "A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people." Which I agree with.



"Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller."


This is sometimes true, which is all Obama was saying.

Canceled2
08-15-2009, 11:04 AM
I fail to see how this is a death panel, but...



Let me rewrite this paragraph.

Dachle's stated purpose (which says nothing about President Obama's purpose) for creating the Council is to take health care decisions out of the hands of government and insurance industry bureaucrats and put them in the hands of actual doctors who make decisions on how treatment actually effects quality of life.

Obama chose Dachle for his health tsar. That makes Dachle's opinions ideas and policy on Health care very Much Obama's. This nefarious council will be some group who do not "know" the people they will be evaluating. It is a ridiculous claim to think that this panel can ever make a good credible decision about people they don't even know. Their only purpose is to save money whcih equals rationing care! The formulas used to make those determinations will be sterile rationales that have nothing to do with the individual!

Thanks for that assumption, random guy who writes a blog who's opinion I certainly trust.



The abstract to this paper states, "A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people." Which I agree with.




This is sometimes true, which is all Obama was saying.

What Obama was saying is that a group of people who do not know the patient will determine if surgery is the best option for someone in pain, or if the patient is only going to get pain killers! Again, this is a decision that should be ONLY between the patient and his doctor...period! Of course we have to ask again about how these nefarious decisions will be made. It is becoming clear by listening to those who are close to the president what the formula for these decisions to ration care will be..."if you are old go to the back of line...but hey, here's a pill to hold ya over".

Fish
08-15-2009, 11:08 AM
What Obama was saying is that a group of people who do not know the patient will determine if surgery is the best option for someone in pain, or if the patient is only going to get pain killers! Again, this is a decision that should be ONLY between the patient and his doctor...period! Of course we have to ask again about how these nefarious decisions will be made. It is becoming clear by listening to those who are close to the president what the formula for these decisions to ration care will be..."if you are old go to the back of line...but hey, here's a pill to hold ya over".

"if you are poor go home and die...but hey, at least America still has private insurance"

Canceled2
08-15-2009, 11:48 AM
"if you are poor go home and die...but hey, at least America still has private insurance"

If you are poor you are one of several million American's who already receive free health care. If you do not, it is likely because you have not signed up for it, or you are not sick. If you do get sick you are likely one of several million American's who are treated in emergency rooms or health clinics every day.

If you are only recently poor it is because we have democrats ruining our economy and you'll likely stay poor the longer they are in power.

VOTE GOP!

Fish
08-15-2009, 12:29 PM
If you are poor you are one of several million American's who already receive free health care. If you do not, it is likely because you have not signed up for it, or you are not sick.

Try again.

Canceled2
08-15-2009, 12:39 PM
Try again.

Don't need to.

Fish
08-15-2009, 12:43 PM
So your solution to health care for those who can't afford it is to just wait until you get really sick and go to the emergency room?

Canceled2
08-15-2009, 12:49 PM
So your solution to health care for those who can't afford it is to just wait until you get really sick and go to the emergency room?

I didn't say that. I just undermined your hyperbole for the shill BS that it was.

Fish
08-15-2009, 12:51 PM
I didn't say that. I just undermined your hyperbole for the shill BS that it was.

What hyperbole are you referring to?

Canceled2
08-15-2009, 12:53 PM
What hyperbole are you referring to?

You really are a slow swimmer.

"if you are poor go home and die...but hey, at least America still has private insurance"

Fish
08-15-2009, 12:54 PM
I know it's hard to follow every thread, but I am poor and don't qualify for medicaid.

Canceled2
08-15-2009, 01:11 PM
I know it's hard to follow every thread, but I am poor and don't qualify for medicaid.

Then I suggest you take advantage of other recsources. Free clinics that offer sliding fee scales, emergency rooms, charity programs through hospitals.

For more actual and factual data on statistics regarding the under or uninsured. (http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/062409ECHearingNCPAGoodman.pdf)


Take for instance the claim that 47 million Americans have no health insurance. (http://www.themarknews.com/articles/405-health-care-myths-debunked) Dr. Devon Herrick of the National Center for Policy Analysis annually updates a detailed analysis of U.S. Census figures that are used to make this claim. According to his research, 85 per cent of U.S. residents in 2007 were privately insured or enrolled in a government health program. Of the uninsured, 18 million had household incomes above $50,000 and could afford health insurance; and 14 million qualified for government programs but had not enrolled.

Herrick concludes that 32 million people, or 70 per cent of the uninsured, could easily obtain coverage but have chosen to forgo insurance. That means 95 per cent of U.S. residents either have health coverage or access to it.

TuTu Monroe
08-15-2009, 01:33 PM
Try again.

She's right. Since you think you are so smart, prove her wrong.

Onceler
08-15-2009, 01:36 PM
"a group of people who do not know the patient will determine if surgery is the best option for someone in pain, or if the patient is only going to get pain killers! Again, this is a decision that should be ONLY between the patient and his doctor...period! "

Welcome to insurance companies.

Seriously...do you live in America? Do you live on earth?

FUCK THE POLICE
08-15-2009, 01:49 PM
What an amazing dodge. First you claim that this bill is going to create a death panel, then when it's pointed out that you're an idiot, you go and throw out a red herring and pretend some other entirely different program has simialirities to the death panel.

Of course, all the comparative effectiveness panel does is research. It tries to find out which treatments are effective and which aren't. Then it gives this information to doctors. It has no power to make any of its research mandatory. But it will save hundreds of thousands of lives over the years.

This panel should be called the life panel. It's definitely one of the best parts of the stimulus bill.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-15-2009, 01:51 PM
What Obama was saying is that a group of people who do not know the patient will determine if surgery is the best option for someone in pain, or if the patient is only going to get pain killers! Again, this is a decision that should be ONLY between the patient and his doctor...period!

They do not "determine" anything. They have no power at all to mandate the treatments they find effective. They simply do research, and give this to the doctor, and the doctor, with the patient, makes the decision. I assure you, the doctor wants to know if what he's doing is best for the patient, rather than taking the blind shots they do now. Find me a single doctor who opposes being provided with better information on whether his treatments work, and we'll get somewhere.

As it is, you just prove that conservatives are evil scum.

Canceled2
08-15-2009, 02:42 PM
They do not "determine" anything. They have no power at all to mandate the treatments they find effective. They simply do research, and give this to the doctor, and the doctor, with the patient, makes the decision. I assure you, the doctor wants to know if what he's doing is best for the patient, rather than taking the blind shots they do now. Find me a single doctor who opposes being provided with better information on whether his treatments work, and we'll get somewhere.

As it is, you just prove that conservatives are evil scum.

That you cannot add is your problem, not mine. If the circumstances were truly between the patient and his doctor only, no outside influence over that care would even be neccesary.

You have proven that libs are not evil, only stupid.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-15-2009, 02:44 PM
If the circumstances were truly between the patient and his doctor only, no outside influence over that care would even be neccesary.

Outside influence like decent information on the effectiveness of treatments?

Surely we should stop doing all medical research now. How dare the people who found out that antibiotics are an effective treatment get in the way of the doctors and patients decision to use leeches? How dare the people who found out that chemo was an effective treatment get in the way of the doctors and patients decision to pray to god and take pain pills?

Canceled2
08-15-2009, 02:51 PM
"a group of people who do not know the patient will determine if surgery is the best option for someone in pain, or if the patient is only going to get pain killers! Again, this is a decision that should be ONLY between the patient and his doctor...period! "

Welcome to insurance companies.

Seriously...do you live in America? Do you live on earth?

Yeah, I get it. I know that HMO's are a taste of the disaster we'll be forced to eat with a government run plan...so let government regulate. Start by making a federal regulation that mandates portability and opens up competition nationally.

As it stands right now, I have no problem with government intervening in regulatory responsibilities which can be a legitimate role of government. Blue Shield Blue Cross is probably the best coverage available. This said, if you have BSBC of Georgia, your care is not as good as it is if you have BSBC of CA. This is where government can play a role...regulating it, but don't abuse the American public with another poorly managed, bankrupting, deficit indulging program!

Canceled2
08-15-2009, 02:54 PM
Outside influence like decent information on the effectiveness of treatments?

Surely we should stop doing all medical research now. How dare the people who found out that antibiotics are an effective treatment get in the way of the doctors and patients decision to use leeches? How dare the people who found out that chemo was an effective treatment get in the way of the doctors and patients decision to pray to god and take pain pills?

The effectiveness of treatments are something doctors find out through medical journals, seminars, consultations with other medical doctors and the like. In other words, that kind of relevent information is already available. The only reason for these "panels" is to ration care based on some yet to be clearly stated nefarious formula.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-15-2009, 03:01 PM
The effectiveness of treatments are something doctors find out through medical journals, seminars, consultations with other medical doctors and the like.

LOL. And where do the journals get their information? Through studies. This sponsors a billion dollars in new medical research - and it directly compares the effectiveness of several treatments in a controlled setting, which is important information that isn't usually provided in the initial study. I assure you, the doctors and medical professionals who've been asking for this for years know more about the issue than you do.


The only reason for these "panels" is to ration care based on some yet to be clearly stated nefarious formula.

ZOMG?! YOU MEAN IT'S A CONSPIRACY?!

Canceled2
08-15-2009, 03:35 PM
LOL. And where do the journals get their information? Through studies. This sponsors a billion dollars in new medical research - and it directly compares the effectiveness of several treatments in a controlled setting, which is important information that isn't usually provided in the initial study. I assure you, the doctors and medical professionals who've been asking for this for years know more about the issue than you do.



ZOMG?! YOU MEAN IT'S A CONSPIRACY?!

That's right dork, they already get the information and any panel is both redundant and and is therefor useless, except to ration care. This means they are created to tell a doctor what he can and cannot do for patient B. As I said earlier this is no ones business except the patient and his doctor.

The formula for limiting care has yet to be clarified, but Obama's friends and advisors lend a pretty fair idea as to what that formula will be.

Not a conspiracy, merely a government takeover of health care.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-15-2009, 03:36 PM
That's right dork, they already get the information and any panel is both redundant and and is therefor useless, except to ration care.

If the information was already out there, why wouldn't they just use that to ration healthcare?

FUCK THE POLICE
08-15-2009, 03:38 PM
This means they are created to tell a doctor what he can and cannot do for patient B.

Your premise does not support your conclusion.

Cancel5
08-15-2009, 03:40 PM
So your solution to health care for those who can't afford it is to just wait until you get really sick and go to the emergency room?

Doesn't that cost Americans MORE, then? Sheesh, conservatives, follow the money.

Cancel5
08-15-2009, 03:41 PM
What an amazing dodge. First you claim that this bill is going to create a death panel, then when it's pointed out that you're an idiot, you go and throw out a red herring and pretend some other entirely different program has simialirities to the death panel.

Of course, all the comparative effectiveness panel does is research. It tries to find out which treatments are effective and which aren't. Then it gives this information to doctors. It has no power to make any of its research mandatory. But it will save hundreds of thousands of lives over the years.

This panel should be called the life panel. It's definitely one of the best parts of the stimulus bill.

Do I hear echos of Sarah Palin in her posts?

Canceled2
08-15-2009, 06:03 PM
Your premise does not support your conclusion.

Yes it does. You have certainly provided no argument to support the contrary.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-15-2009, 06:06 PM
Yes it does. You have certainly provided no argument to support the contrary.

I don't have to prove the negative. You're the one that has to prove your claim. And so far your ramblings are nothing but the insane conspiracy theories of an insane, outdated, dying ideology.

This is health research. Nothing more. If it were useless information, it would be as useless to rationing as it is to doctors for guiding them as to how they can best treat their patient.

The fact is, what we have right now is rationing. It's rationing based on who has money. And isn't that just as disgusting? That is, in fact, more disgusting, because it doesn't take into account how much you NEED the medical care, unlike Germany, it merely takes into account how big your checkbook is. So more people die.

ib1yysguy
08-15-2009, 06:12 PM
Why is it that every time a rightie makes some stupid conspiracy claim, it's up to the liberals to disprove it rather than for them to back it up with facts? They have everything turned exactly around.

Cancel5
08-15-2009, 06:14 PM
Is that a rhetorical question?!

Canceled2
08-15-2009, 06:14 PM
If the information was already out there, why wouldn't they just use that to ration healthcare?

Because doctors are not in business to ration health care, they are in the business to provide their patients the best possible care unique to their needs.

Canceled2
08-15-2009, 06:16 PM
Why is it that every time a rightie makes some stupid conspiracy claim, it's up to the liberals to disprove it rather than for them to back it up with facts? They have everything turned exactly around.

Why is it lefties are unable to digest facts at face value and call them "conspiracy theories" when they are unable to debate the facts.

ib1yysguy
08-15-2009, 06:16 PM
Because doctors are not in business to ration health care, they are in the business to provide their patients the best possible care unique to their needs.

o_O

IceDancer isn't keeping up.

Canceled2
08-15-2009, 06:24 PM
I don't have to prove the negative. You're the one that has to prove your claim. And so far your ramblings are nothing but the insane conspiracy theories of an insane, outdated, dying ideology.

This is health research. Nothing more. If it were useless information, it would be as useless to rationing as it is to doctors for guiding them as to how they can best treat their patient.

The fact is, what we have right now is rationing. It's rationing based on who has money. And isn't that just as disgusting? That is, in fact, more disgusting, because it doesn't take into account how much you NEED the medical care, unlike Germany, it merely takes into account how big your checkbook is. So more people die.

What we have right now is private health care that needs to be better regulated. There are a number of great ideas on just how to do that along with other ideas to incentivize healthy competition, reduce taxes for employers who provide health care, as well as individuals who buy into programs.

The fact that the Obama Admin. Misrepresenting numerous facts in order to pass the largest piece of new policy legislation ever, is a pretty big deal and your sophomoric swill that you espouse in support of it only underscores that point.

belme1201
08-15-2009, 06:26 PM
Because doctors are not in business to ration health care, they are in the business to provide their patients the best possible care unique to their needs.

....and make the payment on the house in the Hamptons and the wife's Mercedes.

Cancel5
08-15-2009, 06:26 PM
....and make the payment on the house in the Hamptons and the wife's Mercedes.

Indeed!

egordon0315
08-15-2009, 06:34 PM
No. They are in the business to make as much money as they can and to avoid malpractice suits.

It has been decades since I encountered a physician who actually had the patient's best care as his/her primaray focus.

I work in the health care industry, babe, and it is a sewer.


Because doctors are not in business to ration health care, they are in the business to provide their patients the best possible care unique to their needs.

Canceled2
08-15-2009, 06:43 PM
No. They are in the business to make as much money as they can and to avoid malpractice suits.

It has been decades since I encountered a physician who actually had the patient's best care as his/her primaray focus.

I work in the health care industry, babe, and it is a sewer.


I'm not your babe...thank gawd :( I have not had that experience with my two doctors, one a woman and one a man. If I did feel that when I was in the exam room, that their focus was not on my care, I'd get a new a doctor.

Of course I am not in an HMO which is the closest example of a government system should we get one, though I believe it will be more like an HMO on steroids.

Working "in the health care industry" at a university does not an expert make you. You have a very small window of experience in the giant sea of the "health care" industry. I have a half dozen friends in the "health care industry" who have different perspectives from you and even from one another.

Canceled2
08-15-2009, 06:46 PM
....and make the payment on the house in the Hamptons and the wife's Mercedes.

And the quarter million in student loans.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-15-2009, 06:53 PM
Because doctors are not in business to ration health care, they are in the business to provide their patients the best possible care unique to their needs.

You are not getting my point. If Obama wanted to ration healthcare, why wouldn't he just use the information that already exists if it already exists? Your claims contradict each other. You both believe that the information is already out there anyway and that it's useful for rationing healthcare. But if it were already out there, they'd use that information.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-15-2009, 06:54 PM
What we have right now is private health care that needs to be better regulated. There are a number of great ideas on just how to do that along with other ideas to incentivize healthy competition, reduce taxes for employers who provide health care, as well as individuals who buy into programs.

The fact that the Obama Admin. Misrepresenting numerous facts in order to pass the largest piece of new policy legislation ever, is a pretty big deal and your sophomoric swill that you espouse in support of it only underscores that point.

The "sophomric swill"? Such as cold, hard fact?

You guys live in a universe in which evidence is useless for proving something. I am frankly scared of your viewpoint. The mentally ill shouldn't have the ability to vote.

As for the health reform, it's alright, but it would make more sense to extend medicare to all Americans.

Canceled2
08-15-2009, 06:56 PM
You are not getting my point. If Obama wanted to ration healthcare, why wouldn't he just use the information that already exists if it already exists? Your claims contradict each other. You both believe that the information is already out there anyway and that it's useful for rationing healthcare. But if it were already out there, they'd use that information.

Because maybe he wants to ration more, based on different assumptions that not even the private industry is willing and or able to go? Have you bothered to read some of the ideas of his so called advisors and associates on the matter? Do you know what a QUARY is? Are you really paying attention to what he is actually putting forth? Not to mention that just because it is being done to varying degrees in HMO's does not mean we should embrace the idea of having our government doing it!

Canceled2
08-15-2009, 07:00 PM
The "sophomric swill"? Such as cold, hard fact?

You guys live in a universe in which evidence is useless for proving something. I am frankly scared of your viewpoint. The mentally ill shouldn't have the ability to vote.

As for the health reform, it's alright, but it would make more sense to extend medicare to all Americans.

You're too stupid to be scared of anything. Facts were provided. You failed to argue against them. You have tried several times justifying their veracity and denying them as well...pick a square and land on it dude.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-15-2009, 07:08 PM
You're too stupid to be scared of anything. Facts were provided. You failed to argue against them. You have tried several times justifying their veracity and denying them as well...pick a square and land on it dude.

How can you even say that I failed to argue against your "facts"? Are you even paying attention to what I'm saying?

Of course not. It goes through the filter in your brain that deletes everything that isn't conservative brainwashing.

Canceled2
08-15-2009, 07:10 PM
How can you even say that I failed to argue against your "facts"? Are you even paying attention to what I'm saying?

Of course not. It goes through the filter in your brain that deletes everything that isn't conservative brainwashing.

I can say it because you failed to argue against the facts presented.

Damocles
08-16-2009, 08:30 AM
You are not getting my point. If Obama wanted to ration healthcare, why wouldn't he just use the information that already exists if it already exists? Your claims contradict each other. You both believe that the information is already out there anyway and that it's useful for rationing healthcare. But if it were already out there, they'd use that information.
Nobody believes he WANTS to ration it, just that it is the rational end product of government panels that deal with cost choices.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-16-2009, 05:24 PM
Nobody believes he WANTS to ration it, just that it is the rational end product of government panels that deal with cost choices.

This isn't "a government panel that deals with cost choices". This is a government panel that deals with health research.

ib1yysguy
08-16-2009, 05:29 PM
Is anyone disappointed in Damo's level of honestly lately? I find it impossible to believe he's ignorant enough to think that shit is true.

Cancel 2018. 3
08-16-2009, 07:18 PM
Is anyone disappointed in Damo's level of honestly lately? I find it impossible to believe he's ignorant enough to think that shit is true.

dude....you and your boyfriend waterdick are always on here spouting meadowmuffins....the extreme of the extreme....why you feel you are justified in making such a statement as if you are innocent is beyond me.....

i am not sure he is dishonest....i think damo and semitruckprophet are reading stuff with thick glasses....i wouldn't call it dishonest at this point....to do so is stupid as no one really know WTF this bill is about and even obama is changing his stance as the days go by....

so chill out and have an honest discussion instead of your wannabe cobain angst moments you and waterstank like to have....

Damocles
08-16-2009, 07:28 PM
This isn't "a government panel that deals with cost choices". This is a government panel that deals with health research.
It doesn't matter what "this" panel is for, there is a panel that deals in cost, and that is where rationing will begin. Just like it does for companies for that matter. At some point we make choices on whether it is cost effective to do certain things. Even Obama was talking about his G-ma's hip surgery and wondering if it is right to give hip surgery to a dying patient...

At some point we deal with these ideas. People just don't want the government with that power, they prefer to be able to sue if the wrong choices are made.

Cancel 2018. 3
08-16-2009, 07:29 PM
It doesn't matter what "this" panel is for, there is a panel that deals in cost, and that is where rationing will begin.

and there are no panels with private insurance?

Damocles
08-16-2009, 07:32 PM
and there are no panels with private insurance?
Read the rest of what I posted.

At some point we make choices on whether it is cost effective to do certain things. Even Obama was talking about his G-ma's hip surgery and wondering if it is right to give hip surgery to a dying patient...

At some point we deal with these ideas. People just don't want the government with that power, they prefer to be able to sue if the wrong choices are made.

Cancel 2018. 3
08-16-2009, 07:39 PM
Read the rest of what I posted.

At some point we make choices on whether it is cost effective to do certain things. Even Obama was talking about his G-ma's hip surgery and wondering if it is right to give hip surgery to a dying patient...

At some point we deal with these ideas. People just don't want the government with that power, they prefer to be able to sue if the wrong choices are made.

so your problem is only the exemption from a lawsuit? and i did read what you posted...how does that counter anything i questioned or said?

Damocles
08-16-2009, 07:53 PM
so your problem is only the exemption from a lawsuit? and i did read what you posted...how does that counter anything i questioned or said?
So far you haven't really asked much except whether the panels exist in private coverage, and yes they do. I was pointing out why they are less worrisome to some of the people. I simply gave information, not opinion.

My objections are outside of all of this and deal with the amount of information we are willing to give to the government in order to ensure "safety" in this arena. I believe that we are waltzing into a "voluntary" release of rights that we should far more carefully maintain.

We can make a plan that will do all of this without centralizing control and data with the government.

PostmodernProphet
08-16-2009, 09:12 PM
semitruckprophet

that must be because of what folks look like after I drive over them.....