Points from Obama's speech

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Patranus
Might want to also read up on Barbara Wagner
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492&page=1

I love the argument "well they are going to die anyways"...THAT IS THE POINT...we are all "going to die anyways" so where does the government draw the line when the are forced to ration care?

Ooops, broken hip? Well you are 80 years old. You just just live out the rest of your years in a wheel chair because a hip replacement isn't going to save your life and "you are going to die anyways"...

*waves at the funny communist*

*waves at the troll*

How long until you get banned again?

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: evident

Originally posted by: Duwelon
At this rate, 2010 and 2012 will be "Anyone but liberals".

why do you say that?

Fox News, Rush, Beck told him to.

You forgot to include Haliburton.. Oh wait, that was from 2007's talking points.. my bad.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Patranus
Might want to also read up on Barbara Wagner
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492&page=1

I love the argument "well they are going to die anyways"...THAT IS THE POINT...we are all "going to die anyways" so where does the government draw the line when the are forced to ration care?

Ooops, broken hip? Well you are 80 years old. You just just live out the rest of your years in a wheel chair because a hip replacement isn't going to save your life and "you are going to die anyways"...

*waves at the funny communist*

*waves at the troll*

How long until you get banned again?

Unfortunately for you - About 3 years from now when Condi Rice is President.

 

[Patranus]

Maybe Fear No Evil IS Patranus

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Patranus
Maybe Fear No Evil IS Patranus

No I'm not! Or am I?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Unfortunately for you - About 3 years from now when Condi Rice is President.

That won't happen unless she switches parties. Because, and I said something more or less exactly like this to your leftist counterparts a few years, your party will not be winning many elections again until screwball extremists like you stop being the public face of the party.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Patranus
Might want to also read up on Barbara Wagner
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492&page=1

I love the argument "well they are going to die anyways"...THAT IS THE POINT...we are all "going to die anyways" so where does the government draw the line when the are forced to ration care?

Ooops, broken hip? Well you are 80 years old. You just just live out the rest of your years in a wheel chair because a hip replacement isn't going to save your life and "you are going to die anyways"...

that would be the reasonable thing to do, rather than a risky procedure with limited benefits over a limited time frame.

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Patranus
Might want to also read up on Barbara Wagner
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492&page=1

I love the argument "well they are going to die anyways"...THAT IS THE POINT...we are all "going to die anyways" so where does the government draw the line when the are forced to ration care?

Ooops, broken hip? Well you are 80 years old. You just just live out the rest of your years in a wheel chair because a hip replacement isn't going to save your life and "you are going to die anyways"...

*waves at the funny communist*

*waves at the troll*

How long until you get banned again?

Unfortunately for you - About 3 years from now when Condi Rice is President.

If Condi Rice is the best hope Republicans have, you've got real problems.

I don't think people are aching to elect a Bush administration yes-(wo)man.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Patranus
You are doing exactly what Obama did in his speech (and what I was pointing out) by trying to take some moral authority on a subject where no moral authority exists. You are using "scare tactics" to try and illustrate a point while trying to argue against the use of "scare tactics".

moral authority does clearly exist in this subject, and is undeniable, and is certainly not in your corner (note that you have been trying, vainly, to do so the entire thread)

Now, to respond to your hypothetical situation (I know I shouldn't respond to your trolling as you want me to respond) I am advocating reading the policy before you sign up for it so that you know what is and is not covered. If the policy doesn't meet your needs than you should not agree to it and shop for another policy.

sorry, the majority of people to not have the legal background to discern the technicalities hidden within a contract. Are you suggesting that people should have to consult a lawyer before signing a health insurance contract? Seems like a waste to me.

If you wait to find out your full scope of coverage until after you need your policy, you are correct that you might be in a hole but that hole is hardly the fault of the insurance company. However, if this is the case, the hospital cannot legally require life saving care so a financial obligation is in no way related to a medical necessity.

What makes your argument intellectually dishonest is that you are equating the refusal of the insurance company to pay with a denial of life saving treatment. There are laws in the Unites State that require hospitals to provide life saving treatments regardless of (among other things) age, sex, religion, gender, or ability to pay.

life saving emergency treatment, there is a difference, a very important one.

The argument that it will cost more to get insurance if you have a pre existing condition is based on emotions and is intellectually void. The risk to the insurance pool is higher if you have a pre existing condition and the odds of you as an individual will require more dollars than someone else in the insurance pool is significantly higher. Thus, to offset that risk, you are charge higher premiums if you have a pre existing conditions. The same argument is used to justify higher rates for those with poor driving records.

lets be honest, noone will pick up a new policy for someoen that already has a disease like cancer. Note that cancer is a completely different story than a true chronic condition like caeliacs, diabetes, and so forth.

See, my suggestion is that the individual be proactive in the procurement of their health insurance rather than leaving it up to chance. Then again, I guess if I don't agree that the government is the solution to all my problems and I think that personal responsibility is important, I clearly am a "mental midget".

I am being proactive in my healthcare, I am seeking a government run plan. Government is the solution.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Patranus
I am advocating reading the policy before you sign up for it so that you know what is and is not covered. If the policy doesn't meet your needs than you should not agree to it and shop for another policy.

If you wait to find out your full scope of coverage until after you need your policy, you are correct that you might be in a hole but that hole is hardly the fault of the insurance company. However, if this is the case, the hospital cannot legally require life saving care so a financial obligation is in no way related to a medical necessity.

"Read your policy." Ah, I see.

OK. You, naturally, have read your policy. So how about a little test:

1. Your cardiologist proposes a nuclear stress test after your stress EKG reveals an abnormality (but there's no definitive evidence that there's blockage). Will your insurance company cover the additional test?

2. Your as-yet-unborn child is diagnosed with medulloblastoma when she's two years old; will your insurance company pay for a total resection + radiation therapy? (2a) How about if there's supratentorial spread? (2b) How about if the cytogenic profile has an amplification of MYC or MYCN?

3. How about if your child is instead diagnosed with an oligodendroglioma? What treatments will your insurance cover? (4) How about for a glioblastoma?

5. Your kid has Cystic Fibrosis? Will your insurance company pay for the drug PTC124?

6. You're diagnosed with diabetes. Will your insurance pay for the surgical implantation of an insulin pump? (6a.) If so, how about one with RF frequency communication?

7. You're diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Will your insurance company pay for a speech-language pathologist? (7a.) If so, how many sessions will they pay for?

8. You contract hepatitis C and after several years, you require a liver transplant. Will your insurance company pay for it? If so, suppose you live with the transplant until you're 71, but then your body rejects it. (8a) Will your insurance company pay for a second transplant? (8b) How about if you're 80, but your in great physical shape?

9. You need bypass surgery. Will your insurance company pay for MIDCAB rather than conventional surgery? (9a) You're 88 and in great health; will your insurance company pay for bypass surgery at all?

10. You have moderate sleep apnea, which is mitigated by the use of a CPAP device. However, don't like using the CPAP, as it disturbs your sleep and makes you feel dependent on a machine. Will you insurance company pay for an uvulopalatopharyngoplasty?

Naturally, you got 100% on this test, because you checked all of these details - plus those for 100,000 other possible medical conditions - in the the "policy description" before you signed up. But I'm curious: Did the insurance company send you the full 40,000-page policy description, or just the 10,000-page condensed version?

 

[sportage]

I liked Obama's speech. But the republican rebuttal was the thing to note.
Republicans always omit or ignore issues like covering ALL folks.
They, as with tonight's rebuttal, talk of costs, they admit reform is needed,
and they talk of making things better. But they always skip addressing
what Obama addresses, and that is a goal of covering everyone.

Its like republicans feel if more of the uninsured get insured thru reform, that's mission accomplished.
But if millions are still uninsured or unable to obtain insurance, that's seems fine for republican goals.
Just as long as a few more are added to the insured list. They accept that as reform.
Totally ignoring all those still left uninsured afterwards.
I don't get it.

Watch the rebuttal if you can, and note not what he says, but what he doesn't say.

PS. I loved that look from Nancy Pelosi gave that heckler calling Obama a liar.
The look of death!
Pelosi is becoming my hero. I love her. She has balls, big ones.
She sticks to the public option and holds her ground.
I'd love to see her as president. She's a tough cookie. I just wish the rest of the democrats
were not such roll over pussies when up against republicans. We need a hard core liberal
attitude to get real healthcare passed, just as we had with LBJ and medicare.
Forget about republicans... just kick some of those democrat butts into gear.
Pelosi can do that very well... thank God.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
sorry, the majority of people to not have the legal background to discern the technicalities hidden within a contract. Are you suggesting that people should have to consult a lawyer before signing a health insurance contract? Seems like a waste to me.

Sounds like a waste? This could possibly be one of the most important financial decision you will ever make and you call it a waste?

Here is the thing, people in general feel that health insurance is a waste because they rarely use it. They would rather spend their money on a shiny new cell phone, cable tv, or high speed internet because they can use it NOW. Hell, you give up one of those and you can buy a catastrophic policy.

life saving emergency treatment, there is a difference, a very important one.

Yes, life saving treatment. Glad we can agree.

lets be honest, noone will pick up a new policy for someoen that already has a disease like cancer. Note that cancer is a completely different story than a true chronic condition like caeliacs, diabetes, and so forth.

Incorrect. Those people can easily get coverage if they are willing to pay significantly the premiums. They have higher costs, they pay higher premiums....not really sure what the problem is here....

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Things I liked:

Medicare wont be touched.
Wont be paid for by increasing taxes.
Elimination of pre-existing conditions.
Elimination of lifetime caps.
Focus on the insurance industry on reducing waste and fraud.
Eluded to liability reform.

Things I didnt like:

Requirement to have insurance.
Will create more government beuracracies.
Eluded to letting Bush tax cuts expire.
No specific mention of encouragement of healthy lifestyle choices by way of lower premiums.

Overall I think it was decent.

Just like in MA this will hurt those on the cusp of middle classdom the most...

It will be interesting to see if he can steamroll this through, most of those who I know that are still working, chronically ill or who have had serious medical histories do not want this legislation to go through as they feel the quality of service and or treatments available to them will no longer be an option...they may be wrong but to those individuals perception is reality.

And good luck for any govt watchdog to curtail fraud, they can't even keep that in check in their own houses let alone the private sector.

Forcing those who have the means to cover themselves is a bad idea imho

The lack of healthy lifestyle choices makes sense given that fat ppl won't get behind a bill that punishes them specifically.

 

[KMFJD]

Death Panels do exist, every for profit health care insurance company has them, and they are very profitable.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: KMFJD
Death Panels do exist, every for profit health care insurance company has them, and they are very profitable.

One goal of the reform should be to get rid of them altogether, not replace them with Federal versions of the same... right?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Vic
DEATH PANELS!!!!!

Reminds me of Bush taking away grannys retirement back in 05.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
It was a $36,000 / year drug that would not significantly extend her life. In a state plan that was created to only offer limited care.

Again, it's strange that you want a limited plan to be forced to offer unlimited care, while insisting that no minimums ever should be set for your employer's insurance coverage.

Ah, so it would not *significantly* extend her life.
So that hip replacement for grandma costs too much and won't *significantly* improve her quality of life so lets just give her a wheelchair.


But we are way off topic. The topic is the use of scare tactics. Obama started his speech complaining about the use of scare tactics and then went on to give a speech filled with them. Running deficits and need to lower cost? Why then does this legislation cost MORE THAN A TRILLION DOLLARS.

You mean like what you posted immediately above that sentence talking about hip replacements being denied because they won't *significantly* improve her QoL.

Besides being a hypocrit, you're a troll.

 

[evident]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Things I liked:

Medicare wont be touched.
Wont be paid for by increasing taxes.
Elimination of pre-existing conditions.
Elimination of lifetime caps.
Focus on the insurance industry on reducing waste and fraud.
Eluded to liability reform.

Things I didnt like:

Requirement to have insurance.
Will create more government beuracracies.
Eluded to letting Bush tax cuts expire.
No specific mention of encouragement of healthy lifestyle choices by way of lower premiums.

Overall I think it was decent.

The lack of healthy lifestyle choices makes sense given that fat ppl won't get behind a bill that punishes them specifically.

dude, have you looked around at the malls and public areas near you? 80% of the people are fat, that's NOT a politically smart move to make :laugh:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Things I liked:

Medicare wont be touched.
Wont be paid for by increasing taxes.
Elimination of pre-existing conditions.
Elimination of lifetime caps.
Focus on the insurance industry on reducing waste and fraud.
Eluded to liability reform.

Things I didnt like:

Requirement to have insurance.
Will create more government beuracracies.
Eluded to letting Bush tax cuts expire.
No specific mention of encouragement of healthy lifestyle choices by way of lower premiums.

Overall I think it was decent.

Just like in MA this will hurt those on the cusp of middle classdom the most...

It will be interesting to see if he can steamroll this through, most of those who I know that are still working, chronically ill or who have had serious medical histories do not want this legislation to go through as they feel the quality of service and or treatments available to them will no longer be an option...they may be wrong but to those individuals perception is reality.

And good luck for any govt watchdog to curtail fraud, they can't even keep that in check in their own houses let alone the private sector.

Forcing those who have the means to cover themselves is a bad idea imho

The lack of healthy lifestyle choices makes sense given that fat ppl won't get behind a bill that punishes them specifically.

I am working, I have a serious medical history and I am praying for this legislation to pass. People with serious medical histories should be among the most supportive, because if they lose their job in our current health insurance environment, they are 100% screwed. I can't get private health insurance at any price... and that's simply wrong.

 

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Things I liked:

Medicare wont be touched.
Wont be paid for by increasing taxes.
Elimination of pre-existing conditions.
Elimination of lifetime caps.
Focus on the insurance industry on reducing waste and fraud.
Eluded to liability reform.

Things I didnt like:

Requirement to have insurance.
Will create more government beuracracies.
Eluded to letting Bush tax cuts expire.
No specific mention of encouragement of healthy lifestyle choices by way of lower premiums.

Overall I think it was decent.

Hey, thanks for actually putting some constructive points here. I think Spidey's blood pressure is sky-rocketing in real time here. Good to hear what people actually THINK about the proposals.

I am definitely on the same page as you on this one. I don't know how much this requirement to have insurance bothers me, as I am forced to have car insurance anyway.

 

[cubby1223]

Obama's speech was nothing more than a rallying call for liberals. I didn't find really anything in his speech to want this government takeover any more today than I did yesterday morning, nor am I any more assured this will not lead to a government takeover. Just partisan campaigning as usual. But it's Obama, I'm not really expecting anything better from him anyways.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Obama's speech was nothing more than a rallying call for liberals. I didn't find really anything in his speech to want this government takeover any more today than I did yesterday morning, nor am I any more assured this will not lead to a government takeover. Just partisan campaigning as usual. But it's Obama, I'm not really expecting anything better from him anyways.

:laugh: Takeover!

How about the fact that the Voters gave them a complete Majority? Doesn't that count for something?

 

[HomerJS]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Things I liked:

Medicare wont be touched.
Wont be paid for by increasing taxes.
Elimination of pre-existing conditions.
Elimination of lifetime caps.
Focus on the insurance industry on reducing waste and fraud.
Eluded to liability reform.

Things I didnt like:

Requirement to have insurance.
Will create more government beuracracies.
Eluded to letting Bush tax cuts expire.
No specific mention of encouragement of healthy lifestyle choices by way of lower premiums.

Overall I think it was decent.

All good debatable points. Question: if you eliminate the requirement to carry insurance what happens if a 23 year old doesn't carry insurance because he dosent want to pay for it? He breaks an arm or a leg doing some recreational sport. Hospital bill is $5000-$10000. What if the 23 yr old doesn't have the money, who pays? Should hospitals not treat if a patent can't show an ability to pay or carry insurance??

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
how is there a "choice" if you are FORCED to get insurance?

Sorry, choice doesn't mean you have the choice to be irresponsible and force someone else to pay for your ER care

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: Patranus
Ah, so it would not *significantly* extend her life.
So that hip replacement for grandma costs too much and won't *significantly* improve her quality of life so lets just give her a wheelchair.


But we are way off topic. The topic is the use of scare tactics. Obama started his speech complaining about the use of scare tactics and then went on to give a speech filled with them. Running deficits and need to lower cost? Why then does this legislation cost MORE THAN A TRILLION DOLLARS.

You mean like what you posted immediately above that sentence talking about hip replacements being denied because they won't *significantly* improve her QoL.

Besides being a hypocrit, you're a troll.

I think you've got that backward.