So wait, you are giving Obama a pass because NY state already has high taxes, and now that Obama is raising them that is not Obama's (Demoncrats) problem? WTF? Higher taxes is higher taxes for everyone, those in high tax states will be penalized more as more of their income goes to pay for those who don't. That is BS.

We can only hope...

That much is certainly true.

I'm not really happy the insurance industry is having so much influence on the bill. Or big pharma.

Had a funny conversation with my dad today. For the last 6 months he's taken every opportunity to turn the most tenuous of unrelated subjects into "well, if you think X is bad, just wait until the government is running your healthcare."

I generally don't rise to the bait, because he's my father and I know it's pointless. But today, the topic meandered into how he is self-employed and chooses not to have medical insurance at all, and I pointed out that there are people who don't have that option because they have a chronic medical condition which is by definition more expensive than any plan could ever be, and he said, "Exactly, and the government thinks they're going to make me pay for it! I'm going to have to pay for the other people--"
"Yes, that's what insurance is, Dad."
"--like people with AIDS, there's an expensive disease, their medication costs $4000 a month, can you even imagine it? That's what they want me to pay for!"
"Well, yes, I can imagine it, Dad. That's about what ABA therapy costs."
"What? You're not paying that much, are you?"
"No, because we can't afford it." (Technically, our insurance did just start covering it, and our kid isn't a good candidate for it anyway, but that's not the point and I didn't mention that to him. :)) "I was just pointing out, the government doesn't just want to help the guy with AIDS, they want to help your grandson get therapy, too."
"Well..." [abrupt change of topic.]

--Robert Duvall in The Handmaid's Tale

.

Ok, this is rich. Who does he think is going to do the work and does he think they are going to work for free? :lol:

Ok, now it is becoming worisome that this guy has no frigging clue about what he is doing with health care....

Maybe everyone is not so happy...

Cardin Town Hall Meeting On Health Care Gets Angry

http://www.wusa9.com/rss/local_artic...?storyid=88729

Matt Miller in the NYT-
An alternative strategy for Congress would be the new “fitness club” model offered by some doctors, in which members pay $65 a month for same-day or next-day access to primary care services. This would involve no insurance companies, so it would save administrative expenses.

We could then pair one of these primary care plans with high-deductible insurance coverage for catastrophic care, but limit total annual out-of-pocket payments to, say, 15 percent of family income. For a member of Congress whose family had no other income, that limit would be $26,000. If this kind of plan were extended to other Americans, a family earning $25,000 a year would have a limit of $3,750.

This kind of hybrid plan would honor the values of both parties even as it cut the cost of covering each politician by perhaps one-third. It would give members the incentive to shop for less expensive health services, thus encouraging doctors and other providers to compete to offer better value. At the same time, members would know they are protected in the event of a costly illness. Those who wanted greater coverage could pay for it out of their own pocket.

This is interesting stuff and a damn site simpler than many of the ideas being floated.

An interesting opinion piece in the local paper.

http://savannahnow.com/node/754347

That's just because Canadian men won't let anyone mess around down there. They're proud like that. :lol:

eta: or, it could be a thousand other contributing factors as alluded to in my joking point.

you crazy. :p

The Obama administration is not looking out for you, but they are looking out for the drug companies as they change health care.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,7434392.story

John defines this perfectly.

continues:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...nce_97561.html

We did. That's why we're reforming the system.

:lol2: yea, you keep believing that...

Reform like having secret meetings with the wolf guarding the hen house?

Secret meetings

I never saw anything like that for Cheney's meetings with the energy industry.:headshake

We didn't believe in reform back then. :lol:

Obama is going to end up with a "meet the new boss" problem. He needs to be better than the previous criminals.

Democracy Now!

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, didn’t the President actually make a big issue of this during his campaign, actually saying—I think it was on his website even, his campaign website—that the White House is the people’s house and the people have a right to know who visits?


MELANIE SLOAN: Yes, he did. And, in fact, transparency has been sort of a totem of this administration, at least that’s what they claimed. But then we’re finding the actual transparency is a little disappointing.


And, of course, they’re release these names last night, because they want to avoid the distraction at the President’s press conference on healthcare.


But we have another Freedom of Information Act request and a lawsuit outstanding for the information regarding coal executives’ visits to the White House. And the White House has not responded to that.


Also, there is another case—two cases that we have before the Court of Appeals regarding Secret Service visitor records. These cases were started under the Bush administration for visits by Christian conservative leaders to the White House and also by a lobbyist named Stephen Payne. Courts previously held that the Secret Service had to provide that information. That case is going up on appeal, and so far the Obama administration is taking the exact same position that the Bush administration took, claming these records are presidential records, not federal records, and therefore not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

Fail. In a big way...

And so, the Democrats continue to demonstrate why sensible guys like me don't vote for Democrats. To be continued... no end in sight...

On the issue of transparency:

On the release of the names of participants in WH meetngs, Obama released the names w/o stalling until a court order...a reversal of Bush policy. While I would have hoped for full compliance with the FOIA request, there are issues of executive privilege regarding WH documents that deserve further court review...releasing names is not one of those issues.

On the issue of FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests in general, the Obama directive is a reversal of the Bush directive....with a presumption of releasing information (unless there are serious and not contrived national security issues), rather than withholding information.

On the issue of signing statements, the Obama directives identifies the limited circumstances when such statements will be used...another reversal of the Bush policy. Bush used signing statements to circumvent enacted legislative intent more than twice all previous presidents combined.

On Congressional transparency, the Democratic ethics/lobbyng/earmark reform enacted when they assumed the majority goes farther than anything enacted by the previous Republican majority. I would like to have seen stronger reform, but in comparison to pre-2007, it is a vast improvement.

Most recently, Pelosi's directive for all House members to post all staff and office -related expenses on-line was an action the previous Speaker refused to implement.

While all the above may not go far enough for some (including me), in every case, there is greater transparency in both the executive branch and the legislature than the previous Republican president and Congress...an indisputable fact.

UG....I'm curious why you think that is bad or why sensible people should not support such greater transparency in government?

added:

UG...I forgot the DOJ issues and your laughable attempt to rebut. Official findings in four or five cases of illegal, improper or unethical acts by the Bush DOJ....and the best you could come up with in your last best response was books by Rush Limbaugh's brother and Brent Bozell, with unattributed allegations and the standard partisan gibberish?

More evidence of a non-transparent Obama Administration:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090725/D99LCTJO0.html

WWTKD? (What Would Ted Kennedy Do?).......

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/...ss_eaters.html

Another Blow to the money dump for health care:

Why not just call it what the other wing nuts are calling it...Obama's Suicide Bill.

Here is the provision:

''Advance Care Planning Consultation
''(hhh) (1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term 'advance care planning consultation' means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:

''(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.

''(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable 19 powers of attorney, and their uses.

''(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.

''(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal service organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of 1965).

''(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.

''(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include--

''(I) the reasons why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual's family and the reasons why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes;

''(II) the information needed for an individual or legal surrogate to make informed decisions regarding the completion of such an order; and

''(III) the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such unable to communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decisionmaker (also known as a health care proxy).

''(ii) The Secretary shall limit the requirement for explanations under clause (i) to consultations furnished in a State--

''(I) in which all legal barriers have been addressed for enabling orders for life sustaining treatment to constitute a set of medical orders respected across all care settings; and

''(II) that has in effect a program for orders for life sustaining treatment described in clause (iii).

''(iii) A program for orders for life sustaining treatment for a States described in this clause is a program that--

''(I) ensures such orders are standardized and uniquely identifiable throughout the State;

''(II) distributes or makes accessible such orders to physicians and other health professionals that (acting within the scope of the professional's authority under State law) may sign orders for life sustaining treatment;

''(III) provides training for health care professionals across the continuum of care about the goals and use of orders for life sustaining treatment; and

''(IV) is guided by a coalition of stakeholders includes representatives from emergency medical services, emergency department physicians or nurses, state long-term care association, state medical association, state surveyors, agency responsible for senior services, state department of health, state hospital association, home health association, state bar association, and state hospice association.

''(2) A practitioner described in this paragraph is--

''(A) a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)); and
''(B) a nurse practitioner or physician's assistant who has the authority under State law to sign orders for life sustaining treatments.

''(3)(A) An initial preventive physical examination 21 under subsection (WW), including any related discussion during such examination, shall not be considered an advance care planning consultation for purposes of applying the 5-year limitation under paragraph (1).

''(B) An advance care planning consultation with respect to an individual may be conducted more frequently than provided under paragraph (1) if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual, including diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or a hospice program.

''(4) A consultation under this subsection may include the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining treatment or a similar order.

''(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term 'order regarding life sustaining treatment' means, with respect to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to the treatment of that individual that--

''(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as de18 fined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care professional (as specified by the Secretary and who is acting within the scope of the professional's authority under State law in signing such an order, including a nurse practitioner or physician assistant) and is in a form that permits it to stay with the individual and be followed by health care professionals and providers across the continuum of care;

''(ii) effectively communicates the individual's preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual;

''(iii) is uniquely identifiable and standardized within a given locality, region, or State (as identified by the Secretary); and

'(iv) may incorporate any advance directive (as defined in section 1866(f)(3)) if executed by the individual.

''(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items--

''(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac or pulmonary problems; ''(ii) the individual's desire regarding transfer to a hospital or remaining at the current care setting;

''(iii) the use of antibiotics; and

''(iv) the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.''.

Please point out where it says (or any section in the bill)..as you highlighted.... The bill even empowers physicians to make an "actionable medical order" to "limit some or all specified interventions..." In effect, the government can determine that a "life-limiting" condition demands the withholding of treatment..

Simply ignoring the subsection that states: ...effectively communicates the individual's preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual;

The individual's preferences seems quite clear to me. I dont know how that translates into "government can determine that a "life-limiting" condition demands the withholding of treatment."

What is wrong with providing consultation for advance care planning for the terminally ill?

Damn dude, do you really believe everything you read w/o even bothering to confirm its validity?

Get a grip, Merc. You're obsession with snipping and pasting everything you read (most of which are partisan editorials that have no regard for the facts, but whose intent is to scare) that might support you position only makes you look more ignorant of the facts and gives you less credibility than you already have, at least IMO.

Why did you leave out the rest of it? Maybe you aren't familar with the term "actionable medical order".

I really doubt that the government would ever get any provision passed that would begin to have a documented trail of withholding care, it will be done more quitely through rationing.

Ummm... that would be BS. Few links are partisan. Where is the transparency? Why the secret meetings with members of the industry? Why not just come out and tell everyone about them from the beginning? Why no normal trail of photo ops with the visits? Remember the Energy meetings with Cheney? What double standards... And you support this numbnut?

What part of:

`(ii) effectively communicates the individual's preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual;

dont you understand?

Like I said, really doubt that the government would ever get any provision passed that would begin to have a documented trail of withholding care, it will be done more quitely through rationing.

Hey,...IMO, you are obsessed and I thinks it amusing if not a little frightening.

Obama identified participants...Bush/Cheney did not. An indisputable fact.

I dont particularly want the press at every meeting. I want participants to be able to have open and honest discussions w/o it being misrepresented by many of the wing nut editorials you post.

Maybe you can defend the two consecutive CBO reports that state no money will be saved over the 10 year projection to make and save money.

How about the estimates that we still will not have covered the uninsured.

Well your guy fails big on that one. They only released the names after being threatened by a FOIA request and it was delayed. It is about what Obama is doing. He promised a change. Secret meetings are not part of that promise. What secret business deals do they have to hide?

In fact, the CBO staff also stated that their analysis excluded estimates of potential savings.

I have some problems with several of the proposals..but I dont judge a book after reading only one chapter and I dont make final judgments on draft legislation that is far from final.

And I certainly dont base my opinion on mischaracterizations by partisan editorials.

Again..what part dont you understand.

Obama released the names....Bush did not. I know you cant or wont accept the difference.

I am for transparency as much as anyone, but I understand that it does not mean every minute of every discussion should be subject to press scrutiny. I hope it never comes to that.

Again..what part dont you understand. It is not about what they finally have done after being pressed. What deals were made with the industry? Release the notes. Tell us what was discussed, what was the agenda, what were the topics. Show us the notes of the meetings. What do they have to hide?

I never really considered the CBO to be a partisan editorial, but if that is how you see them, what ever.

The evidence is that there is as much of a possibility that we will go bankrupt under the proposal as there is that they don't know? What kind of forcast is that? So you are willing to take that chance with our economy in the shape it is in? You are willing to take a chance with our childrens future? I am not.

We are not reading one chapter, we are reading the elements that need effective change. Not a the typical Demoncratic Rahm Rod and Pelosi push without adequate public comment and opportunity to have input and effective change in the Bill.

I'll just wait for your next string of "snips and posts" to find out about the deals.

You're guys in the media seem to have all the facts. :eek:

Neither do I, but I also consider what they said that they did not include in their analysis...the potential savings.

Ahh...the 'whatever" defense again.

I guess that means we're done with this go round.

"You're" Guys?

We will never know about any deals unless Obamy and his Demoncratic cronies tell us. Will we?

Looking forward to the "snips of the day" that tell me the government is planning to take over my life. ;)

So you can't defend the estimates? You are ok with them bankrupting us? Ok.

You can let them take over your life if you want. You have free choice in that much.

Should Public, Private Health Plans Compete?

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/ComJCGHeartland070109.pdf

More ideas about care for the elderly. I am not sure that I completely disagree with some of it. It is the only way that the system as proposed may survive. This actually refers to an earlier post I made on the issue.

NCPA: White House (advisor) Has Ideas On How To Ration Health Care
July 22, 2009

Presidential Health Advisor's Writings Support Less Care for the Elderly


The "Free Our Health Care Now" petition has already been signed by over 620,000 people opposed to a government nationalization of our health care system: http://freeourhealthcarenow.com/

http://www.ncpa.org/media/ncpa-white...on-health-care

Merc...I ask this in all sincerity

Why do you think other members would be inclined to engage you on the issue when for the most part, all you do is snip and post, and mostly from partisan editorials and sites (the ncpa being the latest)...day after day...hour after hour?

To others...is it just me? Am I missing a reason to continue to discuss the issue with Merc, given they style of discussion (?) that is presented.

Is it worth responding to every snip and post when all you get in response is dodging and weaving?

Your opinion on the issue is not really important to me. What you state is opinion. You are a partisan hack of the Obamy Administration and the Demoncrats. I am interested in the details of this reform process that is most likely going to come one way or another. It is very important that we keep an eye on the process and details. I am interested in exposing the double standards that the Demoncrats in Congress have shown in the last 2 years, and most importantly in the last 7 months. And if no one else is interested that is ok, but be careful what you wish for because once the deal is done by Congress it is pretty much what you have to live with. The devil is in the details on this issue and very few are looking at those details. This is another Rahm it through and Pelosi Push with very little chance for input by anyone other than the Demoncrats special interest groups and the deals they may have made behind closed doors in the White House. Who knows because they are covering up the details of those discussions. I fully support an overhaul of the system but not on the terms of any one party with a grip on power, be it Demoncrats or Republickins.

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/71509NewHCBill.pdf

The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research
organization established to develop alternatives to government regulation by relying on the private
sector.

Which Dem crafted this language? I bet it was Pelosi... :lol:

all over the news and this from the NYPost.

Perhaps you may find your answer in the fact that no one else has bothered to participate in the last 28 posts. ;)

You should visit the other parts of the Cellar outside of Politics, Redux. You'll find lots more entertainment and less frustration.

:lol:

I was just scrolling past the last dozen posts or so and landed on this. Too true.

29 :)

If you honestly believed that, you would expose the partisan hacks on the right as well, rather than snip and post them and highlight portions of those snips that has no basis in fact.

Consider the recent example I called you out on:

The bill even empowers physicians to make an "actionable medical order" to "limit some or all specified interventions..." In effect, the government can determine that a "life-limiting" condition demands the withholding of treatment.

There is no such provision in the House bill.

You dont want an honest debate.

You want to troll with your never ending snips and pastes, with little regard to the accuracy and/or context of those snips.

And you simply want to attack Obama and the Democrats, which is your right.

Perhaps it gives you pleasure or, in your own mind, you score a point....whether its to bitch about the cost of a night in NY for the president, accusing a newly elected senator of being a pedophile (WTF was that all about?) or trivializing the discussion(s) at every opportunity.

I think you're right...it is time for me to wander around the Cellar more.....and limit poking Merc with a stick to the occasions when his snips contain bullshit that is so thick it permeates beyond the walls of the politics forum and wreaks throughout the Cellar....like the example above.

But its so easy to debunk him on those occasions, its not very challenging any more.

On the other hand, I still enjoy engaging the Urbane Guerilla. Now there is a challenge!

With all the utter madness that I read in his posts, at least UG expresses himself in his own words, often in a very creative (albeit not factual) manner. He's an original and not a parrot for every wing nut editorial writer or blogger that one encounters with Merc's ceaseless snips.

But yet you refuse to defend him. And so far you have debunked nothing.

The Repulickins are not in charge. The Demoncrats are the ones in charge and they are the ones with the power. Most of what the Repubs are saying at this point are really insignificant.

I made my point.

Any dwellers who care to follow the crazy ass threads with your multiple snips and pastes, with little or no thoughts of your own, other than snarky and inane one line comments (I would hardly call them discussions in most instances), can decide for themselves.