Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan:
Commentary by Betsy McCaughey
Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Republican Senators are questioning whether President Barack Obama's stimulus bill contains the right mix of tax breaks and cash infusions to jump-start the economy.
Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.
Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, pdf version).
The bill's health rules will affect "every individual in the United States" (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.
But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and "guide" your doctor's decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, "Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis." According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and "learn to operate less like solo practitioners."
Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.
New Penalties
Hospitals and doctors that are not "meaningful users" of the new system will face penalties. "Meaningful user" isn't defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose "more stringent measures of meaningful use over time" (511, 518, 540-541)
What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the "tough" decisions elected politicians won't make.
The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle's book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept "hopeless diagnoses" and "forgo experimental treatments," and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.
Elderly Hardest Hit
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. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.
Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).
The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle's book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.
In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.
Hidden Provisions
If the Obama administration's economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later.
The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).
Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration's health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. "If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it," he said. "The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol."
More Scrutiny Needed
On Friday, President Obama called it "inexcusable and irresponsible" for senators to delay passing the stimulus bill. In truth, this bill needs more scrutiny.
The health-care industry is the largest employer in the U.S. It produces almost 17 percent of the nation's gross domestic product. Yet the bill treats health care the way European governments do: as a cost problem instead of a growth industry. Imagine limiting growth and innovation in the electronics or auto industry during this downturn. This stimulus is dangerous to your health and the economy.
(Betsy McCaughey is former lieutenant governor of New York and is an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. The opinions expressed are her own.)
To contact the writer of this column: Betsy McCaughey at Betsymross@aol.com
Last Updated: February 9, 2009 00:01 EST
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs
This sure don't sound good. :no:
Quote from: me on February 10, 2009, 11:55:04 AM
The health-care industry is the largest employer in the U.S.
Nope; the government is.
Quote from: Exterminator on February 10, 2009, 12:42:06 PM
Nope; the government is.
And Congress is hell bent on making it the "only" employer.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 10, 2009, 01:58:32 PM
and it is going to get bigger....
This sure is ironic coming from a Bush-lover...talk about expanding the government!
What do you all think about the government directing your health care? Insurance does it now to some extent, will it be worse with the government?
Quote from: Anne on February 10, 2009, 02:46:37 PM
What do you all think about the government directing your health care? Insurance does it now to some extent, will it be worse with the government?
If you have ever had an HMO plan, then you would know that the insurance company is totally in charge of your health care.
I once had an HMO with New York Life. My wife and I were out of town (at the beach) and she had an allergic reaction after eating shrimp scampi. We had to rush her to the emergency room at the local hospital. The doctors there told us if we had been a couple of hours later, she could have died.
Yet ... New York Life denied the payment for the emergency room. They claimed an allergic reaction was not an emergency. I appealed and sent them the statement of the doctor who treated her. Again they denied the appeal and sent me a list of things they didn't consider an emergency ... on the list was "broken bones"
Quote from: Bo D on February 10, 2009, 03:25:43 PM
If you have ever had an HMO plan, then you would know that the insurance company is totally in charge of your health care.
I once had an HMO with New York Life. My wife and I were out of town (at the beach) and she had an allergic reaction after eating shrimp scampi. We had to rush her to the emergency room at the local hospital. The doctors there told us if we had been a couple of hours later, she could have died.
Yet ... New York Life denied the payment for the emergency room. They claimed an allergic reaction was not an emergency. I appealed and sent them the statement of the doctor who treated her. Again they denied the appeal and sent me a list of things they didn't consider an emergency ... on the list was "broken bones"
But had the government been dictating it the Dr. would not have been allowed to treat her at all. There is a huge difference.
Quote from: Exterminator on February 10, 2009, 02:17:02 PM
This sure is ironic coming from a Bush-lover...talk about expanding the government!
I never claimed to be a "Bush-lover".........just not a "Bush-hater'.....he allowed WAY too much gov spending to happen....
Quote from: me on February 10, 2009, 03:34:13 PM
But had the government been dictating it the Dr. would not have been allowed to treat her at all. There is a huge difference.
What an idiotic statement!
Quote from: Bo D on February 10, 2009, 04:00:39 PM
What an idiotic statement!
I think you had better start paying attention to the rest of the bill and not just the part that says everyone will be insured.
Quote
Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.
Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, pdf version).
The bill's health rules will affect "every individual in the United States" (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.
But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and "guide" your doctor's decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, "Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis." According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and "learn to operate less like solo practitioners."
Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.
New Penalties
Hospitals and doctors that are not "meaningful users" of the new system will face penalties. "Meaningful user" isn't defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose "more stringent measures of meaningful use over time" (511, 518, 540-541)
What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the "tough" decisions elected politicians won't make.
The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle's book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept "hopeless diagnoses" and "forgo experimental treatments," and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.
Quote
Elderly Hardest Hit
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. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.
Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).
The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle's book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.
In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.
Hidden Provisions
If the Obama administration's economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later.
The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181).
Keeping doctors educators informed of the newest medical educational findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.
I'm just saying!
One of the things that scares the grape juice out of me about this is the government's penchant for labyrinths of paperwork. It doesn't take much imagination to conjure up a scenario surrounding someone sick with the flu having to first file 2 or 3 reams of paperwork just to get the OK to see a doctor about it. And then having that OK delayed further by the fact the sick person forgot to check a box on page 883 of the forms. . . :spooked:
Sure, "its all electronic", but how many arthritic or Alzheimer's patients are going to even be able to manipulate a mouse; not to mention the fact that an overwhelming number of the population is computer illiterate. . .
Oh maybe we will have No Doctor Left Behind!! That would be awesome!! And yes Pale, they can endure paperwork, comparisons to other doctors whose clientele is different than theirs, maybe they can take their funding away if they don't "cure" enough people!
That freakin' rocks! :biggrin:
Quote from: me on February 10, 2009, 08:16:45 PM
I think you had better start paying attention to the rest of the bill and not just the part that says everyone will be insured.
I think maybe you had better pay attention yourself.
I described a life-threatening situation.
Where in your little op-ed article does it say that doctors will have to refuse treatment in such a situation?
Quote from: Bo D on February 11, 2009, 08:29:41 AM
I think maybe you had better pay attention yourself.
I described a life-threatening situation.
Where in your little op-ed article does it say that doctors will have to refuse treatment in such a situation?
I would say it would depend on the age of the patient and whether
they consider it as life threatening. What you think will have no bearing on what they have to go by.
Quote from: me on February 11, 2009, 12:05:18 PM
I would say it would depend on the age of the patient and whether they consider it as life threatening. What you think will have no bearing on what they have to go by.
When your neck has swollen shut from an allergic reaction and you have to have a breathing tube inserted, I don't think many people (except you) would argue that is is a life-threatening situation.
Quote from: Bo D on February 11, 2009, 12:16:43 PM
When your neck has swollen shut from an allergic reaction and you have to have a breathing tube inserted, I don't think many people (except you) would argue that is is a life-threatening situation.
I know it's life threatening and so do you but the fact remains whether that the determining factor of it getting treated under the proposed health care package will be made by the government and the Dr. will have to follow their recommendation on whether to treat it and how.
QuoteMedicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).
So if it is deemed that it would not be cost effective, possibly because of age or condition of the patient, she would not even be treated. Hell she might not even get examined until it's too late. What you or even the Dr. might think don't even enter into the picture. Go do some research on the bill Bo D.
Quote from: me on February 11, 2009, 12:44:40 PM
I know it's life threatening and so do you but the fact remains whether that the determining factor of it getting treated under the proposed health care package will be made by the government and the Dr. will have to follow their recommendation on whether to treat it and how. So if it is deemed that it would not be cost effective, possibly because of age or condition of the patient, she would not even be treated. Hell she might not even get examined until it's too late. What you or even the Dr. might think don't even enter into the picture. Go do some research on the bill Bo D.
I did do the research.
Your OPINION PIECE claimed that the stimulus bill would cause a newly created office to "monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective" which was, in essence, "enforcing uniformity." The portions of the text to which she cites, however,
do nothing of the sort. Sec. 3001(b) of the bill, which sets forth the "purposes" of the substantive provisions, does not in and of itself do anything but set forth the reason for the substantive provisions.
The bill gives the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology no duties to review actual treatments but only to establish standards for a technology infrastructure that would allow doctors to better guide their patients' treatments and to ensure that doctors are given the appropriate tools to establish a proper course of treatment.
Oh yeah ... that "new office" that would control medical treatment .... was already established on April 27, 2004, by President George W. Bush, under Executive Order #13335
Snap!
OMG!!!! The particular page referred to in the article has been removed or moved but while digging I was amazed at how complicated they can make this stuff and how tied in a knot it can all get. It is sooo repetitive, cross referrenced, and lengthy it's ridiculous. Check some of this stuff out. I am going to continue digging but in the meantime if you have never tried to go through this stuff I suggest you do it. If you have more power to you. I know some of you have been researching and know the ropes pretty well but I'm new to it and will admit it and am just in it to my toes so far.
I'm not backing down from being leery of what's going on with the nationalized health care one little bit as I am sure you aren't going to back down about being all for it but how far have you really dug into it? Do you realize what it really means? Are you just going by what you've read from your sources too?
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I just hope I'm not the one saying "I told you so".
Oh here's the link where I was searching for info about the amendement: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SP00098:
Quote from: me on February 11, 2009, 04:01:13 PM
OMG!!!! The particular page referred to in the article has been removed or moved
How convenient for you. :rolleyes:
Quote from: me on February 11, 2009, 04:01:13 PM
but while digging I was amazed at how complicated they can make this stuff and how tied in a knot it can all get. It is sooo repetitive, cross referrenced, and lengthy it's ridiculous. Check some of this stuff out.
I did. And I posted the text of the bill that got your panties in a wad.
Quote from: me on February 11, 2009, 04:01:13 PM
I am going to continue digging but in the meantime if you have never tried to go through this stuff I suggest you do it. If you have more power to you. I know some of you have been researching and know the ropes pretty well but I'm new to it and will admit it and am just in it to my toes so far.
If you can't stand the heat .... don't try to play with the big dogs.
Quote from: me on February 11, 2009, 04:01:13 PM
I'm not backing down from being leery of what's going on with the nationalized health care one little bit as I am sure you aren't going to back down about being all for it but how far have you really dug into it? Do you realize what it really means? Are you just going by what you've read from your sources too?
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I just hope I'm not the one saying "I told you so".
My source? I used the source you posted which pointed to an EASILY accessible GOVERNMENT web site listing the full text of the bill. If you don't care enough to carefully read before you post, why do you post this garbage at all?
Here... I'll make it easy for you ... this is the actual wording of the bill (pages 441-443) that Betsy McCaughey of the Hudson Institute (hmmm....where have we heard that before) hacked.
19 ''(b) PURPOSE.—The National Coordinator shall per
20 form the duties under subsection (c) in a manner con
21 sistent with the development of a nationwide health infor
22 mation technology infrastructure that allows for the elec
23 tronic use and exchange of information and that—
442
•HR 1 EH
1 ''(1) ensures that each patient's health informa
2 tion is secure and protected, in accordance with ap
3 plicable law;
4 ''(2) improves health care quality, reduces med
5 ical errors, reduces health disparities, and advances
6 the delivery of patient-centered medical care;
7 ''(3) reduces health care costs resulting from
8 inefficiency, medical errors, inappropriate care, du
9 plicative care, and incomplete information;
10 ''(4) provides appropriate information to help
11 guide medical decisions at the time and place of
12 care;
13 ''(5) ensures the inclusion of meaningful public
14 input in such development of such infrastructure;
15 ''(6) improves the coordination of care and in
16 formation among hospitals, laboratories, physician
17 offices, and other entities through an effective infra
18 structure for the secure and authorized exchange of
19 health care information;
20 ''(7) improves public health activities and facili
21 tates the early identification and rapid response to
22 public health threats and emergencies, including bio
23 terror events and infectious disease outbreaks;
24 ''(Cool facilitates health and clinical research and
25 health care quality;
443
•HR 1 EH
1 ''(9) promotes prevention of chronic diseases;
2 ''(10) promotes a more effective marketplace,
3 greater competition, greater systems analysis, in
4 creased consumer choice, and improved outcomes in
5 health care services; and
6 ''(11) improves efforts to reduce health dispari
7 ties.
You hand picked just like I did and yes, the page had been removed or moved and was no longer accessible. Did you bother to go look at what I was talking about? We are both reading what someone else picked out not the actual wording of the bill as it was written so there are things added and things omitted. All any of us can do is hope they really aren't sneaking in things that are detrimental to our well being. And I'm still not backing down from what I feel is trying to happen. :razz:
Quote from: me on February 11, 2009, 05:31:33 PM
You hand picked just like I did and yes, the page had been removed or moved and was no longer accessible. Did you bother to go look at what I was talking about? We are both reading what someone else picked out not the actual wording of the bill as it was written so there are things added and things omitted. All any of us can do is hope they really aren't sneaking in things that are detrimental to our well being. And I'm still not backing down from what I feel is trying to happen. :razz:
Hand Picked? LOL!!!!!
I posted the EXACT WORDING of the bill from the very pages that your little OPINION "source" referenced.
You have already admitted that you can't research. Can you read?
Try this.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1eh.txt.pdf (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1eh.txt.pdf)
The government does a far more efficient job at delivering healthcare with via medicare than any insurance company. With a fraction of the administration costs and no money going towards insurance profit.
Other countries have successfully implemented single-payer healtcare for years. And they blow the doors of the US in any statistical category, be it health or money related.
Quote from: Bo D on February 12, 2009, 08:21:17 AM
Hand Picked? LOL!!!!!
I posted the EXACT WORDING of the bill from the very pages that your little OPINION "source" referenced.
You have already admitted that you can't research. Can you read?
Try this.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1eh.txt.pdf (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1eh.txt.pdf)
Yes, I can read. There are some things I am uncomfortable with about the plan. The committee that determines which drugs and treatments are cost effective and which are not as well as whether they can be used under certain circumstances concerns me. How far are they going to take that?
I guess you just woke up one morning and knew all about how to research things huh? You didn't have to learn you're so smart it just came natural. Must be nice to be so smart ya never have to go through the learning process. :rolleyes:
Quote from: fireguy on February 12, 2009, 09:00:19 AM
The government does a far more efficient job at delivering healthcare with via medicare than any insurance company. With a fraction of the administration costs and no money going towards insurance profit.
Other countries have successfully implemented single-payer healtcare for years. And they blow the doors of the US in any statistical category, be it health or money related.
Guess the excellent health care in Canada is why my cousin is glad they had moved to the States when her husband, a Canadian, was diagnosed with cancer, and had to undergo treatments which included a stem cell transplant to hopefully be cured. He is now in remission and doing quite well.
Quote from: Bo D on February 11, 2009, 04:57:54 PM
If you don't care enough to carefully read before you post, why do you post this garbage at all?
If this were a forum rule, the conservative side of every discussion here would disappear. :biggrin:
Quote from: fireguy on February 12, 2009, 09:00:19 AM
The government does a far more efficient job at delivering healthcare with via medicare than any insurance company. With a fraction of the administration costs and no money going towards insurance profit.
Other countries have successfully implemented single-payer healtcare for years. And they blow the doors of the US in any statistical category, be it health or money related.
Oh, sure, inject logic into the discussion.
Quote from: me on February 12, 2009, 09:29:52 AM
Yes, I can read. There are some things I am uncomfortable with about the plan. The committee that determines which drugs and treatments are cost effective and which are not as well as whether they can be used under certain circumstances concerns me. How far are they going to take that?
I guess you just woke up one morning and knew all about how to research things huh? You didn't have to learn you're so smart it just came natural. Must be nice to be so smart ya never have to go through the learning process. :rolleyes:
Would you PLEASE show me the wording FROM THE BILL - NOT FROM AN OPINION PIECE - that says a committee "determines which drugs and treatments are cost effective and which are not as well as whether they can be used under certain circumstances"
BTW, I do research for a living. Don't get all smarmy on me because you are so anti-intellectual.
Quote from: me on February 12, 2009, 09:32:55 AM
Guess the excellent health care in Canada is why my cousin is glad they had moved to the States when her husband, a Canadian, was diagnosed with cancer, and had to undergo treatments which included a stem cell transplant to hopefully be cured. He is now in remission and doing quite well.
Yes, and some of my best friends are black.
Quote from: fireguy on February 12, 2009, 09:00:19 AM
The government does a far more efficient job at delivering healthcare with via medicare than any insurance company. With a fraction of the administration costs and no money going towards insurance profit.
Other countries have successfully implemented single-payer healtcare for years. And they blow the doors of the US in any statistical category, be it health or money related.
Thus sayeth Michael Moore. A very dubious source at best, and a flat-out liar in reality.
I haven't seen a Moore film since Roger and Me. You will have to fish for your red herring elsewhere.
Quote from: Bo D on February 12, 2009, 09:55:55 AM
Would you PLEASE show me the wording FROM THE BILL - NOT FROM AN OPINION PIECE - that says a committee "determines which drugs and treatments are cost effective and which are not as well as whether they can be used under certain circumstances"
BTW, I do research for a living. Don't get all smarmy on me because you are so anti-intellectual.
And you just automatically knew how to do it right? You didn't have to go to collage to learn it you just sat down at a computer one day and researched away and knew right where to look and how to go about it. Man, your head must be awfully large to hold that brain.
Quote from: fireguy on February 12, 2009, 11:09:32 AM
Yes, and some of my best friends are black.
What? That didn't even make sense.
Quote from: me on February 12, 2009, 02:53:26 PM
And you just automatically knew how to do it right? You didn't have to go to collage to learn it you just sat down at a computer one day and researched away and knew right where to look and how to go about it. Man, your head must be awfully large to hold that brain.
It's ok "me"
We understand.
Now go play somewhere. The grownups are talking here.
The paper chase. :biggrin:
I saw the CEO of Wellpoint on CNBC earlier. She is all-in on anything that restricts access to expensive, new procedures.
You know, like you all seem to be so afraid the government would do.
The thing is, the insurance comapnies would let you die and dance on your grave if it means the next shareholder report will read well.
Quote from: Bo D on February 12, 2009, 03:07:08 PM
It's ok "me"
We understand.
Now go play somewhere. The grownups are talking here.
At least I didn't have to have the door ways made extra wide in my house so my head would fit through them. :razz:
Quote from: me on February 12, 2009, 10:02:51 PM
At least I didn't have to have the door ways made extra wide in my house so my head would fit through them. :razz:
Yeah, but can you say the same thing about your butt? :icon_twisted:
Quote from: fireguy on February 12, 2009, 07:47:05 PM
I saw the CEO of Wellpoint on CNBC earlier. She is all-in on anything that restricts access to expensive, new procedures.
You know, like you all seem to be so afraid the government would do.
The thing is, the insurance comapnies would let you die and dance on your grave if it means the next shareholder report will read well.
Yup! :yes:
Oh, come on; do you mean to suggest that the insurance comanies' motives are anything but altruistic?
Quote from: Exterminator on February 13, 2009, 07:25:48 AM
Oh, come on; do you mean to suggest that the insurance comanies' motives are anything but altruistic?
I believe it is more than a suggestion! :biggrin:
Another take ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/12/AR2009021203527.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/12/AR2009021203527.html)
"Bloviation vs. Reality on Stimulus Health-Care Provision"
"This right-wing brushfire didn't start on its own, of course. It was a work of political arson by the country's drugmakers and medical device makers, which have the most to lose if there is solid research showing that some of their most expensive and high-margin products aren't really better than the low-priced spread."
Quote from: Palehorse on February 13, 2009, 07:33:54 AM
I believe it is more than a suggestion! :biggrin:
I guess that's what makes the insurance industry different from all of those other corporations who we know use any and all tax cuts to hire more workers for the betterment of society as a whole. [/sarcasm]
Quote from: Exterminator on February 13, 2009, 07:16:56 AM
Yeah, but can you say the same thing about your butt? :icon_twisted:
Yes, I can. :razz:
Quote from: me on February 13, 2009, 08:26:02 AM
Yes, I can. :razz:
Then you're one of the few in Anderson.
Quote from: Exterminator on February 13, 2009, 08:24:27 AM
I guess that's what makes the insurance industry different from all of those other corporations who we know use any and all tax cuts to hire more workers for the betterment of society as a whole. [/sarcasm]
:biggrin:
Ok, I rarely agree with me's politics, but talkin' about a woman's nether region is below the belt! :razz: :biggrin:
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on February 13, 2009, 10:25:40 AM
Ok, I rarely agree with me's politics, but talkin' about a woman's nether region is below the belt! :razz: :biggrin:
The problem is that me's nether region is between her ears.
:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
Quote from: Bo D on February 13, 2009, 10:33:39 AM
The problem is that me's nether region is between her ears.
:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
:spooked:
OMG! :biggrin: I walked me right into that. Sorry me! ;D
Oh, sure. Make a 'nether' joke. And a 'nether.' And.......
:biggrin: :biggrin:
Quote from: Bo D on February 13, 2009, 10:33:39 AM
The problem is that me's nether region is between her ears.
:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
LMAO! Ouch! :biggrin:
Quote from: Bo D on February 13, 2009, 10:33:39 AM
The problem is that me's nether region is between her ears.
:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
How could anyone with such an affliction hear anything when the "wind" blows? :spooked: :razz: :biggrin:
You mean when the wind breaks?
Quote from: followsthewolf on February 13, 2009, 01:12:29 PM
You mean when the wind breaks?
:biggrin: That too! There's breaking wind, blowing wind, silent (but deadly) wind, stuttering wind, chugging wind, and white castle wind. . . :biggrin:
Quote from: fireguy on February 12, 2009, 07:47:05 PM
I saw the CEO of Wellpoint on CNBC earlier. She is all-in on anything that restricts access to expensive, new procedures.
You know, like you all seem to be so afraid the government would do.
The thing is, the insurance comapnies would let you die and dance on your grave if it means the next shareholder report will read well.
"The thing is,
the insurance comapnies the next Republican President would let you die and dance on your grave if it means
the next shareholder report will read well Halliburton promises a large campaign donation."
"The thing is,
the insurance comapnies Senator Blowhard, D - Massachusetts would let you die and dance on your grave if it means
the next shareholder report will read well a lobbyist will promise to fund a nice "fact-finding" mission to Bermuda."
"The thing is,
the insurance comapnies President Obama would let you die and dance on your grave if it means the next
shareholder report will read well Acorn membership drive promised a large increase of (imaginary) Democrat voters."
"The thing is,
the insurance comapnies some pissed-off, lower-level Gov't functionary would let you die and dance on your grave if it means
the next shareholder report will read well his buddy with the nice boat can get in to see the doctor before you."
Choose your "fixed" reply.
We already have socialized health care for our Veterans...why don't you go ask a bunch of THEM how that's working?
Ever been to a license branch?
Imagine this: You show up at the emergency room with your seriously injured child. But you are turned away because you had only TWO forms of picture identification, not the required THREE. And the unaccountable-Gov't functionary says, "Next!".
Still not convinced? This ought to do it:
Imagine the Gov't under Chimpy McBush being in charge of making health-care decisions for the citizens...
When you can fully understand why THAT would be undesirable, then you'll understand why I find Gov't control of healthcare, no matter WHO is President or what party is in the majority, to be abhorrent.
Nice straw man but what you are describing as socialized health care is an accurate depiction of how it works in countries where they have it and, get this, lots of them get better value for their money according to the WHO.
Quote from: Bo D on February 13, 2009, 10:33:39 AM
The problem is that me's nether region is between her ears.
:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
Hey Bo D...can you hear this? :finger01: :finger01: :finger2: :finger2:
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on February 13, 2009, 10:56:07 AM
OMG! :biggrin: I walked me right into that. Sorry me! ;D
Somehow I'm not totally convinced of that... :razz:
:stirthepot: