quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Sanity, when you're right you're right.

Obama's secret purpose is to kill our our grandmas to lower health care costs.

quote:


The discussion in the interview was focused on how to finance government health care for those who are currently uninsured, how to pay for it. The discussion was not occurring in a vacuum.

A while into the interview Obama cleverly began using the case of his grandma as hyperbole, which was a grand way for him to lead into an "ethical" discussion focusing on "very difficult moral issues" - or, how much money is wasted on treating the elderly and the otherwise terminally ill.

He said up to 80% of the nation's health care budget is spent treating such people, and that we need to have some very difficult democratic conversations so that we can come to some difficult decisions (obviously some new decisions, or different decisions - else, why the need to discuss it).

Not exactly code. Without certain blinders on, most people understand what he was trying to enunciate, and understand quite clearly.

quote:

On your planet...

quote:

Try to put your emotions aside, Arpig. You're not reasoning, you are letting your emotions rule you, and you're sinking into the usual muck that's normally well below you. Let's stay above that.

quote:

Ask yourself this - why would there be a hypothetical need for him to pay for his grandma's hip from his own pocket, if there are no new decisions to be made. Why must we have "difficult conversations".

quote:

He's either talking about nothing, or he's talking about something. Are his words without meaning? Or is he talking about rationing health care.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:

I've just demonstrated that the death panels are alive and well, not just living but are in fact thriving inside of Obama's head.

Bullshit! You have done no such thing.The post you linked to says no such thing either. What Obama said was that expensive treatments for terminally ill patients raises moral questions,which it does. Nowhere in the piece does it mention rationing the care for the elderly nor does it mention setting up any sort of cost effectiveness panel to determine what is and isn't to be done. All he says is that the issue raises some difficult moral issues. Do you do an expensive procedure on a terminally ill patient when that procedure will not prolong the patient`s life. That is what he means by `difficult moral issues`.
The bit at the end about "ruthless pragmatism" he is talking about economic policy (specifically the banking industry) not health care. You,and the other "death panel" hypesters have consistently failed to show that any such thing exists in the House bill for the simple reason that it doesn't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Oh, he's a good guy - he would pay for his own grandma's hip out of his own pocket, of course.

Stellar fellow.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:

I've just demonstrated that the death panels are alive and well, not just living but are in fact thriving inside of Obama's head.

Bullshit! You have done no such thing.The post you linked to says no such thing either. What Obama said was that expensive treatments for terminally ill patients raises moral questions,which it does. Nowhere in the piece does it mention rationing the care for the elderly nor does it mention setting up any sort of cost effectiveness panel to determine what is and isn't to be done. All he says is that the issue raises some difficult moral issues. Do you do an expensive procedure on a terminally ill patient when that procedure will not prolong the patient`s life. That is what he means by `difficult moral issues`.
The bit at the end about "ruthless pragmatism" he is talking about economic policy (specifically the banking industry) not health care. You,and the other "death panel" hypesters have consistently failed to show that any such thing exists in the House bill for the simple reason that it doesn't.

OK!

These expensive treatments also include keeping people alive on machines! wanna know why so many were kept alive? because daughter sue wanted to abide by mom's wishes, BUT son bill just couldnt let dear mom go if there was a shred of hope! so poor mom is stuck on a machine that breathes for her while the family battles it out.

THIS is the very thing advance directives seek to prevent. That paper is a voice to Dr's and the courts that mom did indeed NOT want to be kept alive by heroic measures. We are not talking about someone who sustained an injury that can and will be corrected. we are speaking of those who are terminally ill... those who the Dr's hold out no hope for... those individuals who are tired of fighting.

Death panels are alive and well, living in the board rooms of insurance companies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Oh, he's a good guy - he would pay for his own grandma's hip out of his own pocket, of course.

Stellar fellow.

For someone who constantly complained that any criticism of Bush's policies was just hate by liberals you are making some pretty hateful statements yourself.

Especially when they have nothing to so with Obama's policies but are just attacks on his character.

quote:

The rest of us though? Well, yeah, there's the rub. If we aren't personally wealthy like him, our grandmas can just suffer.

quote:

JIM ANDERER, OWNER, ISLAND MITSUBISHI: I am not a fan. I have got to tell you, if they run this public-option health care like they have run this "cash for clunkers," we are going to have a problem. Dealers around the country are not getting paid. This bureaucratic "cash for clunkers" program has just turned into a nightmare.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


B.O. just kinda reminded me of Marie Antoinette in that interview was all I was pointing out. Sure, he's a millionaire many times over, he can afford to pay for his grandma's hip operation out of his own pocket.

The rest of us though? Well, yeah, there's the rub. If we aren't personally wealthy like him, our grandmas can just suffer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Government run anything is predictable in its failure to do the expected at a cost many times more than expected.

The 'cash for clunkers' program points to a perfect example. Not enough funds budgeted, slow reaction time for correction, confusion from the both sides of the program - auto buyers & sellers, and ultimately not accomplishing anything. There has not been re-hiring at any auto manufacturer; car dealers who emptied inventory looking around saying; "now what?"

From an auto dealer: JIM ANDERER, OWNER, ISLAND MITSUBISHI: I am not a fan. I have got to tell you, if they run this public-option health care like they have run this "cash for clunkers," we are going to have a problem. Dealers around the country are not getting paid. This bureaucratic "cash for clunkers" program has just turned into a nightmare.

quote:


Forget about Grand mom's hip replacement; when the government gets involved Doctors forced to participate may require cash up front in lieu of dealing with the approval process to treat a broken arm. No different than what's going on now you say? Well, even if you believe your own rationalization, the question of "then why change?" would still remain.

quote:


Were it not for PAC and special interests the solution would be simple. Eliminate the insurance company's ability to terminate coverage after diagnosis. Eliminate, at minimum, the "pain & suffering" lottery provision of litigation while at the same time requiring the malpractice perpetrator to maintain the same quality of life of the patient enjoyed before the mistake and/or misdiagnosis. Require all employees to provide health care for their employees; full & part time. Allow all unemployed to participate in the Medicaid/Medicare programs. None of that will every happen. Instead, we'll have the government involved.