This thread has now been renamed The EVERYTHING WE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT POTENTIAL CHANGES IN MEDICARE THREAD

Floridatexan wrote:

Buttman wrote:I've decided to do what everyone else does. And that's to vote only for my own selfish interests.

We already know Obama is gonna take a bunch of money out of Medicare.
That's because us seniors are not his voting base. His voting base are whippersnappers (like bds of Florida). Seniors are mostly republican voters.
So to get votes, Obama/democrats will take from Medicare to get the whippersnappers on the health insurance rolls.

Romney has to cater to seniors since that's his voting base. That's why his rhetoric is "I will throw out the whole Obamacare the first day of office". Of course that's just a load of horseshit to get seniors to vote for him.

BUT, my Medicare benefits DO have a better chance of being cut less with Romney/republicans in office simply because Medicare recipients are his voting base.
So between the two I'll have to vote for Romney. I'm now a one issue voter. And the one issue is me.

"We" don't know anything of the kind. Healthcare reform was a key component of Obama's first term. If anyone is trying to kill Medicare, it's the Republican Party and their "vouchers". And all seniors ARE NOT Republicans, thank God.

VectorMan wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Newsfan wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:Romney backs (note date and time) the Ryan plan which lets seniors use vouchers to shop for medical care rather than continue Medicare as it is. Are you looking forward to that? Privatizing medical care even more than it is now? Leaving your care decisions to the insurance companies?Let's see, your medical needs or their profits? Wonder how that would work?

As opposed to the Government managing the healthcare!...Example: Postal Services only this time it's not the mail it's HEALTH!...This name [COWH] Care is such a wonderful plan that there has to be punitive measure/tax added to gain compliance and even at that some say they'll pay the penalty and that will be cheaper to do...

At least the government isn't refusing services based on services vs advertising and CEO pay, profits. Why do you think the ACA required the insurance companies to spend AT LEAST 80% of what they take in on actual medical services?

As for companies paying penalties rather than provide the health care I'd say it was just great because we might end up with single payer as a result. Ever think of that?

Prepare for the death panels. When you aren't a productive part of society the government run health care will do the minimum and just let the old ones die.

Slicef18 wrote:

VectorMan wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Newsfan wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:Romney backs (note date and time) the Ryan plan which lets seniors use vouchers to shop for medical care rather than continue Medicare as it is. Are you looking forward to that? Privatizing medical care even more than it is now? Leaving your care decisions to the insurance companies?Let's see, your medical needs or their profits? Wonder how that would work?

As opposed to the Government managing the healthcare!...Example: Postal Services only this time it's not the mail it's HEALTH!...This name [COWH] Care is such a wonderful plan that there has to be punitive measure/tax added to gain compliance and even at that some say they'll pay the penalty and that will be cheaper to do...

At least the government isn't refusing services based on services vs advertising and CEO pay, profits. Why do you think the ACA required the insurance companies to spend AT LEAST 80% of what they take in on actual medical services?

As for companies paying penalties rather than provide the health care I'd say it was just great because we might end up with single payer as a result. Ever think of that?

Prepare for the death panels. When you aren't a productive part of society the government run health care will do the minimum and just let the old ones die.

"Prepare for the death panels. When you aren't a productive part of society the government run health care will do the minimum and just let the old ones die."

This lie has been debunked so many times it's a JOKE. However the party of FEAR will still continue to promote it. The part of the bill where this lie is perpetrated has to do with Senior Citizens who wish to discuss and decide their end of life choices (such as when do I want to be considered a "no-code" patient rather than having test after test and treatment after treatment even when there is no hope for a reversal of illness) Under the bill this whole process of discussions with my doctor will be paid for by insurance as opposed to an out of pocket expense that it is now.

I know this just bursts your bubble, but in this case, it needs to be burst.

VectorMan wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Newsfan wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:Romney backs (note date and time) the Ryan plan which lets seniors use vouchers to shop for medical care rather than continue Medicare as it is. Are you looking forward to that? Privatizing medical care even more than it is now? Leaving your care decisions to the insurance companies?Let's see, your medical needs or their profits? Wonder how that would work?

As opposed to the Government managing the healthcare!...Example: Postal Services only this time it's not the mail it's HEALTH!...This name [COWH] Care is such a wonderful plan that there has to be punitive measure/tax added to gain compliance and even at that some say they'll pay the penalty and that will be cheaper to do...

At least the government isn't refusing services based on services vs advertising and CEO pay, profits. Why do you think the ACA required the insurance companies to spend AT LEAST 80% of what they take in on actual medical services?

As for companies paying penalties rather than provide the health care I'd say it was just great because we might end up with single payer as a result. Ever think of that?

Prepare for the death panels. When you aren't a productive part of society the government run health care will do the minimum and just let the old ones die.

Markle wrote:

Slicef18 wrote:

VectorMan wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Newsfan wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:Romney backs (note date and time) the Ryan plan which lets seniors use vouchers to shop for medical care rather than continue Medicare as it is. Are you looking forward to that? Privatizing medical care even more than it is now? Leaving your care decisions to the insurance companies?Let's see, your medical needs or their profits? Wonder how that would work?

As opposed to the Government managing the healthcare!...Example: Postal Services only this time it's not the mail it's HEALTH!...This name [COWH] Care is such a wonderful plan that there has to be punitive measure/tax added to gain compliance and even at that some say they'll pay the penalty and that will be cheaper to do...

At least the government isn't refusing services based on services vs advertising and CEO pay, profits. Why do you think the ACA required the insurance companies to spend AT LEAST 80% of what they take in on actual medical services?

As for companies paying penalties rather than provide the health care I'd say it was just great because we might end up with single payer as a result. Ever think of that?

Prepare for the death panels. When you aren't a productive part of society the government run health care will do the minimum and just let the old ones die.

"Prepare for the death panels. When you aren't a productive part of society the government run health care will do the minimum and just let the old ones die."

This lie has been debunked so many times it's a JOKE. However the party of FEAR will still continue to promote it. The part of the bill where this lie is perpetrated has to do with Senior Citizens who wish to discuss and decide their end of life choices (such as when do I want to be considered a "no-code" patient rather than having test after test and treatment after treatment even when there is no hope for a reversal of illness) Under the bill this whole process of discussions with my doctor will be paid for by insurance as opposed to an out of pocket expense that it is now.

I know this just bursts your bubble, but in this case, it needs to be burst.

Dr. Ezikel Emanuel is the brother of former Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel.

Dr. Emanuel is President Obama's chief medical adviser. Dr. Emanuel is also the author of the "Complete Lives System" of rationing health care. Here is the graph Dr. Emanuel prepared showing how he suggests health care be allocated.

Slicef18 wrote:

Markle wrote:

Slicef18 wrote:

VectorMan wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Newsfan wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:Romney backs (note date and time) the Ryan plan which lets seniors use vouchers to shop for medical care rather than continue Medicare as it is. Are you looking forward to that? Privatizing medical care even more than it is now? Leaving your care decisions to the insurance companies?Let's see, your medical needs or their profits? Wonder how that would work?

As opposed to the Government managing the health-care!...Example: Postal Services only this time it's not the mail it's HEALTH!...This name [COWH] Care is such a wonderful plan that there has to be punitive measure/tax added to gain compliance and even at that some say they'll pay the penalty and that will be cheaper to do...

At least the government isn't refusing services based on services vs advertising and CEO pay, profits. Why do you think the ACA required the insurance companies to spend AT LEAST 80% of what they take in on actual medical services?

As for companies paying penalties rather than provide the health care I'd say it was just great because we might end up with single payer as a result. Ever think of that?

Prepare for the death panels. When you aren't a productive part of society the government run health care will do the minimum and just let the old ones die.

"Prepare for the death panels. When you aren't a productive part of society the government run health care will do the minimum and just let the old ones die."

This lie has been debunked so many times it's a JOKE. However the party of FEAR will still continue to promote it. The part of the bill where this lie is perpetrated has to do with Senior Citizens who wish to discuss and decide their end of life choices (such as when do I want to be considered a "no-code" patient rather than having test after test and treatment after treatment even when there is no hope for a reversal of illness) Under the bill this whole process of discussions with my doctor will be paid for by insurance as opposed to an out of pocket expense that it is now.

I know this just bursts your bubble, but in this case, it needs to be burst.

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel is the brother of former Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel.

Dr. Emanuel is President Obama's chief medical adviser. Dr. Emanuel is also the author of the "Complete Lives System" of rationing health care. Here is the graph Dr. Emanuel prepared showing how he suggests health care be allocated.

MARKLE once again gives an incomplete and distorted picture of how healthcare resources are to be used. The graph Markle provided shows how the very young with a poor prognosis for a meaningful life will have a lower priority in getting scarce medical care. Also those who have lived the longest and have poor prognosis of additional years will have a lower priority in the use of healthcare resources. I will tell you that if my 40 year old son and I both needed a kidney for survival, and there was only one kidney available, I would gladly see my son get the kidney so he may enjoy the years of life I've had. That is what Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel chart shows.

Markle wrote:

Slicef18 wrote:

Markle wrote:

Slicef18 wrote:

VectorMan wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Newsfan wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:Romney backs (note date and time) the Ryan plan which lets seniors use vouchers to shop for medical care rather than continue Medicare as it is. Are you looking forward to that? Privatizing medical care even more than it is now? Leaving your care decisions to the insurance companies?Let's see, your medical needs or their profits? Wonder how that would work?

As opposed to the Government managing the health-care!...Example: Postal Services only this time it's not the mail it's HEALTH!...This name [COWH] Care is such a wonderful plan that there has to be punitive measure/tax added to gain compliance and even at that some say they'll pay the penalty and that will be cheaper to do...

At least the government isn't refusing services based on services vs advertising and CEO pay, profits. Why do you think the ACA required the insurance companies to spend AT LEAST 80% of what they take in on actual medical services?

As for companies paying penalties rather than provide the health care I'd say it was just great because we might end up with single payer as a result. Ever think of that?

Prepare for the death panels. When you aren't a productive part of society the government run health care will do the minimum and just let the old ones die.

"Prepare for the death panels. When you aren't a productive part of society the government run health care will do the minimum and just let the old ones die."

This lie has been debunked so many times it's a JOKE. However the party of FEAR will still continue to promote it. The part of the bill where this lie is perpetrated has to do with Senior Citizens who wish to discuss and decide their end of life choices (such as when do I want to be considered a "no-code" patient rather than having test after test and treatment after treatment even when there is no hope for a reversal of illness) Under the bill this whole process of discussions with my doctor will be paid for by insurance as opposed to an out of pocket expense that it is now.

I know this just bursts your bubble, but in this case, it needs to be burst.

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel is the brother of former Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel.

Dr. Emanuel is President Obama's chief medical adviser. Dr. Emanuel is also the author of the "Complete Lives System" of rationing health care. Here is the graph Dr. Emanuel prepared showing how he suggests health care be allocated.

MARKLE once again gives an incomplete and distorted picture of how healthcare resources are to be used. The graph Markle provided shows how the very young with a poor prognosis for a meaningful life will have a lower priority in getting scarce medical care. Also those who have lived the longest and have poor prognosis of additional years will have a lower priority in the use of healthcare resources. I will tell you that if my 40 year old son and I both needed a kidney for survival, and there was only one kidney available, I would gladly see my son get the kidney so he may enjoy the years of life I've had. That is what Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel chart shows.

That's fine and that is YOUR choice. It would be mine too.

What you are ignoring is that it would NOT be your choice or your sons choice. It would be GOVERNMENT. If you also look at the chart, and what Dr. Emanuel also says, is that if it was your two year old GRAND-DAUGHTER, who was in need of a lifesaving operation, OR your son, your grand daughter would die.

THAT, is a death panel.

Slicef18 wrote:

Markle wrote:

Slicef18 wrote:

Markle wrote:

Slicef18 wrote:

VectorMan wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Newsfan wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:Romney backs (note date and time) the Ryan plan which lets seniors use vouchers to shop for medical care rather than continue Medicare as it is. Are you looking forward to that? Privatizing medical care even more than it is now? Leaving your care decisions to the insurance companies?Let's see, your medical needs or their profits? Wonder how that would work?

As opposed to the Government managing the health-care!...Example: Postal Services only this time it's not the mail it's HEALTH!...This name [COWH] Care is such a wonderful plan that there has to be punitive measure/tax added to gain compliance and even at that some say they'll pay the penalty and that will be cheaper to do...

At least the government isn't refusing services based on services vs advertising and CEO pay, profits. Why do you think the ACA required the insurance companies to spend AT LEAST 80% of what they take in on actual medical services?

As for companies paying penalties rather than provide the health care I'd say it was just great because we might end up with single payer as a result. Ever think of that?

Prepare for the death panels. When you aren't a productive part of society the government run health care will do the minimum and just let the old ones die.

"Prepare for the death panels. When you aren't a productive part of society the government run health care will do the minimum and just let the old ones die."

This lie has been debunked so many times it's a JOKE. However the party of FEAR will still continue to promote it. The part of the bill where this lie is perpetrated has to do with Senior Citizens who wish to discuss and decide their end of life choices (such as when do I want to be considered a "no-code" patient rather than having test after test and treatment after treatment even when there is no hope for a reversal of illness) Under the bill this whole process of discussions with my doctor will be paid for by insurance as opposed to an out of pocket expense that it is now.

I know this just bursts your bubble, but in this case, it needs to be burst.

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel is the brother of former Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel.

Dr. Emanuel is President Obama's chief medical adviser. Dr. Emanuel is also the author of the "Complete Lives System" of rationing health care. Here is the graph Dr. Emanuel prepared showing how he suggests health care be allocated.

MARKLE once again gives an incomplete and distorted picture of how healthcare resources are to be used. The graph Markle provided shows how the very young with a poor prognosis for a meaningful life will have a lower priority in getting scarce medical care. Also those who have lived the longest and have poor prognosis of additional years will have a lower priority in the use of healthcare resources. I will tell you that if my 40 year old son and I both needed a kidney for survival, and there was only one kidney available, I would gladly see my son get the kidney so he may enjoy the years of life I've had. That is what Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel chart shows.

That's fine and that is YOUR choice. It would be mine too.

What you are ignoring is that it would NOT be your choice or your sons choice. It would be GOVERNMENT. If you also look at the chart, and what Dr. Emanuel also says, is that if it was your two year old GRAND-DAUGHTER, who was in need of a lifesaving operation, OR your son, your grand daughter would die.

THAT, is a death panel.

You are wrong Markle. Dr.Emanual's position is, "if the 2 year old daughter has a poor prognosis for a life her position is attenuated. If the 2 year old daughter is healthy enough to have a good outcome (prognosis) her position is not attenuated. Same with a senior citizen. If a senior citizen has advanced atherosclerosis, type 2 diabetes and associated early onset dementia, their position for scarce advanced treatments would be attenuated. However, a senior citizen who has taken steps to maintain health and is otherwise considered having a good prognosis would not be attenuated.

Markle wrote:

Slicef18 wrote:

Markle wrote:

Slicef18 wrote:

Markle wrote:

Slicef18 wrote:

VectorMan wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Newsfan wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:Romney backs (note date and time) the Ryan plan which lets seniors use vouchers to shop for medical care rather than continue Medicare as it is. Are you looking forward to that? Privatizing medical care even more than it is now? Leaving your care decisions to the insurance companies?Let's see, your medical needs or their profits? Wonder how that would work?

As opposed to the Government managing the health-care!...Example: Postal Services only this time it's not the mail it's HEALTH!...This name [COWH] Care is such a wonderful plan that there has to be punitive measure/tax added to gain compliance and even at that some say they'll pay the penalty and that will be cheaper to do...

At least the government isn't refusing services based on services vs advertising and CEO pay, profits. Why do you think the ACA required the insurance companies to spend AT LEAST 80% of what they take in on actual medical services?

As for companies paying penalties rather than provide the health care I'd say it was just great because we might end up with single payer as a result. Ever think of that?

Prepare for the death panels. When you aren't a productive part of society the government run health care will do the minimum and just let the old ones die.

"Prepare for the death panels. When you aren't a productive part of society the government run health care will do the minimum and just let the old ones die."

This lie has been debunked so many times it's a JOKE. However the party of FEAR will still continue to promote it. The part of the bill where this lie is perpetrated has to do with Senior Citizens who wish to discuss and decide their end of life choices (such as when do I want to be considered a "no-code" patient rather than having test after test and treatment after treatment even when there is no hope for a reversal of illness) Under the bill this whole process of discussions with my doctor will be paid for by insurance as opposed to an out of pocket expense that it is now.

I know this just bursts your bubble, but in this case, it needs to be burst.

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel is the brother of former Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel.

Dr. Emanuel is President Obama's chief medical adviser. Dr. Emanuel is also the author of the "Complete Lives System" of rationing health care. Here is the graph Dr. Emanuel prepared showing how he suggests health care be allocated.

MARKLE once again gives an incomplete and distorted picture of how healthcare resources are to be used. The graph Markle provided shows how the very young with a poor prognosis for a meaningful life will have a lower priority in getting scarce medical care. Also those who have lived the longest and have poor prognosis of additional years will have a lower priority in the use of healthcare resources. I will tell you that if my 40 year old son and I both needed a kidney for survival, and there was only one kidney available, I would gladly see my son get the kidney so he may enjoy the years of life I've had. That is what Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel chart shows.

That's fine and that is YOUR choice. It would be mine too.

What you are ignoring is that it would NOT be your choice or your sons choice. It would be GOVERNMENT. If you also look at the chart, and what Dr. Emanuel also says, is that if it was your two year old GRAND-DAUGHTER, who was in need of a lifesaving operation, OR your son, your grand daughter would die.

THAT, is a death panel.

You are wrong Markle. Dr.Emanual's position is, "if the 2 year old daughter has a poor prognosis for a life her position is attenuated. If the 2 year old daughter is healthy enough to have a good outcome (prognosis) her position is not attenuated. Same with a senior citizen. If a senior citizen has advanced atherosclerosis, type 2 diabetes and associated early onset dementia, their position for scarce advanced treatments would be attenuated. However, a senior citizen who has taken steps to maintain health and is otherwise considered having a good prognosis would not be attenuated.

Sorry, given all three are in roughly the same physical condition your 2 year old daughter, and the senior are toast. They have nothing to contribute to society.

What do you call this besides death panels?

Slicef18 wrote:

Markle wrote:

Sorry, given all three are in roughly the same physical condition your 2 year old daughter, and the senior are toast. They have nothing to contribute to society.

What do you call this besides death panels?

"Sorry, given all three are in roughly the same physical condition your 2 year old daughter, and the senior are toast. They have nothing to contribute to society."


It's obvious you've never been involved in the decisions made in the surgical suite, diagnostic reading/interpretation room, or intensive care. Medical people who have been involved would know your, "Sorry, given all three are in roughly the same physical condition your 2 year old grand daughter, and the senior are toast. They have nothing to contribute to society." comment has nothing to do with the reality of life. You'd do better to stick with what you know about amortization schedules and closing dates.

Markle wrote:

Slicef18 wrote:

Markle wrote:

Sorry, given all three are in roughly the same physical condition your 2 year old daughter, and the senior are toast. They have nothing to contribute to society.

What do you call this besides death panels?

"Sorry, given all three are in roughly the same physical condition your 2 year old daughter, and the senior are toast. They have nothing to contribute to society."


It's obvious you've never been involved in the decisions made in the surgical suite, diagnostic reading/interpretation room, or intensive care. Medical people who have been involved would know your, "Sorry, given all three are in roughly the same physical condition your 2 year old grand daughter, and the senior are toast. They have nothing to contribute to society." comment has nothing to do with the reality of life. You'd do better to stick with what you know about amortization schedules and closing dates.

Desperation I see. Even a whole new thread. Thank you!

Not to worry your little heart slicef18, the GOVERNMENT would have a list. They would total up your "life score" and give a thumbs up or thumbs down. You know what I said is true. I'm terribly sorry it gets your panties in a twist.

Slicef18 wrote:

Markle wrote:

Slicef18 wrote:

Markle wrote:

Sorry, given all three are in roughly the same physical condition your 2 year old daughter, and the senior are toast. They have nothing to contribute to society.

What do you call this besides death panels?

"Sorry, given all three are in roughly the same physical condition your 2 year old daughter, and the senior are toast. They have nothing to contribute to society."


It's obvious you've never been involved in the decisions made in the surgical suite, diagnostic reading/interpretation room, or intensive care. Medical people who have been involved would know your, "Sorry, given all three are in roughly the same physical condition your 2 year old grand daughter, and the senior are toast. They have nothing to contribute to society." comment has nothing to do with the reality of life. You'd do better to stick with what you know about amortization schedules and closing dates.

Desperation I see. Even a whole new thread. Thank you!

Not to worry your little heart slicef18, the GOVERNMENT would have a list. They would total up your "life score" and give a thumbs up or thumbs down. You know what I said is true. I'm terribly sorry it gets your panties in a twist.

Nice try and your sarcasm is typical of someone who knows they're losing on the issue. Probably caused by the fact that you know when talking healthcare, you're on my territory.

Markle wrote:

Slicef18 wrote:

Markle wrote:

Slicef18 wrote:

Markle wrote:

Sorry, given all three are in roughly the same physical condition your 2 year old daughter, and the senior are toast. They have nothing to contribute to society.

What do you call this besides death panels?

"Sorry, given all three are in roughly the same physical condition your 2 year old daughter, and the senior are toast. They have nothing to contribute to society."


It's obvious you've never been involved in the decisions made in the surgical suite, diagnostic reading/interpretation room, or intensive care. Medical people who have been involved would know your, "Sorry, given all three are in roughly the same physical condition your 2 year old grand daughter, and the senior are toast. They have nothing to contribute to society." comment has nothing to do with the reality of life. You'd do better to stick with what you know about amortization schedules and closing dates.

Desperation I see. Even a whole new thread. Thank you!

Not to worry your little heart slicef18, the GOVERNMENT would have a list. They would total up your "life score" and give a thumbs up or thumbs down. You know what I said is true. I'm terribly sorry it gets your panties in a twist.

Nice try and your sarcasm is typical of someone who knows they're losing on the issue. Probably caused by the fact that you know when talking healthcare, you're on my territory.

Ohhhh...who knew? We are all humbled to be in the presence of greatness!

Slicef18 wrote:

Markle wrote:

Slicef18 wrote:

Markle wrote:

Slicef18 wrote:

Markle wrote:

Sorry, given all three are in roughly the same physical condition your 2 year old daughter, and the senior are toast. They have nothing to contribute to society.

What do you call this besides death panels?

"Sorry, given all three are in roughly the same physical condition your 2 year old daughter, and the senior are toast. They have nothing to contribute to society."


It's obvious you've never been involved in the decisions made in the surgical suite, diagnostic reading/interpretation room, or intensive care. Medical people who have been involved would know your, "Sorry, given all three are in roughly the same physical condition your 2 year old grand daughter, and the senior are toast. They have nothing to contribute to society." comment has nothing to do with the reality of life. You'd do better to stick with what you know about amortization schedules and closing dates.

Desperation I see. Even a whole new thread. Thank you!

Not to worry your little heart slicef18, the GOVERNMENT would have a list. They would total up your "life score" and give a thumbs up or thumbs down. You know what I said is true. I'm terribly sorry it gets your panties in a twist.

Nice try and your sarcasm is typical of someone who knows they're losing on the issue. Probably caused by the fact that you know when talking healthcare, you're on my territory.

Ohhhh...who knew? We are all humbled to be in the presence of greatness!

Your childish sarcasm does nothing to advance the thread.
Look, you're an intelligent guy, in fact brighter than most posters and if the topic were real-estate you'd be way over my head, but when it comes to healthcare my fifty some years experiences run from emptying bedpans to treatment suites, to surgical suites, to the board room.

Slicef18 wrote:

Markle wrote:

Slicef18 wrote:

Markle wrote:

Slicef18 wrote:

Markle wrote:

Sorry, given all three are in roughly the same physical condition your 2 year old daughter, and the senior are toast. They have nothing to contribute to society.

What do you call this besides death panels?

"Sorry, given all three are in roughly the same physical condition your 2 year old daughter, and the senior are toast. They have nothing to contribute to society."


It's obvious you've never been involved in the decisions made in the surgical suite, diagnostic reading/interpretation room, or intensive care. Medical people who have been involved would know your, "Sorry, given all three are in roughly the same physical condition your 2 year old grand daughter, and the senior are toast. They have nothing to contribute to society." comment has nothing to do with the reality of life. You'd do better to stick with what you know about amortization schedules and closing dates.

Desperation I see. Even a whole new thread. Thank you!

Not to worry your little heart slicef18, the GOVERNMENT would have a list. They would total up your "life score" and give a thumbs up or thumbs down. You know what I said is true. I'm terribly sorry it gets your panties in a twist.

Nice try and your sarcasm is typical of someone who knows they're losing on the issue. Probably caused by the fact that you know when talking healthcare, you're on my territory.

Ohhhh...who knew? We are all humbled to be in the presence of greatness!

Your childish sarcasm does nothing to advance the thread.
Look, you're an intelligent guy, in fact brighter than most posters and if the topic were real-estate you'd be way over my head, but when it comes to healthcare my fifty some years experiences run from emptying bedpans to treatment suites, to surgical suites, to the board room.

Markle wrote:
IF the Death Panels did not exist, why were they removed from ObamaCare after former Governor Sarah Palin made them public?

IF the Death Panels, which did not exist, were removed from ObamaCare, why were they then returned to the regulations in ObamaCare in the middle of the night on December 25, 2010?

As for Mitt Romney's tax returns, when is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid going to make public HIS tax returns? Are Democrats so desperate that they would push Harry Reid to make an incredible, unfounded allegation like that with nothing?

othershoe1030 wrote:

Markle wrote:
IF the Death Panels did not exist, why were they removed from ObamaCare after former Governor Sarah Palin made them public?

IF the Death Panels, which did not exist, were removed from ObamaCare, why were they then returned to the regulations in ObamaCare in the middle of the night on December 25, 2010?

As for Mitt Romney's tax returns, when is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid going to make public HIS tax returns? Are Democrats so desperate that they would push Harry Reid to make an incredible, unfounded allegation like that with nothing?

I really think they should have named the Affordable Care Act "The American Plan for Health Care" or just "The American Plan", you know a good name that no one would dare vote against. Reminds me of the inspired name for our loss of privacy called "The Patriot Act", now that was a good name!

When the 1/2 Governor of Alaska coined the phrase 'death panels' it was a marketable tag, easy for the tea party mentality to grasp, remember and regurgitate. It actually referred to a payment to the doctor for the time they spent with patients to discuss end of life care options.

I think it is better to have conversations like this Before the patient is nearing the end. But of course the far right is always happy to create fear and hysteria among their followers; it makes them even easier to control and direct, so they came up with the concept of Death Panels.

This creates the necessary knee-jerk negative reaction to the health care reform law. Congratulations! it has worked so far. However, when asked about various provisions of the law people respond much more favorably than they do to the question of "Do you like the affordable care law?" The conclusion that can easily be drawn from the results of such studies is that people like what the law has done for them but have such a negative view of the term "Obamacare" or the ACA that they say they don't like it.

reaper1948 wrote:Yes, why would he want to kill Medicare Advantage? This is not in the ACHA.

Markle wrote:

reaper1948 wrote:Yes, why would he want to kill Medicare Advantage? This is not in the ACHA.

Please see the chart from President Barack Hussein Obama's Chief Medical Adviser, Er. Emanuel. That answers the question.

reaper1948 wrote:

Markle wrote:

reaper1948 wrote:Yes, why would he want to kill Medicare Advantage? This is not in the ACHA.

Please see the chart from President Barack Hussein Obama's Chief Medical Adviser, Er. Emanuel. That answers the question.

So where does it say he's going to get rid of Medicare on the AHCA? I googled his name, it doesn't even come up. Er Emanuel comes up as a hospital. The following come's up under Medicare for AHCA and nothing wrong with it:
Effective 2015
Medicare creates a physician payment program aimed at rewarding quality of care rather than volume of services.

Now if you're a fan of the voucher Ryan plan this is what you need to consider: If a person 45 yrs old now get a voucher at age 65 for $15,000 a year to take care of his/her medical needs it will never be enough actuarially to pay healthcare costs when that person turns 65.

NaNook wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Markle wrote:
IF the Death Panels did not exist, why were they removed from ObamaCare after former Governor Sarah Palin made them public?

IF the Death Panels, which did not exist, were removed from ObamaCare, why were they then returned to the regulations in ObamaCare in the middle of the night on December 25, 2010?

As for Mitt Romney's tax returns, when is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid going to make public HIS tax returns? Are Democrats so desperate that they would push Harry Reid to make an incredible, unfounded allegation like that with nothing?

I really think they should have named the Affordable Care Act "The American Plan for Health Care" or just "The American Plan", you know a good name that no one would dare vote against. Reminds me of the inspired name for our loss of privacy called "The Patriot Act", now that was a good name!

When the 1/2 Governor of Alaska coined the phrase 'death panels' it was a marketable tag, easy for the tea party mentality to grasp, remember and regurgitate. It actually referred to a payment to the doctor for the time they spent with patients to discuss end of life care options.

I think it is better to have conversations like this Before the patient is nearing the end. But of course the far right is always happy to create fear and hysteria among their followers; it makes them even easier to control and direct, so they came up with the concept of Death Panels.

This creates the necessary knee-jerk negative reaction to the health care reform law. Congratulations! it has worked so far. However, when asked about various provisions of the law people respond much more favorably than they do to the question of "Do you like the affordable care law?" The conclusion that can easily be drawn from the results of such studies is that people like what the law has done for them but have such a negative view of the term "Obamacare" or the ACA that they say they don't like it.

Here is the truth...my father-in-law was dying from cancer last stage. The hospital wanted to do heart surgery to keep him alive. My Mother was dying and the hospital wanted to run daily tests. People know when it's their time. Don't run unnecessay tests to drive up prices...it's an insult.

Yes. there will be a Death Panel. Period...how can anyone deny it? Tell the truth, we all already know it. Why lie? There "ain't" enought money, period. Same goes for Social Security in the next few years. Why lie about it? Tell the fucking truth for once. We're Adults, we know sacrifice, just tell the truth, so we can plan our deaths/estates. Is that too much to ask?????

My wife pays extra for her Medicare Advantage Plan. Why would Obama kill Medicare Advantage? We'll pay even more for it, if given the option. Now she will have to find all new Doctors ....the Doctors willing to wait 120-180 days for Medicare reduced payments.

Get it, yet????

Markle wrote:

reaper1948 wrote:

Markle wrote:

reaper1948 wrote:Yes, why would he want to kill Medicare Advantage? This is not in the ACHA.

Please see the chart from President Barack Hussein Obama's Chief Medical Adviser, Er. Emanuel. That answers the question.

So where does it say he's going to get rid of Medicare on the AHCA? I googled his name, it doesn't even come up. Er Emanuel comes up as a hospital. The following come's up under Medicare for AHCA and nothing wrong with it:
Effective 2015
Medicare creates a physician payment program aimed at rewarding quality of care rather than volume of services.

Now if you're a fan of the voucher Ryan plan this is what you need to consider: If a person 45 yrs old now get a voucher at age 65 for $15,000 a year to take care of his/her medical needs it will never be enough actuarially to pay healthcare costs when that person turns 65.

I am no longer surprised to learn how little Progressives know about the subjects they claim they are so concerned about.

1. Doesn't say he is getting rid of Medicare with ObamaCare, although, as you know, ObamaCare does slash $716 BILLION from Medicare. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel's plan simply provides little or no care to citizens the younger they are or the older they are.

2. The Ryan plan does not give "vouchers". But that's neither here nor there. What is offered, IF PEOPLE WANT, is the same subsidized choice of approved plans as is available to government employees in Washington.

3. IF ObamaCare's solution is to reward quality of care, instead of volume of care. Why are they planning on slashing the reimbursement to doctors and hospitals?

4. Here is information about Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel. For some reason, he does not seek out the limelight.

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Rahm Emanuel and Obama’s Health Policy Adviser, announced a new “Complete Lives System” for selecting which sections of the population should be killed, in his article “Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions.”.

“Such an approach accepts a two-tiered health system-some citizens will receive only basic services while others will receive both basic and some discretionary health services… Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”

Read more at:
http://rightsoup.com/rahms-brother-dr-ezekiel-emanuel-the-death-czar/

5. Without major changes, how will there be anything left for that hypothetical 45 year old you mentioned?

Where will this money come from? Please don't say the "RICH", they don't have anywhere NEAR this much money.

Current Debt . . . $15.3+ TRILLION Plus the $1.3 TRILLION proposed by President Barack Hussein Obama for 2013. (No budget approved)

Unfunded Liabilities (money we have PROMISED, do not have, nor do we have it coming in)

Social Security. . . . $15.4 TRILLION (10,000 Baby Boomers RETIRE EVERY DAY) (How many workers are entering the job market daily?)

Prescription Drugs .$20.4 TRILLION

Medicare. . . . . . . . $81.0 TRILLION

Total Unfunded Liabilities $116.8 TRILLION!

Number of Households in 2010 = 112,611,029

Unfunded Liability Per household $1,037,198.00

PLUS ObamaCare and Untold TRILLIONS more in TAXES

Since far left radical House Speaker Nancy Pelosi took office in January 1, 2007 our debt has increased by $6+ TRILLION.

FIVE+ TRILLION since President Barack Hussein Obama took office. With Obama promise of ANOTHER $1.3 TRILLION DEBT FOR 2013.

Why do Progressives DEMAND a far lower standard of living for our children and their children? What makes you so superior, so selfish that you think you deserve far more of what they will earn?

Saddling our children and their children with this massive debt is immoral, indefensible and, as we have seen, the Progressives here don’t even try.