ObamaCare's cuts to hospitals will cost seniors their lives

ghandi wrote:Ever see a movie called Logans run?

ghandi wrote:Ever see a movie called Logans run?

Rogue wrote:President Obama is wooing seniors with promises to protect Medicare as they've known it. On the defensive because of the $716 billion his health care law takes from Medicare, Obama assures seniors he's cutting payments to hospitals and other providers, not their benefits.

Don't be bamboozled. It's illogical to think that reducing what a hospital is paid to treat seniors won't harm their care. A mountain of scientific evidence proves the cuts will worsen the chance that an elderly patient survives a hospital stay and goes home. It’s reasonable to conclude that tens of thousands of seniors will die needlessly each year.

Under ObamaaCare, hospitals, hospice care, dialysis centers, and nursing homes will be paid less to care for the same number of seniors than if the health law had not been enacted. Payments to doctors will also be cut.

Scientific evidence published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, a leading scientific journal, suggests that forcing hospitals to spend less on elderly patients will produce deadly results.

Exhaustive data on over two million elderly patients treated at 208 California hospitals from 1999 to 2008 show that elderly patients treated in low spending hospitals (bottom quintile) get less care and have a worse chance of surviving and leaving the hospital than elderly patients with the same diagnosis treated at higher spending hospitals. The research, sponsored by the National Institute on Aging and RAND and published in 2011 found that heart attack patients were 19% more likely to die at low spending hospitals.

Over a four year period, 13,613 seniors with pneumonia, stroke, heart attacks and other common conditions who died at low spending hospitals would have recovered and gone home had they been treated at a higher spending institution.(Annals of Internal Medicine, February 1, 2011) That’s the death toll in one state with about 10% of the Medicare population.

Ignoring this evidence, the Obama administration is pressuring hospitals in all fifty states to imitate low spending hospitals. In addition to the across the board cuts in future payments to hospitals,very soon, beginning in October, 2012, the Obama administration will reward hospitals that spend the least per senior,and penalize those that spend more. For several years, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid have measured hospital quality, including infection rates. But Section 3001 of the Obama health care law adds "Medicare spending per beneficiary" as a measure for the first time. Hospital administrators express alarm that the measure includes not only what is spent on an elderly patient in the hospital but also for thirty days after discharge, when the patient visits a doctor or gets physical therapy for example.

Slashing what hospitals are paid does not eliminate “fraud, waste, and abuse,”contrary to what the law’s defenders claim. The cuts compel hospitals to operate in an environment of medical scarcity, with fewer nurses and less diagnostic equipment.

When Medicare cut payment rates to hospitals in 1997, the cuts eventually led to more deaths from heart attacks. Seniorstreated at the hospitals incurring the largest cuts had a 6-8% worse mortality rate from heart attacksthan seniors treated at other hospitals. The reason, researchers concluded, is that hospitals coped with the cuts by reducing nursing care. (National Bureau of Economic Research, March 2011.)

Though this research did not measure harm to younger patients, it is obvious that patients of every age suffer when nurses are spread thinner. Press the call button, and you will wait longer for help.

Medicare is the single largest source of revenue for hospitals. Richard Foster, Chief Actuary of Medicare and Medicaid Services, testified to Congress that the ObamaCare cuts will eventually force 40% of hospitals to operate at a loss, affecting the standard of care. Foster also cautioned that 15% of hospitals may stop accepting Medicare.

There are safer ways to control Medicare costs, including inching up the eligibility age, asking seniors to pay an affordable share of their bills, preventing hospital infections, and empowering patients to be cost-conscious consumers. Of course, politicians will try to claim that the easy answer -- slashing payments to hospitals -- won’t hurt patients, but the evidence shows that’s untrue.



Betsy McCaughey, Ph.D. is a former Lt. Governor of New York State and author of "The Obama Health Law: What It Says and How to Overturn It."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/12/obamacare-cuts-to-hospitals-will-cost-seniors-their-lives/#ixzz26P7Iiptp

Dreamsglore wrote:

Rogue wrote:President Obama is wooing seniors with promises to protect Medicare as they've known it. On the defensive because of the $716 billion his health care law takes from Medicare, Obama assures seniors he's cutting payments to hospitals and other providers, not their benefits.

Don't be bamboozled. It's illogical to think that reducing what a hospital is paid to treat seniors won't harm their care. A mountain of scientific evidence proves the cuts will worsen the chance that an elderly patient survives a hospital stay and goes home. It’s reasonable to conclude that tens of thousands of seniors will die needlessly each year.

Under ObamaaCare, hospitals, hospice care, dialysis centers, and nursing homes will be paid less to care for the same number of seniors than if the health law had not been enacted. Payments to doctors will also be cut.

Scientific evidence published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, a leading scientific journal, suggests that forcing hospitals to spend less on elderly patients will produce deadly results.

Exhaustive data on over two million elderly patients treated at 208 California hospitals from 1999 to 2008 show that elderly patients treated in low spending hospitals (bottom quintile) get less care and have a worse chance of surviving and leaving the hospital than elderly patients with the same diagnosis treated at higher spending hospitals. The research, sponsored by the National Institute on Aging and RAND and published in 2011 found that heart attack patients were 19% more likely to die at low spending hospitals.

Over a four year period, 13,613 seniors with pneumonia, stroke, heart attacks and other common conditions who died at low spending hospitals would have recovered and gone home had they been treated at a higher spending institution.(Annals of Internal Medicine, February 1, 2011) That’s the death toll in one state with about 10% of the Medicare population.

Ignoring this evidence, the Obama administration is pressuring hospitals in all fifty states to imitate low spending hospitals. In addition to the across the board cuts in future payments to hospitals,very soon, beginning in October, 2012, the Obama administration will reward hospitals that spend the least per senior,and penalize those that spend more. For several years, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid have measured hospital quality, including infection rates. But Section 3001 of the Obama health care law adds "Medicare spending per beneficiary" as a measure for the first time. Hospital administrators express alarm that the measure includes not only what is spent on an elderly patient in the hospital but also for thirty days after discharge, when the patient visits a doctor or gets physical therapy for example.

Slashing what hospitals are paid does not eliminate “fraud, waste, and abuse,”contrary to what the law’s defenders claim. The cuts compel hospitals to operate in an environment of medical scarcity, with fewer nurses and less diagnostic equipment.

When Medicare cut payment rates to hospitals in 1997, the cuts eventually led to more deaths from heart attacks. Seniorstreated at the hospitals incurring the largest cuts had a 6-8% worse mortality rate from heart attacksthan seniors treated at other hospitals. The reason, researchers concluded, is that hospitals coped with the cuts by reducing nursing care. (National Bureau of Economic Research, March 2011.)

Though this research did not measure harm to younger patients, it is obvious that patients of every age suffer when nurses are spread thinner. Press the call button, and you will wait longer for help.

Medicare is the single largest source of revenue for hospitals. Richard Foster, Chief Actuary of Medicare and Medicaid Services, testified to Congress that the ObamaCare cuts will eventually force 40% of hospitals to operate at a loss, affecting the standard of care. Foster also cautioned that 15% of hospitals may stop accepting Medicare.

There are safer ways to control Medicare costs, including inching up the eligibility age, asking seniors to pay an affordable share of their bills, preventing hospital infections, and empowering patients to be cost-conscious consumers. Of course, politicians will try to claim that the easy answer -- slashing payments to hospitals -- won’t hurt patients, but the evidence shows that’s untrue.



Betsy McCaughey, Ph.D. is a former Lt. Governor of New York State and author of "The Obama Health Law: What It Says and How to Overturn It."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/12/obamacare-cuts-to-hospitals-will-cost-seniors-their-lives/#ixzz26P7Iiptp

And she's a republican too! LOL! What a bunch of crap!

ghandi wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

Rogue wrote:President Obama is wooing seniors with promises to protect Medicare as they've known it. On the defensive because of the $716 billion his health care law takes from Medicare, Obama assures seniors he's cutting payments to hospitals and other providers, not their benefits.

Don't be bamboozled. It's illogical to think that reducing what a hospital is paid to treat seniors won't harm their care. A mountain of scientific evidence proves the cuts will worsen the chance that an elderly patient survives a hospital stay and goes home. It’s reasonable to conclude that tens of thousands of seniors will die needlessly each year.

Under ObamaaCare, hospitals, hospice care, dialysis centers, and nursing homes will be paid less to care for the same number of seniors than if the health law had not been enacted. Payments to doctors will also be cut.

Scientific evidence published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, a leading scientific journal, suggests that forcing hospitals to spend less on elderly patients will produce deadly results.

Exhaustive data on over two million elderly patients treated at 208 California hospitals from 1999 to 2008 show that elderly patients treated in low spending hospitals (bottom quintile) get less care and have a worse chance of surviving and leaving the hospital than elderly patients with the same diagnosis treated at higher spending hospitals. The research, sponsored by the National Institute on Aging and RAND and published in 2011 found that heart attack patients were 19% more likely to die at low spending hospitals.

Over a four year period, 13,613 seniors with pneumonia, stroke, heart attacks and other common conditions who died at low spending hospitals would have recovered and gone home had they been treated at a higher spending institution.(Annals of Internal Medicine, February 1, 2011) That’s the death toll in one state with about 10% of the Medicare population.

Ignoring this evidence, the Obama administration is pressuring hospitals in all fifty states to imitate low spending hospitals. In addition to the across the board cuts in future payments to hospitals,very soon, beginning in October, 2012, the Obama administration will reward hospitals that spend the least per senior,and penalize those that spend more. For several years, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid have measured hospital quality, including infection rates. But Section 3001 of the Obama health care law adds "Medicare spending per beneficiary" as a measure for the first time. Hospital administrators express alarm that the measure includes not only what is spent on an elderly patient in the hospital but also for thirty days after discharge, when the patient visits a doctor or gets physical therapy for example.

Slashing what hospitals are paid does not eliminate “fraud, waste, and abuse,”contrary to what the law’s defenders claim. The cuts compel hospitals to operate in an environment of medical scarcity, with fewer nurses and less diagnostic equipment.

When Medicare cut payment rates to hospitals in 1997, the cuts eventually led to more deaths from heart attacks. Seniorstreated at the hospitals incurring the largest cuts had a 6-8% worse mortality rate from heart attacksthan seniors treated at other hospitals. The reason, researchers concluded, is that hospitals coped with the cuts by reducing nursing care. (National Bureau of Economic Research, March 2011.)

Though this research did not measure harm to younger patients, it is obvious that patients of every age suffer when nurses are spread thinner. Press the call button, and you will wait longer for help.

Medicare is the single largest source of revenue for hospitals. Richard Foster, Chief Actuary of Medicare and Medicaid Services, testified to Congress that the ObamaCare cuts will eventually force 40% of hospitals to operate at a loss, affecting the standard of care. Foster also cautioned that 15% of hospitals may stop accepting Medicare.

There are safer ways to control Medicare costs, including inching up the eligibility age, asking seniors to pay an affordable share of their bills, preventing hospital infections, and empowering patients to be cost-conscious consumers. Of course, politicians will try to claim that the easy answer -- slashing payments to hospitals -- won’t hurt patients, but the evidence shows that’s untrue.



Betsy McCaughey, Ph.D. is a former Lt. Governor of New York State and author of "The Obama Health Law: What It Says and How to Overturn It."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/12/obamacare-cuts-to-hospitals-will-cost-seniors-their-lives/#ixzz26P7Iiptp

And she's a republican too! LOL! What a bunch of crap!

Bunch of crap? Like science fiction? Which is what this book is.
So now science fiction is a bunch of crap. Stop the presses. We have a breaking story. Star trek, all stephen king books, and many others may be false. Bunches of crap.

Dreamsglore wrote:

ghandi wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

Rogue wrote:President Obama is wooing seniors with promises to protect Medicare as they've known it. On the defensive because of the $716 billion his health care law takes from Medicare, Obama assures seniors he's cutting payments to hospitals and other providers, not their benefits.

Don't be bamboozled. It's illogical to think that reducing what a hospital is paid to treat seniors won't harm their care. A mountain of scientific evidence proves the cuts will worsen the chance that an elderly patient survives a hospital stay and goes home. It’s reasonable to conclude that tens of thousands of seniors will die needlessly each year.

Under ObamaaCare, hospitals, hospice care, dialysis centers, and nursing homes will be paid less to care for the same number of seniors than if the health law had not been enacted. Payments to doctors will also be cut.

Scientific evidence published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, a leading scientific journal, suggests that forcing hospitals to spend less on elderly patients will produce deadly results.

Exhaustive data on over two million elderly patients treated at 208 California hospitals from 1999 to 2008 show that elderly patients treated in low spending hospitals (bottom quintile) get less care and have a worse chance of surviving and leaving the hospital than elderly patients with the same diagnosis treated at higher spending hospitals. The research, sponsored by the National Institute on Aging and RAND and published in 2011 found that heart attack patients were 19% more likely to die at low spending hospitals.

Over a four year period, 13,613 seniors with pneumonia, stroke, heart attacks and other common conditions who died at low spending hospitals would have recovered and gone home had they been treated at a higher spending institution.(Annals of Internal Medicine, February 1, 2011) That’s the death toll in one state with about 10% of the Medicare population.

Ignoring this evidence, the Obama administration is pressuring hospitals in all fifty states to imitate low spending hospitals. In addition to the across the board cuts in future payments to hospitals,very soon, beginning in October, 2012, the Obama administration will reward hospitals that spend the least per senior,and penalize those that spend more. For several years, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid have measured hospital quality, including infection rates. But Section 3001 of the Obama health care law adds "Medicare spending per beneficiary" as a measure for the first time. Hospital administrators express alarm that the measure includes not only what is spent on an elderly patient in the hospital but also for thirty days after discharge, when the patient visits a doctor or gets physical therapy for example.

Slashing what hospitals are paid does not eliminate “fraud, waste, and abuse,”contrary to what the law’s defenders claim. The cuts compel hospitals to operate in an environment of medical scarcity, with fewer nurses and less diagnostic equipment.

When Medicare cut payment rates to hospitals in 1997, the cuts eventually led to more deaths from heart attacks. Seniorstreated at the hospitals incurring the largest cuts had a 6-8% worse mortality rate from heart attacksthan seniors treated at other hospitals. The reason, researchers concluded, is that hospitals coped with the cuts by reducing nursing care. (National Bureau of Economic Research, March 2011.)

Though this research did not measure harm to younger patients, it is obvious that patients of every age suffer when nurses are spread thinner. Press the call button, and you will wait longer for help.

Medicare is the single largest source of revenue for hospitals. Richard Foster, Chief Actuary of Medicare and Medicaid Services, testified to Congress that the ObamaCare cuts will eventually force 40% of hospitals to operate at a loss, affecting the standard of care. Foster also cautioned that 15% of hospitals may stop accepting Medicare.

There are safer ways to control Medicare costs, including inching up the eligibility age, asking seniors to pay an affordable share of their bills, preventing hospital infections, and empowering patients to be cost-conscious consumers. Of course, politicians will try to claim that the easy answer -- slashing payments to hospitals -- won’t hurt patients, but the evidence shows that’s untrue.



Betsy McCaughey, Ph.D. is a former Lt. Governor of New York State and author of "The Obama Health Law: What It Says and How to Overturn It."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/12/obamacare-cuts-to-hospitals-will-cost-seniors-their-lives/#ixzz26P7Iiptp

And she's a republican too! LOL! What a bunch of crap!

Bunch of crap? Like science fiction? Which is what this book is.
So now science fiction is a bunch of crap. Stop the presses. We have a breaking story. Star trek, all stephen king books, and many others may be false. Bunches of crap.

Try to get it together,Ghandi. Focus. Read the post and the response a few more times and it may become clear to you.

ghandi wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

ghandi wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

Rogue wrote:President Obama is wooing seniors with promises to protect Medicare as they've known it. On the defensive because of the $716 billion his health care law takes from Medicare, Obama assures seniors he's cutting payments to hospitals and other providers, not their benefits.

Don't be bamboozled. It's illogical to think that reducing what a hospital is paid to treat seniors won't harm their care. A mountain of scientific evidence proves the cuts will worsen the chance that an elderly patient survives a hospital stay and goes home. It’s reasonable to conclude that tens of thousands of seniors will die needlessly each year.

Under ObamaaCare, hospitals, hospice care, dialysis centers, and nursing homes will be paid less to care for the same number of seniors than if the health law had not been enacted. Payments to doctors will also be cut.

Scientific evidence published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, a leading scientific journal, suggests that forcing hospitals to spend less on elderly patients will produce deadly results.

Exhaustive data on over two million elderly patients treated at 208 California hospitals from 1999 to 2008 show that elderly patients treated in low spending hospitals (bottom quintile) get less care and have a worse chance of surviving and leaving the hospital than elderly patients with the same diagnosis treated at higher spending hospitals. The research, sponsored by the National Institute on Aging and RAND and published in 2011 found that heart attack patients were 19% more likely to die at low spending hospitals.

Over a four year period, 13,613 seniors with pneumonia, stroke, heart attacks and other common conditions who died at low spending hospitals would have recovered and gone home had they been treated at a higher spending institution.(Annals of Internal Medicine, February 1, 2011) That’s the death toll in one state with about 10% of the Medicare population.

Ignoring this evidence, the Obama administration is pressuring hospitals in all fifty states to imitate low spending hospitals. In addition to the across the board cuts in future payments to hospitals,very soon, beginning in October, 2012, the Obama administration will reward hospitals that spend the least per senior,and penalize those that spend more. For several years, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid have measured hospital quality, including infection rates. But Section 3001 of the Obama health care law adds "Medicare spending per beneficiary" as a measure for the first time. Hospital administrators express alarm that the measure includes not only what is spent on an elderly patient in the hospital but also for thirty days after discharge, when the patient visits a doctor or gets physical therapy for example.

Slashing what hospitals are paid does not eliminate “fraud, waste, and abuse,”contrary to what the law’s defenders claim. The cuts compel hospitals to operate in an environment of medical scarcity, with fewer nurses and less diagnostic equipment.

When Medicare cut payment rates to hospitals in 1997, the cuts eventually led to more deaths from heart attacks. Seniorstreated at the hospitals incurring the largest cuts had a 6-8% worse mortality rate from heart attacksthan seniors treated at other hospitals. The reason, researchers concluded, is that hospitals coped with the cuts by reducing nursing care. (National Bureau of Economic Research, March 2011.)

Though this research did not measure harm to younger patients, it is obvious that patients of every age suffer when nurses are spread thinner. Press the call button, and you will wait longer for help.

Medicare is the single largest source of revenue for hospitals. Richard Foster, Chief Actuary of Medicare and Medicaid Services, testified to Congress that the ObamaCare cuts will eventually force 40% of hospitals to operate at a loss, affecting the standard of care. Foster also cautioned that 15% of hospitals may stop accepting Medicare.

There are safer ways to control Medicare costs, including inching up the eligibility age, asking seniors to pay an affordable share of their bills, preventing hospital infections, and empowering patients to be cost-conscious consumers. Of course, politicians will try to claim that the easy answer -- slashing payments to hospitals -- won’t hurt patients, but the evidence shows that’s untrue.



Betsy McCaughey, Ph.D. is a former Lt. Governor of New York State and author of "The Obama Health Law: What It Says and How to Overturn It."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/12/obamacare-cuts-to-hospitals-will-cost-seniors-their-lives/#ixzz26P7Iiptp

And she's a republican too! LOL! What a bunch of crap!

Bunch of crap? Like science fiction? Which is what this book is.
So now science fiction is a bunch of crap. Stop the presses. We have a breaking story. Star trek, all stephen king books, and many others may be false. Bunches of crap.

Try to get it together,Ghandi. Focus. Read the post and the response a few more times and it may become clear to you.

I know what science fiction is without having a dimwit try and explain it to me. Logans run is a science fiction book. Look it up. Dummy.

Yella wrote:My son met two married couples from Canada a week ago and asked them about health care in Canada, how much it cost them and about waiting time. They said they were happy with it and one man said he had to wait two weeks for a surgery. They said that healthcare came out of their income tax which was around 35 to forty per cent for most people. They did not have any co-pay.

Yella wrote:My son met two married couples from Canada a week ago and asked them about health care in Canada, how much it cost them and about waiting time. They said they were happy with it and one man said he had to wait two weeks for a surgery. They said that healthcare came out of their income tax which was around 35 to forty per cent for most people. They did not have any co-pay.

Rogue wrote:

Yella wrote:My son met two married couples from Canada a week ago and asked them about health care in Canada, how much it cost them and about waiting time. They said they were happy with it and one man said he had to wait two weeks for a surgery. They said that healthcare came out of their income tax which was around 35 to forty per cent for most people. They did not have any co-pay.

my son in law is canadian. most of them come to the US to get thier health care.

like many canadians. ive only had one professional dealing with canada, and they simply did not give a rats ass how much I needed the pts material AFTER i told them several times the patient was very sick, it still took two weeks to get the specimen.

you want to get what you get for free and hve gov run it, i can assure you when something goes wrong, no one cares, theres no one to sue.

when our healthcare system crumbles and takes a huge portion of our middle class with it, because it will.. then maybe youll see. but i doubt it, because all of ya'll are retired and you got yours.

Slicef18 wrote:

Rogue wrote:

Yella wrote:My son met two married couples from Canada a week ago and asked them about health care in Canada, how much it cost them and about waiting time. They said they were happy with it and one man said he had to wait two weeks for a surgery. They said that healthcare came out of their income tax which was around 35 to forty per cent for most people. They did not have any co-pay.

my son in law is canadian. most of them come to the US to get thier health care.

like many canadians. ive only had one professional dealing with canada, and they simply did not give a rats ass how much I needed the pts material AFTER i told them several times the patient was very sick, it still took two weeks to get the specimen.

you want to get what you get for free and hve gov run it, i can assure you when something goes wrong, no one cares, theres no one to sue.

when our healthcare system crumbles and takes a huge portion of our middle class with it, because it will.. then maybe youll see. but i doubt it, because all of ya'll are retired and you got yours.

Government providing healthcare for it's citizens is simply a matter of the people speaking their POLITICAL WILL. Do the American people want their money spent on healthcare for it's people here, or bombs to drop on people of other nations. When politicians hear they will loose their political office if they don't support Americans healthcare. Bombs no longer get funded.

Dreamsglore wrote:I believe that's the same lady who made up the death panel rumors.

2seaoat wrote:Stay healthy my friend......my bubble lasted for almost 55 years of great health, but when your bubble bursts you will find out that people are drawing lines everyday......they are called the insurance company.....you know the for profit folks who draw the line after a hurricane. I have dealt with FEMA and the SBA after a disaster, and I have dealt with insurance companies after a disaster.....they both draw lines.......they both can help and they both can restrict, but to think that the government is inherently the source of line drawing is naive.....stay healthy my friend.....wisdom needs to be earned.....and right now I wish I had your ignorance of how the health system really works.

VectorMan wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Stay healthy my friend......my bubble lasted for almost 55 years of great health, but when your bubble bursts you will find out that people are drawing lines everyday......they are called the insurance company.....you know the for profit folks who draw the line after a hurricane. I have dealt with FEMA and the SBA after a disaster, and I have dealt with insurance companies after a disaster.....they both draw lines.......they both can help and they both can restrict, but to think that the government is inherently the source of line drawing is naive.....stay healthy my friend.....wisdom needs to be earned.....and right now I wish I had your ignorance of how the health system really works.

I know how it works. I've had to live through the terrible ordeal of losing a couple of people that were very close to me. I know how health insurance works. I know how Hospice works. Letting government run the whole deal is a major mistake that will cost future generations freedom and choice. Trying to GIVE everything to everybody just won't work.

VectorMan wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Stay healthy my friend......my bubble lasted for almost 55 years of great health, but when your bubble bursts you will find out that people are drawing lines everyday......they are called the insurance company.....you know the for profit folks who draw the line after a hurricane. I have dealt with FEMA and the SBA after a disaster, and I have dealt with insurance companies after a disaster.....they both draw lines.......they both can help and they both can restrict, but to think that the government is inherently the source of line drawing is naive.....stay healthy my friend.....wisdom needs to be earned.....and right now I wish I had your ignorance of how the health system really works.

I know how it works. I've had to live through the terrible ordeal of losing a couple of people that were very close to me. I know how health insurance works. I know how Hospice works. Letting government run the whole deal is a major mistake that will cost future generations freedom and choice. Trying to GIVE everything to everybody just won't work.

Slicef18 wrote:

Government providing healthcare for it's citizens is simply a matter of the people speaking their POLITICAL WILL. Do the American people want their money spent on healthcare for it's people here, or bombs to drop on people of other nations. When politicians hear they will loose their political office if they don't support Americans healthcare. Bombs no longer get funded.