Kilgour Farms
I took the one less traveled by
The UK health care system employs 1.4 million the third largest employer in the world behind the Chinese Red army and India's National Rail, 65% of the employees are administrative.
Well said.. wish they undrstood that.What I find ironic is that they build the Dulles Airport so the congressmen could get to an airport relatively easy via the Dulles Toll Road with two lane dedicated for airport travel and a large majority of them use Reagan National which if you've ever been to is a classic butt f--k to get in and out of.
Every one of these politician should be voted out until they get the message that we employ them and they are there to serve us not the other way around.
Hummm.. not really.
As always, think coupe d'etat...
AK Skim
Your King
Careful now AK...They have a site set up for people to email this kind of negative talk against the administration
Don't the employers choose what health insurance plan that they will offer their employees? I mean even if I liked my plan, couldn't my employer choose to offer the government plan to its employees?
In the interest of stoking the flames:
Link: washingtonpost.com
article:
Republicans Propagating Falsehoods in Attacks on Health-Care Reform
By Steven Pearlstein
Friday, August 7, 2009
As a columnist who regularly dishes out sharp criticism, I try not to question the motives of people with whom I don't agree. Today, I'm going to step over that line.
The recent attacks by Republican leaders and their ideological fellow-travelers on the effort to reform the health-care system have been so misleading, so disingenuous, that they could only spring from a cynical effort to gain partisan political advantage. By poisoning the political well, they've given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition. They've become political terrorists, willing to say or do anything to prevent the country from reaching a consensus on one of its most serious domestic problems.
There are lots of valid criticisms that can be made against the health reform plans moving through Congress -- I've made a few myself. But there is no credible way to look at what has been proposed by the president or any congressional committee and conclude that these will result in a government takeover of the health-care system. That is a flat-out lie whose only purpose is to scare the public and stop political conversation.
Under any plan likely to emerge from Congress, the vast majority of Americans who are not old or poor will continue to buy health insurance from private companies, continue to get their health care from doctors in private practice and continue to be treated at privately owned hospitals.
The centerpiece of all the plans is a new health insurance exchange set up by the government where individuals, small businesses and eventually larger businesses will be able to purchase insurance from private insurers at lower rates than are now generally available under rules that require insurers to offer coverage to anyone regardless of health condition. Low-income workers buying insurance through the exchange -- along with their employers -- would be eligible for government subsidies. While the government will take a more active role in regulating the insurance market and increase its spending for health care, that hardly amounts to the kind of government-run system that critics conjure up when they trot out that oh-so-clever line about the Department of Motor Vehicles being in charge of your colonoscopy.
ad_icon
There is still a vigorous debate as to whether one of the insurance options offered through those exchanges would be a government-run insurance company of some sort. There are now less-than-even odds that such a public option will survive in the Senate, while even House leaders have agreed that the public plan won't be able to piggy-back on Medicare. So the probability that a public-run insurance plan is about to drive every private insurer out of business -- the Republican nightmare scenario -- is approximately zero.
By now, you've probably also heard that health reform will cost taxpayers at least a trillion dollars. Another lie.
First of all, that's not a trillion every year, as most people assume -- it's a trillion over 10 years, which is the silly way that people in Washington talk about federal budgets. On an annual basis, that translates to about $140 billion, when things are up and running.
Even that, however, grossly overstates the net cost to the government of providing universal coverage. Other parts of the reform plan would result in offsetting savings for Medicare: reductions in unnecessary subsidies to private insurers, in annual increases in payments rates for doctors and in payments to hospitals for providing free care to the uninsured. The net increase in government spending for health care would likely be about $100 billion a year, a one-time increase equal to less than 1 percent of a national income that grows at an average rate of 2.5 percent every year.
The Republican lies about the economics of health reform are also heavily laced with hypocrisy.
While holding themselves out as paragons of fiscal rectitude, Republicans grandstand against just about every idea to reduce the amount of health care people consume or the prices paid to health-care providers -- the only two ways I can think of to credibly bring health spending under control.
When Democrats, for example, propose to fund research to give doctors, patients and health plans better information on what works and what doesn't, Republicans sense a sinister plot to have the government decide what treatments you will get. By the same wacko-logic, a proposal that Medicare pay for counseling on end-of-life care is transformed into a secret plan for mass euthanasia of the elderly.
Government negotiation on drug prices? The end of medical innovation as we know it, according to the GOP's Dr. No. Reduce Medicare payments to overpriced specialists and inefficient hospitals? The first step on the slippery slope toward rationing.
Can there be anyone more two-faced than the Republican leaders who in one breath rail against the evils of government-run health care and in another propose a government-subsidized high-risk pool for people with chronic illness, government-subsidized community health centers for the uninsured, and opening up Medicare to people at age 55?
Health reform is a test of whether this country can function once again as a civil society -- whether we can trust ourselves to embrace the big, important changes that require everyone to give up something in order to make everyone better off. Republican leaders are eager to see us fail that test. We need to show them that no matter how many lies they tell or how many scare tactics they concoct, Americans will come together and get this done.
If health reform is to be anyone's Waterloo, let it be theirs.
Steven Pearlstein can be reached at pearlsteins@washpost.com.
Good point. Furthermore, lets not forget to mention the fact that many (not all) of these uninsured who wait to the last minute for medical attention could have been treated much earlier for their symptoms if they had coverage.
Don't the employers choose what health insurance plan that they will offer their employees? I mean even if I liked my plan, couldn't my employer choose to offer the government plan to its employees?
Yah, but I'm sure the majority of those that choose to go uninsured do so because insurance is too expensive and they'd rather risk it than pay. I'd hate to think there are idiots out there who dont want coverage and have no good reason for their decision.Not only that, but the majority of people who are uninsured (about 50 million), choose to be that way. There are actually only about five million people who just can't get insurance.
Yah, but I'm sure the majority of those that choose to go uninsured do so because insurance is too expensive and they'd rather risk it than pay. I'd hate to think there are idiots out there who dont want coverage and have no good reason for their decision.
And another gagger bites the dust!
This pile of steaming bullshit was posted in the comments by the illustrious Wes earlier today. I shall dismantle it piece, by bullshitty piece.
Cylenschmuck…Cold hard facts: Page 29. The bill admits on page 29 that your health care will be rationed.
Cy took care of this one.So you have no response to this one. Silence is golden
Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get.
Yes! A "public/private" committee will be formed to determine the range of services offered. Without a central planning committee, I guess we'd be covering... what, exactly? If you are going to offer coverage, you kinda have to define what you are covering. Otherwise, I could set up my "Ellipses' Fart Therapy Clinic" and collect gubbermint dollas.
A central planning committee could decide that it is too expensive for you to get that new cancer drug and oh by the way we have examples of this very action taking place in the U.K. already. So if you are happy with that than by all means sign up for Gov healthcare
Page 58: Every person will be issued a national ID health card.
Wow, so they are going to do EXACTLY WHAT PRIVATE INSURERS DO NOW? Fuck you, batman! Hey Batman Dont forget that what goes with that ID card is access by the government to all your health records. You know the ones that by law now are to be made private. Why does the Government need to see my health records?
Page 59: The federal government will have direct real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
Well, let's see what it ACTUALLY says?
"The standards under this section shall be developed, adopted and enforced so as to… (C) enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice"
So, I can pay for services rendered electronically? The same way I pay my water bill, my car insurance, my Amex bill, my student loans, my mortgage, my gas bill, my electric bill, my car payments, and every other fucking expense that I have? Are these people from the fucking future?Well lets clarify that just a bit more. This is not voluntary. Its mandatory. Since when does the government mandate access to my money. It is my money isnt it or does it belong to the collective. Resistance is futile
Page 239: The bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid, meaning there will be Medicaid cuts.
Medicaid will be folded into the public option. This will be done by phasing out physician services in order to compute costs from 2011 onward. Basically, the only honest thing in this statement is that it's on page 239... but it runs over to page 240, so even that is bullshit.
Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment. Government dictates how your life ends. The Washington Post read the section, Section 1233 and came to the same disturbing conclusion:
“Ideally, the delicate decisions about how to manage life's end would be made in a setting that is neutral in both appearance and fact. Yes, it's good to have a doctor's perspective. But Section 1233 goes beyond facilitating doctor input to preferring it. Indeed, the measure would have an interested party -- the government -- recruit doctors to sell the elderly on living wills, hospice care and their associated providers, professions and organizations. You don't have to be a right-wing wacko to question that approach.”
The relevant part of this actually starts on page 426:
‘‘(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of
orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar
orders, which shall include—
‘‘(I) the reasons why the development of
such an order is beneficial to the individual and
the individual’s family and the reasons why
such an order should be updated periodically as
the health of the individual changes;"
which goes onto say:
‘‘(II) the information needed for an indi10
vidual or legal surrogate to make informed deci11
sions regarding the completion of such an
order; and
‘‘(III) the identification of resources that
an individual may use to determine the require15
ments of the State in which such individual re16
sides so that the treatment wishes of that indi17
vidual will be carried out if the individual is un18
able to communicate those wishes, including re19
quirements regarding the designation of a sur20
rogate decisionmaker (also known as a health
care proxy).
‘‘(ii) The Secretary shall limit the requirement
for explanations under clause (i) to consultations
furnished in a State—
•HR 3200 IH
‘‘(I) in which all legal barriers have been
addressed for enabling orders for life sustaining
treatment to constitute a set of medical orders
respected across all care settings; and
‘‘(II) that has in effect a program for or6
ders for life sustaining treatment described in
clause (iii).
‘‘(iii) A program for orders for life sustaining
treatment for a States described in this clause is a
program that—
‘‘(I) ensures such orders are standardized
and uniquely identifiable throughout the State;
‘‘(II) distributes or makes accessible such
orders to physicians and other health profes15
sionals that (acting within the scope of the pro16
fessional’s authority under State law) may sign
orders for life sustaining treatment;
‘‘(III) provides training for health care
professionals across the continuum of care
about the goals and use of orders for life sus21
taining treatment; and
‘‘(IV) is guided by a coalition of stake23
holders includes representatives from emergency
medical services, emergency department physi25
cians or nurses, state long-term care associa-
•HR 3200 IH
tion, state medical association, state surveyors,
agency responsible for senior services, state de3
partment of health, state hospital association,
home health association, state bar association,
and state hospice association.
So, the health care bill offers insurance for periodic revisions of living wills and end of life planning... and mandates that there are trained professionals available to explain why it's good to have a living will. And then, get this, it goes on to require that living wills are verified and honored. Holy fucking Jesus!
Page 429: Advanced care planning consult will be used to dictate treatment as patients' health deteriorates. This can include an order for end-of-life plans. The order will be from the government.
Page 429 requires that an order for "life sustaining treatment" be signed by a physician so that it can "stay with the individual and be followed by health care professionals and providers across the continuum of care..."
And then, it goes on to say that this life sustaining order must "effectively communicates the individual’s preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual"Well not exactly. Today when you go to the doctor or hospital with your elderly mom or dad you are given information on living wills and advanced directives. It is a difficult discussion to have but you have it because they are your parents and you want them to be prepared for all possibilities. I am personally going thru this right now with both my mother and father. See the difference is that it is something the family and the patient discuss and decide on....not the government. Government has no business in this decision process. To suggest that they are going to provide resources is ridiculous. The resources already exist and by law you are provided this information when you enter the hospital. The concept that yet another government mandate will be helpful in this process is so false its not even funny
Sorry, Wes... you had a good run at it... you made an entertaining, if not almost kinda close to being somewhat reasonable in a really abstract kinda way. But then, of course, you gagged on a giant cock made of bullshit and dryer lint.
Yah, but I'm sure the majority of those that choose to go uninsured do so because insurance is too expensive and they'd rather risk it than pay. I'd hate to think there are idiots out there who dont want coverage and have no good reason for their decision.
If Chuck Norris doesn't think it's a good idea, then it can't be a good idea!!
Chuck Norris : Dirty Secret No. 1 in Obamacare - Townhall.com
Of course I am being sarcastic, but he brings up more valid points of this oh so awesome bill.
Just close your eyes for a second and imagine the outrage from Americans if George Bush tried this...They would be screeming impeachment!
Emmett
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee —uhhh... huh huh... huh huh... that says, fool me once, shame on —uhhh... huh huh... huh huh... shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."Just close your eyes for a second and imagine the outrage from Americans if George Bush tried this...They would be screeming impeachment!
Emmett
Let's remember what opposition to health care reform is really about, right from one of the horses' mouth:
DeMint riled up his base this week with the following threat about Obama's health care plan, "If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."
This is all one big temper tantrum about Nov. 4.
Let's remember what opposition to health care reform is really about, right from one of the horses' mouth:
DeMint riled up his base this week with the following threat about Obama's health care plan, "If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."
This is all one big temper tantrum about Nov. 4.
Macfly, it was DeMint's words, not mine.
By the way, conservative-ish columnist Ross Douthat has an interesting take in today's NY Times.