1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Have you ever stood in line at the airport and

Discussion in 'Politics, Elections & Legislation' started by JBrooks, Feb 18, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. JBrooks

    JBrooks TS Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    3,707
    wondered what those people working for the TSA did before there was a TSA? I mean, other than sit around and hope that their application to work at the DMV would somehow skate through.

    Well, the good one(s) will probaly leave TSA and start work here:

    Per Ann Coulter

    "HHS bureaucrats will soon be empowered to overrule your doctor. Doctors who don't comply with the government's treatment protocols will be fined. That's right: Instead of your treatment being determined by your doctor, it will be settled on by some narcoleptic half-wit in Washington who couldn't get a job in the private sector.

    And a brand-new set of bureaucrats in the newly created office of "National Coordinator of Health Information Technology" will be empowered to cut off treatments that merely prolong life. Sorry, Mom and Pop, Big Brother said it's time to go.

    At every other workplace in the nation -- even Wal-Mart! -- workers are being laid off. But no one at any of the bloated government bureaucracies ever need fear receiving a pink slip. All 64,750 employees at the department of Health and Human Services are apparently absolutely crucial to the smooth functioning of the department.

    With the stimulus bill, liberals plan to move unfirable government workers into every activity in America, where they will superintend all aspects of our lives"

    Lucky us.
     
  2. H82MIS

    H82MIS TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,052
    J, Your not seeing the big picture,,if everyone works for the govt. how can they (the dumbocrats) ever lose another election,,,

    I think that is their plan,,,
     
  3. Gary Olin

    Gary Olin TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    49
    This is an effort started by George Bush in 2004 to provide better information on patients by computerizing thier medical records and to provide patients with better information on the quality of care provided by doctors and hospitals. Ann Coulter may be cute, but her description of this program is totally bogus.
     
  4. JBrooks

    JBrooks TS Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    3,707
    Go educate yourself Gary. The democrats rely on the ignorance of the voters.

    The numbers is the paragraphs reference page numbers in the Bill. From Bloomberg:

    "The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.

    But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”

    Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.

    New Penalties

    Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)

    What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.

    The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

    Elderly Hardest Hit

    Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

    Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).

    The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.

    In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.

    Hidden Provisions

    If the Obama administration’s economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later. "
     
  5. H82MIS

    H82MIS TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,052
    mark, aren't most lawyers democrats???????
     
  6. Gary Olin

    Gary Olin TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    49
    Brooks,

    Coulter claims that doctors will be fined for not following "government-dictated medical protocols" and the government will have the right to stop life prolonging medical care. That is not what the author of the opinion piece that you referenced says. As a matter of fact, McCaughey says the bill doesn't explicitly address these issues. Read your own cut and paste.
     
  7. JBrooks

    JBrooks TS Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    3,707
    Right Gary, perhaps you can show me one instance where a bureaucrat gave up some power?

    Why is any authority over our medical care being given to the government?

    Medical care is "rationed" in every country where it is socialized by the government.

    Good luck, brother, you just keep on believin'.
     
  8. Gary Olin

    Gary Olin TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    49
    Brooks,
    Brooks,

    Re your question about the need for government regulation of health care, it is regulated to one degree or another in all but the most backward of countries because the citizens want it. I happen to like going to health care practitioners who have met minimal educational and training requirements deemed necessary by knowledgeable health care professionals, and I prefer taking prescribed medicines that have been tested for efficacy and safety. If you would rather go to the local voodoo doctor, animal doctor, or whatever for your medical care, feel free to do so.

    Re rationing of health care, this happens in all countries, not just the ones with socialized medicine. The only question is how health care is rationed. It can be rationed by market forces, government rules, or a combination of the two. But be assured, it is rationed.
     
  9. The Rock

    The Rock Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,491
    Gary Olin

    Health care rationed? No all health care should be available to all people. Not a government decision. If the government doesn't want to take over health care then leave it alone. If it does then do it but don't change the health care available now.

    If the government decides you can't have that heart operation because you are 67 and it is not worth it because you will only live a few years. Fine luckily there are places that will help. Say India?

    Or maybe you want the government telling you yes the operation would save your life but you can't have it whether you can pay or not.

    I may not be able to afford it but that is my decision not the governments.

    Rock

    Jim
     
  10. birdogs

    birdogs TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,775
    Rationing of healthcare is HERE! It was coming anyway but now it has arrived. In the treatment of older Americans, their proximity to their life expectancy will be a major consideration in extending or witholding life-prolonging treatment. I don't think that any 80+ year olds will be getting dialysis, for example. Of course, Comgresspeople and Senators and their families will be treated differently.

    It has long been been predicted that once healthcare costs reached 10% of GDP, the nation would be in crisis. We have now reached about 18%. Rationing is coming and soon, and this "stimulus" bill is preparing the way.
     
  11. wireguy

    wireguy TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,715
    Health care decisions have been made by insurance companies for decades.
     
  12. JBrooks

    JBrooks TS Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    3,707
    Good one JF!

    Not accurate, but funny.
     
  13. The Rock

    The Rock Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,491
    The patriot act is only as good or bad as the people running it. No one has found any of the things that could be happening as far as spying on citizens under Bush. And they did try very hard.

    It will be interesting to see how anti American way BamBam uses it when no one will be even interested in watching him.

    Rock

    Jim
     
  14. Recoil Sissy

    Recoil Sissy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,647
    Gentlemen:

    We're mixing (and deliberately??) distorting subjects.

    With rare exceptions, the primary limit on an American's access to health care is his/her ability to pay. That ability includes payments made by third parties (primarily insurance coverage and Medicare/Medicaid) and the depth of our individual pockets.

    Nobody is entitled to unlimited free heath care. However, in order to receive Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement, hospitals are required to provide some level of "free" treatment to the indigent. The extent of that care is limited. When the limit is reached, a hospital may reduce treatment or stop it altogether. That isn't government health care rationing.

    Insurance companies won't pay claims outside the defined coverage of a specific policy. They stop paying when the limits of a policy are reached. Neither case is an example of insurance company health care rationing.

    While it might be argued that insurance companies don't always pay claims they are obligated to pay, the issue then would be more like breach of contract as opposed to rationing.

    Mr. Olin, surely you jest. Minimum professional requirements limit who may practice and at what level. That isn't about limiting or rationing health care either.

    And Mr. Olin, improved health care is a good thing. More cost effective health care driven by better information systems is a good thing. Care decisions determined by individuals and their medical practitioners is a good thing.

    The following was clipped from you referenced link:

    In April 2004, President George W. Bush revealed his vision for the future of healthcare in the United States. The President's plan involves a health care system that PUTS THE NEEDS OF THE PATIENT FIRST, more efficient, and is cost-effective. (emphasisis mine)

    I could (and might) argue that the use of an information system to determine what types and levels of health care are provided when the feds are paying for the care, might be appropriate. It is however, grossly inappropriate for the feds to use such a system to determine, limit, or ration health care I receive when I'M paying for it.

    Facts are interesting things. The fact is, Tom Daschle was Obambi's pick for HHS. Obambi spoke in glowing terms about Daschle's vision for nationalized health care.

    The fact is Daschle's vision for health care is documented in his writings.

    It is also a fact that the only reason Obambi's visionary friend Daschle wasn't confirmed for the HHS slot is that Daschle exceeded the limit for tax cheats as cabinet nominees.

    sissy

    PS: Coulter frequently gets on my nerves and she's a little skinny for my tastes but she IS cute and her assessment of Daschle's and Obambi's vision for nationalized health care is far more accurate than yours.
     
  15. Gary Olin

    Gary Olin TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    49
    Sissy,

    You clearly didn’t read my responses to Brooks very carefully.

    First, Brooks asked why government should have any role in the provision of health care. My response was that society benefits from the setting of professional standards for health care practitioners, and I like the protections afforded by those standards. Are you arguing that we should not require health care practitioners to meet some minimum level of education and training before they are allowed to practice medicine?

    Second, I didn’t offer any kind of vision for our nation’s health care system. I do think that pigs will fly before Ann Coulter’s predictions come true. Do you actually think that some government agency is going to develop medical protocols that doctors must follow or be fined, or that the federal government will determine when health care will be terminated for an individual?

    Third, your discussion of health care rationing leaves much to be desired. Let’s start with the comment about hospitals being required to provide some level of free care to the indigent. That’s not exactly right. Hospital emergency departments are required to provide emergency care to any individual who needs it and cannot discharge the patient until he has been stabilized. If the patient must be hospitalized, he cannot be discharged until his condition has been stabilized even if he cannot pay. Under no circumstance can the hospital reduce or stop treatment until the patient has been stabilized. All of this is covered in the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986. Hospitals are not reimbursed for this care. Hospitals do receive lump sum annual payments from Medicare if they have a disproportionate share of low-income patients. You can get more info on disproportionate share hospitals from the Centers for Medicare and Medicare Services website.

    Fourth, if you’re going to ramble on about what is or is not health care rationing, you should at least define the term. Health service researchers would broadly define health care rationing as any strategy designed to limit health care expenditures. Using this definition, your arguments that private insurance companies don’t ration care seem badly off target. Insurance companies limit covered benefits, refuse to cover pre-existing conditions, don’t cover experimental treatments and take other steps to limit their costs. All of this is actually a form of health care rationing. Public programs such as Medicare and Medicaid also ration care through coverage limitations, eligibility requirements, and low reimbursement rates to doctors and hospitals.

    About the only point where we agree is that improved health care is a good thing. However, most people would agree with that statement. The real issue is how to contain costs while providing adequate care to most or all people. Do you have any thoughts on how to do that? Also, where do the 48 million uninsured in this country fit into your scheme of things?
     
  16. Wyogoose

    Wyogoose TS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2009
    Messages:
    53
    If you want government sponsered health care, then move to a country that provides it and leave this one the way it is. If YOU want it then YOU pay for it. I do not feel that it should be my responsibility to pay for someone who has to go to the doctor evey other day for a hang nail or to have fetility implants so they can deliver the next eight of fourteen children. Who do you think is going to pay for those little bastards? I am fed up with the lack of personal responsibilty in this country and the nonchaulant attitude towards living ones life. Another sour dish is people defending the ever invasive government and it's increasing strangehold on the people that try to do the right thing.

    Keep your powder dry
    Rick Young
     
  17. CharlesK80

    CharlesK80 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2008
    Messages:
    400
    JB...I think they spend every waking hour eating fried food in an effort to gain weight. When not at McD, they were attempting to learn English as a second or even first language. Visually, they were very successful in the first weighty endeavor, but failed miserably in the second. Rude and insolent.

    But wait. That was under the Bush administration.
     
  18. slide action

    slide action Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    4,918
    Gary, if you trust the government(ESPECIALLY a government controlled by a bunch of LIBERALS) to run ANYTHING, then you are in bad shape! ANYWHERE that the government has gained control of health care it has gone to Hell in a hand basket! No one has a RIGHT to guarenteed tax payer heath care. Those that do have health care should not be told by the GOVERNMENT what they do or do not qualify for in the way of treatment! Socialized medicine(IN ANY FORM) will be just as much a disaster as it has ben in other parts of the world!
     
  19. Recoil Sissy

    Recoil Sissy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,647
    Good morning Mr. Olin:

    You clearly didn’t comprehend the content of my earlier post.

    Your first point is a red herring. Only YOU have mentioned minimum required standards for health care practitioners – at least twice now. It is an entirely separate issue from the subject of this thread. I readily agree there are benefits in having those requirements. Neither I nor any other prior poster has suggested otherwise.


    Second, the issue under discussion isn’t YOUR health care vision. The subject is Obambi’s vision.


    I think Coulter’s predictions SHOULD be inconceivable. I also think that if her predictions fail to come to fruition, it won’t be for lack of effort by Obambi and his minions.

    By extension and in response to your question, I absolutely believe Obambi and Daschle envision a federal agency that would develop medical protocols which would coerce doctors into compliance. I also believe Obambi’s onerous health care vision includes the federal government determining when and under what circumstances health care is provided and terminated for individuals.



    Third, your comments (those outlining details of mandated hospital care for the indigent) confirm my earlier statements. If it makes you happy, I’ll reword the original statement using details you provided…


    Nobody is entitled to unlimited free heath care but hospitals are required to provide emergency care at no charge to the indigent. This care may include the services of a hospital’s emergency department. It may also require hospital admission. When the patient has been stabilized, treatment may be reduced or stopped and the patient may be discharged.


    You also confirmed my point about federal reimbursement, “Hospitals do receive lump sum annual payments from Medicare if they have a disproportionate share of low-income patients.” How would you characterize those annual payments if they are not reimbursement for federally mandated care of the indigent?


    Fourth, in the context of this thread my definition of rationing is limited to potential new and grossly expanded federal meddling in private health care decisions when fees for those services are paid directly by the patient or by his/her third party provider. It is you that has called every limit in every context rationing.


    In an effort to make a profit, insurance companies do indeed define thus limit covered benefits and take other steps to limit their costs. They also determine policy premiums for covered treatments and procedures. As you point out, they typically refuse to cover pre-existing conditions and won’t cover experimental treatments. If it makes you happy to call that rationing, knock yourself out. Whatever YOU choose you call it, these are ACTUALLY examples of contractual terms for third party health care coverage.


    I have no particular objection when public programs such as Medicare and Medicaid restrict care through coverage limitations, eligibility requirements, and low reimbursement rates to doctors and hospitals. Understanding that “they” means “us”, when they pay the freight, they get to make the rules.



    YOUR real issue is how to contain costs while providing adequate care to most or all people. It isn’t a bad issue. It just isn’t the subject of this thread. It is also not my issue. MY real issue is minimizing inappropriate and unnecessary federal meddling in private health care or any other aspect of my life.


    With respect, I didn’t create millions of uninsured in this country and I don’t accept financial responsibility for them.


    As a final point, your arguments probably have some merit in a general discussion about the current health care system in our country. Since this thread isn’t a general discussion about the current system, your attempt to superimpose them is clumsy and seems badly off target.


    Have a nice day,

    sissy
     
  20. Recoil Sissy

    Recoil Sissy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,647
    Mr. Olin:

    Following is an Associated Press article dated today (2-21-09) concerning Obambi's health care vision.

    Per the article, Obambi intends for congress - controlled as it is by liberal dems - to pass health care 'reform' that will cover everybody. He apparently believes such health care 'reform' will somehow balance the budget.

    Do you REALLY think it is possible to provide coverage for tens of millions of the uninsured, balance the budge, and simultaneously improve care?? Do you REALLY think so? How plausible is it to think any such plan could ever possibly be 'benign' in nature?

    Color me skeptical Mr. Olin. I don't think so. I think it's totally un-freakin-realistic. Just my opinion though.

    sissy

    _________________


    Feb 21, 8:46 AM (ET)


    By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR


    WASHINGTON (AP) - Now for the hard part.


    Even if the national credit card is maxed out and partisanship remains the rule for Washington's political tribes, President Barack Obama and Congress are plunging ahead with a health care overhaul.


    This week, Obama will start the dialogue on how to increase coverage, restrain costs and improve quality.


    Whether a bill can get through Congress and to Obama this year is uncertain. For half a century, the track record on health care has been one of missed opportunities, spectacular failures and hard-won incremental gains.


    Obama plans to stress the need for major changes in his address to Congress on Tuesday, administration officials say. He quickly will follow up with a budget that includes a commitment to expand coverage for the uninsured. A White House summit on health care is being planned in coming weeks.


    "They don't intend to blink. They intend to plow ahead," said health economist Len Nichols of the nonpartisan New America Foundation. "Health reform is seen as essential to balancing the federal budget and economic recovery in the long run."


    People in the U.S. spend $2.4 trillion a year on health care, or about $7,900 per person. That's more than twice as much per capita as in other advanced countries. But few would claim those dollars are buying good value. The costs are a staggering burden for taxpayers, employers and families, and the recession is leaving more people without insurance.


    Yet even a self-described optimist such as Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., says he has doubts about prospects for overhauling health care. "It needs to be done up front and quickly," said Enzi, the senior Republican on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. "I'm not so sure that we haven't already lost that, with so many other things coming in and weighing us down."


    In the 1990s, President Bill Clinton took the better part of a year to deliver a 1,300-page health care bill to Congress and later waved his veto pen at lawmakers who might have given him half a loaf. He got nothing. Obama has shown a tendency to be more pragmatic.


    Administration and congressional officials say Obama will lay out a vision and see if Congress can make the details work. The Senate has gotten an early start and is shaping up as the proving ground for legislation.


    "The Obama administration has said they are going to give the Senate a very wide berth," said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who for years has tried to get Democrats and Republicans working together. "There are areas in which there is going to be spirited debate. But there are four or five major areas where there's a lot of common ground."


    Polls show most people support coverage for all and believe government should help guarantee it. But what looks like consensus starts to break down once thorny details such as costs and the government's influence on the doctor-patient relationship come into the picture.


    Administration officials say Obama has made a down payment by expanding coverage for children of low-income working families and by providing subsidies to help people who lose their jobs keep health benefits.


    As he moves forward, Obama will follow the plan laid out in his campaign.


    It calls for government, employers, families and individuals to keep sharing financial responsibility for health care. The approach would overhaul the health insurance market, particularly for self-employed people and small businesses. It would set up a national insurance purchasing "exchange" through which people would be guaranteed access to private health insurance or the choice of a new public plan.


    Obama sees coverage for all as a goal to be reached in steps. His plan would not require every individual to purchase insurance. The estimated cost is about $90 billion a year, to start with.


    The plan might sound simple in a brief summary, but it's not. Potential dealbreakers lurk at every turn.


    Many liberals can't get excited about doing battle for just a promise - not an immediate guarantee - of coverage for all.


    Conservatives and insurance companies fear that a public plan offered to workers and their families could become the gateway for Canada-style government health care for all.


    Employers, hospitals, doctors, and drug companies worry that the government's already pervasive influence in health care will become stifling.

    The initial work has fallen to the Senate, where Democratic Sens. Max Baucus of Montana and Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts want to present a bill by the summer.


    Baucus is chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which oversees Medicare and taxes. Kennedy, who is under treatment for brain cancer, leads the Senate health committee. He has pursued the goal of coverage for all his entire career and doesn't want this opportunity to slip away.


    Baucus has already outlined a plan that differs in some key details from Obama's. For example, it contemplates taxing some health insurance benefits to raise money for expanded coverage. That's an idea Obama has rejected but one that certain Republicans favor.


    It takes 60 votes to get a bill through the Senate, and Democrats don't have them.


    In the House, the effort seems to be moving more slowly. Senior aides from leadership offices and committees are talking. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, is expected to take a leading role.


    Some experts believe the issue is too complicated to try to accomplish in one year and one bill.


    Watching and waiting are people such as Robyn Perry, 56, of Lake Worth, Fla., who recently lost a job with health benefits. She has struggled to find coverage now that she is self-employed. Private plans are either too expensive or won't take her because she had a ministroke several years ago. A plan sponsored by local government accepted her, but won't cover her outside her county.


    "Something has to be done," said Perry. "I work. I make decent money. But I still can't get coverage. I would really like to find a normal health insurance plan that would cover me wherever I get sick, not just in Palm Beach county."
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.