So..does it..or doesn't it....
 

How Abortion Coverage Could Affect Health-Care Reform - TIME

It would really help the Dems and the Admin if they could explain, clearly and finally, what the hell they are attempting to do.....where is Phil Collins and "Land of Confusion" when you need it :rofl:

I also love the part in the article where the Fed Govt says they will keep separate pots of money for funding...:rofl: excuse me...with SS right now that whole concept of the "Fed Govt" understanding where money comes from is just hilarious.

[QUOTE=Wagner;653168]How Abortion Coverage Could Affect Health-Care Reform - TIME

It would really help the Dems and the Admin if they could explain, clearly and finally, what the hell they are attempting to do.....where is Phil Collins and "Land of Confusion" when you need it :rofl:
[QUOTE]

The "Land of Confusion" is being created by the Republicans (incl. Sarah Palin and friends) and Faux News to discredit what this administration is trying to do.........:popcorn:

This distortion has convinced some of their faithfull followers that there's death panels in the bill. And who put that idea in their heads? Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin is settling very well into her new job as a rigthwing blogger. Sarah Palin quit her job as governor of Alaska to spend more time on Facebook.

[QUOTE=chile1;653188][QUOTE=Wagner;653168]How Abortion Coverage Could Affect Health-Care Reform - TIME

It would really help the Dems and the Admin if they could explain, clearly and finally, what the hell they are attempting to do.....where is Phil Collins and "Land of Confusion" when you need it :rofl:

:bustingup:bustingup:bustingup:bustingup:bustingup Didn't know TIME & CNN were right-wing publications

Classic Chile...Comment without reading because he and others are too busy spouting the party line and party rhetoric. I also love how much power they give Sarah Palin.

Fact is the original draft had a "Review Board" who would decide paid coverage of certain procedures based on rationed care. For example denying coverage for an 80 year old in need of hip replacement who already outlived the average life expectancy. Forget that his family before him lived to their late 90's. He has no use to the Democrats and in their mind is wasting government resources.

[QUOTE=Wagner;653196][QUOTE=chile1;653188]I wasn't refering to the article you attached so you can ridicule all you want.:popcorn: Nevertheless, the only confusion here is being created by those that oppose Obama (incl. your boy Glen Beck) without even giving it a chance.

Sarah Palin is settling very well into her new job as a rigthwing blogger. She quit her day job as governor of Alaska to spend more time on Facebook.

[QUOTE=chile1;653383][QUOTE=Wagner;653196]So it is "ok" when Time and CNN do it but not when Fox News does it....woohoo...go logic :rofl:

Oh, so your post had no bearing on reality...awesome :thumbup:

Yes, give socialism a chance..it worked well with USMAIL (which your boy used as an example..go no teleprompter) and SS....:rofl:

If you feel that way, why don't you set us straight with facts, rather than bashing critics? If the end of life review boards are not in any bills, please educate us on how we are wrong.

And what is the administration trying to do? Are they trying to insure the 47 million allegedly without insurance? Why do they need a 1,000+ page bill with a greatly increased government role at the center of it?

Additionally, a question I've asked in several places that no one has been able to answer is, what does the government do that would be considered efficient? Do people really think that by swallowing a huge chunk of our economy in to the public option will somehow magically bring about cost savings and expedient, quality care? And before you echo the liberal talking points, how would you feel (hypothetically speaking of course) about this bill if the exact same thing were proposed by Bush and a Republican majority?

How do you prove a negative? You want someone to prove that the end of life review boards are not in the bill? :dunno:

In the real world, the burden of proof is on the one bringing the allegation.

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen...NELS-large.jpg

Not interested is arguing all this other stuff but I can answer this question.

#1 Veterans hospital and medical center at least for me was and still is
well oiled and efficient each time I go in for any medical care.

#2 I get my social security check on time every month.

#3 Medicare works with my regular insurance without issue
every time I seek medical care.

From where I sit I believe that could be considered efficient.......:thumbup:

Fact is The president didn’t say that government would decide what treatments or procedures would be allowed for each individual. He said the opposite: "I don’t want bureaucracies making those decisions," and "we want doctors and medical experts to be making decisions," based on scientific evidence of what is likely to result.

We have already debunked certain claims about rationing of care in Britain or Canada, whose single-payer systems are not what Obama or members of Congress are trying to duplicate, false assertions to the contrary. We have also written about the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research, a creation of the stimulus bill passed in February, which is empowered to coordinate research into what treatments work best and which are most cost-effective, but has no power to tell doctors what treatments and procedures to perform or prescribe.

Fact check.org goes on to mention We don’t know whether or not some form of rationing would eventually take place if one of the pending bills were to become law. We would note, as does Obama, that denials of coverage are routine among private health insurance companies and under Medicare in our current system, and we asked McClusky about that. Why would such decisions about care be more objectionable under a public plan, for instance, than they are when Aetna or UnitedHealthcare denies coverage? "We find it more troubling when the federal government is doing it," he said. "It’s the 800-lb gorilla."

Sorry but the "fact is" Obama has yet to say anything concrete on the topic, he seems content with letting Pelosi and Reid do the dirty work...IMO of course.

Yup, well oiled machine.

Stimulus Checks Mistakenly Sent to 1,700 Inmates, Federal Agency Says - Political News - FOXNews.com

Beacon of successful processing...

I guess my real issue is why people in favor of Obamacare can't admit that is essentially a 'roll of the dice' as far as success and failure go. I get that the US has become a handout society that insists on punishing the efficient for the inefficient..fine. But can we at least not completely corrupt the game? Go ahead and address health care costs however, leave "public (i.e. paid by taxpayers) options" off the table.

Social Security is an epic failure. For some reason people just don't do the math on it and assume "we'll figure something out". One plus one is two, not two and a half..the numbers just don't work. So people want to take a system that has basically turned its back on responsibility and give the originator more power. Wow. That is really all you can say...wow. And that logic, at its core, really explains why all people are not created equal. Some see individual responsibility as the cornerstone, some see communal responsibility as the cornerstone.

Tons of criticism and typical unconstructive Monday morning quarterbacking, yet no one offers solutions. During the last presidential race, why didn't these Republicans, with all of these great ideas, win rather than now complain after the fact.:popcorn:

Problem is the system isn't perfect and doesn't live
up to the standards of those who believe they have
the answers. And then there are other reasons that
some folks wont admit to.

Ahh, because "Heath Care" is the democratic ticket red herring, has been since 1990.

Quick....what?

From where I sit, this debate is really about a fundamental philosophical difference in the role of Government. If you believe that basic health care is a PRIVILEGE and not a RIGHT, then I guess we do not really need to change anything. Survival of the fittest, so to speak. Let the private Insurance Giants deny coverage to premium-paying citizens on a whim, whenever they feel like it. Let folks pile up enormous health care bills after a catastrpohic illness or surgery, without any hope of reconciling their finances. Let health care continue to be the leading cause of personal bankruptcy and family financial ruin in this country (which it is). I guess for Libertarians who believe that the role of Government is strictly defense against foreign invaders, and not much else, this is a perfectly acceptable situation. I do not agree with this position, but I can appreciate where it's coming from: self-reliance, personal responsibility, intrinsic inefficiencies of big government, etc.

Personally, I do not adhere to this position. We are the only western Democracy which does not provide unfettered, bill-free access to health care to its citizens. The GOP is convinced that the UK, Canada, Australia, France, and Germany have it all wrong, and we have it all right. There is no question that we have the best medical technology, the most advanced diagnositcs and imaging, and space-age surgical
procedures. But what good is having all the space-age medicine in the world, when Private HMOs and PPOs give incentives to their own employees for denial of coverage, and folks wind up mired in $$tens of thousands$$ or $$$hundreds of thousands$$$ in un-reimbursed medical bills? Instead of concentrating on their treatments and on getting better after their surgery or car accident (like they are able to do in the UK or Cananda), Americans have to spend all their recuperation time on fighting with Health Insurance reps and Collection Agencies. Because the health insurance they THOUGHT would protect them, and to whom they have dutifully paid their premiums, refuses to do what an insurance company is SUPPOSED to do: PAY UP!

To use previous failures of big Government as a justification to not try and fix this mess, is neither helpful nor sincere. Forget about Government failure: What about the failure of the private sector? Specifically, the Aetnas, the CIGNAs, the Blue Crosses that have shown a big middle finger to the millions of American families that have faithfully paid their health insurance premiums? Only to be denied and discarded like so much human garbage by insurance execs watching their company's bottom line?

If you truly believe it should be every man, woman, and child for themselves when it comes to health care, then I can see how the current proposal for a Govt option and for HMO regulation is not to your liking. Personally, I think it's a travesty that the most powerful Democracy in the world can take out hidden Taliban warlords on a whim with remote-controlled Predator drones, but cannot provide sustained, basic health care and diagnostics to its' working citizens. And how this biggest, baddest, wealthiest, strongest Democracy lets the greedy private insurance giants drive millions hard-working families into bankruptcy through denial of coverage and worthless Explanation of Benefits statements. The horror stories out there are epic, and way too numerous to list. Or to bother with website links. Do your own research and it won't take you long to see how folks are being f^&ed by their health insurers every day.

Kudos to the Obama Administration for taking on this mess, and for trying to dispel the huge amount of malicious disinformation being spewed forth by the Health Insurance giants.

Well put, Stan. But what about the death panels and federally subsidized abortions? I'm kidding.

Again, good job!:thumbup:

The goal of providing affordable health care coverage to all U.S. residents has eluded every president
who has attempted to reach it since Theodore Roosevelt first made it an issue in his last presidential campaign in 1912.
Attempts to expand coverage were made by Presidents:

Franklin Roosevelt;
Harry Truman;
Dwight Eisenhower;
John Kennedy;
Lyndon Johnson; and
Richard Nixon.

All of them failed. This time it appears there's a real effort to try
and tackle an exploding problem but little effort to get behind the
the program to make the needed changes.

The question is, why so much poisonous venom now?

It's my guess there's much more going on below the surface than
all the shouting and screaming and malicious disinformation.
The real truth although talked about gets very little front page news.
But when people understand what's going on and who's behind all the
lies they are more inclined to feed some positive input into the process
and not get caught up in the political infighting, supercilious bloggers,
and unhappy radio talk show host.

Here's an interesting video...

Glenn Beck - Current Events & Politics - Video: Obama is a charming liar?

Oh, btw Chile1, Im sure you'll love the source of the video ;)

Woohoo a racist article..awesome. I guess when in doubt you could always say it is "angry white men" :rolleyes: FAIL. If one thing is true, the new administration is showing where real racism lies IMO.

Stan, very well put.

IMO there isn't a person in America that thinks "nothing" should be done.

:iagree:

You could describe it that way but in reality
this is the way many people seem to think.
It's too bad but the fact is it is proving to be more
than just opinion.

Racism, radicals, and reform: Why some Americans are afraid of President Obama
Lone Wolves and Lynch Mobs: The Threats Behind Town Hall Meetings Unsilent Generation

Doubtful that "this is the way many people think"...not a single person I know. Guess I'm just in the minority.

You may be a minority. However, the majority of those militantly opposing this administration have those extreme views and the Reagan Conservatives do nothing to clear things up, but rather, let's these goons continue, in order to advance their cause.

As I said before, these idiots (trying to represent the conservative movement) makes legitimate Reagan Conservatism (which I assume you are part of) look ridiculous to the vast majority of non-partisan voters.

I've been avoiding this debate (UK resident) - but, to me, this is one of the most sensible statements I have heard from anyone on the topic.

Like Your Health Plan? Read This

by Michael D. Tanner

Michael D. Tanner is a Cato Institute senior fellow and co-author of Healthy Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It.
Added to cato.org on August 26, 2009

This article appeared in the Orange Country Register on August 26, 2009.
In his most recent weekly radio address, President Barack Obama denounced "willful misrepresentations and outright distortions" in the debate over health care reform. He then went on to repeat one of the most outright distortions in the entire debate: "If you like your private health insurance plan, you can keep your plan. Period."
No, Mr. President. No you can't.
To go straight to the chapter and verse: under Section 59(B)(a) of HR3200, the bill making its way through the House, and Section 151 of the bill that passed out of a Senate committee, every American would be required to buy health insurance.

It is time for the president to stop spreading this particular 'willful misrepresentation and outright distortion.'

And not just any insurance: to qualify, a plan would have to meet certain government-defined standards. For example, under Section 122(b) of the House bill, all plans must cover hospitalization; outpatient hospital and clinic services; services by physicians and other health professionals, as well as supplies and equipment incidental to their services; prescription drugs, rehabilitation services, mental health and substance-abuse treatment; preventive services (to be determined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the United States Preventive Services Task Force); and maternity, well-baby, and well-child care, as well as dental, vision, and hearing services for children under age 21.
But that's not all. Section 1239(b) of the bill also establishes a federal Health Benefits Advisory Committee, headed by the U.S. surgeon general, which will have the power to develop additional minimum benefit requirements. There is no limit to how extensive those future required benefits may be.
If your current health insurance doesn't meet all those requirements, you won't be immediately forced to drop your current insurance for a government-specified plan. But you would be required to switch if you lose your current insurance or "if significant changes are made to the existing health insurance plan."
More critically, for the 70 percent of us who get our insurance through work, those plans would all have to satisfy the government's benefit requirements within five years.
More likely, your employer will simply find that the increased cost and administrative burden is not worth it, and will dump you into the government-run "public option."
The Lewin Group, an independent actuarial firm, estimates that under the House version of the bill, as many as 89.5 million workers will simply lose their current employer-provided plan and be forced into government-run insurance.
Seniors, too, could lose their current coverage, at least the 10.2 million seniors currently participating in the Medicare advantage program. That program offers many seniors benefits not included in traditional Medicare, including preventive-care services, coordinated care for chronic conditions, routine physical examinations, additional hospitalization, skilled nursing facility stays, routine eye and hearing examinations, and glasses and hearing aids But the House bill cuts payments to the Medicare Advantage program by roughly $156.3 billion over 10 years.
.author_pub2 a { float:right; margin: 10px 0 8px 8px; display:block; height: 142px; width: 110px; background: url(/people/pub_photos/tanner.jpg) no-repeat -110px 0; } .author_pub2a a { float:right; margin: 10px 0 8px 8px; display:block; height: 142px; width: 110px; background: url(/people/pub_photos/tanner.jpg) no-repeat 0 0; } In response, many insurers are expected to stop participating in the program, while others increase the premiums they charge seniors. Millions of seniors will likely be forced off their current plan and back into traditional Medicare.


Finally, the bills would all but eliminate Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), currently used by nearly 10 million Americans. Section 122 of the House bill and 311 of the Senate bill set minimum payout levels for any insurance policy. Insurance payouts must cover 70 percent of claims under the House bill and 76 percent under the Senate bill. And the bills also prohibit any deductibles or co-payments for preventive care.
But virtually none of the high-deductible insurance plans in existence today, and required to accompany an HSA, can meet such a standard. They are simply not designed to work that way. The result will be that a plan designed to those specifications would offer few if any advantages over traditional insurance and would not be competitive in today's markets.
As a result, insurers warn they would stop offering high-deductible policies.
Any way you look at it, under the bills currently before Congress, millions of Americans will be forced out of their current health insurance plan, even if they are happy with it. Period.
It is time for the president to stop spreading this particular "willful misrepresentation and outright distortion."

The only distortion here is being created by the GOP, amplified by Faux News and legitimized by the Cato Institute, to discredit what this administration is trying to accomplish.........:popcorn:

StanF18's previous post is a perfect analogy of what's the reality here:


Originally Posted by StanF18 http://www.xoutpost.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif

[/QUOTE] From where I sit, this debate is really about a fundamental philosophical difference in the role of Government. If you believe that basic health care is a PRIVILEGE and not a RIGHT, then I guess we do not really need to change anything. Survival of the fittest, so to speak. Let the private Insurance Giants deny coverage to premium-paying citizens on a whim, whenever they feel like it. Let folks pile up enormous health care bills after a catastrpohic illness or surgery, without any hope of reconciling their finances. Let health care continue to be the leading cause of personal bankruptcy and family financial ruin in this country (which it is). I guess for Libertarians who believe that the role of Government is strictly defense against foreign invaders, and not much else, this is a perfectly acceptable situation. I do not agree with this position, but I can appreciate where it's coming from: self-reliance, personal responsibility, intrinsic inefficiencies of big government, etc.

Personally, I do not adhere to this position. We are the only western Democracy which does not provide unfettered, bill-free access to health care to its citizens. The GOP is convinced that the UK, Canada, Australia, France, and Germany have it all wrong, and we have it all right. There is no question that we have the best medical technology, the most advanced diagnositcs and imaging, and space-age surgical
procedures. But what good is having all the space-age medicine in the world, when Private HMOs and PPOs give incentives to their own employees for denial of coverage, and folks wind up mired in $$tens of thousands$$ or $$$hundreds of thousands$$$ in un-reimbursed medical bills? Instead of concentrating on their treatments and on getting better after their surgery or car accident (like they are able to do in the UK or Cananda), Americans have to spend all their recuperation time on fighting with Health Insurance reps and Collection Agencies. Because the health insurance they THOUGHT would protect them, and to whom they have dutifully paid their premiums, refuses to do what an insurance company is SUPPOSED to do: PAY UP!

To use previous failures of big Government as a justification to not try and fix this mess, is neither helpful nor sincere. Forget about Government failure: What about the failure of the private sector? Specifically, the Aetnas, the CIGNAs, the Blue Crosses that have shown a big middle finger to the millions of American families that have faithfully paid their health insurance premiums? Only to be denied and discarded like so much human garbage by insurance execs watching their company's bottom line?

If you truly believe it should be every man, woman, and child for themselves when it comes to health care, then I can see how the current proposal for a Govt option and for HMO regulation is not to your liking. Personally, I think it's a travesty that the most powerful Democracy in the world can take out hidden Taliban warlords on a whim with remote-controlled Predator drones, but cannot provide sustained, basic health care and diagnostics to its' working citizens. And how this biggest, baddest, wealthiest, strongest Democracy lets the greedy private insurance giants drive millions hard-working families into bankruptcy through denial of coverage and worthless Explanation of Benefits statements. The horror stories out there are epic, and way too numerous to list. Or to bother with website links. Do your own research and it won't take you long to see how folks are being f^&ed by their health insurers every day.

Kudos to the Obama Administration for taking on this mess, and for trying to dispel the huge amount of malicious disinformation being spewed forth by the Health Insurance giants.[/QUOTE]

:rofl:

You crack me up. Every group that doesn't agree with you is some how false, wrong, inaccurate or spewing rhetoric.....:rofl: You sure do believe Fox News has a lot of power, do you have Fox News envy? Did they turn you down for a job.... :rofl:

No, but i'm just trying to keep your daily rhetoric fair and balanced;)

W/E man, you're lost :rofl:

"angry white men" at it's best:rofl:

better believe it.

http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/time/3747-1.jpg
:bustingup:bustingup:bustingup:bustingup:bustingup :stickpoke

And that's coming from an "un-biased" source...;)

btw, Newt looks young in that pic. I guess he had plastic surgery done...:D

So, who said the following when speaking about a healthcare issue in 2006 saying that we've got...

Video below to find out
-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-
YouTube - Obama: Healthcare combining Private and Public sector WORST OF BOTH WORLDS

What representative from a country that has socialized medicine said these things?

See below for the answer

Well, I recognize the comments for one. Careful about taking it out of context, though, because she is arguing for maintaining universal access to health care, and maintaining a single payer. Her proposal is to provide funding based on activities, not on facilities.

Your short quotes suggest that there is some debate around whether there should be universal access to health care, and the speaker isn't suggesting that at all.

Yes, I did realize that and that was not my point. Before the US goes full steam ahead in to socialized medicine, we better be very sure we have a way to fund it in the future. The Canadian model is often cited as an example of how the US should go, but the crushing costs, long wait times for common procedures and lesser quality care is something that they are trying to fix.

And while they don't want to move away from the socialized system, she did mention that they would encourage private competition from the free market, which is pretty telling in my mind.

It would perhaps advance the debate if you defined what you mean by socialized medicine. It is a rather pejorative term, and very imprecise. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way. Do you mean:
a) Publicly funded and government delivered, like the Veterans Administration model in the US?
b) Publicly funded and privately delivered (or a combination of public and private), like Canada and many other countries? That isn't socialized in terms of service delivery, only in terms of universal access, IMO
c) Associated with socialism
d) Something else?

Since I currently live under system (b), and go to private clinics for many procedures, I don't understand why encouraging private competition is pretty telling. It seems fine to me. The key issue is universal access and not delivery, again, in my opinion.

Also, I am not sure why you refer to crushing costs (just using Canada as an example). Canada spends approximately 10% of GDP on health care, compared to 15% for the US. If Canada has crushing costs, what does the US have?

Wanted to add an observation to my previous post #18. Another common line being spewed forth by US private insurance Giants, and being disseminated rabidly by their lobby is the supposed "long wait times" and "sub-standard" care being delivered through the government-funded systems in the UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, etc.

OK. For those of you buying into this (or disseminating it further), do any of you actually have friends and acquaintances in these countries?? Have you spoken to any of them to find out how true this is? Do yourselves a favor, and instead of listening to fat, greedy US insurance execs spewing venom from their "denial-of-coverage" pedestal, go out and speak to our NATO-allied brethren to get their take on it.

I can tell you I have spoken at length to friends and family in Australia and the UK. They are extremely satisified with both the quality and timeliness of the care they receive from their physicians. I don't claim this to be a true scientific survey. Obviously this is just empirical. But a buddy of mine in Australia had a serious medical issue and he was NOT waiting around for a year like the US Health industry would have you believe. It was taken care of very quickly, professionally, and without a million pieces of paper clutter arriving in his mailbox from hospitals, collection agencies, labs, EOBs, bills, etc.

Now granted: If you want an elective procedure to take care of that bunion your hot model girlfriend can't look at anymore, no way the UK or Australia is going to remove it the very next day. Yes, you are going to need to wait longer than in the US. So THIS is the GOP's justification for poo-pooing the supposed "socialized" medicine our friends are enjoying in Canada, UK, and elsewhere?? Are you friggin' kidding me?

Or heck, if you don't feel like ringing up a large phone bill talking to your long-lost cousin from the UK, let's just ask our NATO buddies here on the forum how they feel about their "socialized", long-wait-time, sub-standard medical care? All comments from Canada, Australia, UK, etc. are welcome. Tell us Amercians how disgusted you are with the quality and/or timeliness of your procedures and diagnostics. What, exactly, do you feel you are missing out on? Tell us how neglected you feel, and tell us how this is all just a slippery slope to Communism. Because you know, one day the government funds your angioplasty, and then the next day we're in Stalin land.

Because this is the way some of the individuals opposing change really view the world. It's sad but it's true. This satarical map posted on "The Lounge" forum says it all:


http://www.xoutpost.com/attachments/...-world-map.jpg

:thumbup: Unfortunately it's all about the money...