Who is really behind the protests?

#101
#101
lawgator1 said:
And by the way, Obama's frustration with the false claims and misrepresentations should not have led him to say sit down and shut up, or words to that effect. That was not a very presidential moment, was a function of his arrogance and his underestimation of the naivete of so many people at buying into the rumors.
Click to expand...

Are any of these misrepresentations any worse than those that Obama himself has stated during his push for government run health plans?
 
#102
#102
lawgator1 said:
And by the way, Obama's frustration with the false claims and misrepresentations should not have led him to say sit down and shut up, or words to that effect. That was not a very presidential moment, was a function of his arrogance and his underestimation of the naivete of so many people at buying into the rumors.
Click to expand...

His frustration has nothing to do with misinformation, and you know it. He wanted to rush this legislation through, and that is why he is upset. If you can't admit that, then you truly have democratic glasses on. I don't want to think that is true LG, but you are beginning to leave me little choice.

This is not about helping people it is about implementing an ideaology. Otherwise there would be real debate and real transparency on the legislation.

Again...this is no time to talk about spending this kind of money.
 
#104
#104
Lexvol said:
His frustration has nothing to do with misinformation, and you know it. He wanted to rush this legislation through, and that is why he is upset. If you can't admit that, then you truly have democratic glasses on. I don't want to think that is true LG, but you are beginning to leave me little choice.

This is not about helping people it is about implementing an ideaology. Otherwise there would be real debate and real transparency on the legislation.

Again...this is no time to talk about spending this kind of money.
Click to expand...


We are both right. He is convinced it is necessary and a wise policy decision and he figures, probably correctly, that this year is the only year he can get it done (because of elections in 2010). He wants to get it done now, because waiting until next year dooms into being a shadow of what he really thinks is best.

As a consequence, he is impatient with the thing getting slowed down, and I promise you that is a major portion of the gameplan of the opposition, and its working.
 
#105
#105
rjd970 said:
Does medicare withold life sustaining treatment from anyone, or is medicare red tape contributing to deaths? I honestly don't know.
Click to expand...

Anyone can admit that certain diseases are more likely to be beaten or overcome if they are diagnosed as early as possible. It is easy to envision scenarios of decreased competition, less supply of medical services, longer waiting times, etc. So yes, I don't think it is unreasonable to say, YES.
 
#106
#106
lawgator1 said:
Link?
Click to expand...

My father is the youngest of 9 and he is 78 now. My mother was the youngest of 7 and they are all passed on. We have dealt with MANY "we are not going to pay for that" moments as my loved ones were in their final years.
Any program that is run by the government...is a failure!

So "link" into real life there LG. You are wrong on this one.
 
#107
#107
lawgator1 said:
We are both right. He is convinced it is necessary and a wise policy decision and he figures, probably correctly, that this year is the only year he can get it done (because of elections in 2010). He wants to get it done now, because waiting until next year dooms into being a shadow of what he really thinks is best.

As a consequence, he is impatient with the thing getting slowed down, and I promise you that is a major portion of the gameplan of the opposition, and its working.
Click to expand...

Isn't it ironic that if he doesn't shove this down the people's throats that the 2010 elections look much better for the dems?

Not the case now. He has definitely played into the hands of the elephants on the issue.
 
#108
#108
T-TownVol said:
My father is the youngest of 9 and he is 78 now. My mother was the youngest of 7 and they are all passed on. We have dealt with MANY "we are not going to pay for that" moments as my loved ones were in their final years.
Any program that is run by the government...is a failure!

So "link" into real life there LG. You are wrong on this one.
Click to expand...

I think that is true with any insurance plan, private or public. I just haven't found any evidence that red tape or government decisions have caused anymore deaths than any other insurance plan.

I am completely open to being wrong, I am just not aware of any comparative evidence. But I don't see how claims of this sort can be made without any substantive and statistically relevant proof.
 
#109
#109
rjd970 said:
I think that is true with any insurance plan, private or public. I just haven't found any evidence that red tape or government decisions have caused anymore deaths than any other insurance plan.

I am completely open to being wrong, I am just not aware of any comparative evidence. But I don't see how claims of this sort can be made without any substantive and statistically relevant proof.
Click to expand...

You did not ask about "ANY" plans. You asked about the ones run by our government.
 
#110
#110
I don't care who you are or what your ideals are. Trying to pass legislation of this magnitude simply because you think you have the numbers now is irresponsible and it is not "change that anyone can believe in".
 
#111
#111
Lexvol said:
I don't care who you are or what your ideals are. Trying to pass legislation of this magnitude simply because you think you have the numbers now is irresponsible and it is not "change that anyone can believe in".
Click to expand...

Except ACORN
 
#112
#112
rjd970 said:
I think that is true with any insurance plan, private or public. I just haven't found any evidence that red tape or government decisions have caused anymore deaths than any other insurance plan.

I am completely open to being wrong, I am just not aware of any comparative evidence. But I don't see how claims of this sort can be made without any substantive and statistically relevant proof.
Click to expand...

True. Eliminate competition and run everything through one source, government, then decide if the existing problem gets worse, better, or stays the same. I'll choose worse.
 
#113
#113
allvol123 said:
True. Eliminate competition and run everything through one source, government, then decide if the existing problem gets worse, better, or stays the same. I'll choose worse.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't know it by listening to the media, but private companies are much more apt to care about overall customer service.
 
#114
#114
lawgator1 said:
We are both right. He is convinced it is necessary and a wise policy decision and he figures, probably correctly, that this year is the only year he can get it done (because of elections in 2010). He wants to get it done now, because waiting until next year dooms into being a shadow of what he really thinks is best.

As a consequence, he is impatient with the thing getting slowed down, and I promise you that is a major portion of the gameplan of the opposition, and its working.
Click to expand...

The part in bold is absolutely correct. From what I can tell from your posts you believe the motives for opposition are purely partisan, while this may be true to a lesser extent the reason most people (both citizens and politicians) want it bogged down is because they feel there are terrible consequences to passing this bill.

Most agree that reform needs to take place but do not feel a government solution is best for a variety of reasons. Many feel this is a government power grab, many more look at governments track record on programs like this and see that the cost will be astounding and cannot be sustained without raising taxes and the economic consequences that come from out of control spending.
 
#115
#115
LG, Change I can believe in would include tort reform that would allow doctors to quit or at least reduce the amount of defensive medicine being practiced today. Have you noticed that no current version of healthcare reform includes that piece?
 
#116
#116
If UHC becomes a reality in the United States, how soon could it be overturned? When conservatives regain power could it be overturned or will this make it a permanent addition to our government?
 
#118
#118
KentheOrange said:
LG, Change I can believe in would include tort reform that would allow doctors to quit or at least reduce the amount of defensive medicine being practiced today. Have you noticed that no current version of healthcare reform includes that piece?
Click to expand...

Take this a step further.....Wonder why that is? Answer: Because the attorneys and their lobbyists are big Obama and democrat supporters.

Ironic coming from a man demonizing those on the right who oppose his health care plan by telling America they are supported by the insurance lobby.
 
#119
#119
615 Vol said:
If UHC becomes a reality in the United States, how soon could it be overturned? When conservatives regain power could it be overturned or will this make it a permanent addition to our government?
Click to expand...

History has shown us that once you give people a program like this it is next to impossible to take it away.
 
#120
#120
T-TownVol said:
My father is the youngest of 9 and he is 78 now. My mother was the youngest of 7 and they are all passed on. We have dealt with MANY "we are not going to pay for that" moments as my loved ones were in their final years.
Any program that is run by the government...is a failure!

So "link" into real life there LG. You are wrong on this one.
Click to expand...


rjd970 said:
I think that is true with any insurance plan, private or public. I just haven't found any evidence that red tape or government decisions have caused anymore deaths than any other insurance plan.

I am completely open to being wrong, I am just not aware of any comparative evidence. But I don't see how claims of this sort can be made without any substantive and statistically relevant proof.
Click to expand...


I agree with rjd. Any insurer is going to balk at an expensive procedure for a person where the outcome is negligible and the life not improved or lengthened. That's not about the government and Medicare or this particular bill -- that's a philosophical debate our society is probably going to have to have anyway fairly shortly.

I mean, my grandmother was basically unconscious for about 3-4 years. No way would any member of our family have asked for or championed some sort of surgery that was going to make her live another year but not have any awareness of anything.

What's the statistic? Something like 80 poercent of what we spend on a person's health care is spent in the last month of their life? Can't remember, but its a point that must be debated, even absent this bill or any other.


Lexvol said:
Isn't it ironic that if he doesn't shove this down the people's throats that the 2010 elections look much better for the dems?

Not the case now. He has definitely played into the hands of the elephants on the issue.
Click to expand...


I don't know if I agree with your premise. If he doesn't get something passed, I think he (and by extension the Democratically controlled Congress) will be protrayed as weak and factionalized.



KentheOrange said:
LG, Change I can believe in would include tort reform that would allow doctors to quit or at least reduce the amount of defensive medicine being practiced today. Have you noticed that no current version of healthcare reform includes that piece?
Click to expand...


I was a medical malpractice defense attorney for 4-5 years before doing what I do now. Trust me, I am VERY familiar with this debate.

The thing that most people do not udnerstand is that medical malpractice laws, whether it be caps on damages or limits on the standard of care to be applied in such cases, is very much a state issue. Florida, as have many states, has adopted a series of changes in the last 5 years or so which have significantly curbed both the number and severity of such suits.

It is something which really should not be federalized, in my opinion.
 
#122
#122
wow, LG advocates for Federal control of the health care system out of one side of his mouth and out of the other he discovers the 10th amendment.

an OB/GYN called into a talk show I listen to, he said that he is liable for a delivery he performs for 18 years. Another, the wife of an anesthesiologist, said her husband's malpractice insurance premium is 250 thousand per year. Clearly something must be done, if nothing else, the loser-pays system should be implemented.

I agree that it's a state issue, but then again, so is universal health care.
 
#123
#123
lawgator1 said:
I was a medical malpractice defense attorney for 4-5 years before doing what I do now. Trust me, I am VERY familiar with this debate.

The thing that most people do not udnerstand is that medical malpractice laws, whether it be caps on damages or limits on the standard of care to be applied in such cases, is very much a state issue. Florida, as have many states, has adopted a series of changes in the last 5 years or so which have significantly curbed both the number and severity of such suits.

It is something which really should not be federalized, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Why would you object to federalizing medical tort reform and be in favor of federalizing health care?
 
#124
#124
lawgator1 said:
I agree with rjd. Any insurer is going to balk at an expensive procedure for a person where the outcome is negligible and the life not improved or lengthened. That's not about the government and Medicare or this particular bill -- that's a philosophical debate our society is probably going to have to have anyway fairly shortly.

I mean, my grandmother was basically unconscious for about 3-4 years. No way would any member of our family have asked for or championed some sort of surgery that was going to make her live another year but not have any awareness of anything.

What's the statistic? Something like 80 poercent of what we spend on a person's health care is spent in the last month of their life? Can't remember, but its a point that must be debated, even absent this bill or any other.





I don't know if I agree with your premise. If he doesn't get something passed, I think he (and by extension the Democratically controlled Congress) will be protrayed as weak and factionalized.






I was a medical malpractice defense attorney for 4-5 years before doing what I do now. Trust me, I am VERY familiar with this debate.

The thing that most people do not udnerstand is that medical malpractice laws, whether it be caps on damages or limits on the standard of care to be applied in such cases, is very much a state issue. Florida, as have many states, has adopted a series of changes in the last 5 years or so which have significantly curbed both the number and severity of such suits.

It is something which really should not be federalized, in my opinion.
Click to expand...


Oh, what a shock! But, the Federal Government SHOULD run our health care? That would not impact your income, so it is OK. That is rich.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top