Wake up, America! Your lives and those of your loved ones, particularly the elderly, are in jeopardy under Obama Care. A little common sense should tell us that our current medical care professionals cannot care adequately for their patients if they get hit with a 50 million surplus of new patients. It would be impossible to meet their needs-- the simple law of supply and demand supports what I am saying. The only possible result will be health care rationing.
Read from Dick Morris:
OBAMA WILL REPEAL MEDICARE
“Obama’s health care proposal is, in effect, the repeal of the Medicare program as we know it. The elderly will go from being the group with the most access to free medical care to the one with the least access. Indeed, the principal impact of the Obama health care program will be to reduce sharply the medical services the elderly can use. No longer will their every medical need be met, their every medication prescribed, their every need to improve their quality of life answered.
It is so ironic that the elderly - who were so vigilant when Bush proposed to change Social Security - are so relaxed about the Obama health care proposals. Bush’s Social Security plan, which did not cut their benefits at all, aroused the strongest opposition among the elderly. But Obama’s plan, which will totally gut Medicare and replace it with government-managed care and rationing, has elicited little more than a yawn from most senior citizens.
It’s time for the elderly to wake up before it is too late!
In our new book, ‘Catastrophe‘, we explain - in detail and in depth - the consequences the elderly of Canada are feeling from just this kind of program. Limited colonoscopies have led to a 25% higher rate of colon cancer and a ban on the use of the two best chemotherapies are part of the reason why 42% of Canadians with colon cancer die while 31% of Americans, who have access to these two medications, survive the disease.
Overall, the death rate from cancer in Canada is 16% higher than in the United States and the heart disease mortality rate is 6% above ours’.
Under Obama’s program, there will be a government health insurance company that gets huge subsidies of tax money. It will compete with private insurance plans. But the subsidies will let it undercut the private plans and drive them out of business, leaving only the government plan - a single payer - in effect.
Today, 800,000 doctors struggle to treat adequately the 250 million Americans who have insurance. Obama will add 50 million more to their caseload with no expansion in the number of doctors or nurses. Indeed, his plan will likely reduce their number by lowering reimbursement rates and imposing bureaucrats above them who will force medical decisions down their throats. Fewer doctors will have to treat more patients. The inevitable result will be rationing.
And it is the elderly who rationing will most effect. Who should get a knee replacement a 40 year old or a 70 year old? Who should get a new hip, a young person or an old person? Who should have priority in the operating room a seventy year old diabetic who needs bypass surgery or a younger person? Obviously, it is the elderly who will get short shrift under his proposal.
But the interest groups that usually speak up for the elderly, particularly AARP, are in Obama’s pocket, hoping to profit from his program by becoming one of its vendors. Just as they backed Bush’s prescription drug plan because they anticipating profiting from it, so they are now helping Obama gut the medical care of their constituents.
It is high time that the elderly of America realized what the stakes are in this vital fight to preserve Medicare as we know it and keep medical care open, accessible, and free to those over 65. It is truly a battle for their very lives.”
13 comments:
How stupid! Uninsured people still get medical treatment today -- that's why our ERs are overtaxed. There won't be 50 million new patients!
And if you are truly stupid enough to believe that those folks aren't getting medical treatement now, consider this: isn't THAT, in itself, "health care rationing"? Sure it is: if you have money and/or insurance, you get treatment. If you're poor, you get poor treatment. But I guess that's an "acceptable" form of rationing, because you have money/insurance, so you'll get yours. More of that incredible "Christian" attitude you're exhibiting there, Ms. Moore!
If there are problems with other countries' delivery systems, where is it written that we have to repeat them???? With all of our innate American ingenuity, we probably could learn from their mistakes and correct them in our system, no? But that would require some "common sense" that escapes you, I guess.
Do you not realize that health care rationing happens now??? Tell me of one private medical insurance plan that doesn't require preauthorization for major expenses like hospitalization and/or surgery. Some insurance company nurse decides what level of treatment you qualify for RIGHT NOW! And you're telling US to "wake up"?????
BOOGAH BOOGAH BOOGAH !!!!
We're going to euthanize all old people. And all rightwingnuts. On your next birthday. We'l lure you in with a promise of a party and presents, and then BOOM! You'll be killed! And we won't bury you, either.... we'll turn you into fertilizer, to further "green" our environment!
You're sounding like Pinky and the Brain... except neither you nor Dick Morris would qualify for the latter role. Pinky and Pinky, it is, then.
(Is it really too much to ask, to have you spend a few milliseconds to THINK on your own, before you post this crap? Does Dick Morris give you a kickback on his book sales?)
Yes, some uninsured people are getting healthcare, but not like it will be if healthcare becomes free. They will come out of the woodwork for every small ailment because it's free. Anytime something is offered for free, hoards of people show up. Healthcare will be no different, and that will result in rationing which will harm our healthcare making us all suffer.
Approximately 1/4 of those who will receive free healthcare are illegals who have broken the law to begin with when they entered our country. They do not deserve free treatment.
I support giving help to those who have terrible diseases and no healthcare, but it isn't fair to have to pay for their preventative medical treatment.
Our healthcare system needs reformed, but not with govt-run care. The govt can't run anything efficiently. And people who choose not to buy healthcare should not be forced to do so. In many cases they are young and can afford it, but choose to refrain because they figure the odds of needing it are low and they would prefer to spend their money elsewhere.
One day you will be old; if Obama Care passes, you will be affected. See how faithful you will be to the liberals policies then.
"...isn't THAT, in itself, "health care rationing"? Sure it is: if you have money and/or insurance, you get treatment. If you're poor, you get poor treatment."
Why stop with medical care? You could make the same argument about food. Is it fair that food should be "rationed" based on some arbitrary criterion like wealth? You can survive a lot longer without seeing a doctor than you can without eating food, yet food is still "rationed" according to wealth.
Or how about consumer goods? I would like a nice plasma screen TV, but I don't have enough money to buy one. Why should the plasma screen TVs be "rationed" to other people instead of me, just because they have money and I don't? Where does this reasoning stop?
Nobody has a right to somebody else's wealth. If I broke into my neighbor's house and took his belongings, it would be called theft. Instead, I can persuade my elected officials to pass a law and take my neighbor's money on my behalf.
Diogenes, if you are truly concerned about needy people, then what have you done about it? Have you ever donated your own money to a hospital or paid for a needy person's medical treatment? Or are you only concerned about other people when somebody else is paying for it?
I HAVE paid -- and so have you, and everybody else -- every time you pay a hospital bill, or an insurance premium. Those costs are already there, but they're hidden from view.
As for food, needy people can qualify for food stamps, and we pay for that with our taxes. Plasma TVs? No. But it's apparent how out-of-touch you are, in thinking that food, health care, and plasma TVs are on an equal footing for needy persons.
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" ought to mean something more than words rightwingnuts use when they want to complain about paying taxes. America is NOT built solely on "rugged individualism". We are NOT all "free agents". If we're successful, we owe some of our success to the fact that we live and work in a society that allows success. With that comes RESPONSIBILITY to that society.
It baffles me how "devout Christians" can look for any excuse to duck their social responsibilities to their fellow man.
As I've told you before, Christians are the most generous people in the country, and conservatives are much more giving than liberals. Polls have shown that.
Since you are so eager to give away our hard-earned dollars to illegals and others, tell me what percentage of your income that you gave away in 2008. I know it's none of my business, but my guess is it's not much. I challenge you to come forth with the numbers.
You're right, it's none of your business. I'm a lowly teacher, and we all realize how much our services are valued by society. :-)
I never said a word about people that are not here legally and their eligibility for health care coverage. I think there might be some different considerations that come into play there.
Diogenes, I think you missed my point. I am not saying that food, medical care, and plasma TVs are equally important. I am saying that the logical conclusion of your reasoning could result in a government subsidy for just about anything. It just depends on which items those in power decide are essential. (For example, people lived for centuries without a TV or radio. Now, some people might argue that TVs and radios are essential and should be subsidized for those who cannot afford them. In fact, the government recently subsidized devices for viewing a digital signal on old TVs.)
"I HAVE paid -- and so have you, and everybody else -- every time you pay a hospital bill, or an insurance premium. Those costs are already there, but they're hidden from view."
It sounds like you are talking here about the hidden costs associated with medical insurance. This is something to take up with your insurance company. (Or you could find a different company if you are dissatisfied with your current coverage.) However, it is also true that you pay for many public services (i.e., Medicare, Social Security, national parks, etc.) in your taxes. In this sense also, it is true that you are paying for these services. According to this webpage, the top 25 percent of earners (by adjusted gross income) paid 86.27% of the federal taxes in 2006. Unless you are in one of the higher tax brackets, then you might have received more value in various government services than you paid in taxes. (Of course, it depends on which government services you actually use. I am just using this example for the sake of argument.) To summarize, everyone pays for these services, but some people are getting a pretty sweet deal.
"We are NOT all "free agents". If we're successful, we owe some of our success to the fact that we live and work in a society that allows success."
I do not owe anybody part of my success. However, I am not the only one who benefits from my success. If I succeed in the economy, I do so by providing a product that somebody wants at a price that somebody is willing to pay. Both the seller and the buyer benefit.
Now, about your word rightwingnuts. What have I said that you think is nutty? Is it nutty that I say people are entitled to the fruits of their labors? Or maybe it's my nutty belief that people are more frugal with their own money than other people (e.g., other citizens or their elected officials) are. (Or maybe the corollary: people are more frugal with their own money than they are with other people's money.) If you disagree with me, then explain why. Surely you have something just a tad more convincing than ad hominem attacks.
One more thing...
I am a Christian, and I agree with you that we are to "love one another." (John 13:34-35. See also several verses about "loving your neighbor.") Note that the focus is on the individual. We are to care for other people.
I am trying not to proof-text here, but I do not have time to do a full study of this. However, I do not remember any verse in the Bible which tells us to care for "society", whatever that means. I guess you can fulfill your duty to "society" by paying your taxes, but there is no guarantee that any of that money will actually accomplish the good for which it is intended.
On the other hand, I have complete discretion when I care for my neighbors by donating my time and money directly to them, rather than through government. I would also say that a person's willingness to donate his disposable income (e.g., what's left after rent and taxes) says a whole lot more about his concern for his neighbor than his willingness to raise taxes on ... "the rich". (BOO! HISS!)
"According to this webpage, the top 25 percent of earners (by adjusted gross income) paid 86.27% of the federal taxes in 2006."
And the top 1% paid almost 40% of the taxes.
But the top 1% controls somewhere in the neighborhood of 30-35% of all the wealth in the country, too. They OUGHT to be paying the lion's share of taxes.
Fact is, the income disparity between the "haves" and the "have-nots" in America is among the highest of all developed nations.
There is no excuse for our society to be as rich as it is while letting so many live in the gutter. You can dress it up all you want, you can talk about how you tithe, etc etc but there is something wrong with our economic system when so many of our own people struggle to survive.
It is NOT a problem with one insurance company; it affects EVERY insurer. You cannot shop around to avoid the implications.
And, I'm sorry if it offends you, but there is something inherently wrong with ANYBODY having the attitude that "I do not owe anybody part of my success." I know it helps a lot of people sleep at night, but it's still morally wrong.
rich people spend money. thats how they give back. if they sat and horded their earnings, they're just drawing from the economy, minus utilities, groceries, and clothes. but, a great majority give back through purchasing goods and investing stock, and that's keeping the clock turning right now.
rationing.... i havent read any but the last post so forgive me for repitition. i do not... see... what... in the living hell, is going on. i mean i get it, health care for those that can't afford it, but... listen, if we're going to give unfortunate health care, and im like 90% towards "not" giving them health care, but if it is to happen...
the only way i'll accept this, and put up with it, take the premiums out of my paycheck since i'll be paying federally, that way my check is another hundred bucks higher, and i'll use that to cover my federal raises every year.
diogenes, im republican, not too far right, but enough right... when you give money to an insurance agency, and someone who has the same insurance, has a surgery with hospital bills upwards of 30,000 bucks... the premiums you pay every week/month/year go toward paying for that persons surgery. the reason many americans ignore that, is because the people in need of insurance... have it, and are also contributing to the pot. so, be a little lighter when people say "im not covering other people's problems" because chances are they aren't contributing to the pot.
i know its a whole different debate on "well they cant afford to contribute because reason x and y... etc." (i know you hate religious analogies) but God helps those that want to help themselves. and a general republican problem, is that we feel we're helping people who dont even want to help themselves so giving them our money is... foolish. not to take away from people who are stuck and are trying desperately to improve life, im all for helping those people. but there are too many who (and im not generalizing because there are exceptions) sit on the left wing and are not helping themselves.
there are some people in this world, who if you gave them a thousand dollars... they'd turn it into 3 thousand. those are the "go-getters" who are ambitious and want flat screen tvs, and nice cars, and all this other stuff. and there are some people who would take that grand and buy 3 cartons of marlboros, 2 bottles of liquor, and a pink shirt with a unicorn on it. and, giving aid to the latter, is.... err... again foolish.
Awwww, c'mon, Nick. Do you really believe that Paris Hilton goes shopping to help out less fortunate people?
The key to the health care proposals is making health insurance coverage AVAILABLE to millions of people that cannot get it now. It's not about freeloaders glomming free stuff; you're always going to have some of that element in any society. But there are MILLIONS of people in America that would gladly pay for insurance coverage, but they can't get it.
Look at Wal-Mart, for example. Now, first off, I will concede that in the last year or so, they've made some necessary reforms to their policies, so it is improving. But for years, they intentionally hired almost exclusively part-time employees, so tat they wouldn't have to offer health insurance coverage to them. It's far cheaper for Wal-Mart to hire two part-timers working 20 hrs a week, without health coverage, than one full-timer working 40 hrs with health converage. Those people cannot GET health coverage, even if they pay for it.
Lots of other individuals and families get tossed out because somebody has a health problem. Take a self-employed guy. He tries to buy a health insurance policy for his family, being the responsible guy he is. Problem is, one of his kids is diabetic. He can't get a health insurance carier that will cover him or his family, not with that kind of potential liability. So the whole family goes without coverage.
The new health care proposals are designed to make affordable coverage available to millions who can't get it now. That's the guts of the program -- not this Chicken Little" crap about euthanizing old people. That's the scare tactics being employed by the GOP, many of whom are being fed by insurance company lobbyists.
no no, i dont believe for one minute people are going out shopping with the intent on giving back to those on the lower level that manufactured the good, but they're certainly indirectly supporting it. (which is why i'm all for taxing the hell out of companies shipping jobs overseas)
so what you're telling me... and i do believe you've done a fair share of research on things, is that of the say 30 - 40 million american's currently uninsured, the proposal set forth is to discount coverage to those in the situations, or simalar ones, you've listed afford it.
i like it, i'd rather it with state or county money, to keep local funds to help localized problems. that way i know my state taxes are directly improving my state. believe me, i hate seeing people who cant affod insurance go through problems. but how are we to sift out... the free-loaders on american society? because those are the target americans most republicans have issues with. how about an incentive to make companies hire full-time vs. part time? give a tax break to that company. (the trickle down theory dems hate) the more part time employees a company has, tax them more. because they're perpetuating an obvious problem. and to the man who just started his business... this plan works for him. but again, they're misfortunes that all of us are going to be making up for in more federal tax dollars.
and i must go back to the interference on the american free market. i mean, these are companies that are in the business of making money. and this hurts them. and i stand by not letting the gov't put its way in american business. there's already auto insurance programs designed for people more accident-prone (all-state's accident forgiveness program). and i dont imagine it far off, that insurance companies will compensate those with health liabilities beyond the typical citizen soon too. so, i agree with the intention, but i dont agree with the method.
Well, we're getting closer to finding a middle ground, which is really what I voted for Obama, to be honest. I'm tired of the polarization and the demonization in poitics today. If people TRY to sit down and TRY to find some middle ground, sometimes we can surprise ourselves.
And, while I understand your respect for the American free enterprise model, I'd suggest you keep in mind that a lot of the problems in our economy today are a result of excesses in that free enterprise system. Remember, their number one goal (and there's nothing wrong with it) is to make a profit for its shareholders. Whether or not that also betters or hurts society is of no concern.
Post a Comment