View Full Version : Palin's WSJ Op Ed Nails Obamacare
red states rule
09-09-2009, 08:21 AM
Congratulations to Sarah Palin on a great Op Ed.
Obama and the Bureaucratization of Health Care
The president's proposals would give unelected officials life-and-death rationing powers.
By SARAH PALIN
Writing in the New York Times last month, President Barack Obama asked that Americans "talk with one another, and not over one another" as our health-care debate moves forward.
I couldn't agree more. Let's engage the other side's arguments, and let's allow Americans to decide for themselves whether the Democrats' health-care proposals should become governing law.
Some 45 years ago Ronald Reagan said that "no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds." Each of us knows that we have an obligation to care for the old, the young and the sick. We stand strongest when we stand with the weakest among us.
We also know that our current health-care system too often burdens individuals and businesses—particularly small businesses—with crippling expenses. And we know that allowing government health-care spending to continue at current rates will only add to our ever-expanding deficit.
How can we ensure that those who need medical care receive it while also reducing health-care costs? The answers offered by Democrats in Washington all rest on one principle: that increased government involvement can solve the problem. I fundamentally disagree.
Common sense tells us that the government's attempts to solve large problems more often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy. And common sense tells us to be skeptical when President Obama promises that the Democrats' proposals "will provide more stability and security to every American."
With all due respect, Americans are used to this kind of sweeping promise from Washington. And we know from long experience that it's a promise Washington can't keep.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574400581157986024.html
stephanie
09-09-2009, 08:27 AM
this should get some lefties panties in a bunch they may never get it out of their crack..:laugh2:
we'll be seeing the Obama puppets in the media heads explode today, should be fun to watch..
go Sarah..
red states rule
09-09-2009, 08:29 AM
this should get some lefties panties in a bunch they may never get it out of their crack..:laugh2:
go Sarah..
You want the Obama drones to flip out, hit them with a constant barrage of facts
Works eveytime
stephanie
09-09-2009, 08:31 AM
You want the Obama drones to flip out, hit them with a constant barrage of facts
Works eveytime
Oh they won't care what's in the article, they will only care that Sarah has THE NERVE of her...
red states rule
09-09-2009, 08:33 AM
Oh they won't care what's in the article, they will only care that Sarah has THE NERVE of her...
Yea, the do hate the peasants to speak up. I do recall the days when the left said dissent was cool, and THEY had they right to speak out
I guess only libs have that right - and we don't
theHawk
09-09-2009, 09:03 AM
Common sense tells us that the government's attempts to solve large problems more often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy. And common sense tells us to be skeptical when President Obama promises that the Democrats' proposals "will provide more stability and security to every American."
Its not just "common sense", she needs to point out historical references.
maineman
09-09-2009, 09:04 AM
Its not just "common sense", she needs to point out historical references.
but yet nobody in the audience wants to do away with medicare or social security....
odd.
red states rule
09-09-2009, 09:10 AM
but yet nobody in the audience wants to do away with medicare or social security....
odd.
and how will your leaders pay the $55 trillion or so needed to fund the obligations on Medicare and Social Security BEFORE adding Obamacare to the books
Obamacare will add another $3 trillion to the debt - and that is a lowball estimate
maineman
09-09-2009, 09:27 AM
what does that have to do with the fact that Americans are quite happy with government run health care programs and social programs?
How will they pay for it? I have no idea. I would imagine by increasing some taxes, cutting waste and a hodgepodge of other measures...
that is not the issue... the issue is that people whine that the government cannot and ought not to run medical programs... but they can and do... quite well... as a veteran, I am quite pleased with the care I get from TRICARE... I anxiously await my 62nd birthday when I can start getting social security... my mother is quite pleased with Medicare... all government run programs.
red states rule
09-09-2009, 09:31 AM
what does that have to do with the fact that Americans are quite happy with government run health care programs and social programs?
How will they pay for it? I have no idea. I would imagine by increasing some taxes, cutting waste and a hodgepodge of other measures...
that is not the issue... the issue is that people whine that the government cannot and ought not to run medical programs... but they can and do... quite well... as a veteran, I am quite pleased with the care I get from TRICARE... I anxiously await my 62nd birthday when I can start getting social security... my mother is quite pleased with Medicare... all government run programs.
Ah, raising taxes is tha answer. How typical of a liberal who loves big government
The only problem with that is - there will NOT be enough workers to tax the hell out of
But when did defiicts matter to you and your party MM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Oha9Vmwsluw/SaMU-nwATvI/AAAAAAAAAFA/IJv-QfE6IYw/s400/Number+of+Workers+Per+Beneficiary.JPG
snip
As suggested in the chart above (courtesy of the Tax Policy Center , a joint venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution) our government is facing a fiscal nightmare as the ratio of workers to Medicare/Social Security beneficiaries continues to decline. The ratio has shrunk from 4.3 in 1962 to 3.3 today. As the baby boomer generation begins to retire, actuaries project a rapid steepening to a ratio of just 2x by 2030. According to David Walker, CEO of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, these unfunded entitlement obligations add another $53 trillion to the mere $10.8 trillion reported as our National Debt.
http://lumpyinvestor.blogspot.com/2009/02/govt-entitlement-programs-ticking-time.html
crin63
09-09-2009, 09:47 AM
but yet nobody in the audience wants to do away with medicare or social security....
odd.
When you have monies forcibly removed from your paycheck you kind of expect something in return. To some degree you cant blame seniors who were sold a bill of goods from the government either.
Medicare and Social Security need to phased out and replaced with personal savings accounts. People need to plan for their own retirement and not look for government care. But then theres no political power to be had in individuals being personally responsible.
red states rule
09-09-2009, 09:53 AM
When you have monies forcibly removed from your paycheck you kind of expect something in return. To some degree you cant blame seniors who were sold a bill of goods from the government either.
Medicare and Social Security need to phased out and replaced with personal savings accounts. People need to plan for their own retirement and not look for government care. But then theres no political power to be had in individuals being personally responsible.
MM would never support hat Crin. If people took control of their own retirement - what would happen to the Dems hold over seniors?
The last thing any liberal wants is for someone to no longer need and depend on a government program
Granted they would ration they want to ration their healthcare and send them to Hospice - but hey - they still want their vote on Election Day
crin63
09-09-2009, 10:22 AM
MM would never support hat Crin. If people took control of their own retirement - what would happen to the Dems hold over seniors?
The last thing any liberal wants is for someone to no longer need and depend on a government program
Granted they would ration they want to ration their healthcare and send them to Hospice - but hey - they still want their vote on Election Day
The Dims couldn't scare seniors into voting for them at election time without S.S. & Medicare.
Once the Dims get the healthcare plans they want, Social Security and Medicare will become strong and viable institutions because no one will be alive long enough to actually use them. I'm sorry mam but you're a burden on society and we just cant spend that kind of money on you. Heres a pamphlet on end of life options for you.
maineman
09-09-2009, 10:27 AM
When you have monies forcibly removed from your paycheck you kind of expect something in return. To some degree you cant blame seniors who were sold a bill of goods from the government either.
Medicare and Social Security need to phased out and replaced with personal savings accounts. People need to plan for their own retirement and not look for government care. But then theres no political power to be had in individuals being personally responsible.
we will just have to agree to disagree. I do not think that Medicare and SOcial Security should be phased out. They are programs that work, and NOBODY wants to be the first guy to pay in to the system and then be told he won't get anything out.
Little-Acorn
09-09-2009, 10:32 AM
nobody in the audience wants to do away with medicare or social security....
The usual lie from the usual suspect. School must be out today.
odd.
We're used to it from you.
Joe Steel
09-09-2009, 12:36 PM
Congratulations to Sarah Palin on a great Op Ed.
Obama and the Bureaucratization of Health Care
The president's proposals would give unelected officials life-and-death rationing powers.
By SARAH PALIN
"Death panels" again.
Miss Wasilla is such a twit.
Joe Steel
09-09-2009, 12:40 PM
but yet nobody in the audience wants to do away with medicare or social security....
odd.
They're spectacularly successful and very likely the best things the US government, or any government, corporation or other organization, has ever done.
Mr. P
09-09-2009, 01:22 PM
we will just have to agree to disagree. I do not think that Medicare and SOcial Security should be phased out. They are programs that work, and NOBODY wants to be the first guy to pay in to the system and then be told he won't get anything out.
Well, let me be the first to educate you and Joe...The Government has NO obligation to pay you social security..don't believe it? check it out.
maineman
09-09-2009, 01:56 PM
Well, let me be the first to educate you and Joe...The Government has NO obligation to pay you social security..don't believe it? check it out.
maybe so....but I have no doubt that, in two years and seven months, I'll be collecting it!:poke:
Mr. P
09-09-2009, 02:18 PM
maybe so....but I have no doubt that, in two years and seven months, I'll be collecting it!:poke:
Don't bet on it..yer guy is looking to cut all that chit..:poke:
I think yer "Hope & Change" is gonna bite ya in the ass.
maineman
09-09-2009, 02:23 PM
Don't bet on it..yer guy is looking to cut all that chit..:poke:
I think yer "Hope & Change" is gonna bite ya in the ass.
I WOULD bet on it.... the question is: Would YOU bet against it?
Little-Acorn
09-09-2009, 02:23 PM
They're spectacularly successful
Medicare and SS have taken away from today's seniors far more than they will ever give back, amounts that could have made most of them millionaires if properly invested instead of being turned over to the government. The govt has spent that money on other things, leaving the so-called "trust funds" empty except for IOUs, in ways that would get any private or corporate financial officer jailed for life. And despite having taken more than they have paid out, these programs are on the verge of bankruptcy.
This, in little joesteal's view, amounts to being "spectacularly successful".
And he wonders why nobody takes him seriously. :lame2:
Mr. P
09-09-2009, 02:33 PM
I WOULD bet on it.... the question is: Would YOU bet against it?
The odds are with me..the retirement age keeps increasing why is that, lack of funds? Ahhhhhh YEP. You'll hate to being stranded in mexico when the cut ya off..:laugh2:
maineman
09-09-2009, 02:35 PM
The odds are with me..the retirement age keeps increasing why is that, lack of funds? Ahhhhhh YEP. I'd hate to be stranded in mexico when the cut ya off..:laugh2:
If the odds are with you, let's make a wager. Unlike RSR, I would trust you to pay off if you lost.
AND...if I went to mexico expecting to live off SS, I WOULD be crazy....
the retirement portfolio is a tad more extensive than that...;)
and TRICARE works just fine overseas.
Mr. P
09-09-2009, 02:38 PM
If the odds are with you, let's make a wager. Unlike RSR, I would trust you to pay off if you lost.
AND...if I went to mexico expecting to live off SS, I WOULD be crazy....
the retirement portfolio is a tad more extensive than that...;)
and TRICARE works just fine overseas.
Sorry, unlike the dimwits I don't take money from fools.
red states rule
09-09-2009, 10:29 PM
"Death panels" again.
Miss Wasilla is such a twit.
Hey Joe, Obama did bring back the VA Death book. He does want to take it nationwide
http://www.ethics.va.gov/YLYC/YLYC_First_edition_20001001.pdf
red states rule
09-09-2009, 10:31 PM
Ah, raising taxes is tha answer. How typical of a liberal who loves big government
The only problem with that is - there will NOT be enough workers to tax the hell out of
But when did defiicts matter to you and your party MM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Oha9Vmwsluw/SaMU-nwATvI/AAAAAAAAAFA/IJv-QfE6IYw/s400/Number+of+Workers+Per+Beneficiary.JPG
snip
As suggested in the chart above (courtesy of the Tax Policy Center , a joint venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution) our government is facing a fiscal nightmare as the ratio of workers to Medicare/Social Security beneficiaries continues to decline. The ratio has shrunk from 4.3 in 1962 to 3.3 today. As the baby boomer generation begins to retire, actuaries project a rapid steepening to a ratio of just 2x by 2030. According to David Walker, CEO of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, these unfunded entitlement obligations add another $53 trillion to the mere $10.8 trillion reported as our National Debt.
http://lumpyinvestor.blogspot.com/2009/02/govt-entitlement-programs-ticking-time.html
***cricjets chirping****
What wrong MM, cat got tongue? Cough up the furr ball and tell us who will pay the higher taxes
maineman
09-10-2009, 06:27 AM
***cricjets chirping****
What wrong MM, cat got tongue? Cough up the furr ball and tell us who will pay the higher taxes
who will pay the higher taxes to pay for social security on out into the far distant future?
we all will, of course, and if I had my way, the rich would pay more than the poor would. I would quickly raise the retirement age for social security by a year or two, and I would quickly remove the cap on earnings subject to SS taxes... those two steps would pretty much keep the SS trust fund solvent for decades.
red states rule
09-10-2009, 06:31 AM
who will pay the higher taxes to pay for social security on out into the far distant future?
we all will, of course, and if I had my way, the rich would pay more than the poor would. I would quickly raise the retirement age for social security by a year or two, and I would quickly remove the cap on earnings subject to SS taxes... those two steps would pretty much keep the SS trust fund solvent for decades.
Total BS. It has been shown Obama could place a 100% tax on the upper 5% and that money would not even pay for Obamacare - let alone SS and Medicare
Of course it does not matter those paying more in taxes would not see a increase in their benefits - libs are now admittintg SS is nothing more then the nations most expensive welfare program ever created
The so called rich and producers in this country are seen as nothing more by Dems as a renewable money source
maineman
09-10-2009, 06:35 AM
Total BS. It has been shown Obama could place a 100% tax on the upper 5% and that money would not even pay for Obamacare - let alone SS and Medicare
Of course it does not matter those paying more in taxes would not see a increase in their benefits - libs are now admittintg SS is nothing more then the nations most expensive welfare program ever created
The so called rich and producers in this country are seen as nothing more by Dems as a renewable money source
as I said....the SS trust fund would be solvent by boosting the retirement age, and by lifting the cap on SS earnings. that's a fact.
And Americans WANT SS to continue and they WANT Medicare to continue....
Joe Steel
09-10-2009, 06:36 AM
Hey Joe, Obama did bring back the VA Death book. He does want to take it nationwide
http://www.ethics.va.gov/YLYC/YLYC_First_edition_20001001.pdf
What has that to do with Miss Wasilla's "death panels?" She knows they don't exist. Why does she keep insisting they do?
maineman
09-10-2009, 06:37 AM
What has that to do with Miss Wasilla's "death panels?" She knows they don't exist. Why does she keep insisting they do?
the VA Death Book? That's what they call it????
that cracks me up. why weren't the hypocrites howling when Dubya issued that book?
fucking hypocrites.
red states rule
09-10-2009, 06:38 AM
as I said....the SS trust fund would be solvent by boosting the retirement age, and by lifting the cap on SS earnings. that's a fact.
And Americans WANT SS to continue and they WANT Medicare to continue....
It is not a fact MM - and you know it. The numbers do not add up
More people will be on the program and fewer people paying into the system
Just like Obama will add 45 million to the public handout list - and that will "lower" the cost????
red states rule
09-10-2009, 06:39 AM
the VA Death Book? That's what they call it????
that cracks me up. why weren't the hypocrites howling when Dubya issued that book?
fucking hypocrites.
Pres Bush got rid of the death book - Obama brought it back. Obama has to cut the costs of healthcare somehow - this is one way to do it
maineman
09-10-2009, 06:43 AM
Pres Bush got rid of the death book - Obama brought it back. Obama has to cut the costs of healthcare somehow - this is one way to do it
lies... the Bush administration WROTE the book.... Obama simply reprinted it when they ran out of copies.
And the book does not say SHIT about any "death panels"
moron.
hypocrite.
liar.
Joe Steel
09-10-2009, 06:45 AM
the VA Death Book? That's what they call it????
that cracks me up. why weren't the hypocrites howling when Dubya issued that book?
fucking hypocrites.
Their objection to Your Life Your Choices stems from one of their conservative values: ignorance. Conservatives cherish ignorance. They believe someone facing the solemn decisions of a terminal illiness should just "wing it." I have no idea why they think this a good way to make decisions.
maineman
09-10-2009, 06:45 AM
It is not a fact MM - and you know it. The numbers do not add up
More people will be on the program and fewer people paying into the system
Just like Obama will add 45 million to the public handout list - and that will "lower" the cost????
you are wrong. it IS a fact that the SS trust fund would remain solvent for decades and decades by raising the retirement age and by removing the cap on earnings subject to FICA taxes.
red states rule
09-10-2009, 06:46 AM
lies... the Bush administration WROTE the book.... Obama simply reprinted it when they ran out of copies.
And the book does not say SHIT about any "death panels"
moron.
hypocrite.
liar.
You make this to easy MM
The Death Book for Veterans
Ex-soldiers don’t need to be told they’re a burden to society.
By JIM TOWEY
If President Obama wants to better understand why America’s discomfort with end-of-life discussions threatens to derail his health-care reform, he might begin with his own Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). He will quickly discover how government bureaucrats are greasing the slippery slope that can start with cost containment but quickly become a systematic denial of care.
Last year, bureaucrats at the VA’s National Center for Ethics in Health Care advocated a 52-page end-of-life planning document, “Your Life, Your Choices.” It was first published in 1997 and later promoted as the VA’s preferred living will throughout its vast network of hospitals and nursing homes. After the Bush White House took a look at how this document was treating complex health and moral issues, the VA suspended its use. Unfortunately, under President Obama, the VA has now resuscitated “Your Life, Your Choices.”
Who is the primary author of this workbook? Dr. Robert Pearlman, chief of ethics evaluation for the center, a man who in 1996 advocated for physician-assisted suicide in Vacco v. Quill before the U.S. Supreme Court and is known for his support of health-care rationing.
“Your Life, Your Choices” presents end-of-life choices in a way aimed at steering users toward predetermined conclusions, much like a political “push poll.” For example, a worksheet on page 21 lists various scenarios and asks users to then decide whether their own life would be “not worth living.”
The circumstances listed include ones common among the elderly and disabled: living in a nursing home, being in a wheelchair and not being able to “shake the blues.” There is a section which provocatively asks, “Have you ever heard anyone say, ‘If I’m a vegetable, pull the plug’?” There also are guilt-inducing scenarios such as “I can no longer contribute to my family’s well being,” “I am a severe financial burden on my family” and that the vet’s situation “causes severe emotional burden for my family.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204683204574358590107981718.html
maineman
09-10-2009, 06:50 AM
it was Bush's book... and an editorial opinion about what the book says means SHIT.
deal with it. you have NEVER understood the difference between FACT and OPINION and it is clear that you are too fucking DUMB to ever learn that distinction.
what a joke.
red states rule
09-10-2009, 06:51 AM
it was Bush's book... and an editorial opinion about what the book says means SHIT.
deal with it. you have NEVER understood the difference between FACT and OPINION and it is clear that you are too fucking DUMB to ever learn that distinction.
what a joke.
How typical. Not man enough to admit you screwed up ranting how it was "Bush's fault"
Obama shows he wants to save money by sick people dying - and you still defend him
maineman
09-10-2009, 06:53 AM
How typical. Not man enough to admit you screwed up ranting how it was "Bush's fault"
Obama shows he wants to save money by sick people dying - and you still defend him
fact: it was BUSH'S BOOK.:lol:
Obama does not want people to die...that is simply a lie... but one that Rush TOLD you to repeat, so I understand.
red states rule
09-10-2009, 06:55 AM
fact: it was BUSH'S BOOK.:lol:
Obama does not want people to die...that is simply a lie... but one that Rush TOLD you to repeat, so I understand.
Who was President in 1997 MM?
The article clearly says the book was done away with during the Bush administration
Do you have trouble understanding the English language?
snip
Last year, bureaucrats at the VA’s National Center for Ethics in Health Care advocated a 52-page end-of-life planning document, “Your Life, Your Choices.” It was first published in 1997 and later promoted as the VA’s preferred living will throughout its vast network of hospitals and nursing homes. After the Bush White House took a look at how this document was treating complex health and moral issues, the VA suspended its use. Unfortunately, under President Obama, the VA has now resuscitated “Your Life, Your Choices.”
maineman
09-10-2009, 07:01 AM
here is what your government has to say about it:
http://www1.va.gov/health/YourLifeYourChoices.asp
red states rule
09-10-2009, 07:04 AM
here is what your government has to say about it:
http://www1.va.gov/health/YourLifeYourChoices.asp
You have proven to be a liar and now you fall back on Obama approved talking points
You are something else MM
From the VA book MM - The circumstances listed include ones common among the elderly and disabled: living in a nursing home, being in a wheelchair and not being able to "shake the blues." There is a section which provocatively asks, "Have you ever heard anyone say, 'If I'm a vegetable, pull the plug'?" There also are guilt-inducing scenarios such as "I can no longer contribute to my family's well being," "I am a severe financial burden on my family" and that the vet's situation "causes severe emotional burden for my family."
maineman
09-10-2009, 07:11 AM
official government webpages from the veterans administration are "Obama approved talking points"?
whatever
what is inaccurate on that page?
red states rule
09-10-2009, 07:15 AM
official government webpages from the veterans administration are "Obama approved talking points"?
whatever
what is inaccurate on that page?
Still ducking the fact your lied when you posted Bush wrote the book, and when proven to be a liar you fall back on the Obama run VA to spin
I posted links where our vets are pushed to consider taking their own life and you don't care
You really do put party ahead of your country - and those who are wounded while protecting the nation
You are a sad sad case MM
maineman
09-10-2009, 07:21 AM
Still ducking the fact your lied when you posted Bush wrote the book, and when proven to be a liar you fall back on the Obama run VA to spin
I posted links where our vets are pushed to consider taking their own life and you don't care
You really do put party ahead of your country - and those who are wounded while protecting the nation
You are a sad sad case MM
again...what is inaccurate in the VA's own discussion of its publication?
care to quit running from that?
red states rule
09-10-2009, 07:26 AM
official government webpages from the veterans administration are "Obama approved talking points"?
whatever
what is inaccurate on that page?
I am letting what is in the book speak for itself - now the spin that you are wanting to talk about
YOU are running away from being caught lying and how the Obama administration is pushing wounded vets who cost to much money to treat to take their own lives as a means of cutting costs
maineman
09-10-2009, 07:36 AM
I am letting what is in the book speak for itself - now the spin that you are wanting to talk about
YOU are running away from being caught lying and how the Obama administration is pushing wounded vets who cost to much money to treat to take their own lives as a means of cutting costs
Obama does not PUSH anyone to take their own lives.
and why can you not read the page from the Veterans Administration and tell me ONE THING that is inaccurate in that page?
what are you so afraid of?
red states rule
09-10-2009, 07:40 AM
Obama does not PUSH anyone to take their own lives.
and why can you not read the page from the Veterans Administration and tell me ONE THING that is inaccurate in that page?
what are you so afraid of?
Rationing is a logical part of the gov't run healthcare equation. Those who choose to ignore it, could be making a fatal mistake.
In your case it is all part of putting party ahead of country and now the lives of the nations vets
maineman
09-10-2009, 08:02 AM
Rationing is a logical part of the gov't run healthcare equation. Those who choose to ignore it, could be making a fatal mistake.
In your case it is all part of putting party ahead of country and now the lives of the nations vets
what are you SO afraid of RSR?
Why can't you show me ANYTHING from the VA webpage that is, in any way, inaccurate?
red states rule
09-10-2009, 08:09 AM
what are you SO afraid of RSR?
Why can't you show me ANYTHING from the VA webpage that is, in any way, inaccurate?
Keep defending the VA death book MM - it is all you have left. Unlike you, I do not hope you are the one given this book and told to think long and hard if your life is worth living
Page 21 from the Death Book, from the VA, reinstated by Obama. "What makes your life worth living? Instructions: This exercise will help you think about and express what really matters to you. For each row, check one answer to express how you would feel if this factor by itself described you," and there are, you know, A through S here. Here's A. "I can no longer walk but get around in a wheelchair." Life like this would be: "difficult, but acceptable; worth living, but just barely; not worth living; can't answer now," and the people reading the book are supposed to check off which of these things apply. So, "a. I can no longer walk but get around in a wheelchair." Eh, difficult. I could take it. It's worth living, but just barely. Not worth living.
"b. I can no longer get outside -- I spend all day at home." "c. I can no longer contribute to my family's well-being." "d. I am in severe pain most of the time. e. I have severe discomfort most of the time (such as nausea, diarrhea, or shortness of breath)."
"f. I rely on a feeding tube to keep me alive." . "g. I rely on a kidney dialysis machine to keep me alive. I rely on a breathing machine to keep me alive. i. I need someone to help take care of me all of time. j. I can no longer control my bladder. k. I can no longer control my bowels. l. I live in a nursing home." I live in a nursing home. Worth living but just barely. Not worth living. "m. I can no longer think clearly -- I am confused all the time." That describes half the population. "n. I can no longer recognize family/friends."
"o. I can no longer talk and be understood by others. p. My situation causes severe emotional burden for my family (such as feeling worried or stressed all the time). q. I am a severe financial burden on my family. r. I cannot seem to 'shake the blues,'" and then there's a section, "s. Other (write in)." Here are the instructions: "To help others make sense out of your answers, think about the following questions and be sure to explain your answers to your loved ones and health care providers. If you checked 'worth living, but just barely' for more than one factor, would a combination of these factors make your life 'not worth living?' If so, which factors? If you checked 'not worth living,' does this mean that you would rather die than be kept alive?
"If you checked 'can't answer now,' what information or people do you need to help you decide?"
What makes your life worth living, and here are the things they want you to assess in the VA Death Book, and Obama has the audacity to say that in his health care plan -- and he reinstated this. Bush killed it. Obama reinstated it. He has the audacity to say that there aren't anything called death panels or such things in his health care plan, and he's asking veterans to basically say, "You know what? I want to check out. To hell with this! I live in a nursing home. Screw it! Pull the plug. Where is Dr. Kevorkian?" This thing is obsessed with death. It's obsessed with you deciding, or maybe some influence, that your life isn't worth living. There's nothing positive in this.
glockmail
09-10-2009, 08:37 AM
Massive failure of Maineman in this thread.
red states rule
09-10-2009, 08:39 AM
Massive failure of Maineman in this thread.
and that is something new? Like Obama, all he has on his resume is failure
maineman
09-10-2009, 12:54 PM
pathetic. What are you so afraid of? why can't you point me to ONE untrue statement in the VA webpage?
When you can answer that simple question, let me know.
Until then, don't bother me.
SassyLady
09-10-2009, 01:51 PM
End of life counseling should not be initiated by, or incentivized for, government paid medical staff. I believe medical paternalism should be avoided at all costs.
Not death panels, but mandated medical paternalism
Written by Thomas Peters
Friday, August 21 2009 12:30
America's senior citizens are becoming a strong force of resistance to the democrat-proposed health care legislation. Currently, much of their concern is focused on the Advance Care Planning Consultation (ACPC) found in Section 1233 of the house bill. This section is what Sarah Palin said would create government "death panels."
While a striking description, the fact that it is a caricature has allowed defenders of ACPC to make a caricature of all reservations that reasonable individuals can harbor against the proposal. In other words, someone who is concerned by ACPC need not necessarily think it will result in government "death panels."
I would argue, instead, that the ACPC represents at the very least mandated medical paternalism, where individual decision making about end-of-life issues is not only assisted by the consulting doctor, but weighted towards the doctor's opinion, causing concern if and when the doctor may not have the ultimate good of the individual patient in mind, but is instead (for instance) worried about distributing limited government resources.
The shading in of human particulars is what makes [ACPC] so unsettling. A doctor guided by a panel of experts who have decided that some treatments are futile will, in subtle ways, advance that point of view. Cass Sunstein calls this “nudging,” which he characterizes as using various types of reinforcement techniques to “nudge” people’s behavior in one direction or another. An elderly or sick person would be especially vulnerable to the sophisticated nudging of an authority figure like a doctor.
.
For more:
http://www.americanprinciplesproject.org/component/content/article/17-app-blog/266-not-death-panels-but-mandated-medical-paternalism.html
Kathianne
09-10-2009, 07:02 PM
what are you SO afraid of RSR?
Why can't you show me ANYTHING from the VA webpage that is, in any way, inaccurate?
I think it's obvious, the tendency to rationing health care. For the elderly, the born less than ideal, those that have long term issues, regardless of age.
maineman
09-10-2009, 07:08 PM
I think it's obvious, the tendency to rationing health care. For the elderly, the born less than ideal, those that have long term issues, regardless of age.
did you read the VA webpage? Where does that page deal with anything like this?
Joyful HoneyBee
09-10-2009, 07:57 PM
I have saved a copy of the pdf available online if MM wants to review it. This is the first page:
Your Life, Your Choices: Planning for Future Medical Decisions Note – The following is a 1997 publication that was produced under VA IIR Grant No. 94-050, “Development of an Advance Care Planning Workbook,” 4/01/95 – 3/31/97. The document is currently undergoing revision for release in VA. The revised version will be available soon.
Here is the link that goes directly to the pdf file:
http://www.cmda.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=23258&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm
Ummmm, so who was president in 1997?
maineman
09-10-2009, 08:07 PM
I have saved a copy of the pdf available online if MM wants to review it. This is the first page:
Your Life, Your Choices: Planning for Future Medical Decisions Note – The following is a 1997 publication that was produced under VA IIR Grant No. 94-050, “Development of an Advance Care Planning Workbook,” 4/01/95 – 3/31/97. The document is currently undergoing revision for release in VA. The revised version will be available soon.
Here is the link that goes directly to the pdf file:
http://www.cmda.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=23258&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm
Ummmm, so who was president in 1997?
nothing in there is remotely synonymous with "death panels"
Kathianne
09-10-2009, 09:17 PM
nothing in there is remotely synonymous with "death panels"
Sure it is. If the reader/person cares about their family. You are being disingenuous.
maineman
09-10-2009, 09:26 PM
Sure it is. If the reader/person cares about their family. You are being disingenuous.
you are being ridiculous.
I HOPE that, if I ever get to be a terminal burden on my family and when death is close at hand, that SOMEONE is KIND enough to give me a talking to and explain to me that for extending my life by one or two months, that will be spent either heavily sedated or in overwhelming pain, I will cost my family all of their life savings and bury them in debt, that other, more reasonable options, are available...that is HARDLY a "DEATH PANEL"... and even if you mis-characterized it as that, it would STILL be a good discussion to have.
Mr. P
09-10-2009, 09:37 PM
I have saved a copy of the pdf available online if MM wants to review it. This is the first page:
Your Life, Your Choices: Planning for Future Medical Decisions Note – The following is a 1997 publication that was produced under VA IIR Grant No. 94-050, “Development of an Advance Care Planning Workbook,” 4/01/95 – 3/31/97. The document is currently undergoing revision for release in VA. The revised version will be available soon.
Here is the link that goes directly to the pdf file:
http://www.cmda.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=23258&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm
Ummmm, so who was president in 1997?
I don't see anything wrong with this 1997 publication, it's good planning IMO. It will be interesting to read the revised version.
red states rule
09-10-2009, 10:15 PM
you are being ridiculous.
I HOPE that, if I ever get to be a terminal burden on my family and when death is close at hand, that SOMEONE is KIND enough to give me a talking to and explain to me that for extending my life by one or two months, that will be spent either heavily sedated or in overwhelming pain, I will cost my family all of their life savings and bury them in debt, that other, more reasonable options, are available...that is HARDLY a "DEATH PANEL"... and even if you mis-characterized it as that, it would STILL be a good discussion to have.
Yep, we have to kill off people to save money for the collective - and as Obama promised - lower costs
Amazing how elected Dems who want us to get our healthcare under Obamacare - will keep the coverage they have now and take the coverage they will force on us
maineman
09-10-2009, 10:17 PM
Yep, we have to kill off people to save money for the collective - and as Obama promised - lower costs
Amazing how elected Dems who want us to get our healthcare under Obamacare - will keep the coverage they have now and take the coverage they will force on us
what is incorrect in the VA webpage?
got an answer for that, you fucking hack?
I didn't think so.
you never do.
red states rule
09-10-2009, 10:22 PM
what is incorrect in the VA webpage?
got an answer for that, you fucking hack?
I didn't think so.
you never do.
You are a testy little boy tonight. The fact is, your hero Obama and the VA, are pushing our heros to take their own ligfe - and you still play politics with their lives
Much like you and your party did with the Iraq war
Lives mean nothing - only power and political wins
bullypulpit
09-11-2009, 04:22 AM
Why does ANYONE give a damn about what "Caribou Barbie" says?
maineman
09-11-2009, 06:37 AM
and I was right.
totally incapable of answering a simple question and carrying on a conversation....
nothing but well worn Rush-approved talking points.
boooooring.
red states rule
09-11-2009, 06:49 AM
and I was right.
totally incapable of answering a simple question and carrying on a conversation....
nothing but well worn Rush-approved talking points.
boooooring.
You have failed to be right on a single issue. You are ignoring what is actually published by the VA Death book and refuse to even attempt to defend their advice to vets on why they should end their lives
It is typical of you however. Party over country - now party over our wounded and ill service men and women
red states rule
09-11-2009, 08:08 AM
Why does ANYONE give a damn about what "Caribou Barbie" says?
Gee BP, Obama did not change any minds in Congress. There are still to many DEMS who are not going to vote for Obamacare
Ms Palin and others who are opposing this insane power grab are still holding on to the NO votes
Obama seen failing to sway health debate
President Obama's address to Congress Wednesday night did little to immediately convert factions in the Democratic party to unify behind a health care overhaul plan Thursday, and his call for an end to "bickering" was met by Republican carping that he failed to "reset" the debate.
Liberal House lawmakers said they still want to see the president embrace a government-sponsored public insurance option as part of any bill, and centrist Democrats said they remain worried about the price tag.
"I believe a costly government-run public option is the wrong direction for reform and I will not support it," Rep. Mike Ross, a moderate Blue Dog Democrat from Arkansas who has come out in opposition of the plan that he helped shepherd through committee, said in the aftermath of Mr. Obama's speech.
Meanwhile, Republican National Committee chairman Michael S. Steele accused Mr. Obama of using Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's death as a "political tool" to boost his efforts. Rep. Joe Wilson apologized for shouting out, "You lie," during the address but stood by his criticism, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who exchanged words with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel on the floor after the speech, dubbed the president's tone "combative."
Still, Democratic leaders said they think the speech reinvigorated their efforts and will help them pass an overhaul bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada called it a game-changer, and Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York labeled it a tour de force.
Mr. Reid said all he needs is a few Republicans to vote for a bill.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/11/obama-seen-failing-to-sway-health-debate/
maineman
09-11-2009, 08:20 AM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-901.html
hey RSR.... didn't you used to LOVE to quote Real Clear Politics? Didn't you LOVE to point out how it was a poll of polls and therefore so much more accurate?
my, how times have changed!:laugh2:
maineman
09-11-2009, 08:22 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/health/policy/11health.html?_r=1&hp
hmmmmm
red states rule
09-11-2009, 08:23 AM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-901.html
hey RSR.... didn't you used to LOVE to quote Real Clear Politics? Didn't you LOVE to point out how it was a poll of polls and therefore so much more accurate?
my, how times have changed!:laugh2:
Gee MM, once again you make this way to easy
Generic Congressional Ballot
Support for GOP Reaches New Recent High on Generic Ballot
Little has changed this week on the Generic Ballot as Republican Congressional candidates continue to hold a seven-point lead over Democrats.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 44% would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 37% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.
Support for both parties rose one point over the past week, giving Republicans their highest level of support of the past several years. Support for Democrats last week reached its lowest point during that same time period.
This summer, support for Republican candidates ranged from 41% to 43%, support for Democrats ranged from 36% to 39%. Looking back one year ago, support was strikingly different for the parties. Throughout the summer of 2008, support for Democratic congressional candidates ranged from 45% to 48%. Republican support ranged from 34% to 37%.
This is now the 11th straight week GOP candidates have held the advantage. However, Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, noted last week that it’s too early for Republicans to be celebrating. “These numbers certainly represent weakness for the Democrats, but it’s important to remember that the mid-term elections are 14 months away. That’s plenty of time for the President’s party to do some damage control and pick up the pieces from what has been a tough month of August.”
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot
and
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_total_approval_graphics/september_2009/obama_total_approval_september_10_2009/246402-1-eng-US/obama_total_approval_september_10_2009.jpg
maineman
09-11-2009, 08:27 AM
too easy? what do you mean?
I merely point out that you USED to be such a HUGE fan of Real Clear Politics but now, not so much. NOW, you seem to rely solely on Rasmussen, even though, in RCP, it is clear that the Rasmussen data point is an outlier.
Answer my question: why aren't you a fan of RCP anymore?
red states rule
09-11-2009, 08:29 AM
too easy? what do you mean?
I merely point out that you USED to be such a HUGE fan of Real Clear Politics but now, not so much. NOW, you seem to rely solely on Rasmussen, even though, in RCP, it is clear that the Rasmussen data point is an outlier.
Answer my question: why aren't you a fan of RCP anymore?
Rasmussen has the best record in their polling - and they gave a daily and weekly tracking polls MM
You can go with the averages - when they fit your agenda - I am pointing out the trends
Hey, keep living in your bubble - it will burst soon
red states rule
09-11-2009, 08:32 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/health/policy/11health.html?_r=1&hp
hmmmmm
http://media.washingtontimes.com/media/img/photos/2009/09/04/mrz090409dAPR_t756.jpg?362c89b9f4298c1f7d888d4fceb 46698f5dfcc26
glockmail
09-11-2009, 08:59 AM
Why does ANYONE give a damn about what "Caribou Barbie" says? Does anyone give a shit about what "Chimpy Obama" says?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.