Obama's Death Panel

[phreakwars]

If there is no data there to back up the accusation, then it is a rumor, plain and simple.

Sorry, but you can't claim speculation is anything close to reality.

Alex Jones speculates 9/11 was an inside job. You can give THAT theory the same credibility as a death squad theory.

All the evidence is there to support his alleged claims too.

.

.

 

[snafu]

Posted in wrong Thread..

 

[phreakwars]

Oh look, Palin has to retract her lie :

http://Off Topic Forum.com/news-room/36462-no-death-panel-in-health-care-bill.html

.

.

 

[snafu]

Oh look, Palin has to retract her lie :
http://Off Topic Forum.com/news-room/36462-no-death-panel-in-health-care-bill.html

.

.

Those are questions and answers. Palin did not retract anything and she's right. If the health care system continues on this path it will evolve to this. It will have to.

I don't know who's answering the questions but it's not Palin.

 

[ImWithStupid]

I know I keep hearing to show where Obama did this or where he signed that even though there is video of Obama and Democratic leaders stating that their agenda is to eventually get a single payer system like Canada or Great Britain and even tried to put Tom Daschle in a roll at HHS to help guide this into existance, that isn't proof that is what he wants (it seems when they say it's what they want and is their goal, that doesn't prove that's what they want or what their goal is).

That's fine, but there is evidence from the CBO reports, saying that the bills making their way through Congress, the House bill and the Senate bill, will increase costs by $300 to $1.2 trillion over the next ten years, won't decrease rising costs and still leaves tens of millions of people without health insurance. Just today the head of the CBO (even though Obama summoned him over to the White House to try some strong arm, Chicago intimidation on him last week) stuck by his data.

My question is, that if neither of these bills meet any of these goals, what reason is there to push this "reform" through, if not to set the framework for the, progressive goal of single payer, government run health care?

 

[phreakwars]

well, post a link to the CBO report and lets take a look at what it says.

.

.

 

[ImWithStupid]

well, post a link to the CBO report and lets take a look at what it says..

.

Congressional Budget Office - Publications - Health

Congressional Budget Expert Says Preventive Care Will Raise -- Not Cut -- Costs

In yet more disappointing news for Democrats pushing for health care reform, Douglas W. Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, offered a skeptical view Friday of the cost savings that could result from preventive care -- an area that President Obama and congressional Democrats repeatedly had emphasized as a way health care reform would be less expensive in the long term.

Congressional Budget Expert Says Preventive Care Will Raise -- Not Cut -- Costs - Political Punch

Barack Obama frequently cites last year's Census Bureau number of 46 million people with no health insurance. But some experts argue that figure is off by tens of millions ? in one direction or the other.

The recession's continuing toll on jobs, a tendency to undercount people on Medicaid and other factors make it hard to come up with an exact number. And the most widely accepted range ? 40 million to 50 million ? includes some 10 million non-citizens, a detail that's generally overlooked when Obama and others talk about "uninsured Americans."

The lack of certainty about such big numbers is one more question mark for Obama and members of Congress as they try to craft a plan that would cover most of the uninsured. Obama says his goal is to cover 97 percent to 98 percent of Americans, a target that would be reached by plans taking shape in the Senate ? if you don't count illegal immigrants. A bill crafted by House Democrats comes in closer to 94 percent.

All the plans would exclude illegal immigrants, who account for as much as 17 percent of the uninsured, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.

"I want to cover everybody," Obama said at a news conference last month. "Now, the truth is that unless you have a what's called a single-payer system in which everybody is automatically covered, then you're probably not going to reach every single individual."

Health care debate: How many actually uninsured? - Yahoo! News

 

[phreakwars]

Well, lets see... using just the first link you posted and ignoring the opinion links from ABC and YAHOO, the report says:

Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally find thatthe added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend to exceed the

savings from averted illness.

If you keep reading, it goes on to say....

After reviewing hundreds of previous studies ofpreventive care, the authors report that slightly fewer than 20 percent of the

services that were examined save money, while the rest add to costs. Providing a

specific example of the benefits and costs of preventive care, another recent study

conducted by researchers from the American Diabetes Association, the American

Heart Association, and the American Cancer Society estimated the effects of

achieving widespread use of several highly recommended preventive measures

aimed at cardiovascular disease—such as monitoring blood pressure levels for

diabetics and cholesterol levels for individuals at high risk of heart disease and

using medications to reduce those levels.4 The researchers found that those steps

would substantially reduce the projected number of heart attacks and strokes that

occurred but would also increase total spending on medical care because the

ultimate savings would offset only about 10 percent of the costs of the preventive

services, on average. Of particular note, that study sought to capture both the

costs and benefits of providing preventive care over a 30-year period.

Of course, just because a preventive service adds to total spending does not mean

that it is a bad investment. Experts have concluded that a large fraction of

preventive care adds to spending but should be deemed “cost-effective,” meaning

that it provides clinical benefits that justify those added costs: Roughly 60 percent

of the preventive services examined in the review cited above have additional

costs that many in the health care community consider to be reasonable relative

to their clinical benefits. Still, providing that preventive care would represent a net

use of resources rather than a source of funding for other activities. (About

20 percent of the services reviewed have costs that are large relative to their

benefits, and a small fraction actually impair health while adding to costs.)

Nope, not seeing a problem here... Read the report yourself..

.

 

[RoyalOrleans]

IMy question is, that if neither of these bills meet any of these goals, what reason is there to push this "reform" through, if not to set the framework for the, progressive goal of single payer, government run health care?

We've put our economy, our security ... our very lives ... into the hands of a group of men and women who have shown no particular skill beyond their ability to please their constituents through the expenditure of money seized from the private sector. They produce nothing of value, nor do they demonstrate any particular skill other than pandering to voters. They loot from the productive to buy votes from the moocher class. If you had your entire financial future invested in stock in one business, how well would sleep at night knowing that Barack Obama, Barney Frank, Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters were running that business? Their very survivability depends on their ability to use force to achieve their goals.

These are the people we are going to allow to completely change the nature of health care in America. Amazingly, some Americans still think that these people are actually working hard to figure out a way to deliver better health care to the American people at a lower cost. They're wrong. These DC political hacks are simply trying to control, not improve health care. Control means power, and power is the currency of Washington. If we expect anything but a complete disaster, we deserve what's coming.

 

[ImWithStupid]

I've got to agree with Bender on this one. Health care for veterans should end when they leave service, other than health issues aquired or as a direct result of their time in service, like workman's comp.

 

[phreakwars]

I say what we should do, and what were are gonna eventually HAVE to do (circa Hugo's comment about eventually having to ration), is scrap VA, Military, Medicare, Medicaid and any other socialist ponzi scheme that we are paying for now, and combine them all together as one unit. Were gonna get forced into doing it anyway as these current system start to run dry. We can't tax our way out of it.

You notice that ALL of those programs are health based. I'd like to know what would be the difference in dropping everyone off those programs in favor of everyone paying for each other.

Instead of paying into a ponzi till we retire, we'd be paying into a system that doesn't call for us to get to a specific point in our lives for coverage (I.E. getting old, being disabled, serving the country, or being a vet who needs care).

.

.

 

[timesjoke]

I say what we should do, and what were are gonna eventually HAVE to do (circa Hugo's comment about eventually having to ration), is scrap VA, Military, Medicare, Medicaid and any other socialist ponzi scheme that we are paying for now, and combine them all together as one unit. Were gonna get forced into doing it anyway as these current system start to run dry. We can't tax our way out of it.
You notice that ALL of those programs are health based. I'd like to know what would be the difference in dropping everyone off those programs in favor of everyone paying for each other.

Instead of paying into a ponzi till we retire, we'd be paying into a system that doesn't call for us to get to a specific point in our lives for coverage (I.E. getting old, being disabled, serving the country, or being a vet who needs care).

.

.

So take all the smaller failed Government health programs, bundle them all together, then increase them many times over to a single payer system as Obama wants.........

The problem:

If we cannot operate the systems we already have, what makes you think we will get a different result just by making it a hundred times larger?

The Government does not possess the management skill needed to operate these programs, that is why they always fail and lead to corruption and severe rationing once they are in place.

 

[phreakwars]

We can't operate the ones we have because they are operated as a ponzi. If they were all one system, they would no longer be ponzi, they would be distributed systems.

.

.

 

[timesjoke]

We can't operate the ones we have because they are operated as a ponzi. If they were all one system, they would no longer be ponzi, they would be distributed systems..

.

Where do you get that from?

Making it larger does not change what it is Bender.

It will still be ponzi.

 

[ImWithStupid]

Well, lets see... using just the first link you posted and ignoring the opinion links from ABC and YAHOO, the report says:
If you keep reading, it goes on to say....

Nope, not seeing a problem here... Read the report yourself.

.

.

Then somehow you saw a rosy outcome that the head of the CBO didn't . You should apply for a job with them.

It wasn't an "opinion" link. It was a direct quote from the director of the CBO. If you read what is in the whole report, it says that the money spent on preventative care will be as much as the end savings on medical treatment for the diseases that you prevent.

 

[ImWithStupid]

We can't operate the ones we have because they are operated as a ponzi. If they were all one system, they would no longer be ponzi, they would be distributed systems..

.

The only way to have a system that isn't set up to be a big ponzi scheme, is to have everyone pay for their own health care, or not include the poor people who pay nothing in.

 

[hugo]

So take all the smaller failed Government health programs, bundle them all together, then increase them many times over to a single payer system as Obama wants.........

The problem:

If we cannot operate the systems we already have, what makes you think we will get a different result just by making it a hundred times larger?

The Government does not possess the management skill needed to operate these programs, that is why they always fail and lead to corruption and severe rationing once they are in place.

Why do you hate authority?

 

[timesjoke]

Why do you hate authority?

Troll much?

 

[RoyalOrleans]

Troll much?

Well.... look at the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[timesjoke]

Well.... look at the pot calling the kettle black.

You have been making a lot of +1 troll posts lately RO.