posted on September 15, 2009 11:38:49 AM new
for the decision to determine if you are healthy enough to continue on with living.
"Government Medicine vs. the Elderly
In Britain in 2007-08, 16.5% of deaths came after 'terminal sedation.'"
"Because health-care resources are assumed to be fixed, those resources should be prioritized for those who can benefit most from medical treatment. Thus the NHS acts as Britain's national triage service, deciding who is most likely to respond best to treatment and allocating health care accordingly."
"It should therefore come as no surprise that the NHS is institutionally ageist. The elderly have fewer years left to them; why then should they get health-care resources that would benefit a younger person more? An analysis by a senior U.K.-based health-care expert earlier this decade found that in the U.S. health-care spending per capita goes up steeply for the elderly, while the U.K. didn't show the same pattern. The U.K.'s pattern of health-care spending by age had more in common with the former Soviet bloc."
Perhaps this is why the Democrats voted down an amendment to H.R. 3200 offered by Rep. Dean Heller, R-NV, during a House Ways and Means Committee meeting just before the recess began that would have required Members to be covered by the Public Option plan if they approve it for private citizens.
The Heller Amendment was defeated by a party line vote as all 21 Democrats voted against the proposed Amendment.
It appears that Congress knows what is best for us, and what is better for them.
posted on September 15, 2009 12:46:48 PM newIt appears that Congress knows what is best for us, and what is better for them.
correct. why do you think some of them are fighting so hard to stop any health care bill from going through?
it would be going against all of their supporters (lobbyists) to allow any health care bill to be passed.
it's also why your starting to see all of these BS TV ads pretending to be looking out for your best interest by stopping these bills from going through. riiiight. where do you think the money for those ads is really coming from? concerned citizens? not bloody likely.
yes, the idea of electing people to office is that they know more than your average citizen, and suggesting that their goal is to make seniors die because someone else needs the medicine 'more' is just plain moronic. when's the last time you went to the Dr's office and there was a shortage of anything that required someone to take a pass? perhaps flu vaccine's - wait, no, those are given to the elderly and very very young first.
it's just another sky falling BS scare tactic. what's sad is that the people who probably need a health bill the most are the ones being tricked into thinking it would be bad for them, and the ones supporting it the most are those that need it the least.
it's like shooting fish in a barrel to the extremists and unfortunately scare tactics based on misrepresentation of the facts works really well if your willing to stoop to that level. warlords and dictators know all too well the effectiveness of such a strategy. if you say something enough times over and over it doesn't matter if it has any merit or not, the perception has been set.
posted on September 15, 2009 01:26:50 PM new
What part of "In Britain in 2007-08, 16.5% of deaths came after 'terminal sedation.'" don't you understand?
Hello! That would mean that 16.5% of deaths in Britain were not natural, accidental, suicide, or the direct result of disease. The deaths were the result of sedation.
Why bother with a doctor if you will be able to find one that will take you? Just go to the Vet.
Just may be that in the future seniors will not need a living will. Just be old and not be selling on ebay.
Perhaps if the article was on MSNBC or uttered by Keith Olbermann, or posted here by someone other than me, you would take notice.
posted on September 15, 2009 01:43:26 PM new
Just may be that in the future seniors will not need a living will. Just be old and not be selling on ebay
////////////
What does selling on Ebay have to do with being old?
Are you saying their DSR would be dinged if they dont ship promptly ,or can they ship from heaven?
*
There is no 'Global savings glut',only wild horses and loose bankers.
Evidently everyone has thoughts on Health care. If they do it, it better be right. If it passes there isn't any do overs. In his speech President Obama wants mandatory health care & he compared Health Care to Mandatory auto insurance. As most of us know not everyone carries auto insurance mandatory or not. He also said that Mandatory Health care would cost 13% of wages. Figure 60,000 annual income it would be 7000+ per year. That is a huge sum for people with families. Right now they can get it for $4,000. That is for a family of four.
This will go on for quite some time as there is nobody in agreement.
This is my take on Mandatory Health Care what is yours? Lets make this a great discussion.
posted on September 15, 2009 02:31:40 PM new
What part of Britain are you moving to and what does that system have to do with what is being proposed in the current plan in the United States?
are they saying they want to adopt the exact same system line for line that Britain uses?
if not, what point are you trying to make, that they shouldn't do that with the current one, or that they already have this as a written plan and it needs to be changed?
posted on September 15, 2009 09:32:02 PM new
Fruscia, your 4000 dollar figure may be an average, but it's hardly realistic. My health insurance is through my state's retirement system. For me, it's a great deal. I only pay about 125 a month for good coverage. Fortunately, I don't have to add my wife and son as they have coverage thru my wife's business. It would cost 650 dollars a month to add them to my coverage, or 7800 dollars a year. My wife and son, who are younger and healthier than I am, pay much more than I do for coverage, but not nearly what they'd pay if on my plan.
Vintageu, unless you can make some justification for why any proposed U.S. system would be like Britain or Canada or any of the other industrialized nations who cover their citizens, the figures about England are scare tactics and nothing more.
Here's a story for you. My son was getting his pre-school physical in August. He goes to high school out of country, so we do a pretty thorough physical on him each year before sending him off. He's 17. His doctor said that as he's at risk for high cholesterol and diabetes on his mother's side, he should start having annual blood panels done. The blood was drawn at the Dr.'s office. Yesterday I got an explanation of benefits from Aetna, his provider. They denied the claim for 355 dollars because "services were not authorized by the primary care physician prior to being rendered." Today I called them to inquire about this. The CS woman said " we denied the claim because the lab that did the testing is outside his network." I said, "so you're changing the reason it's denied? That's not what it says on this form, it says the Doctor didn't authorize it. How could the Dr. not authorize it when the Doctor drew the blood in HER OFFICE?' She said "we're not changing the reason sir". I said "Of course you are ma'am, you just gave me an utterly different reason for denying the claim than what is written on this explanation of benefits, and since you clearly are grabbing straws, I'd like to speak to your supervisor." Supervisor comes on the line and tries more evasive tactics. I asked her to fax me a new explanation of benefits with this new reason for denial and she agreed to. I then asked her how HER supervisor was going to explain these two utterly different reasons for denying the claim when I faxed them both back in, and at that point she finally decided that maybe she'd better resubmit the claim for payment. This kind of BS happens on a routine basis and I shudder to think how many people just blindly pay these bills without fighting them.
These insurance companies are allowed to run roughshod over everybody, reaping record profits and paying the fat cat maggots who run them obscene salaries and bonuses with virtually no competition. Anybody who thinks a government plan will put some bureaucrat "between the patient and his doctor", is either a moron or has no experience with modern health insurance. There are beady eyed bean counters between you and your doctor right now, figuring out ways to nickel and dime you to death and new and better ways to deny your claims. It's time these parasites were given stiff competition by a public option.
posted on September 16, 2009 08:12:13 AM new
UK doctors are fighting back over the lies being told about their system and over 100 have signed a letter written to US senators.
'There is no cut-off age for healthcare in the NHS. Senator Kennedy, like anyone else of that age, or older, and with health problems such as his, would have been treated by the NHS with the same high levels of care as someone younger.
'Care for the elderly includes free flu vaccinations, free medication, free operations as needed, nursing care visits, and help and adaptions for the home. Many hospitals now offer "hospital to home" programs for palliative and end of life care to enable very ill people to remain at home.'
And it added: 'Professor Stephen Hawking of Cambridge University, recently awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Obama, is disabled and has always been under the care of the NHS.
'Professor Hawking is an outspoken admirer of NHS care. Like thousands of others who are disabled, he is entitled to free medical care and medicine, and he can get adaptions, equipment and home care to allow him to live at home.'
The letter says there is no truth in U.S. claims that NHS has 'death panels', which decide who should be saved and who should die, on the basis of cost.
The letter concludes: 'The NHS is funded by taxes and provides universal coverage while costing 8 per cent of UK GDP. The U.S. system currently costs 16 per cent of GDP but leaves 45million without insurance and a further 25million under-insured.
'The NHS is available free of charge to all regardless of ability to pay, and does not discriminate against those with pre-existing conditions. Importantly it gives freedom from fear of the financial consequences of illness.
The letter, which has been sent to U.S. senators and representatives and has also been published on the British Medical Journal website, was written by Dr Jacky Davis, a London radiologist.
'There's so much ignorance and malice around this issue in the US,' she said. 'The debate is skewed by vested interests - the healthcare companies who make millions of dollars of profits every year - with their campaign of misinformation.
posted on September 16, 2009 01:23:18 PM new
"Vintageu, unless you can make some justification for why any proposed U.S. system would be like Britain or Canada or any of the other industrialized nations who cover their citizens, the figures about England are scare tactics and nothing more."
Yes, golly gee, if they were so bad, one wonders how Britain and Canada got them.
posted on September 16, 2009 01:48:39 PM new
desquirell have you read H.R. 3200 or the Senate version? The answer to your question is right in the Bill.
I wonder just how many that post here have read the full text of H.R. 3200 and the Senate version?
posted on September 16, 2009 02:54:26 PM new
prof51 why do you try to make a fool out of anyone who posts a contrary opinion or disagrees with you? How did you treat a student who voiced a contrary opinion?
You hold yourself out to be an educated man. Do you really believe that such terminology would be flatly stated in the text of HR3200?
The enabling terminology is there and when I locate similar wording in the National Health Service Act 2006, I will post here.
In the meantime you and all the others are welcome to read along with me.
The issue is: Since the elderly have fewer years left to them, are they denied or will they be denied health-care resources that would benefit a younger person more?
Further, is there terminology in HR 3200 which enables or could enable such an occurrence?
posted on September 16, 2009 03:16:26 PM new
You make it sound like there will be an overt "bump of the elderly" clause. You referred to "shortages" which will divert supplies to those with the best chance. You'll never see this. This is another enormous gov bureaucracy. It will be handled in true bureaucratic methods. The administrators will be given budgets like any other department. These administrators will operate in the truest forms of socialism: the "what's best for all" (Whether they like it or not).
What? Use the $1000 antibiotic on the old geezer???? We might get a kid with meningitis.
My friend in England says you just don't bop across the street for a CAT scan either, so maybe there will be a savings from those who croak before all the diagnostics are done.
posted on September 16, 2009 08:51:16 PM new
"prof51 why do you try to make a fool out of anyone who posts a contrary opinion or disagrees with you? How did you treat a student who voiced a contrary opinion?"
I think you are quite mistaken in your opinion here. Profe's posts are his own opinions based on the facts as he sees them. He rarely C & P's. If he disagrees, he says so, but there are no personal attacks. Disagreeing with someone is not trying to make a fool out of him. I find him to be extremely well-informed (wish I had his broad knowledge)and a straight talker. He is one of my favorite posters. I only know him from the posts I read, but I would be willing to bet he encourages students to think for themselves and voice their contrary opinions. There are a few posters here who name call and disparage posters with different opinions, but Profe is certainly not one of them.
posted on September 16, 2009 09:13:57 PM newprof51 why do you try to make a fool out of anyone who posts a contrary opinion or disagrees with you?
Cause sometimes he makes a point or states a fact that clears up any nonsense that someone else is copying and pasting? Or he asks a question that they can't answer because they're just copying and pasting an opinion from someone else? So then they can't help but feel like the fool they really are? <shrug>
posted on September 17, 2009 05:29:06 AM new "prof51 why do you try to make a fool out of anyone who posts a contrary opinion or disagrees with you?"
If you are so intimidated by Profe's intelligence and his ability to think and illustrate the error of your effort to do so, maybe you should research your topic more thoroughly or post elsewhere. I know several places where you would fit right in.
Deathers like birthers are, as Bob Dylan sang, "Only a Pawn in Their Game". You and those who believe that death panels are a part of Obama's bill have been duped and used by organizations with power and money to fight for the elite who do not have your interest or the interest of the average American under consideration.
posted on September 17, 2009 08:39:44 AM new
vintageu, It's certainly not my intention to make a fool of you. Your feeling foolish is your own issue. If having your assertions challenged is too much for you, maybe you need to rethink and fortify your positions. People express opinions here and others offer opposition.That's what discussion is all about. It's been my experience that only those with poorly thought out opinions stoop to personal insults like ow did you treat a student who voiced a contrary opinion?
posted on September 17, 2009 06:02:49 PM new
Prof,
does your wife's health policy say that it wont cover any lab work if it is done outside the network?
*
There is no 'Global savings glut',only wild horses and loose bankers.
posted on September 18, 2009 08:15:52 AM new
hwa, I didn't check her benefits prior to having my son's blood drawn. The doctor's office sent the blood to a lab which is apparently now considered "out of network", even though they are the largest in the area and do 80% of all the blood testing hereabouts. We've never had this issue before with blood draws, my wife and son both go to the same primary care doctor. Her plan changed from United Health to Aetna this year. This is another example, albeit small of increasing premiums and decreasing coverage. The issue for me wasn't the cost, it was the fact that I was given one reason for the denial in writing and another completely different reason over the phone. I won't stand for this kind of capricious denial. These people deserve to be badgered at every possible opportunity.
posted on September 18, 2009 08:26:08 AM new
Wow, you have a plan that let's your doctor draw blood??? Oh, right, ex-teacher.
I have to go to the lab where 20 people are queued up and each has brought 5 relatives with them. Kinda of like the insurance company's form of "socialized medicine".
posted on September 18, 2009 08:42:10 AM newOh, right, ex-teacher.
One of those big fallacies that all teachers have great insurance... I could never afford to add my family to my policy when I was employed full time. Now, I'm insured by my state's retirement system. If I were to add my wife and son to my policy, it would cost an additional 800 dollars a month to the 300 I'm already paying. They have their own separate policy thru my wife's business, which costs less.
Doctors are few and far between around here. Most do their own blood draws and send the samples out to one of only two labs that service our area. The big dog lab is LabCorp, which is one of the largest in the country. The other, a smaller concern, is called SonoraQuest Labs. Under my wife's new policy, for some reason SonoraQuest is in network and LabCorp is out, even though LabCorp owns a controlling interest in SonoraQuest....go figure.
posted on September 18, 2009 12:21:42 PM new
Doctors can draw blood in their office,the last GP I went to take urine and blood sample from patient and sent them to the lab.
Could be a way of making some extra money??? or a service to the patient so we dont have to go to the lab?
*
There is no 'Global savings glut',only wild horses and loose bankers.
posted on September 18, 2009 11:33:14 PM new
It's just occurred to me that there might be another reason we won't be killing off granny under the new plan.
Seniors in the U.S. are an ENORMOUS voting bloc. Once the word got out about granny killings, the seniors would come out in force to defeat elected officials.
_____________________
"Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels - men and women who ***dared to dissent*** from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, ***may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion."*** --Eisenhower
