Grassley Uses Kennedy’s Brain Tumor To Spread Fear Of Rationing
Grassley Uses Kennedy’s Brain Tumor To Spread Fear Of Rationing
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee, has taken the lead role in negotiating the health care reform bill for the GOP. But earlier today during a radio interview with Iowa City’s KCJJ, Grassley steered the conversation with a caller toward rationing health care services among the elderly, one of the right wing’s favorite fearmongering tactics when it comes to health care reform. And as an example, Grassley cited Sen. Ted Kennedy’s (D-MA) brain tumor. Grassley said that in countries with government-run health care, Kennedy “would not get the care he gets here because of his age.” Instead, the government would decide to spend health care resources on younger people “who can contribute to the economy”:
GRASSLEY: In countries that have government-run health care, just to give you an example, I’ve been told that the brain tumor that Sen. Kennedy has — because he’s 77 years old — would not be treated the way it’s treated in the United States. In other words, he would not get the care he gets here because of his age. In other words, they’d say ‘well he doesn’t have long to live even if he lived another four to five years.’ They’d say ‘well, we gotta spend money on people who can contribute more to economy.’ It’s a little like people saying when somebody gets to be 85 their life is worth less than when they were 35 and you pull the tubes on them.
Listen:
“Many Americans are under the delusion that we have ‘the best health care system in the world,’” wrote the New York Times editorial page in 2007, but “the disturbing truth is that this country lags well behind other advanced nations in delivering timely and effective care.” Among developed countries, the United States has the 10th highest death rate among cancer patients, higher than Spain and Sweden.
But the larger problem Grassley ignores is cost. For Kennedy, access to health care is not an issue. Among most Americans, however, staggering health costs prevent more than half of U.S. patients from gaining access to medical care. Last year, 38 percent of U.S. patients did not receive recommended treatment compared to 11 percent in Canada and 6 percent in the U.K. And even among Americans with insurance, 43 percent of adults with chronic conditions nevertheless had access problems because of cost.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Poor choice for an example with the name Kennedy who get’s the best Health Coverage with tax dollars. Now one might say be careful what you say it might come back at you. We see everyday someone gets sick and even die. God is watching and some should be careful on what they say and do.
August 5th, 2009 at 4:55 pmIsn’t Senator Kennedy’s healthcare being provided by the U.S. government and paid for by the American taxpayers? You know, THAT kind of government run healthcare? Is Grassley retarded?
August 5th, 2009 at 4:56 pmDo republicans even know what a LIVING WILL is?
It’s a healthcare proxy that allows YOU to decide what you wish others to do with you when you are unable to make decisions concerning your own health wishes!!
You check off ONE box: YES, I want to be kept on life support measures; or NO, I do not want to be kept alive by artificial measures, i.e. life support.
A LIVING WILL is not new to mankind and I don’t understand why the republicans are being so disengenuous.
Every person in the world makes a decision about their health care; some people even decide to die with dignity so that they don’t suck the life out of their family watching them slowly fade away, unresponsive and in pain!!
August 5th, 2009 at 4:57 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
I’m sorry. I have been in here for a couple of hours and this is just getting worse. Inhoffe calling Sottomoyer a racist. Violence towards a Democrat at a town-hall. This is becoming a free-for-all. This is what the Republlicans have reduced this country too. Anger, hate, homophobia, Xenophobia, sexism. It’s getting to be too much. I thought with Obama’s election, things would quiet down while the Repugs licked their wounds, but no, they have resorted to mob mentality. Christ, I need a Zanax or a shot of whiskey.
August 5th, 2009 at 4:59 pmDo republicans know what reality and truth are? They seem to be wrong and dishonest all the time.
August 5th, 2009 at 4:59 pmGrassley Uses Kennedy’s Brain Tumor To Spread Fear Of Rationing
– - Have you no shame, Sen. Grassley?
August 5th, 2009 at 5:01 pmOoooh, big scary gummint, big scary black man in the white house, big scary this, big scary that…
I have had enough wingnuttery for this Wednesday.
That is all.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:01 pmThese people are VERY VERY HORRIBLE!!!
August 5th, 2009 at 5:03 pmI am really sick (no pun intended) of people saying what would happen under another country’s government run healthcare system. We don’t need to create the same model. Our founding fathers looked at many different government structures, used and modified what was good and discarding the rest to create our Constitution. We should be able to do the same with a healthcare system now. Hypotheticals like Grassley’s are admissions by a person who is not statesmanlike enough to help create a new and better American system of healthcare. Therefore, he should get out of the way and let those who are, do.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:04 pmOnly a Repug would use a man’s BRAIN CANCER to make a point. Why isn’t Grassley like Lady MacBeth? “Out damn spot!” Or Pontious Pilate? If I were him, I would feel soiled.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:06 pmA couple of days ago there was a letter to the editor in one of the newspapers I read in which the writer basically said, “I hear Dodd has prostrate cancer. Maybe he should go live in Canada and see how long he’d survive.”
The gangrene of the soul that afflicts republicans seems to be spreading.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:07 pmSo the White Wing is saying even with the blanket big coverage of Congressional health care we are all doomed? Well then, why bother paying for health insurance?
America, don’t pay the thousands of dollars a year to the health insurance companies because it is a sucker’s game. Just die and get it over with. Why pay a company that doesn’t care whether you live or die, is more than happy to not repay any of the thousands of dollars you have given them when you are just going to die anyway?
August 5th, 2009 at 5:07 pmThis is projection. This is what he’d want to happen if he were in charge of government health care. He’s made this up out of whole cloth.
This is why Republican’s should never again be in charge.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:08 pmTed Kennedy? I thought Socialized Medicine was going to kill Grandma.
…..and why are Rethuglicans complaining? I would think they’d be saying “Payback for Mary Jo, beeeotches!”
August 5th, 2009 at 5:10 pmLet’s see, Senator Kennedy has the exact same healthcare as Senator Grassley, each paid for by the U.S. taxpayer.
The issue at hand, Senator, isn’t whether or not Kennedy should or would be receiving the care he is, nor is it a matter of putting a dollar value on his head. Senator Kennedy is no more or less worthy of receiving treatment.
The shameful truth is that Kennedy is an extremely wealthy man, and if he wasn’t on his government health plan, he would still have the means to seek the most best, most expensive care available.
It’s the people without coverage, with inadequate coverage, and without the personal fortunes to pay for anything and everything themselves that need the focus of your attention, you fear-mongering pigeyedsackofshit.
PEACE
August 5th, 2009 at 5:11 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian says:
I am really sick (no pun intended) of people saying what would happen under another country’s government run healthcare system. We don’t need to create the same model. Our founding fathers looked at many different government structures, used and modified what was good and discarding the rest to create our Constitution. We should be able to do the same with a healthcare system now. Hypotheticals like Grassley’s are admissions by a person who is not statesmanlike enough to help create a new and better American system of healthcare. Therefore, he should get out of the way and let those who are, do.
You’re right PLC! And it looks like Grassley isn’t up to the challenge.
You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to realize that what we SHOULD do is take all of the best aspects of other programs such as what they have in Canada, France, etc., and tweak it so that it’d work here and voila! We could have the best system in the world. Why not?
August 5th, 2009 at 5:11 pmFurther, can Grassley give us assurance that American private health insurance coverage does not consider the age of the patient when decisions are made about paying for certain treatments? To paraphrase Grassley: In other words, he would not get the care he gets here because of his age. In other words, they’d say ‘well he doesn’t have long to live even if he lived another four to five years.’ They’d say ‘well, we gotta spend money on people who can contribute more in premiums.’
August 5th, 2009 at 5:12 pmCNN refuses to run an ad critical of the health insurance moguls.
CNN refuses to run an ad critical of the lying Lou Dobbs.
Please e-mail CNN if you feel as angry about this as I do.
By the way, Lou Dobbs is a moron.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:13 pmI’m not sure if I would be making fun of a 77-year-old’s health if I were 75 years old.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:14 pmP.D. says:
That is because you have a brain, a heart, a soul and a conscience. Grassely is complete devoid of these human traits.
PEACE
August 5th, 2009 at 5:14 pmGrassley is stupid. What Grassley claims would happen would already be happening because people Kennedy’s age are already on the government run Medicare system. Kennedy himself is on another government run system due to his status as a United States Senator.
Grassley has no logic in his argument therefore his only purpose for saying these misinformed things is to generate fear and that just shows how desperate and sick Grassley really is. He may as well be a birther with this line of “reasoning”.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:15 pmTurdra: What’s wrong with that? If you have 2 parachutes and there is a boyscout, girlscout and elderly man on the plane, you give them to the 2 kids. That’s just common sense….
Common sense is to have enough parachutes for passengers in the first place.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:16 pmSpencer’s mom@21, thank you for that. Sometimes I just want to cry. I’m 42 years old and I can’t remember when it has been this bad.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:18 pmPerhaps it’s time to ration Congress members’ health insurance benefits so that they can experience the joy of purchasing and renewing reasonably priced health insurance policies from customer-friendly health insurance companies in our highly competitive marketplace.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:18 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
.
Dear Senator Grassley,
“I’ve been told…” works with idiots.
WHERE’S THE PROOF?
I’ve been told that Senator Grassley is too old and senile, too.
See how that works? Just put “I’ve been told…” before ANYTHING outrageous and like magic, it’s believable.
LET’S PLAY THE “I’VE BEEN TOLD…” GAME.
I’ve been told Martians are green.
I’ve been told CO2 is life.
I’ve been told coal is clean.
I’ve been told Iraq had WMD’s.
I’ve been told Pakistan was our best friend.
I’ve been told shopping supports the troops.
I’ve been told Senator Grassley is credible.
See how that works? And it’s all the truth, too. YES?
August 5th, 2009 at 5:21 pmOne of my best buddies’ Dad recently passed away from a recurrence of the same adeno carcinoma (lung cancer) that I had. It came back in the brain, with fast growing tumors.
The family decided to buy him a couple of more months with surgery, chemo and radiation. Those couple of months cost the family most of their inheritance, ate nearly all the family’s savings up.
This health wedontcare system sucks.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:21 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
.
I WANT
CONGRESS
CARE !
.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:22 pmBut…but…but…I thought Senator Kennedy GOT “government-run” health care!
So confused…
August 5th, 2009 at 5:23 pmIn case anyone hasn’t seen it yet, here’s Grassley ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE using pictures fit for a 5 year old’s story book, explaining how Health Care is like a Dragon. And he doesn’t even get his fantasy characters right! (Sir Lancelot was NOT a “dragon slayer”). This f**kwit gets to make decisions you know? Incredible!!
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-4-2009/chuck-grassley-s-debt-and-deficit-dragon
August 5th, 2009 at 5:23 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
you know what i don’t get?
why don’t we hear more from the leaders of those
“countries that have government-run health care”…?
i’d think remarks like this are quite insulting…
August 5th, 2009 at 5:24 pmSenator Grassley –
Our elderly are already in a “government-run” health care program called Medicare. Is their care being rationed now? Have I missed something?
August 5th, 2009 at 5:25 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
miss,
August 5th, 2009 at 5:26 pmKennedy gets whatever care he wants.
RUCerious, you mean the idea that a company can siphon off material assets of someone who has paid in probably a million dollars or better in premiums is not part of the overall plan of how America and the world will become greater?
I mean if the drones aren’t willing to sacrifice all, how can they justify breathing?
August 5th, 2009 at 5:27 pm54thursday says:Sounds great as long as the chutes aren’t rationed.
O FER CHRIST’S SAKE!
Go sit on Grassley’s knee and he’ll tell you all about dragons–but ask your mommy first!.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:27 pmIt’s really easy to spot liars…they have an (R) by their name.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:28 pm54thursday says:
5th Estate says:
Turdra: What’s wrong with that? If you have 2 parachutes and there is a boyscout, girlscout and elderly man on the plane, you give them to the 2 kids. That’s just common sense….
Common sense is to have enough parachutes for passengers in the first place.
Sounds great as long as the chutes aren’t rationed.
What’s better, rationing of chutes by corporations with only the bottom line in consideration, or rationing of chutes by the government with only the health of the individual in consideration?
I’ll pass on the corporation, the chutes they buy are the cheapest they can buy and their chutes are ‘checked’ by the agency controlled by the corporation.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:29 pmIs it just me or is 54thursday a sick individual?
August 5th, 2009 at 5:29 pmCompare Grassley with Senator Sherrod Brown from my state of Ohio. Senator Brown has refused the Senate’s healthcare program until there is something similar available to all Americans and buys his own insurance through his wife’s employer’s plan.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:30 pmP.D. @ #5
August 5th, 2009 at 5:30 pmI’m with you.
I am extremely upset over the antics of the repugniscum party, the republicans in general for their racism, their stupidity in serving their leaders instead of their own better interrests. The violence, the comments by the right wingers which encourage lawlessness and everything anti-Obama.
I really thought these people would have been marginalized by this time, but I only see them, their hatred, their intolerance, their blind ignorance being encouraged by the right; those fanatics who would prefer to see our economy sink further than the damage done by Bush, would hope to see a foreign enemy attack our country, and would not mind seeing poor people, unemployed people, sick people, old people and even the public education of children continue to be ignored and neglected as they were during the years of Bush the Terrible.
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
“How am I sick?”
Let me count the ways.
Nah, it isn’t worth the effort.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:33 pmfrances@30, There are people out there who are LITERALLY dying for HealthCare. Will this bill be great? Who knows. But Americans deserve Health Care. They pay taxes, therefore they earn it. I’m tired of the argument that this is ‘Socailism’. So is ‘Socail Security’ and ‘Medicare’, and the old folks don’t seem to mind ‘Socailism when THEY benefit from it.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:34 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Hey, Chuckie baby,
Maybe that lump on your forehead is cancer. If you weren’t a senator, it might just wipe out your family savings. Sounds great, doesn’t it? Who needs reform?
Why were my tax dollars used to fix Dick Cheney’s ticker? Can I get a refund?
Just asking.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:34 pm54, if you can’t see your illness, hopefully where ever you are has a decent program.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:35 pmAlso, in the new gov system. good luck getting that surgery. It would never be approved.
You must be thinking of the health insurance corporations who withhold surgery because of pre-existing conditions and the financial status of the one seeking surgery. Pre-existing conditions is just a term invented by the insurance corporations to justify denying treatment. If the corporations had their way, everyone would have to give them DNA samples so they could only accept people with no known problems. Great system.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:35 pm54thursday says
August 5th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Also, in the new gov system. good luck getting that surgery. It would never be approved.
____________________________________________________________
When I read the story RUCerious posted, I got the feeling that whatever insurance this cancer patient had (it wasn’t specified as to whether he had Medicare, Medicaid, insurance through a private company, or no insurance at all), the insurance carrier DIDN’T approve this level of extreme care. Otherwise the family would not have gone broke paying for it — they obviously had to pay out of pocket for this.
It’s possible that the government-run public plan option wouldn’t pay for aggressive, expensive care that would only buy someone a couple more months. It’s possible Medicare wouldn’t pay that now. But I seriously doubt there’s any private insurance company out there who would.
When it comes down to “rationing care”, I would put the government up against a private insurance company just looking at their bottom line ANY day.
Furthermore, may I remind you that the “new gov system” of which you speak isn’t the Soviet Union? If you don’t want the public option plan offered by the government, you don’t have to have it. Stick with your private insurer who’s making a profit off you if you want.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:36 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
.
Dear 54thursday @46,
Who said that the “raioning” will have to be replaced?
Oh…
… You’ve been told so?
Doesn’t take much for you, does it?
When Bush said “We don’t torture,” was he telling us the truth? Even if he said so?
.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:37 pm54thursday – here’s the link to the bill. Please tell us which page contains anything about rationing. In fact, please refer to the specific section describing your statements going forward.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.txt.pdf
Thank you.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:37 pm“Grassley Uses Kennedy’s Brain Tumor To Spread Fear Of Rationing”
Grassley certainly went overthe deep end to use Senator Kennedy’s brain tumor to spread fear. Memo to Gramps Grassley: Remember Senator Byrd? Now, Byrd is older than Grassley and Kennedy. Yes, Byrd has health challenges. Yet, he is the oldest and living Senator in the Senate.
Be careful of your words, Senator Grassley, because it can come back and bite you in the ass. Take a page from your GOP pal, Governor Mark Sanford. You remember him, Chuck? The lawmaker who criticized former President Bill Clinton for his blowjob with an intern? And Clinton asked for forgiveness. And where is Mark now? Licking his wounds from admitting an affair with a woman from Argentina and asking for forgiveness from his constituents.
This is just another recycled scare tactic from Grassley as well as the Party of No. And I agree. Poor choice of words.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:38 pmGrassley isn’t really doing this presentation for members of the U.S. Senate. They have already been told by their masters in the healthcare lobby how to vote on this issue. He’s doing this for the Republican “base” in TV land, so he needs to explain himself in terms that a 5 year old can easily comprehend.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:38 pm54, that wasn’t a platitude, that was a sincere hope that wherever you are there is a program to help you discover that people are not building blocks, steps towards your personal gratification or aliens from another planet.
And that you are accepting of pharmaceutical intervention that may quiet your weirdosity.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:39 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
And this is the pile of crap that the SO CALLED democrat and total schmuck Baucus is negotiating a bi partisan bill with?Give me a break…somebody has to stop this crap once and for all and shove health care down the republican and blue dogs throats.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:40 pmOff-Topic, Tweety, AKA, Chris Matthews has a expose of ‘C-Street’ on right now. The auhtor of the ‘Inside “The Family”‘ is on right now. Way to go Tweety. Only Rachel had the balls to do a story on this.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:41 pmAt least we know, for sure, that the sky is no longer blue in our stupid, pet, trolls’ World. They are so full of BS that they can’t even smell the truth. It’s too bad that they are beyond help but reasoned discourse has no effect.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:42 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
livelongandprosper says:
If the corporations had their way, everyone would have to give them DNA samples so they could only accept people with no known problems. Great system.
So true, so true. If insurance companies had their way the only ones able to even get insurance would be the ones who don’t need it.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:44 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Yet, the party that Grassley represents injected themselves full throttle into Terri Shaivo’s care, as opposed to her husband who would best be able to determine her wishes and against, what, 17 separate courts who agreed with her husband to end her care, because there was no hope. Can Grassley tell me what contribution Ms. Shaivo would have to society should her care had continued. And please, no offense to Ms. Shaivo, or other’s like her. I believe she’s at peace now.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:44 pmSmoke and Mirrors says
August 5th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Perhaps it’s time to ration Congress members’ health insurance benefits so that they can experience the joy of purchasing and renewing reasonably priced health insurance policies from customer-friendly health insurance companies in our highly competitive marketplace.
___________________________________________________________
Great idea. I’m sure the highly competitive marketplace will eagerly bid for a chance to insure these individuals. Pre-existing conditions and all. Just like they do for our business.
I guarantee that if our congressional representatives had to deal with what Joe and Mary Citizen have to deal with, health care would be fixed in a heartbeat.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:44 pmI;ll just throw out a clue to the clueless here:
a) My 13 year-old brother had open heart surgery and annual check ups for life
b) My mother spent a week in an ICU and a month in hospital
c) I got 5 stitches,a finger splint, IV antibiotics and an overnight stay
Which of these cost
1) $2 a week
August 5th, 2009 at 5:45 pm2) $10 a week
3) $2,500 overnight (there’s a clue for you)
54 and his minions are terrified that the rationing of mental health care will leave them in the que for the various lockdown wards in the nation’s mental health facilities.
They like the idea they can go to the 7-11 for Cheetos.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:46 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
“In some countries” they will stone you to death for eschewing the burka, so let’s stop manufacturing clothes. “In some countries” marauding militia will machete you to death while you’re walking down the street, so let’s stop building roads. And so forth. Unfortunately, the fact that there is absolutely no logic (& perhaps no truth — who knows what they do “in some countries,” & who cares?) to what Grassley says will be lost on many of the unwashed masses.
Keep fighting for the public option — the President seems to have given up, but we can’t be that fickle.
The Constant Weader at http://www.RealityChex.com
August 5th, 2009 at 5:48 pmHow long are they going to ignore that insurance companies are already doing cost/benefit analyses on treatments and restricting the payouts based on their analyses.
On one hand, I could certainly see why a company wouldn’t want to pay for a treatment which hasn’t been proven to be effective. OTOH – this is the evil which the repubs are attributing to the govt plan.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:48 pmThe stupid trolls, poor things, live in a self-created delusion. Is it any wonder that the real World terrifies them?
August 5th, 2009 at 5:48 pm54dork ~ my point is that under a government run option he would have had his doctor and himself make the decision and without bankrupting his heirs.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:49 pmUhhhh, Senator Grassley?
This wonderful treatment you are praising that Senator Kennedy’s getting is GOVT PROVIDED HEALTH CARE.
:|
Seriously I feel like I’m taking crazy pills here.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:50 pm54thursday says:
I say that there will be rationing.
Based on what exactly? Please refer to my post at #57 and get back to us. Otherwise you are pulling things out of…the air.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:50 pmA truly free market system with total transparency, a non-biased rating system and customer incentives to shop for the best value in health care would solve many of these problems.
There is no such beast as “a truly free market system”. The financial institutions have proven this fact. It’s a pipe dream to believe the health system would magically follow a free market system.
54thursday, the problem is there are “customers” who have no buying power when they go “shopping”. Health should never have been allowed to become a strip mall.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:51 pmIt seems to me like all the weaseling and lying on health care reform the Republicans are currently engaged in would immediately dissipate if there was one simple clause that could, somehow, be required in this legislation:
“Present, past and future members of Congress shall have no benefit greater than, nor less than, the benefit this law extends to every person affected by the law as it is passed.”
Now, how simple would this discussion be if this were the binding language?
August 5th, 2009 at 5:52 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Well I don’t know about your “weirdosity” (that’s a matter between you and your therapist) but you’re doing a pretty good job yourself of proving you’re a moron.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:54 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
And that, of course, is what all the childish tantrums are about. The willfully ignorant are terrified of change. Any change. And the fact that their band of crooks and imbeciles have lost control, and relevancy, has driven the poor things around the bend.
They are all quite mad. I believe that the technical term is “psychotic break”. And I don’t think we’ve seen anything quite like it in the memory of any living citizen of this country.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:55 pmWhat’s this ‘free market’ system fittyforTHU refers to?
August 5th, 2009 at 5:55 pmChuck Grassley sure is a liar. Scaring elderly people like that, he should be ashamed.
This is the guy that Baucus wants to sell us out to! It’s more important for Baucus that he make Grassley happy then solve our health care problems.
Ain’t. gonna. happen.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:56 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Nope. Sounded pretty specific to me.
:|
Apparently you’re just another inbred twit who’s scared someones going to take the wealth you never had in the first place.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:57 pmWho would seem to be afraid of the world, the one who runs to gov to fix all of life’s problems like a little b*tch or the one who wants to take on life’s problems on his own terms utilizing the free market system?
Some people are fighting to get everyone the health care they need regardless of their financial status or that they work for corporations like Walmart. Not everyone is solely concerned with themselves like you.
Free market system – that again. You have been duped.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:57 pmOf course, Ted Kennedy has the advantage of government provided health insurance.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:57 pmWAYNEBRO. Waaaaay off topic:
I don’t know if you caught my message last night but the local CAA just got it’s P-51 back. I happened to hear it and was able to see some of the flyby from the porch.
http://www.twincities.com/ci_12988772?nclick_check=1
August 5th, 2009 at 5:58 pmfittyforThu says:
See #65 and let me know if you need Econ 101 again.
#65 says
I say that there will be rationing. It is pretty simple to figure out on your own. Go back to basic Econ 101 and find out what happens when demand outstrips supply.
So what forces will be suppressing supply>?
And referencing your own post with an unsubstantiated line of BS is citing what>?
August 5th, 2009 at 5:58 pmDon’t worry little man.
You’ll still have your choice between a career at McDonald’s or Burger King.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:59 pmTrolls really need to be concerned about this rationed health care idea. If, as they fear. the government decides to ration health care, particularlly mental health care, they should be very afraid. What sort of government that believes in contribution would recognize the sad efforts of trolls?
Sort of like the Germans in WWII. In the 30’s just about anyone stupid enough to agree with them was embraced. Trolls, what were their beliefs in 43? The less-than-Aryan sort of became expendable.
So, trolls, look to your heritage. The big boys only want the pure.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:59 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
lol, now that’s pretty freakin cool.
August 5th, 2009 at 6:00 pmThe only way that would happen is if the pending legislation did away with private insurance companies. Is that what you’re claiming? If it isn’t, then what do you mean?
August 5th, 2009 at 6:00 pmBullshit. A “truly free market” cannot exist. There must be some level of government intervention in any market, if only to control fraud. In health insurance, government intervention is even more critical, because the nature of the service is one of delayed value (the consumer can pay premiums for years without taking advantage of the service).
The “free market” doesn’t work with health care delivery the same way it does with consumer goods.
For the free market to work properly, there must be competition among vendors and the consumer must have the ability to choose. This ability to choose must exist throughout the life cycle of the exchange. In other words, when a consumer is dissatisfied with the service he has purchased, he must be free to switch his purchase to another vendor.
This condition is severely impaired currently.
The way insurance works, it is not used until it is needed. Therefore, the consumer will have no way of forming an opinion on the efficacy of the vendor’s product until that point. If the vendor fails to satisfy the consumer, it is too late for the consumer to choose another. It’s not like choosing a different brand of olive oil or bathroom tissue.
Insurance companies naturally want to protect themselves from consumers who shop around when they get diagnosed, so they have pre-existing conditions clauses. And they have waiting periods before a policy takes effect. This further impairs the ability of the consumer to choose freely when a vendor falls short of expectations.
Perhaps most importantly, consumer choice in goods and services is widest when the consumer has the ability to choose one vendor, choose another, or do without. The ability of the consumer to decide against purchasing a flat-screen TV, for instance, puts a downward pressure on prices, driving them to the point where the market will value the item properly. This vital condition is not met in the health insurance dynamic. Consumers who choose not to purchase health coverage risk losing their house and every asset they possess if they get sick. That catastrophic risk effectively renders the choice to do without unworkable as a force for downward pressure on prices.
Health insurance is not a consumer good or service like breakfast cereal or cable TV. It should not be treated as such, and any attempt to do so will end in disaster of the type we’re facing now.
August 5th, 2009 at 6:01 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian says: Senator Brown has refused the Senate’s healthcare program until there is something similar available to all Americans and buys his own insurance through his wife’s employer’s plan.
Of course if Senator Brown’s wife was unemployed, or her employer didn’t offer a health plan, then the good senator wouldn’t have that option at all.
It’s been the case for years that a group health-plan has been regarded as maajor reason to pick one job over another.
As long as a spouse has a job that co-pays on health insurance then a working couple has some options and van share the costs.
A single person takes a bigger hit—IF that is his or her job does provide a co-pay helath-insurance plan. If not, then no insurance.
One thing that has completely disappeared from the health care ‘debate’ is the fact that with a universal single-payer system employers would relieved of most health insurance costs that they comlain is so onerous ( and I believe it is).
But I think that aspect disappeared from the discussion when Obama and the Dems decided (without even making an effort) to ignore a single payer proposal.
August 5th, 2009 at 6:01 pmBy working together you mean a bunch of homeschooled inbred trailer trash waving signs and shouting so loud no one can hear the speaker?
:)
Thanks but I think we’ll do fine without your “help”.
August 5th, 2009 at 6:01 pmA truly free market system with total transparency, a non-biased rating system and customer incentives to shop for the best value in health care would solve many of these problems.
You’re hopeless chock full of myths, thinking, for one, there’s any “best value” in health care. Premiums DOUBLED in the last decade. Where were the touted free market solutions then? We spend the most on health care and rank #37 in the world for all our troubles. Laughable you would bring up “best value” when your party’s solution to the health care crisis is reducing the burden of malpractioners.
You timed out on this debate a looong time ago.
August 5th, 2009 at 6:03 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Can any conservative offer an argument against government-run law enforcement?
I mean, wouldn’t we all be better off if we had choice in law enforcement providers? After all, the government can’t run law enforcement as efficiently as the private sector, right?
How is that different than health care?
August 5th, 2009 at 6:05 pmYou know the troll may be on to something there – the part about accomplishing something if we work together I mean.
Something makes me think that “works well with others” is not a phrase ever used to describe this person though!
August 5th, 2009 at 6:06 pm54thursday says:
A parting word. I agree that the system needs change. I believe we can accomplish that change if we work together.
Pffff. I hear that a lot. You just want the result that lessens the impact of your ass-kicking in Nov. Sorry, the public option is non-negotiable; 76% of Americans say so, including 50% of republicans. When they say “let’s work together”, I hear “let’s keep everything the same.”
You have no business making any such demands.
August 5th, 2009 at 6:09 pmGrassley is repugnant. What an awful lie to tell a constituent….the repukes have nothing, nada, zip, a goose egg…..yet this bastard goes on the radio and spews lies and nonsense.
Grassley is the biggest recipient of “big agra” he collects millions each year from the government each year because he has some half-assed farm in Iowa that he gets paid millions NOT to grow soybeans or corn….I can’t remember which but he has a nerve spouting off. He is also one of the most corrupt members of the senate.
Having worked on the Hill and having had a damned good health plan, I can state unequivocally, that Grassley and his family have no cap on their insurance…hell, he gets the best in the country.
I’ve had cancer and between my surgeries, hospital stays, ICU, Chemo, medication etc., it was a constant battle with the insurance company to pay up…my pharmacy bills averaged $4800 a month (and they weren’t covered) out of pocket…how can people survive that kind of hit to their finances?
I am in trouble again after 14 years, and I have no insurance. Screw Chuck Grassley.
August 5th, 2009 at 6:10 pmTundra – are you a salesman? That sort of, “Do you like this one or that one better?” works with some people. Most people here won’t fall for that jive.
You use the scenario of two people needing a liver for example yet there is only one available.
How is that decision arrived at currently? My understanding is that there is a waiting list to get a liver transplant. Are you suggesting that the government would use a different set of rules to make that decision than is being used now? If so, what makes you say that?
August 5th, 2009 at 6:10 pmLeaving the expactations that “all will be wonderful and everyone will live long lives” is just setting any option up for failure. There are limited resources regardless of who is paying the bill.
And there are people who have this innate desire to go with the worst possible scenario.
No system is perfect. The problem is the people who choose to b8tch because it isn’t versus the people who want to try to make it the best they can.
August 5th, 2009 at 6:11 pmTundra, you just went back to trolldom.
August 5th, 2009 at 6:12 pmWhat rationing?
Isn’t the current HMO system a system of rationing? The job of HMO front line employee is to prevent sick Americans from obtaining treatement or seeing doctors. My wife worked for an HMO and this was her view of HMOs.
August 5th, 2009 at 6:12 pmA reasonable position. Keep in mind that no one supporting a public option is saying that “all will be wonderful and everyone will live long lives”. In fact, the only thing comparable to that statement in the debate is the voices from the Right screeching that “the government will kill your grandma!!!”
What we are saying is that the system as it is set up now doesn’t work the way a civilized society should expect it to. The glaring problems of cost containment, widespread lack of affordability and profit-driven health care decisions are not going to be solved by the “free market”. If they were, they would have been solved by now. The dynamics of the free market naturally drive conditions in the direction we’re going, absent real government regulation. Given the overwhelming power that the insurance lobby has over our elected representatives these days, such regulation will never happen.
August 5th, 2009 at 6:12 pmTundra
Ohhh what happens if two people EXACTLT THE SAME AGE need the EXACT same treatment/attention at the EXACT SAME TIME? What would Jesus do?
BTW, medical decisions aren’t made that way, but health-insurance accounting decsisions are—pre-existing condition? No insurance payout!
That’s the system we have already.
August 5th, 2009 at 6:14 pmGood one 5th Estate! What if they were twins?! Then what?
August 5th, 2009 at 6:16 pmAre you suggesting that the government would use a different set of rules to make that decision than is being used now?
No, I am saying that using the argument that “a 35 year old is worth more than an 85 year old” is a valid argument. Instead of him insulting it or arguing against it, the answer from me is “Yes, a 35 year old has alot more life left and all things being equal, the 35 “should” receive it”
Currently it’s pretty much a money/insurance game. If a government option was available, it would remove that. Standing up and saying “Yes, you are right, the person with the most odds of success should receive it” isn’t a bad thing. I’m not using it as an against public option. I’m saying Yes there are limits and we have to decide smartly as opposed to with our hearts.
August 5th, 2009 at 6:16 pmOT to Pete and WAYNEBRO, the P-51 rocks!
http://www.loving-long-island.com/image-files/f-22-and-p51-mustang.jpg
We were in Washington last weekend and I always marvel at the P-51 in the National Aerospace Museum.
August 5th, 2009 at 6:17 pmIf Kennedy is on Medicare, then his hospital get reimbursed by Medicare at a high rate, due to his age, co-morbid conditions and complications arising from his brain tumor, thanks to the Prospective Payment System, which has been in place since Congress enacted it in 1983. This system calculates reimbursement based on many factors. So this isn’t a rationed system, like some kind of prison food line, where everyone gets one mug of gruel. It’s worked very well and is well worth a read (google).
August 5th, 2009 at 6:18 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Ted Kennedy would never approve of these comments; in fact, he would highlight his status as a senator and his personal wealth as the main problem with health care in America — lack of access. Can every American travel X miles to Duke and Hopkins much less afford the afford the appointments, surgeries & hospital stays? Of course not.
August 5th, 2009 at 6:25 pmamazing how gullible these morons are that really believe the lies coming from FOX and the rest of the right wing mainstream media
they never factcheck, even though it is easy to do
they never even consider the effect all the ads that are purchased from the news media channels by pharmaceutical and health insurance companies has on the coverage of the issue
ignorant and stupid, they are the ones outside the castle yelling “it’s ok, everybody! we can just eat cake!”
August 5th, 2009 at 6:26 pmGrassley is setting the stage for his refusal to vote for any health care plan even if the Baucus committee reports out a bipartisan bill. This is what many Dems have been saying because even the Republicans who are negotiating this bill will not vote for it. Enough Dems are maintaining the September 15 deadline for Baucus to bring the bill to the floor or they will vote on the other bill reported out of the other committee.
August 5th, 2009 at 6:26 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
#102 Tundra wrote:
…If 2 people need a liver and one comes in. One person is 25 and one is 65 who gets it? Yes it’s tough to explain to a family that grandpa got voted down, but a government option vs current option plays no part. So if Kennedy wasn’t a Kennedy and paying what is being paid, he would be further back in the line. (regardless of what option is in play)…
I do believe if those two people are on a waiting list, the one who’s illness is most life threatening will receive the liver, irregardless of age, ethnicity, sex, etc. Then there’s the issue of tissue matching, blood type, etc. It’s not as black and white as you’d like to think it is. The organ goes to who is the best match; age has nothing to do with it.
August 5th, 2009 at 6:31 pmdon’t bother, skyler
tundra is as afraid of facts as he is everything else
reasoning with a chimp accomplishes nothing, and it annoys the chimp
August 5th, 2009 at 6:32 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
D’oh, silly me. I forgot that Tundra types fear facts…
August 5th, 2009 at 6:35 pmDon’t be a dick, TUndra.
August 5th, 2009 at 6:35 pmcmon mods, blatant racism in post 121
flagged and reported
ignorant bigots need not be tolerated
August 5th, 2009 at 6:37 pmOh, it might annoy a reasonably intelligent chimp, Tommy. Our trolls, on the other hand, seem to enjoy it.
August 5th, 2009 at 6:37 pmhe has no other mode
August 5th, 2009 at 6:37 pmI stand corrected
August 5th, 2009 at 6:38 pmBecause your health care shouldn’t be tied to your employment?
Because government competition might encourage private insurers to charge realistic premiums for the services that they actually cover?
So uninsured people won’t have their meager savings wiped out by a medical emergency? (one of the leading causes of bankruptcy, BTW)
Take your pick.
August 5th, 2009 at 6:39 pmGrassely is a despicable, ill-informed, ignorant, hate-filled monster. He’s proved that so many times. What an arrogant, bigoted, repulsive jerk. How do these losers ever get elected/attention? They’re sick, lacking in any human empathy, & mentally undermined. I repeat, Grassely– you’re a monster.
August 5th, 2009 at 6:40 pmTundra, if the 65 year old has insurance, and the 25 year old does not, don’t you think they both deserve the same option?
Can YOU afford to pay for a liver transplant, should you need it and you’re not or uninsured?
August 5th, 2009 at 6:40 pmCan we drop the fantasy about mythical bureaucratic bean-counters who are going to make life and death decisions? Emergency treatment and urgent care will be largely unchanged because, though it sounds corny, the Hippocratic oath has guided doctors far longer than the idea of getting rich doing nose-jobs for the insecure uber-rich.
Visit an emergency room in any modern country or witness medics in a war zone and the the same basic rules will apply. A healer helps who they can regardless of cost and reward and no government plan or payment dispute will change that. History has shown that few doctors consider the “value” of a patient because of the nature of the calling.
So, please, let’s dispense with the stories of Congress deciding whether a third degree burn is more urgent than a burst appendix. That ain’t gonna happen. No matter what any government does one will find healers using every resource they have to help as many people as they can. There are plenty of legitimate arguments to be made while the bills are still being drafted without the scare tactics.
August 5th, 2009 at 6:42 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Tundra, if the 65 year old has insurance, and the 25 year old does not, don’t you think they both deserve the same option?
Sigh…….
August 5th, 2009 at 6:45 pmYES, however the surgeon can only see one today and has to see one tomorrow. If I was the 65 year old I would prefer the 21 year old was given the go ahead before me. I suppose that’s just me though. We should use some flip a coin option or something as it would be smarter than “best odds”
Kennedy IS on a public option. He is a United States Senator, whose health care is being paid for, lock, stock and barrel by the American taxpayer! Have you been asleep during this whole thread? You get a downvote for such a seriously retarded reply.
August 5th, 2009 at 6:49 pmMaybe not. But it’s doubtful he would have gone untreated, which is the clear implication in your statement.
Unless you have some horror stories of aged citizens being set adrift on ice floes as a matter of policy in socialistic medical systems…
August 5th, 2009 at 6:49 pmTundra, who are you to determine who has the best chances of success?
August 5th, 2009 at 6:49 pmOH I SEE NOW!
It’s the right-wing health-care version of the “ticking time bomb” torture apologia. A hypothetical expressly designed to highlight the kind of excruciating decision that drives great movie moments but almost never occurs in real life.
August 5th, 2009 at 6:51 pmAnd, if we are going to include hypothetical situations in the discussion, the problem in the 6year old vs. the 77 year old case is being misstated. Under a better set of health regulations they would both get the surgery as they would now.
The difference is that under a better system the little girl’s family would not be bankrupted by medical costs, condemning a whole generation to poverty.
August 5th, 2009 at 6:51 pmMaybe not. But it’s doubtful he would have gone untreated, which is the clear implication in your statement
WOW, OK this is good we are getting somewhere. Yes he May not have gotten the preferential treatment he got at prestigous hospitals.
Because a public option May have placed an uninsured person in front of him with less money.
If he wasn’t who he was, he would have the same available care as anyone else (not the care he got).
Kennedy IS on a public option. He is a United States Senator, whose health care is being paid for, lock, stock and barrel by the American taxpayer! Have you been asleep during this whole thread?
August 5th, 2009 at 6:54 pmOh so with a public option everyone gets the doctors and hospitals Kennnedy got?
Sweeeeet!!!!!!
#136 Tundra wrote:
Sigh…….
YES, however the surgeon can only see one today and has to see one tomorrow. If I was the 65 year old I would prefer the 21 year old was given the go ahead before me. I suppose that’s just me though. We should use some flip a coin option or something as it would be smarter than “best odds”
I sure hope my medical care is more than a flip of the coin.
August 5th, 2009 at 6:54 pmTundra, who are you to determine who has the best chances of success?
Actually the federal and state governments all ready do that for Military and incidents where there are mass casualties (more down than the available resources can handle). I would assume they would continue with the current triage guidlines.
August 5th, 2009 at 6:57 pmI got it, change Kennedy with Chenney in all my statements and it still applies for me?
August 5th, 2009 at 6:58 pmHypothetical: You show up at an accident. Republican loser and a 65 year old Democrat. Both need CPR NOW!! Help is 3 minutes away who do you start on?
My answer: The democrat.
:)
The republicans already a lost cause and even if you did resuscitate him he’d still be braindead.
August 5th, 2009 at 7:01 pm.
Dear 54thursday @65,
I’m not the one needing to back to school.
See, when 1+1=2 it’s provable by subtracting 1 from 2.
Your math depends upon your word alone?
Then please, fact check yourself at the door from now on.
p.s.
Grassley says the boogie man lives at your address.
He said as much because I said so, thus making it so.
Deal with that then.
.
August 5th, 2009 at 7:02 pmThe republicans already a lost cause and even if you did resuscitate him he’d still be braindead
Another reason for a bumper sticker requirement :)
August 5th, 2009 at 7:03 pmTundra is afraid.
He’s afraid they’ll take the wealth he doesn’t have and never earned, and give it to a dirty little poor person.
He’s afraid they’ll take the crappy health care he gets from his crappy insurance he never liked until democrats started talking about a public option, and put some dirty little uninsured person in front of him.
Tundra is afraid.
August 5th, 2009 at 7:04 pmDo you even understand the point of a public option? Ideally, there would be no uninsured people in front of him.
I see the others had you pegged correctly. You’re not interested in what anyone else has to say, beyond your ability to squeeze another little pinprick of a point of it.
The fact is, Kennedy IS on publicly-funded health care. His plan is paid for by his employer, who is funded by the taxpayers. Your infantile extrapolation kinda makes you look foolish.
August 5th, 2009 at 7:04 pmTundra’s “got his” and doesn’t want any dirty little poor people getting any of it.
August 5th, 2009 at 7:05 pmWAYNEBRO,
August 5th, 2009 at 7:07 pmTundra would be in for a sad day to know that the 65 year old lady who Tundra decided to let die based solely on age, was a grand mother of 15. Equally shocking for Tundra is knowing that a month later, that 21 year old ran a red light and killed herself because she was texting and driving, while drunk!
WOW,
In this thread I have tried to prove the goodness of a public option by stating that “Everybody would be the same”
Rich White males wouldn’t have access to better care than others who currently do not have insurance. They would not be pushed to the best places.
All that gets read out of any of it is that “Tundra hates a public option”.
I actually tried to be agreeable in a post and this is what I get?
August 5th, 2009 at 7:07 pmFrom # 70
a) My 13 year-old brother had open heart surgery and annual check ups for life
Cost $2 a week-–UK National Health System (1964)
b) My mother spent a week in an ICU and a month in hospital
Cost $10 a week—UK National Health System (2008)
c) I got 5 stitches,a finger splint, IV antibiotics and an overnight stay–Cost $2,500,in one week, immediately due US health system . (Oh and I was left in a supply closet for 6 hours until a bed was available)/
August 5th, 2009 at 7:08 pmWAYNEBRO,
Tundra forgets, health care denials come AFTER the need.
Comeuppance is a b!tch, Tundra. Are you sure you’re up for it?
p.s.
August 5th, 2009 at 7:10 pmNo crying like a baby.
(appol. to babies across America)
The next time someone tells you that a public option would ration health care to the elderly, ask them when they have ever heard of Medicare turning down a patient because they are too old. Don’t they think if a “government plan” was going to ration health care for the elderly they would be doing it through Medicare?
Actually, I’ll probably be criticized for my point of view but I would like to see a system where we don’t pump thousands and thousands of dollars into the care for someone elderly that might extend their life by a half a year. I know that if I am getting close to the end of my life, I am not going to drain the system just to stay alive for a couple more months. The quality of life for most of those patients probably isn’t much to begin with and I wonder if some of them would even want their lives extended. I have a living will in place and hope it is respected.
August 5th, 2009 at 7:13 pmReally?
So by your logic, the same logic used by Nazi Germany, a handicapped person would be “worth less” than a healthy 35 year old.
So we let the handicapped person die, right?
:|
Seig Heil meine freund, Seig Heil.
August 5th, 2009 at 7:13 pmYeah, and I went to redstate and tried to prove the goodness of the free market by stating that “we’re all gonna get rich!”
They didn’t take too kindly to that, either.
August 5th, 2009 at 7:14 pmI’m with ya, Bilbo. Quality of life is an issue that is too easily overlooked in this nation. I think it’s because it requires a judgment that Christianists believe is reserved for God alone.
As if extraordinary medical care is a naturally occurring act of God, and to let some die with dignity is to defy God or something.
August 5th, 2009 at 7:18 pmSee people, when we call neocons Nazi’s, it’s because they are Nazi’s.
They embrace the same philosophy as the Nazi’s, their attitudes towards the old, sick, poor, etc. It’s why Bush and Cheney sat like Goebell’s and Goering in the comfort of their homes while poor Americans in New Orleans drowned in their own beds.
Go on America. Vote for the republicans again.
Bring back American loserdom.
August 5th, 2009 at 7:20 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Tundra says:
Kennedy may not have received the treatment he received in a public option. Someone with less money/status/fame who was younger and had a better chance of survival may have received that treatment instead. You guys act like it’s a bad thing to try to save those with the best chances for success.
Your problem is that you try to put things in “either/or” terms. Things are rarely black and white like that.
If we have a public option and everyone has health insurance, at least we are at a place where everyone has access to health care. The fact of the matter is that physicians will probably always give the higher paying patient the higher priority. They already do that with the difference between someone on Blue Cross and someone on Medicare. But the person on the public option (or Medicare) will at least have a chance where they have little chance when they have no access to medical care.
I am going to be without medical insurance in January unless a miracle happens and I have to say that it scares me to death.
August 5th, 2009 at 7:22 pmSee, this is why you don’t get taken seriously here. All you do is pinball your way from one absurdity to the next, with the claim that if we don’t buy one, we must necessarily buy its opposite.
Must be that binary thought process so prevalent in right-wingers.
August 5th, 2009 at 7:26 pmSure you are troll.
You’re poo pooing health care, trying whatever you can to have your two cents worth be heard when in fact, your 15 minutes were up in January.
You’re just an echo of failed party and a failed philosophy.
August 5th, 2009 at 7:26 pmtundra moves into stage 4 trolling. “I’m the victim”
That means he know’s he’s lost.
August 5th, 2009 at 7:27 pmI currently live about 85 miles from Rochester Minnesota and used to live closer. Those in the area who need the best care are transported there, to the Mayo Clinic, regardless of insurance and ability to pay. For those who may not know, the Mayo Clinic is a large medical facility widely regarded as one of the foremost in the World.
I’ve been treated there as have most of my family and many of my friends. It’s pretty standard for any doctor in the area to refer cases there. And the treatment has never cost more, or less, than at any other medical facility.
There’s certainly nothing I’ve seen, in the two summaries of the bills I’ve perused to date, that would hinder that practice. In fact, I’ve seen nothing to suggest limiting the choices and judgments of doctors and patients.
Indeed, some of the best points in the existing drafts are designed to limit the ability of clinics and hospitals and insurance companies to refuse referrals. Basically, as I understand it, any doctor could make a referral and the services of the doctor/clinic would be covered the same as his/her own. So? Any doctor who takes a referral is brought into whatever system the referring doctor belongs.
As I read it, that makes it easier to get access to the most appropriate care without worrying about whether the facility is “in the system” or an outright refusal because of inability to pay or insurance company balking.
August 5th, 2009 at 7:27 pmralph the wonder llama says:
I’m with ya, Bilbo. Quality of life is an issue that is too easily overlooked in this nation. I think it’s because it requires a judgment that Christianists believe is reserved for God alone.
As if extraordinary medical care is a naturally occurring act of God, and to let some die with dignity is to defy God or something.
This is one of the reasons why I decided to live out the remainder of my life in Oregon. When my time comes I want to be able to make the decision for myself and not be forced to live with a reduced quality of life.
My mother lived to be 95 and she was in a nursing home in Utah for the last 20 years of her life. For the last 15 years of her life she had no idea who she was, where she was and what day it was. She had medical incidents that ended up with amputating both her legs (2 separate incidents). The last 5 years of her life she was in a coma. She was basically kept alive so that the nursing home could continue to get that check every month. And because she got to the point where she was so out-of-it she couldn’t make decisions for herself about any kind of health care directive or living will, her children could do nothing about it.
August 5th, 2009 at 7:27 pmTundra said:
No, I am saying that using the argument that “a 35 year old is worth more than an 85 year old” is a valid argument.
And Tundra said:
In this thread I have tried to prove the goodness of a public option by stating that “Everybody would be the same”
So, in your own words, an 85 year old is equal to a 35 year old when treatment is considered?
August 5th, 2009 at 7:29 pmWayne,
What’s your answer?
Car crash, 21 year old female, 65 year old female. You are the first unit onscene and the second unit is 3 minutes out. Both need immediate care. What do you do?
It’s not look for an insurance card.
It’s not look for a bumper sticker
It’s not curse the gods for not having someone there before you
It’s not get on the radio and say “Drive faster, make the lights redder”
Both need CPR. You can sit and debate the duality of man all you want but you really have no choice but to hand a death sentence to one of them (or both if you do nothing). You can call it hypothetical and it will never happen all you want, but the reality is it happens daily.
My point was that with a totally equal system, tough choices have to be made. Kennedy may not have been the one to get that care, someone with a better odds of success may have.
I am in no way discounting equality in health care. I was using equality to agree that things may be better. Perhaps the person who got the best care may not have and someone else may have who had better odds.
August 5th, 2009 at 7:35 pmThat’s a very sad story about your mother, Bilbo, and it’s the kind that’s too often ignored. I’m sorry for your loss and the pain you and your family endured.
August 5th, 2009 at 7:37 pmBilbo Hussein Baggins says
My condolences for your loss.
August 5th, 2009 at 7:39 pmMe too Bilbo…….I’m sorry.
August 5th, 2009 at 7:42 pmI work on them both because I’m smart enough to know that CPR can be administered in turns and thus I’d be able to switch between the two.
August 5th, 2009 at 7:47 pmSee what staying in school does for you troll?
August 5th, 2009 at 7:48 pmThey don’t have a chance of convincing people who remember the Great Depression of this bush*t, but the generation after them is malleable and Fox-fixated. Luckily, they’re outnumbered by young people who are rocking the vote.
August 5th, 2009 at 8:10 pmThe problem, Tundra, is that you keep harping on these hypothetical scenarios and trying to apply a draft legislation to get a specific answer.
What would I personally do? The closest I’ve come to your car accident scenario was a time two small children fell off an air mattress, in water over their head, about 50 feet from me. I grabbed the closest one and threw him on the air mattress then grabbed his sister. I guess that one could say the closest carries an unfair advantage in a drowning scenario.
In the case of the car crash I would use every bit of my judgment, experience, and wisdom then try and live with any consequences. That’s one reason I’m not a doctor. There is a point where a doctor is forced to make a decision that further treatment is futile and I would have trouble doing that. Thankfully, there’s no trace of any attempt to put a bureaucracy into that decision loop in the two summaries I’ve perused.
August 5th, 2009 at 8:20 pmTundra – with too many patients needing immediate care you treat the the most dire first unless they can’t be saved and then you go to the next. It’s called triage and is done every day no matter what kind of insurance you have. One guy alone at a crash scene with two people needing CPR they’re both goners. What kind of dream world do you live in?
August 5th, 2009 at 8:34 pmI work on them both because I’m smart enough to know that CPR can be administered in turns and thus I’d be able to switch between the two.
Running between 2 crashed cars, abandonment would qualify for leaving your patient. Neglict for failing to do appropriate CPR. Or perhaps you are doing rapid extracations on both ignoring their life threats, to put them next to each other.
In the case of the car crash I would use every bit of my judgment, experience, and wisdom then try and live with any consequences.
That’s my point. Greeley or whatever his name is said “Kennedy wouldn’t have gotten the care he did”. Perhaps he is right (and I don’t think that’s a bad thing). The word “Ration” doesn’t scare me like it obviously scares most. If per the article above 43% of americans lacked the money to get the care they needed, then there are 43% more people out there with Kennedy’s problem who Can’t get care. Perhaps one of them would have gotten it instead. Somebody out there who stood a better chance of survival would have been given better care.
Reditribution of wealth to those that need it, doesn;t bother anyone. I agree to the redistribution of healthcare and I am against some public option.
August 5th, 2009 at 8:34 pmJesus Christ, Tundra is still flogging this stupid hypothetical gig?
Right-wingers love them some policy by hypotheticals, don’t they? It’s second only to their fondness for “policy by anecdote”.
August 5th, 2009 at 8:41 pmFine,
Kennedy would have gotten the exact same care he did.
Also several other people who needed it would have gotten it at the same time in the same operating room from a doctor just as good.
August 5th, 2009 at 8:45 pmWhat exactly is your point, Tundra? Do you even know?
August 5th, 2009 at 8:49 pmTundra, His name is Grassley and he lied to score a political point. Again, I’ve studied two summaries of the draft legislation and there’s nothing in it that would reduce services. You, and Sen. Grassley, are arguing a fallacious point.
The proposed legislation isn’t designed to change the way care is given, only how it’s payed for. Feel free to use the Google and study the proposals, keeping in mind that they are still being hammered out, and let us know if you can find any language that suggests a government entity will allocate health care. I think you will find that Sen. Grassley made a silly claim.
August 5th, 2009 at 8:51 pmWhat exactly is your point, Tundra?
That other people would have had access to the best doctors. They wouldn’t have been reserved for a 77 yer old rich white male.
August 5th, 2009 at 8:53 pmthere’s nothing in it that would reduce services.
Yuppers, never hinted there was.
The proposed legislation isn’t designed to change the way care is given, only how it’s payed for
Yup, to allow more people access to care they previously didn’t have access to.
With more people getting access to the same resources, money isn’t the driving factor anymore. Someone who is rich like Jeb Bush, Dick Chenney, Ted Kennedy doesn;t get the better treatment just because they have good coverage. Everyone gets a chance at it.
August 5th, 2009 at 8:57 pmOh, that’s why it was confusing. Your point itself is incoherent.
August 5th, 2009 at 8:58 pmYou see, the thing is, Tundra that Grassley and others are simply making up scary crap that could conceivably happen and then are using it to attack a bill because it doesn’t specifically guarantee against said scary crap. It’s called a “strawman”.
August 5th, 2009 at 9:00 pmand let us know if you can find any language that suggests a government entity will allocate health care.
Read through the posts, I never made such a claim. All I said was that those doctors Kennedy got could have been paid for by the average American. Perhaps Kennedy wouldn;t have been able to get the “same day appointment” because someone else who didn’t have a chance before would have now had one.
August 5th, 2009 at 9:00 pmsimply making up scary crap that could conceivably happen
What’s scarry about the average American having access to the doctors that someone like Kennedy had access to?
August 5th, 2009 at 9:02 pmI might add that the whole GOP is doing the same thing. They yell that “this bill doesn’t prohibit the scary crap” and, rather than try to propose rational additions or modifications, they try to kill the bill.
August 5th, 2009 at 9:03 pmthen are using it to attack a bill
when did I attack the bill. The only things I have said is that more people are covered. Rich men may not have gotten as good of care as they did because more people can afford it.
As far as rational additions or modifications, I didn’t say anything needed to change. I didn’t say anything needed to be added. I didn’t think it was a bad thing to make a rich guy wait his turn behind people who didn’t previously have health care.
August 5th, 2009 at 9:11 pmEverybody has access to the same doctors, within reason, and there’s nothing in the proposed legislation to change that, as far as I can tell. The difference is that they, ideally, won’t have to go bankrupt to pay ANY doctor or be faced with no care due to inability to pay.
Seriously, because of the presence of the Mayo clinic in the region, I have access to the best care in the world and it’s provided as needed. I had the chance to talk with a medic who flew in the local hospital’s helicopter and he said that they drop off patients at Mayo about a third of the time and anyplace with a similarly famous hospital would do the same. And I’ve seen nothing that would change that.
My Dad, after he was on Medicare, had his heart surgery performed by the same guy who operated on heads of State and famous celebrities. I’ve seen nothing that would change that. The Mayo also sends doctors around the World to treat patients anyplace with the facilities. I’ve seen nothing that would change that.
In fact, I have seen nothing that would change or mandate the allocation of care in any way. To the best of my knowledge no credible source has pointed it out and, when some make claims about all the terrible things this proposed legislation will precipitate? They have nothing to back up their claims. They are making it up out of whole cloth.
August 5th, 2009 at 9:21 pmI just can’t help myself, but I laugh my ass off every time I hear one of these GNOPers arguing about “the right to choose” being taken away by the government.
They are fear mongering (again) about government intervention in healthcare, claiming that families and patients will lose the right to choose.
Have they completely missed the irony, given their stance on a woman’s right to choose, and the ridiculous Shiavo incident?
Morons.
PEACE
August 5th, 2009 at 9:29 pmTundra,
I try to remember to address a particular person when pursuing debate and, when I realize that debate is futile, I tend to challenge arguments rather than people. It was not my intention to assign any particular belief or statement to you.
Mostly I’m just condemning Sen. Grassley’s false argument and implication that there’s anything in the proposed legislation that would result in old people, or anyone else, being denied urgent health care.
August 5th, 2009 at 9:30 pmTundra, I’ve got a newsflash for you: The rich have always been, and will always be, able to afford services that the middle class and the poor won’t. Healthcare is not, and will not be, any different.
PEACE
August 5th, 2009 at 9:32 pmA. I’m not a doctor.
B. You didn’t say anything about the victims being geographically dispersed. In that instance naturally the closer of the two would be selected as Pete pointed out.
C. Either way this has little to do with the health care debate. This is an imagined scenario about an imagined policy that might be implemented if we were going to the imaginary health care system you and your cronies are calling up the old folks about and scaring them with.
They’re talking about insuring the uninsured.
You’ll need to sell your lies and fairy tales somewhere else troll.
August 5th, 2009 at 9:45 pmBilbo Hussein Baggins says:
Bilbo, you will get no criticism from me. I’ve been a broken record on this issue, but approx. 70% of Medicare expenditures go for the last 30 days of life.
Medicare’s expected costs for 2009 exceed $420 billion. Nearly $300 billion will be spent during the last 30 days of life. I’ve not been able to find figures about days 31-60, but I’d expect that represents at least another 5%, or $21 billion.
It’s time this nation grows up and realizes that “just because we can doesn’t mean we should” and, difficult as such decisions are, herculean efforts to prolong a life by hours, days, even weeks are not always in the best interest of the patient/family member/friend.
Costs will start to be contained if and when people grow up and realize that there are not always magic cures and desirable outcomes. Costly efforts, yes, but magic cures, no.
PEACE
August 5th, 2009 at 9:46 pmThe republicans proved themselves over the last 8 years to be;
A. Incompetent.
B. Unqualified
C. Apathetic
D. Not trustworthy
E. Not credible
Yet they always seem to come up with these “what if” scenarios.
They always want to tell us what horrible things will happen if we do the something that they don’t want us to do.
:|
My question is, who’s left that’s still dumb enough to listen to them?
August 5th, 2009 at 9:50 pm:|
The last people in the world you want to be listening to for advice on what can go wrong with an idea, are the ones who could never get anything right.
August 5th, 2009 at 9:52 pmTundra has an appropriate handle—oh, the monotony of it all.
Aaaanyway, when Kennedy was shot, Dr. Red Duke was called—a world-class surgeon. You could also see him on a local newscast in Austin, Texas giving folksy, but medically sound advice to we unwashed masses, in the eighties. Don’t know if he’s still alive and broadcasting, but good physicians serve any and everyone and are deeply devoted to the oath they took when they became medical doctors.
August 5th, 2009 at 9:53 pmWat I find amazing, Spencer’s mom, is that they continue to throw out the same anecdotes and horror stories while they completely neglect the tens of millions, including caregivers, who have been well served by Medicare.
Not to mention the hundreds of millions who have been well served by the the same “foreign” systems they cull their horror stories.
Here’s a newsflash for the Reichwhiners: Any human endeavor is subject to flaws, failures, and those who’s greed overcomes them. Yet, despite the message of doom, the continued existence of the human race is proof that most people are good and wise enough to make sound decisions.
If one believes in people’s ability to govern themselves? One should reach the obvious conclusion that the majority of free voters in the modern World, including those polled here, favor a government regulated health care industry.
August 5th, 2009 at 10:01 pmYou got that right, wiley. I’ve known too many doctors professionally and a few, far too few, socially. I can’t imagine a one of them walking away from a patient in need.
August 5th, 2009 at 10:28 pmHere’s the thing: Grassley should be released from every bit of health care coverage he has. You know, the kind that we (the taxpayers) pay for. This was a low blow to Senator Kennedy who has spent the last 27 years fighting for people like Grassley. Is this how friends return favors?
August 5th, 2009 at 11:23 pmThis sounds fishy. Perhaps you good Obamatrons should report him to the proper authorities. It’s easy under the new “block watcher” program sponsored by the White House. INFORM INFORM INFORM!!!
“There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/
August 5th, 2009 at 11:26 pmOn Rachel Maddow tonight, the “Better Government Association” ran an ad against health care reform with more lies per second than any I have seen.
It was shocking to see an ad on MSNBC talking about rationing health care and how terrible the long lines and quality of care will be.
This is the url: http://www.bettergovernmentassociation.com/USCA_tv.html
Check out the 3rd video down on the page to see what aired on Rachel tonight.
Grassley’s comments and now this. At least Grassley didn’t show us a cartoon picture to illustrate his point this time.
August 5th, 2009 at 11:30 pmDeclaration of Independence states “all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights, among those LIFE, LIBERTY, and PURSUIT of HAPPINESS”. Does this legislation meet these qualities … or is the government making the choice regarding YOUR life, liberies and pursuit of happiness?????
August 6th, 2009 at 12:16 amhank23 says:
Perhaps YOU should think for yourself instead of regurgitating this kind of moronic brainwashed stupidity that Rush TOLD you to think. Yeah. The gov wants you to send them the emails with the stupid disinformation that has fooled morons like YOU so they can give out the REAL information that is the truth that will actually inform. Of course moron wingnuts like YOU hate facts and reality like a vampire hates holy water. So stew in your stupid hank. Its always fun to get another free clown show from idiots like you.
August 6th, 2009 at 12:21 am21drose says:
Yes it does. Since 18,000 Americans per year DIE from lack of access to healthcare it is a reasonable argument to say healthcare is necessary to the LIFE part of that. However since the government isnt even ADVOCATING taking over healtcare nor telling us anything about what we can or cant have in the way of a doctor or medical procedures the rest of your posts was a simple strawman argument. No one is advocating it so why discuss it?
August 6th, 2009 at 12:23 am“Among developed countries, the United States has the 10th highest death rate among cancer patients, higher than Spain and Sweden.” Preventative Health Care as practiced by those other nine developed countries is a main principle of their societal presentation. We are concerned with heroic measures after the fact, namely to cure catastrophe not prevent it. Their is no rationing on prevention in those nine countries here it is non-existent.
August 6th, 2009 at 12:45 am21drose says:
What a lovely cut ‘n paste from a White Wing Hate Obama site.
And there’s that ironic “choice” argument again! Here’s a helpful bit of info for ya 21drose, legislation doesn’t means test against a single line in the Declaration of Independence. And please try to keep up – when that document was written, when they said “men” they meant white men. Not women, not people of color.
This isn’t rock/paper/scissors or animal/vegetable/mineral or even solid/liquid/gas. When a bill is under development or debate, the Congress doesn’t stop and ask “Into which category does this fall? Life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness?”
What a moronic argument. Better tell your handlers you need better material. Oh, and I take it that when your time comes you’ll just say no to Medicare.
PEACE
August 6th, 2009 at 12:47 amI’ll go with the liberies…
August 6th, 2009 at 12:49 amTurdra: What’s wrong with that? If you have 2 parachutes and there is a boyscout, girlscout and elderly man on the plane, you give them to the 2 kids. That’s just common sense….
Common sense is to have enough parachutes for passengers in the first place.
you would think, but with Republicans in charge, there wouldn’t have been any parachutes, you know they have to save money…damn those regulations…that metaphor fits perfectly with the Republican stance on deregulation…
August 6th, 2009 at 12:50 amRantingTommy says:
——————————————————————————–
amazing how gullible these morons are that really believe the lies coming from FOX and the rest of the right wing mainstream media.
they never factcheck, even though it is easy to do
Why factcheck?
If Sean Hannity says we have the best healthcare system in the world, it must be true.
/snark
August 6th, 2009 at 12:59 amThis is the same damn guy that used this presentation to try and prove healthcare reform won’t work…..seriously!
Video
August 6th, 2009 at 1:25 amGrassley and the Republicans are fear mongers. They have no ideas. Who are they? Angry mobs, fear, lack of education, close-mindedness, a wish for failure.
August 6th, 2009 at 3:06 amThe fact is we are going to have to ration healthcare whether people like it or not. As a nurse I see plenty of Alzheimer’s patient’s who are Stage III (they don’t even know who they are) and the family puts a feeding tube in them. They’re good to go for another five years. Of course, they usually have to go to the hospital for acute care three or four times a year and are in the ICU for five days at a time. The families receive counseling and are told that there will never be improvement, and still it is “Keep Mama alive.” I, for one, think that their lack of reality based thinking is costing us far too much.
Or, how about this scenario, seen over and over. Grandpa is 86 years old and still spry, but has angina pectoris (chest pain) on exertion. The easy answer: medications and no exertion. But, the stupid family thinks that they are not getting “proper care”. Dr. Dontsuemeplease, goes ahead and does surgery. Grandad is on the heart-lung bypass for three hours and comes away severely brain-damaged. He spends the next five years in the nursing home with a great ticker, but is demented, incontinent, unable to feed himself. Another fine example of costs were really shouldn’t have to bear.
Until Americans can face the fact that we all die and are ready to prepare living wills that are followed by the family we will have severe problems. With the Baby Boom coming along, these kinds of costs will not be sustainable. And do I think that a five year old should have precedence in care over an eighty-five year old? You bet your life.
August 6th, 2009 at 3:14 amI think Grassley has lost it.
August 6th, 2009 at 3:58 amIf he is okder than seventy:
WHAT DO YOU THINK WE SHOULD DO WITH HIM IF HE CATCHES A COLD????
Bilbo Baggins says:
My mother lived to be 95 and she was in a nursing home in Utah for the last 20 years of her life. For the last 15 years of her life she had no idea who she was, where she was and what day it was. She had medical incidents that ended up with amputating both her legs (2 separate incidents). The last 5 years of her life she was in a coma. She was basically kept alive so that the nursing home could continue to get that check every month. And because she got to the point where she was so out-of-it she couldn’t make decisions for herself about any kind of health care directive or living will, her children could do nothing about it.
Bilbo, I have to believe that there was someone in your family, IT ONLY TAKES ONE, that kept having the procedures done. No surgical procedure can be done without the family’s agreement. Nursing homes don’t decide these things!! The time to make your Durable Power of Attorney and Living Will is today. My will includes the proviso that anyone who goes against my DPA or LW is to be excluded from inheriting anything from me.
You stated that
August 6th, 2009 at 4:18 amSen. Chuck Grassley…what you are saying is pure demagogy…
August 6th, 2009 at 5:13 amI am canadian, a so called ‘country with government-run health care’ to quote you…
Beside shock value, using Senator Kennedy as an example is ludicrous, as his status and wealth does not represent the average citizen – be it here or in your country-.
Anywhere in the world such a man would receive the best care possible
The difference is : Here he would get it regardless of his status.And bank account…
Because he would have an universal health insurance coverage. Should he be Ted Kennedy or Joe ( the unemployed ) plumber….
Above or under 65 year old, that is…
But you fear about the evil bureaucratic government choosing about your right to live or die under such a ’socialist’ rule, do you?
I am a paramedic, and have been for the last 23 years. About two months ago, I did a routine transportation of a female patient from the hospital to her old folks home. She had been implanted a pace maker. Not exactly a complicated surgery, nowadays, but not something you buy at WalMart, in terms of cost…My point? The lady was an 100 year old. And no, she was no senator, or anywhere rich. The old folk home she lives in is also state subsidized.
But at her age, the lady still have a sound mind, and a good quality of life…which is something valued enough here that she will get ANY needed care to prolong her life FREE of cost if it can be done, medically speaking.
She is the example I give you, but believe me she is not the exception. I vouch for it. I see it again and again.
You are entitled your opinions, Mister Senator. And so are your constituents. THEY will decide what they want or not in the debate that is undergoing now about your healhtcare system. I have no say in it.
What I DO have a say in, Mister Senator, is this : Stop badmouthing about canadian or other ’socialized’ health care systems. They are not perfect but they WORK.
Senator Kennedy would live in the US and everywhere else.
47 millions americans in the same situation would be denied care.
Not here. They would not. SIR!
Darn,I Just can’t stand friking liars, maybe you should do a little traveling Senator, come Down Under at least your elderly won’t be pennyless and out on the streets, like in the USA supposed to be the leading country of the free world.
August 6th, 2009 at 5:53 amMy mother had cancer surgery at 78, 8 hours, radium theraphy, chemo and ten years of checkups and she paid ZERO dollars, still alive at 95 living by herself and still going strong.
I also had two surgeryies, 11hrs, 8hrs 6 mths chemo and am now in my 7th year of checkups all for ZERO dollars.
God Bless Australia, and believe me after two extended trips to America, and watching the Bush Brigade for the last eight years, if your public option is voted down without a fight, your country deserves what it gets.
Darn it all fight for your health care.
Hello all
I live in Portugal – that little and poor ( at least compared to Canada) country in Europe, just looking to you.
And I am dumb folded reading what your best minds (I would assume) say about “socialized” medicine in Europe.
No one in Europe would believe such a speech!!!
In my family: my mother-in-law is 81. She has developed a liver cancer about 5 years ago. The cancer has actually spread. Never had treatment stopped. Chemo, exams, anything.
All in “socialized” Portuguese medicine.
So, please, tell them to use other arguments but leave european medicine out of that.
August 6th, 2009 at 5:56 amhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jD3SkTyXzcE&feature=related
Come one, come all everyone welcome.
August 6th, 2009 at 6:06 amThe key phrase here is “I’ve been told…” That’s the little trick these characters use to shoot down universal health care. Seems they’ve “been told” only nightmares. For example, that Canadians come to the U.S. for treatment because it’s so bad in Canada. Yes, wealthy Canadians who want a vanity nose job, face lift, etc., have to wait–while true emergencies are given immediate surgical care. Seems everything they’ve “been told” has been by right-wing radio and insurance industry hacks. I spent a week as a tourist in Nova Scotia several years ago, and like the other interested Americans in my group, asked Canadians we struck up a conversation with, how they liked their country’s plan. Without fail they said they were very happy with it. I believe them–not our insurance industry lie promoters.
August 6th, 2009 at 7:55 amIt’s amazing how neither truth nor logic even enter the equation when it comes to smearing “socialized medicine.”
The media has a lot to answer for in that conservatives are able to get away with gross misrepresentations of the quality and availability of health care in and outside of the U.S., with impunity.
Reliable statistics clearly show that America does not have the “best health care in the world.” We come in 46th in the world in terms of our infant mortality rate, and 50th when it comes to life expectancy; and these, and other, indicators are rapidly getting worse.
August 6th, 2009 at 9:07 amI don’t understand why Grassley does not offer all of America the healthcare he voted for himself and his cohort of overprivleged scoundrels? Surely his constituents deserve everything he confers on himself at their expense?
August 6th, 2009 at 9:17 amThis idea of rationing is just garbage — in fact, never even heard of it until the debate in the US started. As a Canadian, I can assure you that we do not “ration” health as has been much discussed on this and other forums. In fact, the government has absolutely no say in what treatment you will receive – strictly between you and your doctor. Period. I can give you an example of a woman the same age, if not older, than Ted Kennedy who received full treatment for her brain tumour–surgery, radiation, chemo–everything possible that could be done. Contrary to popular belief, we do not send our seniors out on the ice floes to fend for themselves.
Another thing that has come up since Sen Dobbs was diagnosed was the dismal cure rate of prostate cancer in Canada. I looked it up — it’s the same as yours – 90% when caught early as is the case with Sen Dodds. Someone posted a comment on another blog that said the same cancer in the same stage is only a 52% cure rate in Canada. Have no idea where they got that number-couldn’t find it anywhere!
I just ask Americans to please check your facts about our health care system before believing these scare tactics. We love our health care system and would never give it up.
August 6th, 2009 at 10:03 amI can’t believe the venality of people like Grassley. I live in Canada (with that horrible socialized medicine), where I care for my 95 year old mother. Not only does she get fabulous care when required, but our terrible system also pays for nurses to visit her (doctors too) when and if required. The lies told about Canada’s health care system are as astounding as Grassley’s ignorance and poor judgement.
August 6th, 2009 at 10:09 amIt’s not just the fact that Ted Kennedy has a government plan… ALL elderly people have government plan already: Medicare. Even people with excellent benefits from their job switch over to Medicare once they become eligible. This is blatant fear mongering. If he believes the government plans to do this, he owes it to all the elderly people in America to do something about it. And he should start right away since they all have government healthcare. Otherwise, there is a special place in hell reserved for people who engage in this kind of rhetoric.
August 6th, 2009 at 10:15 amThis -> rationing health care services among the elderly <- is already happening, ask any senior on medicare and they will tell you that their medical services are very limited, which is why they have sooooooo much out of pocket expense that they should NOT have.
August 6th, 2009 at 10:36 amIf someone with Senator Kennedy’s affliction lived in France instead of U.S., his or her chances of survival would be much higher than if they lived in the U.S. France is number one on the World Health Organization’s list of quality of health care. France does a better job with cancer than any country in the world. There is no such thing as “not allowed because this treatment is experimental”. If a person has life threatening cancer and they live in France, then they are allowed to try ANY treatment that they may want to try and it is paid for by the public health care. People in France who get cancer have a much better chance to live longer and better than do people in U.S. The U.S. is number 37 on the WHO list for the health and care of it’s people. Italy beats us by 36, Malta by 32, Oman by 29, Greece by 23, Columbia by 15, Morocco by 8, Canada by 7—Even Chile and Costa Rica beat the U.S. on taking care of their people’s health. The U.S. is one slot ahead of Slovenia and six slots ahead of Croatia. But hey, we’re number ONE—-in that we spend a bigger percentage of our GDP on health care than any other country in the world. France gives it’s people the Cadillac care of any country on earth and they spend nearly half as much to do that as we do at number 37 down the list.
August 6th, 2009 at 11:06 amGrassley looks so mean and uncaring whatever he says about healthcare, I want the opposite.
Not only are these 2009 Republicans the party of “no” they are the ugliest, bitter and mean party (Demoracgtric or Republican)I have ever seen. Just saying.
August 6th, 2009 at 11:22 am21drose said: “Declaration of Independence states “all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights, among those LIFE, LIBERTY, and PURSUIT of HAPPINESS”. Does this legislation meet these qualities … or is the government making the choice regarding YOUR life, liberies and pursuit of happiness?????
Actually, I would use your Declaration argument for universal health care, not against it. Nothing supports equality in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness better than your health. To me, universal health care that is publicly funded is providing that equality, one where you don’t need money to simply stay alive. If a lawyer is provided pro bono when needed, why not a doctor?
In fact, if you look at the philosophical underpinnings of the Canadian health care system, it truly is to make sure everyone is equal in the eyes of the medical system. How can you claim to treat all persons equally if some are left to die either because they are uninsured or under-insured and do not fit the Medicare/Medicaid parameters?
To me, it’s yet another equality worth fighting for. We had this fight over 40 years ago and have not looked back.
August 6th, 2009 at 12:24 pmSen. Kennedy can afford the best health care, but he’s been advocating for those who can’t for decades. Grassley has the same coverage as Kennedy and all the other members of Congress, and he’s not paying the premiums, we are. As for the usefulness argument, I would imagine that in any country a member of the government would be deemed to be making a contribution to that society, regardless of their age.
August 6th, 2009 at 3:09 pmRecently, a survey was taken in Canada to determine the most important Canadian ever. Who do you think won, a politician, entertainer, sports figure, doctor? No. The one most chosen, by a wide margin, was the man who devised the Canadian health care system. That’s one job I wouldn’t mind outsourcing.
August 6th, 2009 at 3:14 pm