Obama Has Failed

[srellim234]

telco- don't blame the right entirely. Lyndon Laroouche and his leftist nutcase organization are behind some of those Nazi signs at the town halls. I'm not seeing the Dems condemn them; they only blame the right.

Interestingly (and I'll have to find the specific poll) I heard a poll quoted today on the car radio that stated the majority of Americans really favor a public option but would not use it themselves. They just like the idea of the safety net being there in case someday they or others DO need it. They simply don't trust the industry to help or look out for anyone.

EDIT: Here's one place the poll is listed:

http://current.com/items/90742...n.htm
Modified by srellim234 at 7:02 PM 8/20/2009

[AZhitman]

Today, Obama guaranteed that some form of HC reform will be passed. I guess that means if no better ideas are proposed, the Dems are just gonna push their idea through. Its good to find a solution. Its not good if its not the BEST solution.

Greg, you mentioned regulation right after asking for an example. Another common example are pollution laws. A company would rather dump toxic waste than dispose of it properly as this adds to their costs and reduces profits. I think strengthening regulations on health care companies and insurers is a good start. You say they didn't skimp on coverage in your case. Thats fortunate. You also say they can't and that isnt true. I have no personal experience with battling a severe illness but Ive seen some horror stories about lengthy delays and being denied treatment. Imagine how hard it is to fight a legal battle against a corporation while suffering from an "uncovered" illness. This should not happen.

An example of competition between public and private companies could be the USPS and FedEx/UPS. I think the post office is actually a successful business in that it doesnt require constant help from the govt.

Oversight would have to be provided by the govt. I think this is the ideal role of the govt in health care: to ensure that private companies behave optimally. A LAST resort should be intervening in the industry in the form of taking over companies or creating a public competitor.

The biggest hole in this debate is that we havent seen any numbers. The economists need to get to work and figure out what conditions must be met for this to be successful. I too am waiting for Obama to quote some empirical study to add weight to his argument. He's taken the first step by addressing the issue, but that aint all it takes. Thats why I'm really disappointed to hear him say this will get passed regardless.

Debate, hear from the opposition, compromise... then make the best decision with all available info. Dont "reform" HC just to say you did it.

Bravo, my friend. Bravo.

[AZhitman]

The republicans........blah blah blah more partisan rhetoric blah blah blah

You don't have time to read. Therefore, you know not of which you speak.

You're a doddering old fool.

We've reminded you time and time again of the failures and foibles of your simpering Dems, many of whom SUPPORTED those "failed wars", but you're too busy blindly following the "lead sheep" to see it.

Respond to the criticisms with facts, informed participation and independent thought, or take a stroll.

My 401k has been going up since he took office.

If you give him credit for that, you're more confused than I thought.

By that reasoning, he's raised my property taxes 28%.

ALSO, my contribution to my own health insurance just went up 44%... After not getting a raise in FIVE years, that's a bunch of crap.

Maybe you should give me some of your 401K gains. Aren't you libbies ALL about the redistribution of wealth?

I'll be expecting a check soon.

[AZhitman]

I didn't mean to personally call you a racist. I don't know you!

You sissy.

You called ANYONE who participated in the opposition a "closet racist". You just don't have the BALLS to back up your hateful and inflammatory blather.

Grow a damn spine.

....appear to me to be a bunch of racists oppossed to anything that President Obama is attempting to do....

How is this RACISM? HOW?

You, dear sir, are off your rocker.

Carrying assault weapons and Nazi signs to townhall meetings is not only dumb but another example of a bunch of white trash racists.

Yeah. No libbies EVER protest or demonstrate, do they?

How about the pacifist morons who chained themselves together out in front of my office building last year, to protest the immigration laws? Made me late for an important meeting, and made my kids miss ball practice. Should I characterize them as a bunch of drug-addled queers?

Because YOU disagree with them, they're "white trash racists"?

Here's the best part:

YOU don't even know if you agree with them or not!!!!! YOU HAVEN'T READ THE PROPOSAL, GENIUS!!!

I haven't heard one Republican offer any viable solutions.

You're too busy to read the bill. You wouldn't know if someone DID offer a solution.

How come none of the Dems are offering an alternative? MANY of them oppose the BO plan. Where are they? Why are you not calling THEM "the party of 'no'?

Maybe the Dems SHOULD say "no" more often.

Bah, you can't even debate a simple point. Why am I wasting my time on you?

[BallzDeep1.9L]

The republicans had eight years of almost total control and what did they give the American working people?

Ignorant statement, the Republicans only had the majority for half of bush's presidency, after that the democrats had the majority. Which i might ad that congress at the time of the Dems having the majority had an approval rating lower then d!ck Cheney.

»Two wars costing over 10 billion a month for starters!

WTF are you talking about? all your precious dems voted for that as well. think before typing please

»They are just like the hedge funds and banks that caused an economic meltdown.

Again, your ignorant statements just keep coming, the regulations in place by the FDIC are what caused the meltdown. Mostly on the housing market end. All the crazy high interest home loans taken out by people that couldn't afford them were through the FDIC insured banks. to be insured by the FDIC you have to follow all there regulations. FDIC banks are HEAVILY regulated by the gov't. The whole thing with aproving low income families for housing goes back to Pres. Ford when he signed on legislation which was PASSED by congress alowing lower standards for home purchasers. now in 1992 Pres. Clinton also signed legislation lowering the standards even more. Again contributing to the housing market slide. And im not just pointing the finger at the Dems, both sides let this get to fruition. Some people in congress actually came forward before the meltdown and asked for oversight into what they thought would become and issue and where scoffed at by the dems and republicans. And if you think im wrong about the FDIC, then think about this. how many Credit Unions do you hear about that are going under? probably none, they are NCUA insured, not FDIC. and because of that were not required to take place in the insane home lending.

»One indicator that Obama is doing a decent job is the stock market.Is he perfect? No but he is doing a much better job than his predecessor.

My 401k has been going up since he took office.

You seriously have no concept of how the gov't actually works.. like most insanely left wing people you don't comprehend that our gov't is NOT RUN BY ONE PERSON. Our gov't is a system of CHECKS AND BALANCES. remember that lesson from 6th grade? obviously not. ONE MAN cannot destroy or save this country, democrat or republican. IT ISNT POSSIBLE.

I do give you credit for one thing though, you are the first moron to think Pres. Obama reached his "almighty" hand into your 401k and made it make money, absolutely unreal

and before you jump all over me as well i'll just tell you that im not a Democrat or a Republican... im critical of both sides

[audtatious]

Howie is simply following the Dem directive of accusing anyone against the Prez and any of his policies to be racist. As with the majority of those who follow the same path he can't think on his own and simply follows what HuffPost, Dailykos and NYTimes say and takes it as gospel. He's like a guppy in a small round bowl and takes anything that is fed to him.

[Kohster]

And, you would be mostly wrong - although "owe" is not the right word, I agree.

Um, no. You are wrong, actually. Kalypso said that we as a country are indebted to the UK, which is absolutely not true. If anything they owe us money for all the weapons munitions we've sold them in ww2. I don't know why you brought up that other stuff.

[szh]

If anything they owe us money for all the weapons munitions we've sold them in ww2.

Have you actually read the specific history? Most items were paid for later and others were forgiven by the US government - they don't owe us anything.

Our choice to not collect - happens all the time.

I don't know why you brought up that other stuff.

To prove a point about ownership. Given the old fart that I am, I remember things that many of you young ones seem to have conveniently forgotten.

Z

[Kohster]

Have you actually read the specific history? Most items were paid for later and others were forgiven by the US government - they don't owe us anything.

Gosh, are you uninformed. They were indebted to us and FINALLY completed the payments in '06.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-American_loan

[telcoman]

So, the country needs to implement the same utterly wasteful and inflationary practices beyond finance and banking too?

Sorry, NO! I detest and reject the wasteful economic "solutions" proposed by our current government. These will destroy the future for my son - the US will be paying off the national debt for too long and too painfully for his life to be good.

I mourn for my son's future life.

Z

How are you so sure?

[telcoman]

Anything you have to say after "I don't have time to read the bill" is a waste of text.

Well if you read the entire bill how about posting the paragragh that the hillbilly from Alaska called a death panel

[telcoman]

Ah, blind faith.

Interesting how you can believe in Obama, but not believe in a Creator.

The creator is President Obama. He has deferred te writing of the bill to committees in both houses.I would have thought your 11 year old smart daughter would have explained that to you.

[audtatious]

Well if you read the entire bill how about posting the paragragh that the hillbilly from Alaska called a death panel

They have a problem with section 1233 "‘Advance Care Planning Consultation", look it up yourself.

[telcoman]

They have a problem with section 1233 "‘Advance Care Planning Consultation", look it up yourself.

Thanks Matt

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/...69324:

I think you quoted the wrong section as I found it in 1152.

So what is wrong with it?

[audtatious]

You tell me, I've never said anything about it...

[telcoman]

You tell me, I've never said anything about it...

Well here is an example of why it is needed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case

Or I suppose you would prefer the federal government get involved in decisions that should be made by families with consultation with their doctors

It is sad that our previous president had time to get involved wth what should have been a private family matter yet could not find time to read a PDB that Bin Laden was planning an attack on the US. He read My pet goat instead and three thousand Americans are dead.

Back to the bill. I suppose you have never had the experience of watching a loved family member reach the end of life? That I suppose is why you just don't get it?

[AZhitman]

The creator is President Obama.

He's the Creator? I thought he was your Messiah?

You (once again) miss simple points.

[AZhitman]

Back to the bill. I suppose you have never had the experience of watching a loved family member reach the end of life? That I suppose is why you just don't get it?

I have.

Wanna dance?

Before we go there, you answer some of the tough questions I posted above, and I'll let you play in the big kids' sandbox.

Until you read the bill, you're spouting blather.

[szh]

Kalypso said that we as a country are indebted to the UK, which is absolutely not true.

Here is his basis for his reasoning:

http://www.theforbiddenknowled...n.htm

Of course, I have not yet read the details of the specific IRS document, so have no comments on that - or whether it is accurate in any way.

Z

[szh]

How are you so sure?

For the same same reasons we have had inflationary periods in any country after uncontrolled government spending.

Economics 101.

Z

[szh]

Gosh, are you uninformed. They were indebted to us and FINALLY completed the payments in '06.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-American_loan

Isn't that what I said? The loan is paid off - no indebtedness.

Yes, they DON'T owe us anything. Unlike what you said earlier:

Actually Kalypso, its the other way around: they OWE US money.

Since they don't "OWE US" anything - and haven't for some years now, I guess you are agreeing with me now?

BTW, I have read all this material before - years before you were born actually - when I studied British History in high-school and remember reading about the 50 year loan (was originally supposed to finish in 2000). "Uninformed" is not accurate - please don't jump to conclusions without facts.

Z

[audtatious]

I suppose you have never had the experience of watching a loved family member reach the end of life? That I suppose is why you just don't get it?

Guess not. Although there was my Dad 6 months ago who's hand I held while they disconnected him from life support and I was with him through his last breath.

[szh]

Well if you read the entire bill how about posting the paragragh that the hillbilly from Alaska called a death panel

Here you go:

»SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION.

(a) Medicare-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 1861 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended--

(A) in subsection (s)(2)--

(i) by striking `and' at the end of subparagraph (DD);

(ii) by adding `and' at the end of subparagraph (EE); and

(iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

`(FF) advance care planning consultation (as defined in subsection (hhh)(1));'; and

(B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

`Advance Care Planning Consultation

`(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term `advance care planning consultation' means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:

`(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.

`(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.

`(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.

`(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal service organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of 1965).

`(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.

`(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include--

`(I) the reasons why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual's family and the reasons why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes;

`(II) the information needed for an individual or legal surrogate to make informed decisions regarding the completion of such an order; and

`(III) the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such individual resides so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if the individual is unable to communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decision maker (also known as a health care proxy).

`(ii) The Secretary shall limit the requirement for explanations under clause (i) to consultations furnished in a State--

`(I) in which all legal barriers have been addressed for enabling orders for life sustaining treatment to constitute a set of medical orders respected across all care settings; and

`(II) that has in effect a program for orders for life sustaining treatment described in clause (iii).

`(iii) A program for orders for life sustaining treatment for a States described in this clause is a program that--

`(I) ensures such orders are standardized and uniquely identifiable throughout the State;

`(II) distributes or makes accessible such orders to physicians and other health professionals that (acting within the scope of the professional's authority under State law) may sign orders for life sustaining treatment;

`(III) provides training for health care professionals across the continuum of care about the goals and use of orders for life sustaining treatment; and

`(IV) is guided by a coalition of stakeholders includes representatives from emergency medical services, emergency department physicians or nurses, state long-term care association, state medical association, state surveyors, agency responsible for senior services, state department of health, state hospital association, home health association, state bar association, and state hospice association.

`(2) A practitioner described in this paragraph is--

`(A) a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)); and

`(B) a nurse practitioner or physician's assistant who has the authority under State law to sign orders for life sustaining treatments.

`(3)(A) An initial preventive physical examination under subsection (WW), including any related discussion during such examination, shall not be considered an advance care planning consultation for purposes of applying the 5-year limitation under paragraph (1).

`(B) An advance care planning consultation with respect to an individual may be conducted more frequently than provided under paragraph (1) if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual, including diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or a hospice program.

`(4) A consultation under this subsection may include the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining treatment or a similar order.

`(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term `order regarding life sustaining treatment' means, with respect to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to the treatment of that individual that--

`(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care professional (as specified by the Secretary and who is acting within the scope of the professional's authority under State law in signing such an order, including a nurse practitioner or physician assistant) and is in a form that permits it to stay with the individual and be followed by health care professionals and providers across the continuum of care;

`(ii) effectively communicates the individual's preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual;

`(iii) is uniquely identifiable and standardized within a given locality, region, or State (as identified by the Secretary); and

`(iv) may incorporate any advance directive (as defined in section 1866(f)(3)) if executed by the individual.

`(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items--

`(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac or pulmonary problems;

`(ii) the individual's desire regarding transfer to a hospital or remaining at the current care setting;

`(iii) the use of antibiotics; and

`(iv) the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.'.

(2) PAYMENT- Section 1848(j)(3) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4(j)(3)) is amended by inserting `(2)(FF),' after `(2)(EE),'.

(3) FREQUENCY LIMITATION- Section 1862(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395y(a)) is amended--

(A) in paragraph (1)--

(i) in subparagraph (N), by striking `and' at the end;

(ii) in subparagraph (O) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting `, and'; and

(iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

`(P) in the case of advance care planning consultations (as defined in section 1861(hhh)(1)), which are performed more frequently than is covered under such section;'; and

(B) in paragraph (7), by striking `or (K)' and inserting `(K), or (P)'.

(4) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendments made by this subsection shall apply to consultations furnished on or after January 1, 2011.

(b) Expansion of Physician Quality Reporting Initiative for End of Life Care-

(1) Physician'S QUALITY REPORTING INITIATIVE- Section 1848(k)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4(k)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:

`(3) Physician'S QUALITY REPORTING INITIATIVE-

`(A) IN GENERAL- For purposes of reporting data on quality measures for covered professional services furnished during 2011 and any subsequent year, to the extent that measures are available, the Secretary shall include quality measures on end of life care and advanced care planning that have been adopted or endorsed by a consensus-based organization, if appropriate. Such measures shall measure both the creation of and adherence to orders for life-sustaining treatment.

`(B) PROPOSED SET OF MEASURES- The Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register proposed quality measures on end of life care and advanced care planning that the Secretary determines are described in subparagraph (A) and would be appropriate for eligible professionals to use to submit data to the Secretary. The Secretary shall provide for a period of public comment on such set of measures before finalizing such proposed measures.'.

(c) Inclusion of Information in Medicare & You Handbook-

(1) MEDICARE & YOU HANDBOOK-

(A) IN GENERAL- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall update the online version of the Medicare & You Handbook to include the following:

(i) An explanation of advance care planning and advance directives, including--

(I) living wills;

(II) durable power of attorney;

(III) orders of life-sustaining treatment; and

(IV) health care proxies.

(ii) A description of Federal and State resources available to assist individuals and their families with advance care planning and advance directives, including--

(I) available State legal service organizations to assist individuals with advance care planning, including those organizations that receive funding

pursuant to the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 93001 et seq.);

(II) website links or addresses for State-specific advance directive forms; and

(III) any additional information, as determined by the Secretary.

(B) UPDATE OF PAPER AND SUBSEQUENT VERSIONS- The Secretary shall include the information described in subparagraph (A) in all paper and electronic versions of the Medicare & You Handbook that are published on or after the date that is 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.

[szh]

These are the parts that are scaring people, I think:

»`(III) the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such individual resides so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if the individual is unable to communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decisionmaker (also known as a health care proxy).

combined with this:

»`(IV) is guided by a coalition of stakeholders includes representatives from emergency medical services, emergency department physicians or nurses, state long-term care association, state medical association, state surveyors, agency responsible for senior services, state department of health, state hospital association, home health association, state bar association, and state hospice association.

and including this:

»`(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions.

I might not term it a "death panel", but it certainly sounds like people may find themselves in a position where medically necessary intervention may be decided/limited/withheld(?) by a "coalition of stakeholders" rather than family members or the patient themselves.

Z

[szh]

Back to the bill. I suppose you have never had the experience of watching a loved family member reach the end of life? That I suppose is why you just don't get it?

You clearly do not know why this is one of the absolutely silliest assumptions to make of Greg.

Do a search on who "NICOMom" was ... to understand why he is likely to have had far more of an intense experience in this regard, in a most untimely way, than most people ever will.

Z

[smockers83]

INCENTIVE to become uninsured???

Incentive, yes, that's what I said.

The current private system, in many cases, has premiums that people cannot afford. The current private system, in many cases, makes it difficult to see the doctor of your choice, forcing people to accept whatever their employer can afford to offer. The current private system forces many people who can see the doctor of their choice to wait, sometimes for months or more at a time, to see that doctor or get the treatments approved that that doctor requests. The current system denies customers treatment, reimbursement for treatments given, coverage for what it deems is a "pre-existing condition". Those are either a forced lack of coverage which sends people to a gov't clinic or bigger "incentives" than what you are talking about.

The incentive I'm talking about is free healthcare through gov ran free clinics for the uninsured that someone mentioned. If the gov sets up these kinds of clinics, what incentive is there to be insured? Hence we go down the road of a state-controlled health care system.

To go along with this paragraph, lets turn it into an analogy, one that we can understand being a car forum first and foremost. Let's relate the choice of doctors to the choice of cars. If person A makes less money than person B, person A is going to have a lot less choice in cars he/she can purchase than B. Person B can afford a Ferrari. Person A can afford a used Chevy Colbalt. A can only dream of having a Ferrari. Is it right to make it so that anyone like person A can afford a Ferrari?

To turn it back to medicine, there are procedures that are very expensive (the Ferrari) and ones that are not (the Cobalt). There are also great doctors that are top of the line (Ferrari) and ones that just suck (Cobalt). If you want top notch quality, you better be able to afford it because you're going to pay for it. If you remove the incentive of a doctor to be top notch in his field, you'll have a stagnant system that doesn't advance itself. That's part of what state-ran systems introduces.

The current healthcare mess is caused by the very companies that are now fighting tooth and nail to have the gov't bail them out by doing nothing. Their philosophy seems to be "Let 'em suffer, I want that money in the boardroom. Why? Because we CAN and get away with it by buying off the people who can stop us from raping the consumer."

The healthcare companies are fighting tooth and nail to have the gov bail them out? Who exactly needs to be bailed out? Why should a company in the healthcare business be any different than a company that's not in the healthcare business? Perhaps you need to go read my economic discussion from awhile back on the role of profits and losses.

[AZhitman]

Like I said before, it's no fun having a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

And there's no debating with someone who has no idea what he's supporting.

Howie, I'm so glad you vote. I applaud your representation of the Left.

[audtatious]

There's no debating with someone who fully believes everything he is spoon fed by his masters.

[themadscientist]

[telcoman]

For the same same reasons we have had inflationary periods in any country after uncontrolled government spending.

Economics 101.

Z

Sure as in the spending for the Viet Nam war.

That is why the left was so opposed to Bush for falsely claiming WMD were in Iraq and getting us into a useless war. The left was opposed to the Viet Nam war and is opposed to the war in Iraq. The last GOP administration that was an honest one was Eisenhower.that was a long time ago. Nixon, Bush 1, and Bush 2 were failures.The people that crashed planes into WTC did not come from Iraq.