Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus

Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.


What Daschle is really saying is, instead of helping people live longer we are going to let them die.

Thank you Obama supporters for voting to kill our parents and grandparents.

Bloomberg.com: Opinion

socialized healthcare is great

__________________
These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.” - Barney Frank

Idiot test click Here

Bottom line more elderly people are going to die if this goes through.

Change we can ......... nevermind .....

Looks like my kidney transplant that I will need one day is not going to happen being that it will cost to much and the Federal government would rather give that money to ACORN instead of using it to save my life...

I gotta sick heavy feeling you better change your R to a D before you go to the hospital or you be a dead man walking...

__________________
"I hope she doesn't become offended at how she's being toted like some kind of token." Bodecca.

though McCain was no prize either, this was talked about before the election.....this is the candidate people selected & they have to live with the consequences now....

Mrs. Johnson, you are 92 years old and are dying...there is an expensive medication that may not prevent death but will prolong it enough for you to live out the next few years with your family.....however since death is inevitable in your case it's best we not spend the money and use it on someone younger. Please make your final arrangements

__________________
These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.” - Barney Frank

Idiot test click Here

Unfortunately, this is not cut and dry from either perspective. We tend to spend exorbitant amounts of money to keep many people alive a few extra months. There is good argument for keeping people alive as long as we can. However, the cost of doing so must also play a role.

The part of the article that causes me concern is that the author makes it sound as if we should be looking to expand healthcare as it is a growing industry, that now makes up 17 percent of GDP. How much do we want it to grow? At 17 percent of GDP, we're talking about $2.2 trillion per year or $7200 per person. We want this industry to grow? I don't think so. In order for it to grow, that $7200 per person per year will have to increase. If it does continue to increase, it will eventually collapse as it will become unaffordable for even the middle class.

Regardless of where anyone may stand on this issue, it is not something that should be acted upon without rigorous debate. Costs must be reduced, but there also must be a solid plan to keep treatment as viable and available to everyone as possible.

Concentrating on preventative medicine versus reactionary medicine seems to make the most sense as it is much cheaper to keep people healthy from the get go than it is to try to fix them once they are broken. Much like maintaining a car, if you change the brake pads before they are completely gone, the maintenance bill is relatively cheap. If you wait until the pads are gone, then you also need to replace the rotors, and the cost quintuples.

Don't you find it a bit hypocritical that the Party who steadfastly insists that every American deserves healthcare was all the while plotting to take it away from Seniors?

__________________
"I hope she doesn't become offended at how she's being toted like some kind of token." Bodecca.

I find Obama's desire to rush all these spending packages through quite disturbing.
Hell, take a month or two and get it right. If something is that urgent do it separetely.

__________________
"Some men eventually stumble over the truth but they usually pick themselves up and walk on as if nothing ever happened."
-Winston Churchill

Here is a serious question. Obviously to me, if a medication will prolong someone's life with a reasonable quality of life, than it should not be denied under any circumstance. However, what happens when the person is absolutely terminal and treatments are painful and extremely expensive, and those treatments will only extend the persons life by a few more weeks? We can keep the person alive for one more month at the cost of $300,000, and they will be hospitalized and in pain the entire time. This is what we do now, most of the time, unless the patient requests that treatment be stopped.

Hey, it's a tough call, and I know because I've been there. My wife was near the end with her fight against leukemia. The doctors gave us an option. She could be intubated and sedated with the hope that her white blood cells would start producing again to help fight her pneumonia, or we could spend two more hours with her before she died. We chose intubation with hope. It cost an extra $140,000 and she died three weeks later. We never got the chance to talk to each other again. We could have had two hours instead.

I'm not saying one decision was right and the other wrong. It's just something to think about. Was it worth the $140.000?

I think you are making a very bad assumption that this is their intent. The real problem comes into play when a bureaucracy actually is the entity making the final decisions, and that bureaucracy's decisions become something much different than what was actually intended.

Without a doubt, and especially healthcare. We need some serious changes to our healthcare system, but trying to force legislation through without some really long and substantive debate is not the way to go.

Very sad story and you ahve my depeest sympathy

however, it'[s not only thos situations people get denied


Look at these examples:
http://www.nypost.com/sev...would_kill_ted_114032.htm
"Problem is, governments that promise to "cover everyone" always wind up cutting corners simply to save money. People with Kennedy's condition are dying or dead as a result.
Consider Jennifer Bell of Norwich, England. In 2006, the 22-year-old complained of headaches for months - but Britain's National Health Service made her wait a year to see a neurologist.
Then she had to wait more than three months before should could get what the NHS decided was only a "relatively urgent" MRI scan. Three days before the MRI appointment, she died.
Consider, too, the chemo drug Kennedy is receiving: Temodar, the first oral medicine for brain tumors in 25 years.
Temodar has been widely used in this country since the FDA approved it in 2000. But a British health-care rationing agency, the National Institute for Comparative Effectiveness, ruled that, while the drug helps people live longer, it wasn't worth the money - and denied coverage for it.
Barack Obama - and other Democrats - have been pushing a Senate bill to set up a similar US "review board" for Medicare and any future government health-care plan.
After denying this treatment completely for seven years, the NICE (did whoever named it intend the irony?) relented - partly. Even today, only a handful of Brits with brain tumors can get Temodar.
And if you want to pay for Temodar out of your own pocket, the British system forces you to pay for all of your cancer care - about $30,000 a month. "

30 grand a month, just to be able to live a little longer. God Save The Queen, I hope God has his own personal PPO.

Here is another example from that article from Canada again-

"Things are no different in Canada, where the wait for an MRI (once you finally get a referral) has grown to 10 weeks. For Canadians relying on their government health care, the average wait time from diagnosis of cancer to surgery is beyond the guideline set by both the US and European societies for surgical oncology.
And Health Canada, the government system, similar refuses to pay for treatments that are often covered in America.
Chad Curley, a 37-year-old auto worker from Windsor, Ontario, had a brain tumor like Kennedy's but can't have surgery because his is too large to be operable.
His tumor didn't respond to Temodar and the same doctors now treating Sen. Kennedy told him and his wife that the Avastin combination could stop his tumor from growing and add months to his life. But Health Canada wouldn't pay to use Avastin to treat his tumor.
Chad's family and friends scraped together the $5,000 for the first round of treatment in mid-November; they later saw Chad's left-side paralysis start to subside. But the money ran out - and he died on Feb. 21."

__________________
These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.” - Barney Frank

Idiot test click Here