Krugman finally admits it ...The Libs Want Death Panels

[bigrebnc1775]

Well, that "wacko" is an international renowned economist and Nobel winner.

But that's beside the point: He didn't say anything about what "the libs" want, he only talked about what he thinks we might need.

He's a nobel winner? Since obama was also given one for doing nothing at all, having be given one really has lost all meaning.

Of course, there's a difference between the Nobel Peace Prize and the Nobel Prize for Economics. But continue as you were.

So? Looking how bad the economy is he's not a good economist. Which brings us back to the point the nobel has no meaning anymore.

 

[elvis]

There are currently two strategies, the second of which is being covered up.

1. Death Panels: Keep Medicare, but get rid of costly, ineffective end-of-life procedures. Also, give the patient more control over end-of-life care, e.g., get patients to decide if they want to be kept alive in a vegetative state indefinitely or not. [FYI: These kinds of end-of-life policy suggestions were first made by a Republican]

2) Death: Get rid of Medicare completely. This would result in millions of early deaths because so many elderly people depend on medicare.

The GOP's ultimate goal is to get rid of Medicare. This program, with Social Security, represents the most important Middle Class program of the Liberal New Deal era.

The GOP is scaring old people by telling them that their end-of-life Medicare services will be scaled back. The GOP actually drove old people to town hall meetings to protest ObamaCare.

Here is what seniors don't understand: the GOP is not merely going to cut some of their end-of-life procedures, they are getting rid of Medicare and Social Security altogether.

The GOP is literally leading these blind sheep to slaughter. People have no idea what the next phase of the Republican Revolution involves. This country is going to be a much different place in ten years.

Just the GOP? Why is alwayes just the Republicans who alwayes want to get rid of medicare? When in facts obama wants it done.

What the fuck are you talking about? Ending Medicare would be suicidal for ANY politician.

Maybe obama will wait until his second term......

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There are currently two strategies, the second of which is being covered up.

1. Death Panels: Keep Medicare, but get rid of costly, ineffective end-of-life procedures. Also, give the patient more control over end-of-life care, e.g., get patients to decide if they want to be kept alive in a vegetative state indefinitely or not. [FYI: These kinds of end-of-life policy suggestions were first made by a Republican]

2) Death: Get rid of Medicare completely. This would result in millions of early deaths because so many elderly people depend on medicare.

The GOP's ultimate goal is to get rid of Medicare. This program, with Social Security, represents the most important Middle Class program of the Liberal New Deal era.

The GOP is scaring old people by telling them that their end-of-life Medicare services will be scaled back. The GOP actually drove old people to town hall meetings to protest ObamaCare.

Here is what seniors don't understand: the GOP is not merely going to cut some of their end-of-life procedures, they are getting rid of Medicare and Social Security altogether.

The GOP is literally leading these blind sheep to slaughter. People have no idea what the next phase of the Republican Revolution involves. This country is going to be a much different place in ten years.

Just the GOP? Why is alwayes just the Republicans who alwayes want to get rid of medicare? When in facts obama wants it done.

What the fuck are you talking about? Ending Medicare would be suicidal for ANY politician.

What do you mean, what am I talking about?
http://americangrandjury.org/us-debt-proposal-would-cut-social-security-taxes-medicare

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Just the GOP? Why is alwayes just the Republicans who alwayes want to get rid of medicare? When in facts obama wants it done.

What the fuck are you talking about? Ending Medicare would be suicidal for ANY politician.

What do you mean, what am I talking about?
http://americangrandjury.org/us-debt-proposal-would-cut-social-security-taxes-medicare

Your article is about how a commission is going to suggest a plan that would trim Medicare.
I fail to see how that translates to "Obama wants to destroy Medicare".

 

[Oddball]

Perhaps the same thing that makes you believe that rationing Medicare would be "sending Gramma out on the ice floe". You can't have it both ways.

The term "rationing" presumes that some will be treated while others are denied...Even though those being denied could pay their own way.

Have you any grasp of the English language?

The term "rationing" isn't mentioned by Krugman, either. Did you even read or watch his comments? You might be confused about something here: I'm not arguing Krugman's point. I don't agree with him. But there's no need to lie about what he said, or make shit up.


Aside from that, is there a reason you're being such a dick right now? Normally you're not this much of an asshole.

I watched them...And I can see who the dick is.

Snap out of your denial, dude.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

He's a nobel winner? Since obama was also given one for doing nothing at all, having be given one really has lost all meaning.

Of course, there's a difference between the Nobel Peace Prize and the Nobel Prize for Economics. But continue as you were.

So? Looking how bad the economy is he's not a good economist. Which brings us back to the point the nobel has no meaning anymore.

What are you talking about? What possible responsibility could Paul Krugman have for the current state of the economy?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The term "rationing" presumes that some will be treated while others are denied...Even though those being denied could pay their own way.

Have you any grasp of the English language?

The term "rationing" isn't mentioned by Krugman, either. Did you even read or watch his comments? You might be confused about something here: I'm not arguing Krugman's point. I don't agree with him. But there's no need to lie about what he said, or make shit up.


Aside from that, is there a reason you're being such a dick right now? Normally you're not this much of an asshole.

I watched them...And I can see who the dick is.

Snap out of your denial, dude.

So maybe we're having a communication issue.

Paul Krugman said that it might be necessary to look at end-of-life procedure coverage in Medicare to save money.

Then you called me a statist eugenist authoritarian, claiming that I wanted to "send gramma out on the ice floe".

I took umbrage to that, and compared it to your desire to end Medicare entirely.

You then claimed that Krugman was suggesting that people would be prevented from paying out of pocket for treatment, which is of course a fantasy, he said nothing of the sort.
Medicare of course, is not a mandatory system. There's nothing that prevents people on Medicare to pay for additional out of pocket expenses.

Tell me what I got wrong from that exchange...

 

[Oddball]

The term "rationing" isn't mentioned by Krugman, either. Did you even read or watch his comments? You might be confused about something here: I'm not arguing Krugman's point. I don't agree with him. But there's no need to lie about what he said, or make shit up.


Aside from that, is there a reason you're being such a dick right now? Normally you're not this much of an asshole.

I watched them...And I can see who the dick is.

Snap out of your denial, dude.

So maybe we're having a communication issue.

Paul Krugman said that it might be necessary to look at end-of-life procedure coverage in Medicare to save money.

Then you called me a statist eugenist authoritarian, claiming that I wanted to "send gramma out on the ice floe".

I took umbrage to that, and compared it to your desire to end Medicare entirely.

You then claimed that Krugman was suggesting that people would be prevented from paying out of pocket for treatment, which is of course a fantasy, he said nothing of the sort.
Medicare of course, is not a mandatory system. There's nothing that prevents people on Medicare to pay for additional out of pocket expenses.

Tell me what I got wrong from that exchange...

Krugman believes that the entire medical care industry should be run from a central bureaucracy, as a matter of course.

This would preclude people from paying their own way, as a matter of "fairness" for people who can't (with, no doubt, quite *ahem* liberal exemptions for the politically well connected, like Krugman).

Wow!.....I keep thinking that people can't be as naïve as they're presenting themselves and keep getting proved wrong.

 

[Londoner]

What the fuck are you talking about? Ending Medicare would be suicidal for ANY politician.

Getting rid of Medicare and Social Security will be a slow process, accompanied by lots of information distortion and trickery.

You're right about how much politicians worry about being seen as anti-medicare.

This is why the GOP had to kill ObmaCare. Their worry was not that it wouldn't work, but that it would work too well, like Social Security. The last thing the GOP can afford is for the Liberals to create another generation of loyal voters, like the New Deal Coalition. This is why the GOP must stop Health Care (aka the candy) before it reaches the mouth of the voter. They don't want the population to become dependent on another program that will result on higher taxes on the wealthy, and their donors don't want to lose control of the current over-priced system.

ObamaCare is a problem only because it might work too well for the voter . . .like most social programs that cannot be killed. This is why they have to convince the idiot voter that Obama is coming for grandma. They need to kill it before the candy reaches the people -- or it will be a tax burden on them forever.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What the fuck are you talking about? Ending Medicare would be suicidal for ANY politician.

What do you mean, what am I talking about?
http://americangrandjury.org/us-debt-proposal-would-cut-social-security-taxes-medicare

Your article is about how a commission is going to suggest a plan that would trim Medicare.
I fail to see how that translates to "Obama wants to destroy Medicare".

It's obamas commission he appointed them. What better way for obama to side step the issue and cut medicare, than say the panel suggested that it needed to be done so we must do it. Anything that panel suggest is what obama wants or he would never have picked them. You've got to look past the haze to see the true intent of what obama is wanting to do,

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I watched them...And I can see who the dick is.

Snap out of your denial, dude.

So maybe we're having a communication issue.

Paul Krugman said that it might be necessary to look at end-of-life procedure coverage in Medicare to save money.

Then you called me a statist eugenist authoritarian, claiming that I wanted to "send gramma out on the ice floe".

I took umbrage to that, and compared it to your desire to end Medicare entirely.

You then claimed that Krugman was suggesting that people would be prevented from paying out of pocket for treatment, which is of course a fantasy, he said nothing of the sort.
Medicare of course, is not a mandatory system. There's nothing that prevents people on Medicare to pay for additional out of pocket expenses.

Tell me what I got wrong from that exchange...

Krugman believes that the entire medical care industry should be run from a central bureaucracy, as a matter of course.

This would preclude people from paying their own way, as a matter of "fairness" for people who can't (with, no doubt, quite *ahem* liberal exemptions for the politically well connected, like Krugman).

Wow!.....I keep thinking that people can't be as naïve as they're presenting themselves and keep getting proved wrong.

Aha. Now I get it.

I was arguing what Krugman actually said, while you were talking about what he secretly meant.

Ok, swami.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Of course, there's a difference between the Nobel Peace Prize and the Nobel Prize for Economics. But continue as you were.

So? Looking how bad the economy is he's not a good economist. Which brings us back to the point the nobel has no meaning anymore.

What are you talking about? What possible responsibility could Paul Krugman have for the current state of the economy?

OH brother how do you explain something to who has no comprehension skills?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So? Looking how bad the economy is he's not a good economist. Which brings us back to the point the nobel has no meaning anymore.

What are you talking about? What possible responsibility could Paul Krugman have for the current state of the economy?

OH brother how do you explain something to who has no comprehension skills?

That's why I stopped responding to your posts. I'm not sure why I started responding to you again.

Krugman is not part of the Obama administration. He's an economist. He has nothing to do with Obama's economic policy, in fact he disagrees with a whole lot of it. He studies the economy, he doesn't control it.

What the fuck does he have to do with the state of the economy right now?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What are you talking about? What possible responsibility could Paul Krugman have for the current state of the economy?

OH brother how do you explain something to who has no comprehension skills?

That's why I stopped responding to your posts. I'm not sure why I started responding to you again.

Krugman is not part of the Obama administration. He's an economist. He has nothing to do with Obama's economic policy, in fact he disagrees with a whole lot of it. He studies the economy, he doesn't control it.

What the fuck does he have to do with the state of the economy right now?

Lets go back to your first reply

Well, that "wacko" is an international renowned economist and Nobel winner.

But that's beside the point: He didn't say anything about what "the libs" want, he only talked about what he thinks we might need.

What I am trying to find out from you is why you felt it was note worthy to mention he was a nobel winner in Economics? The global economy sucks and economist can't seem to find a way to fix the mess.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

OH brother how do you explain something to who has no comprehension skills?

That's why I stopped responding to your posts. I'm not sure why I started responding to you again.

Krugman is not part of the Obama administration. He's an economist. He has nothing to do with Obama's economic policy, in fact he disagrees with a whole lot of it. He studies the economy, he doesn't control it.

What the fuck does he have to do with the state of the economy right now?

Lets go back to your first reply

Well, that "wacko" is an international renowned economist and Nobel winner.

But that's beside the point: He didn't say anything about what "the libs" want, he only talked about what he thinks we might need.

What I am trying to find out from you is why you felt it was note worthy to mention he was a nobel winner in Economics? The global economy sucks and economist can't seem to find a way to fix the mess.

Do you not realize that the economists don't make world policy decisions?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well, that "wacko" is an international renowned economist and Nobel winner.

But that's beside the point: He didn't say anything about what "the libs" want, he only talked about what he thinks we might need.

That's why I stopped responding to your posts. I'm not sure why I started responding to you again.

Krugman is not part of the Obama administration. He's an economist. He has nothing to do with Obama's economic policy, in fact he disagrees with a whole lot of it. He studies the economy, he doesn't control it.

What the fuck does he have to do with the state of the economy right now?

Lets go back to your first reply

Well, that "wacko" is an international renowned economist and Nobel winner.

But that's beside the point: He didn't say anything about what "the libs" want, he only talked about what he thinks we might need.

What I am trying to find out from you is why you felt it was note worthy to mention he was a nobel winner in Economics? The global economy sucks and economist can't seem to find a way to fix the mess.

Do you not realize that the economists don't make world policy decisions?

Who do the people who make the policy decisions go to for information?

 

[fyrenza]

Ummm...

What was the question, again?

...

Oh, yeah! Death Panels.

Y'all do realize that we already have policies in place for just such situations,

where, if a patient is only being kept alive by life support equipment,

and/or is considered Brain-dead,

THEY can have their own wishes carried out, right?

One is called a Living Will and there's also another one called a Do Not Resuscitate order.

Speaking as a Christian, although I wouldn't want to actually kill myself,

I ALSO do not want the life of my body prolonged beyond it's capacity, just because it can/could be done.

As I get older, I'm less and less into the idea of any Heroic Measures being used to keep me alive. IF I had to pay for the care, out of my pocket? There would be NO WAY I'd spend the money, 'cuz A) it would be money that was thrown away, rather than being passed on to those who could use it for something a little less fleeting than a short extension on life and B) I just couldn't afford it.

And THAT's where any sort of health care reform absolutely MUST begin, with it being AFFORDABLE for everyone. If the HMO's had gone the way they SHOULD have, with an eye to the future of everyone's health rather than the corporate eye on the bottom line, we'd be in great shape right now. Unfortunately, greed got the better of everyone, patients included, and the whole thang imploded.

<sigh> Just my 2¢

 

[Sarah G]

this guy even looks like a wako

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDnvmOQDkkw

We've seen this talking point at least twice now.. He's hardly a whacko, you may be tho...

 

[teapartysamurai]

Well, that "wacko" is an international renowned economist and Nobel winner.

But that's beside the point: He didn't say anything about what "the libs" want, he only talked about what he thinks we might need.

OH GET REAL! Krugman has been in the tank for Obamacare from day one.

He is admitting there are death panels in it. Now you libs want to pretend Krugman doesn't represent ANY body else but himself?

Nice try!

Face it. Sarah Palin was right about death panels.

 

[teapartysamurai]

There are currently two strategies, the second of which is being covered up.

1. Death Panels: Keep Medicare, but get rid of costly, ineffective end-of-life procedures. Also, give the patient more control over end-of-life care, e.g., get patients to decide if they want to be kept alive in a vegetative state indefinitely or not. [FYI: These kinds of end-of-life policy suggestions were first made by a Republican]

2) Death: Get rid of Medicare completely. Millions of elderly people depend on medicare. The elderly would be deprived not just of some ineffective end-of-life procedures, but all medical care provided under Medicare. This would result in a social nightmare of epic proportions.

The point of the Reagan Revolution has always been to get rid of Medicare and Social Security (which are the greatest Liberal postwar policy achievements).

The GOP used fear of medicare cuts to get seniors to erupt at town hall meetings in protest of ObamaCare. Here is what seniors don't understand: the GOP is not going to protect their end-of-life medicare procedures, they're getting rid of Medicare (and Social Security) altogether.

The GOP is leading blind sheep to slaughter. People have no idea what the next phase of the Republican Revolution involves. This country is going to be a much different place in ten years. The kind of poverty we are about to see will completely erode the social contract. The wealthy will be barricaded in hyper secure, self-sufficient "Green Zones" . . . while the vast bulk of Americans will live in hopeless squalor, amidst crumbling roads & crime, and unreliable water, heat, transportation, food, and health systems . . . surrounded by massive prisons.

The GOP didn't do anything. They were scared to DEATH to say boo to Obama.

It was the TEA Party that rose up. And if ANYTHING made seniors afraid of losing thier medicare it was OBAMA's policies that did it. There are already cuts coming down the pike.

It doesn't take much to know the only way to "save" money on healthcare is to kill off the people who most need it, the elderly.

It has happened every where this "national healthcare" has been tried, and you expect people in this country to be fooled otherwise?

Nice try!