The New Communism: Healthcare

Clearly false. Note the following, which are only some of the " government sponsorhip [sic]and involvement" in healthcare.
a. One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and "the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration."

b. . THE FACTS: In House legislation, a commission appointed by the government would determine what is and isn't covered by insurance plans offered in a new purchasing pool, including a plan sponsored by the government. The bill also holds out the possibility that, over time, those standards could be imposed on all private insurance plans, not just the ones in the pool. …reform that plainly show the government making key decisions in health care.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/07/22/us/politics/AP-US-Obama-Fact-Check.html

c. , Dr. Blumenthal settled a debate on whether the system will control doctors' treatment decisions. In an article in the New England Journal of Medicine (April 9, 2009), Dr. Blumenthal stressed that the real importance of computers is to deliver "embedded clinical decision support," a euphemism for computers telling doctors what to do.
Defend Your Health Care

d. And when Medicare was enacted, Section 1801 of the original law specifically prohibited any bureaucratic interference with the practice of medicine. Today not one word of that protection still applies. The federal government owns the health-care industry lock, stock, and barrel.
The new program you support will eventually include all sorts of powers and privileges you can't even imagine right now.
The 7 Never-to-be-Forgotten Principles of Government

e. And as soon as anything changes in your contract -- such as a change in copays or deductibles, which many insurers change every year -- you'll have to move into a qualified plan instead (House bill, p. 16-17).
Defend Your Health Care

f. Also slipped into the emergency stimulus legislation was substantial funding for a Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research, comparative effectiveness research is generally code for limiting care based on the patient's age. Economists are familiar with the formula already in use in the U.K., where the cost of a treatment is divided by the number of years (called QALYS or quality-adjusted life years) the patient is likely to benefit. In the U.K., the formula leads to denying treatments for age-related diseases because older patients have a denominator problem -- fewer years to benefit than younger patients with other diseases. In 2006, older patients with macular degeneration, which causes blindness, were told that they had to go totally blind in one eye before they could get an expensive new drug to save the other eye. It took nearly two years to get that government edict reversed. Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., a Louisiana heart surgeon, warned to no avail that it would lead to "denying seniors and the disabled lifesaving care."
Defend Your Health Care




I would estimate that 3/5 of the elderly people I pick up have some degree of POST form. Some of them want IV access, others don't. Some want artificial ventilation, others don't. Politicians are talking about end-of-life counseling as if it is something new that was created by Obama.

The quotes are wrong. A-B-C-D-E-F are mine.
 
July 29, 2009
Categories: Healthcare

Euthenasia?


I was a little puzzled to see the claim that health care reform was the fast track to euthanasia surface in recent days; Carrie Budoff Brown has the background, which is an obscure provision requiring coverage for end-of-life consultations.

The reality:

The provision would require Medicare to cover advanced care consultations for the first time, but it does not mandate individuals to take advantage of the benefit, proponents say. The consultations would take place between the patient and a doctor or nurse practitioner, not a government bureaucrat. And there would be no requirement for the individual to sign a directive or living will at the end of the discussion.

“This measure would not only help people make the best decisions for themselves but also better ensure that their wishes are followed,” AARP Executive Vice President John Rother said in a statement. “To suggest otherwise is a gross, and even cruel, distortion — especially for any family that has been forced to make the difficult decisions on care for loved ones approaching the end of their lives.”

Jon Keyserling, vice president for public policy and counsel at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, said: “I was surprised that any responsible legislative analyst would indicate this is a mandatory provision. That is just a misreading of the language and, certainly, of the intent.”

This sort of line of attack -- an intense focus on, and in this case distortion of -- a narrow provision is a key part of how health care changes were defeated in 1993. The new media environment is much less hospitable, I think, to this sort of thing. In fact, for all the talk of dumbing down media, you can find a very nuanced, rich policy debate based on original documents all over the place, and while myths spread fast, the practice of nipping them in the bud is a well-developed one.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/

:clap2:

Do you realize that withoug emoticons you'd be mute?
 
Actually, if you read and contemplate just what PC is saying, democrats, leftists and liberals are WORSE than al Quada... they want to kill Americans, but unlike al Qaeda, they are not upfront about their intentions

So, if you carry that thinking to it's end, ONLY right wingers are true Americans...

Liberals don't deserve to live in a nation founded on liberal tenets...
 
"dubious "facts" backed by dubious sources..." Why didn't you provide same?

Why don't I provide dubious facts from dubious sources?

"...individual who really has nothing to bring to the health care debate." Than why are you providing this interesting reading material? As Shakespeare so aptly stated, methinks you protest too much.

But you protest to an adequate level, I suppose.

"...You deplore any public policy solution or element that comes from the left of center, suggesting that everything can only be solved with a right-wing approach." Classic straw-man argument. Examples are required.

That really isn't necessary, because every single one of your posts demonstrates this point. But I did quote and cite you in my original post.

"...condemnation of everything liberal." I admit that, this being so easy, I sometimes take the lazy route.

Or the ideologue route.

"...this tactic operates under the premise that communism is still a threat to economic systems around the world and is currently on the rise. " I'll buy that. My 'warnings' are based on the direction of the leftist administration and the hope that I'll never be able to say 'I told you so."

Your warnings are based on misinformed speculation.

Did you notice that the current administration controls the profits of 30% of the economy, and with healthcare, would control 47%? Daunting? Or is this the capitalism that has taken us from feudalism and been the wonderful engine of freedom?

A lot of the freedoms you enjoy come from the left-of-centre. Like 40-hour work weeks, overtime pay, and weekends.

"The alarm and panic surrounding the "communist" nature of health care reform, or any other proposed legislation or public policy, is completely unsubstantiated with no footing in reality." See, the problem with your writing, eloquent though it is, is that you make broad incorrect statements with no foundation, and fold your arms and strut away as though you were victorious. Do better.

Please point out which of my statements are "broadly incorrect with no foundation". I'm up for the challenge.

"...dubious facts ..." Begging the question.

What question?

Referring to 'warnings' and 'propaganda strategy' usually means you have no point to make. Logic requires you to specifiy and show they are incorrect.

That's already been done. Bfgrn and others have already disproved your claims throughout this thread.

The gaping flaw is that you have not selected, identified, specified any of the points in the healthcare bill that I and others have criticized.

Nor have you. None of these points that you "specify" come from the healthcare bill. They came from Fox News:

So, would you like to debate 1)that there will be long waits for procedures?

2) Or rationing of healthcare?

3) Or an increased burden on the elderly?

4) Or that the program will be over $1 trillion in costs?

If you're going to ask me to cite the actual healthcare bill, it's only fair you do the same.

Yes, I claim that the direction and import of the currenct administration is leftist, socialist and ultimately communist, in that the death of those who require excessive procedures, and cost, will be encouraged. But with time of the essence, it is cleat why you would rather remain in the theoretical realm.

You keep throwing the term "socialist" around. Can you tell us what it actually means? Define "socialist".

I like your post, please come back.

Well you certainly provide people with entertainment, that's for sure.
 
"dubious "facts" backed by dubious sources..." Why didn't you provide same?

Why don't I provide dubious facts from dubious sources?

"...individual who really has nothing to bring to the health care debate." Than why are you providing this interesting reading material? As Shakespeare so aptly stated, methinks you protest too much.

But you protest to an adequate level, I suppose.



That really isn't necessary, because every single one of your posts demonstrates this point. But I did quote and cite you in my original post.



Or the ideologue route.



Your warnings are based on misinformed speculation.



A lot of the freedoms you enjoy come from the left-of-centre. Like 40-hour work weeks, overtime pay, and weekends.



Please point out which of my statements are "broadly incorrect with no foundation". I'm up for the challenge.



What question?



That's already been done. Bfgrn and others have already disproved your claims throughout this thread.



Nor have you. None of these points that you "specify" come from the healthcare bill. They came from Fox News:



If you're going to ask me to cite the actual healthcare bill, it's only fair you do the same.

Yes, I claim that the direction and import of the currenct administration is leftist, socialist and ultimately communist, in that the death of those who require excessive procedures, and cost, will be encouraged. But with time of the essence, it is cleat why you would rather remain in the theoretical realm.

You keep throwing the term "socialist" around. Can you tell us what it actually means? Define "socialist".

I like your post, please come back.

Well you certainly provide people with entertainment, that's for sure.

:clap2:
 
Once upon a time the cognoscenti were proud to tell all that they were communists! Proud to be on the cutting edge of societal thought, clearly ahead of everyone else. But once the horrendous nature of the ideology became apparent, it was no longer possible to wear that badge.

Then, they were liberals, then progressives…whatever incarnation served, until its predilections became known.

Now, the rebirth of the thinking that we, the proletariat, the bourgeois, must be deprived of our lives and our liberties.
The new title is Communitarian, and the new bumper sticker is ‘social justice,’ and nowhere is it more evident than in the healthcare debate.

Read their own self-description, and recognize the political babble of the 1950’s American Communists:

“Communitarianism emerged in the 1980s as a response to the limits of liberal theory and practice. Its dominant themes are that individual rights need to be balanced with social responsibilities, and that autonomous selves do not exist in isolation, but are shaped by the values and culture of communities…The critique of one-sided emphasis on rights has been key to defining communitarianism…"Rights talk" thus corrupts our political discourse, and is used to trump genuine conversation, public deliberation, and practical compromise…rights need to be seen in a more balanced framework, and that the U.S. would benefit by a temporary moratorium on the manufacture of new rights.
While a few communitarians have developed refined institutional analyses to match their critiques—one thinks of liberal-communitarian Ezekiel Emanuel's very interesting proposals on health care…”
CPN - Tools

“Another key administration figure… is Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor in the Office of Management and Budget and brother of Rahm Emanuel, self-described 'communitarian, the president's chief of staff…”is one of those responsible for inserting into the “healthcare bill” the ideas that we no longer should have rights, such as determining what care we can buy, or how long we should live, and doctors should no longer look to the Hippocratic Oath, and the particular patient, but neglect the patient in the interests of ‘social justice,’ and the society as a whole.

The shocking element is that, in the words of Democat former Colorodo Governor Dick Lamb, "the elderly have a patriotic duty to die."

There are numerous psychological studies on the right wing mind... but you are the classic example of the extreme right wing mind... overwhelming paranoia and totally driven by the strongest human emotion...FEAR...

Look OUT, the black helicopters are circling!!!

Nice way to address the issues.
Oh wait, you didn't.
Yawn.....................[/QUOTE

...and a real knack for copying and pasting! I've never seen one better at it.
 

Forum List

Back
Top