The New Political Definition of Healthcare

[TooTall]

Yup..... in Politics, and not in 'Healthcare.' The reason will become clear.


1. Doctors regularly discuss situations in the lives of their patients that might be less than healthy....such as smoking, or the use of alcohol....and I've even fielded questions about gun ownership in my home.

Is this a problem?

Is the doctor being inquisitive, or is he/she performing the very function that we, as patients, and he, as guided by the Hippocratic Oath, is required to?


2. Well....it seems that that depends on who is in charge. If a Progressive, Liberal, secularist....then that role is ....muted......altered.

Here is one glaring example. The Obama regime wants doctors to base the care they give their patient on what the Bolsheviks of the Soviet Union called 'medical totalitarianism.' Rather than 'waste' time, care, medicine on you, the patient.....consider the collective, i.e., consider 'social justice.'

"True change, writes Dr. Emanuel [Obama's apparatchik in ObamaCare], must include reassessing the promise doctors make when they enter the profession, the Hippocratic Oath. Amazingly, Dr. Emanuel criticizes the Hippocratic Oath as partly to blame for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he wrote. Physicians take the "Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others." (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008.)

Of course that is what patients hope their doctors will do. But Dr. Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their own patient and consider social justice. They should think about whether the money being spent on their patient could be better spent elsewhere. Many doctors are horrified at this notion, and will tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time. "
Defend Your Health - For a Fit Body and Mind

Downgrading American Medical Care




3. If you have any doubt as to what 'social justice' means, look at the atrocities of the Soviet system in the last century. The slaughter of millions was met with a shrug, and chalked up to "you have to break some eggs if you want to make an omelette."



In other words, your life means nothing if one endorses the collective, big government.

Welcome to the 'brave new world.'

You are the equivalent of a paint store with only a single color paint and a single wide brush for sale.

This is another failed TROLL thread!

It does require an IQ above room temperature to understand the point of the thread. Sorry, you don't qualify.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is there medical evidence to support Dr. Church's health risk concerns over the center’s decision to endorse and celebrate the homosexual lifestyle?


You betcha!

6. "Since 2004, Church has challenged hospital administrators to talk about what he believes are the health risks associated with gay sex. According to Church, gay and bisexual men face a significantly elevated risk of sexually-transmitted disease, including HIV.

“Health care (professionals have) a higher calling,” Church said in a Sept. 1 interview. “It’s an awkward double standard. We counsel people about other self-destructive behaviors like smoking and alcohol but have to be silent about this because it’s socially acceptable.”
http://newbostonpost.com/2015/09/08...mments-on-gay-lifestyle/#sthash.v39xGPpw.dpuf


And...that's what happens when the Liberal fascists are put in charge.




a. Although referring to a different issue, Dr. Alex Rosenau said this about politicians dictating to doctors:

“Here is my problem with legislative medicine,” said Dr. Alex Rosenau, president-elect of the American College of Emergency Physicians and senior vice chairman of emergency medicine at Lehigh Valley Health Network in Eastern Pennsylvania. “It prevents me from being a professional and using my judgment.” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/n...in-public-hospitals-emergency-rooms.html?_r=0


Think about that when you vote.

And the risks for lesbians is lower than that of heterosexuals.

 

[Arianrhod]

Yup..... in Politics, and not in 'Healthcare.' The reason will become clear.


1. Doctors regularly discuss situations in the lives of their patients that might be less than healthy....such as smoking, or the use of alcohol....and I've even fielded questions about gun ownership in my home.

Is this a problem?

It shouldn't be a problem unless you're a paranoid or one of those people who leaves your favorite handgun in the nightstand where your toddler can get at it.

That kind of stupidity is a health-related issue...for the other members of your household and any visitors.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A question pertinent to your vote on election day:
Should medical doctrine be based on science, or on political correctness?

Science would dictate that the right to an abortion is in the best interests of human females.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yup..... in Politics, and not in 'Healthcare.' The reason will become clear.


1. Doctors regularly discuss situations in the lives of their patients that might be less than healthy....such as smoking, or the use of alcohol....and I've even fielded questions about gun ownership in my home.

Is this a problem?

It shouldn't be a problem unless you're a paranoid or one of those people who leaves your favorite handgun in the nightstand where your toddler can get at it.

That kind of stupidity is a health-related issue...for the other members of your household and any visitors.

And this post is what happens when your A.D.D. kicks in, and you only read one or two sentences of a thread.

 

[PoliticalChic]

A question pertinent to your vote on election day:
Should medical doctrine be based on science, or on political correctness?

Science would dictate that the right to an abortion is in the best interests of human females.

Just not to the victim of the murder.

Reinforces a point I've made before: there is no morality associated with 'science.'
It tells what you can do....not what you shouldn't do.

Amazing how you Liberals will simply shrug that sort of thing off.
Is it based on training, or are you simply born with the empathy of a toadstool?

 

[Arianrhod]

Yup..... in Politics, and not in 'Healthcare.' The reason will become clear.


1. Doctors regularly discuss situations in the lives of their patients that might be less than healthy....such as smoking, or the use of alcohol....and I've even fielded questions about gun ownership in my home.

Is this a problem?

It shouldn't be a problem unless you're a paranoid or one of those people who leaves your favorite handgun in the nightstand where your toddler can get at it.

That kind of stupidity is a health-related issue...for the other members of your household and any visitors.

And this post is what happens when your A.D.D. kicks in, and you only read one or two sentences of a thread.

It is a difficult condition to manage, and I hope you're getting the proper treatment. It might help you understand that no one here is obligated to answer the entirety of a post. I responded to the part that was of interest to me, and I look forward to your follow-up observations.

 

[dblack]

If we make healthcare a "right", then government will have a compelling interest in our health - as they define it .

 

[PoliticalChic]

So....in step with his training, Dr. Paul Church spoke up when his hospital fell in line with the Liberal attachment to the gay lifestyle.
He knew of the medical dangers.....and he reported same.

While his professional statements are not disputed...this doctor was fired for failure to toe the Liberal line.


8. "Boston Doctor Fired For Telling Truth About Homosexuality


The report goes on to detail the witch hunt the hospital administration waged against Dr. Church, culminating in its dismissal of him based solely on his speech.


Freedom of speech is effectively dead in America. It has been destroyed by the tyranny of political correctness in the hands of [the secular fascists].


This doctor did nothing but tell the truth. He was acting in a responsible manner, warning of the dangers of homosexual behavior, dangers that are without question, yet the strident voice of sexual deviancy shouted him down, and through its influence on the hospital administration, stripped him of his position."
Boston Doctor Fired For Telling Truth About Homosexuality - Freedom Outpost



Take a look at this, from a government website....


9. "Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSMa), particularly young black/African American MSM, are most seriously affected by HIV.

By race, blacks/African Americans face the most severe burden of HIV.

CDC estimates that 1,218,400 persons aged 13 years and older are living with HIV infection, including 156,300 (12.8%) who are unaware of their infection. Over the past decade, the number of people living with HIV has increased, while the annual number of new HIV infections has remained relatively stable. Still, the pace of new infections continues at far too high a level—particularly among certain groups." U.S. Statistics

This is what the hospital endorsed, and supported.....and what Dr.Church railed against.


Seems that the folks at aids.gov didn't get the memo.

Perhaps they'll be looking for jobs, too.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If we make healthcare a "right", then government will have a compelling interest in our health - as they define it .

Healthcare has been a 'right' since Reagan signed it in 1986.
Because it was a Republican program, there was no political ancillary aspect.


There never was a need for ObamaCare....not medically.
Not even socially, as almost everyone covered by insurance was more than happy with same.
And the political ramifications are spelled out in this thread.

 

[Arianrhod]

...almost everyone covered by insurance was more than happy with same.

Those facing soaring premiums, lifetime caps, and denial for preexisting conditions were not happy, and you'd be faced with an impossible task if you tried to prove they were.

We won't even mention the millions who had no insurance...unless you're the rare RWer who doesn't subscribe to the party line there.

 

[PoliticalChic]

...almost everyone covered by insurance was more than happy with same.

Those facing soaring premiums, lifetime caps, and denial for preexisting conditions were not happy, and you'd be faced with an impossible task if you tried to prove they were..

1. "you'd be faced with an impossible task if you tried to prove they were."
I never say anything I can't prove.
Watch:

"When we started this health care debate a year ago, 85 percent of the American people had health insurance, and 95 percent of the 85 percent were happy with it."
—George Willon Sunday, February 21st, 2010 in a roundtable segment on ABC's This Week"
Will says that 95 percent of people with health insurance are satisfied with it PolitiFact

Here's what we found, poll by poll, in reverse chronological order:

•Quinnipiac University, Sept. 2009. "How satisfied are you with your health insurance plan?" 54 percent very satisfied, 34 percent somewhat.Total: 88 percent satisfaction.

•Quinnipiac University, June 2009. "How satisfied are you with your health insurance plan?" 49 percent very satisfied, 36 somewhat satisfied.Total: 85 percent satisfaction.

•ABC News/Washington Post, June 2009. "For each specific item I name, please tell me whether you are very satisfied with it, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. ... Your health insurance coverage." 42 percent very satisfied, 39 percent somewhat satisfied. Total: 81 percent satisfaction.

•Mathew Greenwald & Associates for the Employee Benefit Research Institute, May 2009. "Overall, how satisfied are you with your current health insurance plan?" 21 percent extremely satisfied, 37 percent very satisfied, 30 percent somewhat satisfied.Total: 88 percent satisfaction.

•ABC News/Washington Post, June 2009. "For each specific item I name, please tell me whether you are very satisfied with it, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. ... Your health insurance coverage." 42 percent very satisfied, 39 percent somewhat satisfied.Total: 81 percent satisfaction.

•Mathew Greenwald & Associates for the Employee Benefit Research Institute, Aug. 2008. "Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following aspects of your health care. ... Quality of health care I receive through my (health insurance) plan." 31 percent extremely satisfied, 41 percent very satisfied, 23 somewhat satisfied.Total: 95 percent satisfaction.

•Mathew Greenwald & Associates for the Employee Benefit Research Institute, Aug. 2008. "Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following aspects of your health care. ... Overall satisfaction with my health (insurance) care plan." 23 percent extremely satisfied, 38 percent very satisfied, 30 percent somewhat satisfied.Total: 91 percent satisfaction.

•Mathew Greenwald & Associates for the Employee Benefit Research Institute, May 2008. "Overall, how satisfied are you with your current health insurance plan?" 17 percent extremely satisfied, 36 percent very satisfied, 33 percent somewhat satisfied.Total: 86 percent satisfaction.

If you average these eight scores, the total rate of satisfaction is 87 percent. In all but one poll, the satisfaction level was below Will's stated level of 95 percent.

One poll, taken five months before Obama was inaugurated, did come up with 95 percent satisfaction. But alone among these eight polls, that survey asked participants about the "quality of health care I receive through my (health insurance) plan." While we decided that the wording was close enough to merit inclusion on our list, the modest difference in satisfaction levels may stem from the way the question was phrased. Many people feel more warmly toward their doctors than they do toward their insurers.

So, while one poll with unique wording pegged satisfaction at 95 percent, the average of all relevant polls over a two-year period was eight points lower than what Will cited. However, Will is correct that the levels of satisfaction with one's own health insurance are consistently high. Indeed, they're extraordinarily high, when one considers how rarely surveys find such high levels of agreement among Americans. Since Will portrayed the larger point accurately, even while modestly overstating the number, we rate his comment Mostly True.
Will says that 95 percent of people with health insurance are satisfied with it




2. "We won't even mention the millions who had no insurance...unless you're the rare RWer who doesn't subscribe to the party line there."
Drop the "we."

Here's your ObamaCare fraud:
“... all of the disruption, spending, taxation, and premium hikes in Obamacare has only reduced the percentage of U.S. residents without health insurance by 2.7 percentage points,from 13.9% to 11.1%: a remarkably small reduction, and far lower than what the law was supposed to achieve.”
--Avik Roy
Obama Administration: Obamacare Has Driven Health Spending Up, While Covering Fewer Than Expected

 

[NYcarbineer]

A question pertinent to your vote on election day:
Should medical doctrine be based on science, or on political correctness?

Science would dictate that the right to an abortion is in the best interests of human females.

Just not to the victim of the murder.

Reinforces a point I've made before: there is no morality associated with 'science.'
It tells what you can do....not what you shouldn't do.

Amazing how you Liberals will simply shrug that sort of thing off.
Is it based on training, or are you simply born with the empathy of a toadstool?

What makes society better if the government can force pregnant women to have a baby? Or face life in prison?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If we make healthcare a "right", then government will have a compelling interest in our health - as they define it .

Healthcare has been a 'right' since Reagan signed it in 1986.
Because it was a Republican program, there was no political ancillary aspect.


There never was a need for ObamaCare....not medically.
Not even socially, as almost everyone covered by insurance was more than happy with same.
And the political ramifications are spelled out in this thread.

Obamacare was not designed to make people who were happy with their insurance happier.

 

[dblack]

If we make healthcare a "right", then government will have a compelling interest in our health - as they define it .

Healthcare has been a 'right' since Reagan signed it in 1986.
Because it was a Republican program, there was no political ancillary aspect.

That was a "foot in the door", as they say. But ACA takes it to another level. And if we get single payer, or actual socialized health care, it will be even more of a concern. I expect to see more and more laws dictating personal behavior in the name of health care cost containment.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If we make healthcare a "right", then government will have a compelling interest in our health - as they define it .

Healthcare has been a 'right' since Reagan signed it in 1986.
Because it was a Republican program, there was no political ancillary aspect.

That was a "foot in the door", as they say. But ACA takes it to another level. And if we get single payer, or actual socialized health care, it will be even more of a concern. I expect to see more and more laws dictating personal behavior in the name of health care cost containment.

"...it will be even more of a concern. I expect to see more and more laws dictating personal behavior...."

I see you are a student of history.

1. Government control of private sector activity...is aptly described as Bolshevik- or Marxist, socialist, collectivist, statist, or, for that matter, fascist, too. Indeed, nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917 (Banks, insurance companies and means of communications were also taken over by Soviet authorities immediately.) Dziewanowski, "A History of Soviet Russia," p. 107.

2. Obama wasn't the first Bolshevik to support socialized medicine. For context, there was Henry Sigerist: "He devoted himself to the study of history of medicine.Socialized Medicine in the Soviet Union(1937), andHistory of Medicinewere among his most important works. He emerged as a major spokesman for "compulsory health insurance". ...He attacked the American Medical Association because of his conflicting views on socialized medicine."
Henry E. Sigerist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. And, Sigerist was one of the apologists for Stalin, including his state-engineered famine in the Ukraine. 7 million perished (The History Place - Genocide in the 20th Century: Stalin's Forced Famine 1932-33).

b. Sigerist "shared with the architects of Soviet health policy under Stalin an outlook best described as medical totalitarianism. He really believed that humanity would be better off if every individual were under the medical supervision of the state from cradle to grave....[and] Sigerist's belief in the necessity for state control over all aspects of medicine ultimately made him an apologist for state control over most aspects of human life." Fee and Brown, eds. "Making Medical History: The Life and Times of Henry E. Sigerist," p. 252

 

[PoliticalChic]

If we make healthcare a "right", then government will have a compelling interest in our health - as they define it .

Healthcare has been a 'right' since Reagan signed it in 1986.
Because it was a Republican program, there was no political ancillary aspect.


There never was a need for ObamaCare....not medically.
Not even socially, as almost everyone covered by insurance was more than happy with same.
And the political ramifications are spelled out in this thread.

Obamacare was not designed to make people who were happy with their insurance happier.

"Obamacare was not designed to make people who were happy with their insurance happier."


ObamaCare was a duplicate of the earlier Bolshevik plan.

It was unconcerned as to who was 'happy,' or even covered with medical insurance.

It was always a plan to co-opt one seventh of the private economy, and allow totalitarian governance.....
...exactly as conservatives warned.

1. There seem to be only two ironclad rules of government:
Rule no.1: Always try to expand;

Rule no. 2: see Rule no. 1.
Beck, Balfe, “Broke,” p. 115

 

[Dot Com]

It does require an IQ above room temperature to understand the point of the thread. Sorry, you don't qualify.

Nice drive by

SERIOUSLY?!!! The guy demolished the OP and THATS your response?

 

[TooTall]

It does require an IQ above room temperature to understand the point of the thread. Sorry, you don't qualify.

Nice drive by

SERIOUSLY?!!! The guy demolished the OP and THATS your response?

.
He didn't lay a finger on her.

 

[Dot Com]

"When we started this health care debate a year ago, 85 percent of the American people had health insurance, and 95 percent of the 85 percent were happy with it."
—George Willon Sunday, February 21st, 2010 in a roundtable segment on ABC's This Week"
Will says that 95 percent of people with health insurance are satisfied with it PolitiFact