President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[S2M]

I have a serious question. So please don't rip me a new one....

What would be the repercussions of Washington saying that all U.S. Private, and Business debt is squashed, and from Jan 1, 2011 we are starting at square one with a clean slate. Wouldn't that resuscitate the economy?

Or even squashing all student loans that are 15 years old and older...

Every person and company in this country holds debt, so me not paying back my 'electric bill' debt let's say - won't cripple National Grid because National Grid must owe money too, so it'd be a wash....more of less. Hmmmm....maybe that's a bad example. Ok, credit card debt then. Nobody owes anybody. Debt wiped clean. Square one....

This ONE TIME deal would help the country's finances considerably....IMHO

[slucero]

I have a serious question. So please don't rip me a new one....

What would be the repercussions of Washington saying that all U.S. Private, and Business debt is squashed, and from Jan 1, 2011 we are starting at square one with a clean slate. Wouldn't that resuscitate the economy?

Or even squashing all student loans that are 15 years old and older...

Every person and company in this country holds debt, so me not paying back my 'electric bill' debt let's say - won't cripple National Grid because National Grid must owe money too, so it'd be a wash....more of less. Hmmmm....maybe that's a bad example. Ok, credit card debt then. Nobody owes anybody. Debt wiped clean. Square one....

This ONE TIME deal would help the country's finances considerably....IMHO

It's not that debt that is the problem... it's the debt on the governments books.. that ultimately is the Taxpayers...

[artist4perry]

I do support the arbitrary beatings of Polacks and Micks, though, so I guess I should join Jan Brewer's facebook page.

Everyone now and them you pop a complete winner dude. Definately sig worthy.

Dude, learn to spell definitely. Not picking on you because a lot of dumbshits here do it, but it's DEFINITELY. This torques the ever living shit out of me...almost as much as people saying loose instead of lose. Goddamned that irritates me to no end.

Now I am going to spell the other way on purpose...

When I am typing quickly half the time I barely spell at all...so get over it! LOL

Don't LOOSE your cool Deano! LOL!

Can it Bitch! You spell about as good as Stevie Wonder drives a car.

Merry Christmas to you too! LOL! I have improved for the most part have I not? Outside of this intentional mistake? Hugs, hope the shoulder mends soon.

[Monker]

I do support the arbitrary beatings of Polacks and Micks, though, so I guess I should join Jan Brewer's facebook page.

Everyone now and them you pop a complete winner dude. Definately sig worthy.

Still not as bad as FF saying he supports rounding up Muslim Americans and sending them out of country to be shot.

[conversationpc]

I have a serious question. So please don't rip me a new one....

What would be the repercussions of Washington saying that all U.S. Private, and Business debt is squashed, and from Jan 1, 2011 we are starting at square one with a clean slate. Wouldn't that resuscitate the economy?

Or even squashing all student loans that are 15 years old and older...

Every person and company in this country holds debt, so me not paying back my 'electric bill' debt let's say - won't cripple National Grid because National Grid must owe money too, so it'd be a wash....more of less. Hmmmm....maybe that's a bad example. Ok, credit card debt then. Nobody owes anybody. Debt wiped clean. Square one....

This ONE TIME deal would help the country's finances considerably....IMHO

Because it would probably crash the economy, and the world's for that matter, and make the U.S. dollar even more worthless than it already is.

[Monker]

I have a serious question. So please don't rip me a new one....

What would be the repercussions of Washington saying that all U.S. Private, and Business debt is squashed, and from Jan 1, 2011 we are starting at square one with a clean slate. Wouldn't that resuscitate the economy?

Probably civil war...

How can the government stop in and say all private debt is erased? If someobdy owes you money and the government steps in and says, "no they don't..." I would expect that to piss you off pretty heavily.

And, the government suddenly sayin, "Oh, BTW, we no longer owe anybody any money any longer...." is just ridiculous.

You are basicaly saying we should have communism. Sorry, but the Republicans lost the WH.

[conversationpc]

You are basicaly saying we should have communism. Sorry, but the Republicans lost the WH.

Not that I'm a big fan of the Republican party but with the poser we currently have in the White House, we're a lot closer to communism than we would be otherwise.

[RedWingFan]

Hmmm... Palin was right about "death panels".
But she didn't attend an expensive Ivy League university so I guess she's still an idiot huh? Just smarter than all of the Obama drones on this board who claimed the "death panels" were just her fear mongering.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/us/po ... .html?_r=1

December 25, 2010
Obama Returns to End-of-Life Plan That Caused StirBy ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON — When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off a political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from legislation to overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1.

Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.

Congressional supporters of the new policy, though pleased, have kept quiet. They fear provoking another furor like the one in 2009 when Republicans seized on the idea of end-of-life counseling to argue that the Democrats’ bill would allow the government to cut off care for the critically ill.

The final version of the health care legislation, signed into law by President Obama in March, authorized Medicare coverage of yearly physical examinations, or wellness visits. The new rule says Medicare will cover “voluntary advance care planning,” to discuss end-of-life treatment, as part of the annual visit.

Under the rule, doctors can provide information to patients on how to prepare an “advance directive,” stating how aggressively they wish to be treated if they are so sick that they cannot make health care decisions for themselves.

While the new law does not mention advance care planning, the Obama administration has been able to achieve its policy goal through the regulation-writing process, a strategy that could become more prevalent in the next two years as the president deals with a strengthened Republican opposition in Congress.

In this case, the administration said research had shown the value of end-of-life planning.

“Advance care planning improves end-of-life care and patient and family satisfaction and reduces stress, anxiety and depression in surviving relatives,” the administration said in the preamble to the Medicare regulation, quoting research published this year in the British Medical Journal.

The administration also cited research by Dr. Stacy M. Fischer, an assistant professor at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, who found that “end-of-life discussions between doctor and patient help ensure that one gets the care one wants.” In this sense, Dr. Fischer said, such consultations “protect patient autonomy.”

Opponents said the Obama administration was bringing back a procedure that could be used to justify the premature withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from people with severe illnesses and disabilities.

Section 1233 of the bill passed by the House in November 2009 — but not included in the final legislation — allowed Medicare to pay for consultations about advance care planning every five years. In contrast, the new rule allows annual discussions as part of the wellness visit.

Elizabeth D. Wickham, executive director of LifeTree, which describes itself as “a pro-life Christian educational ministry,” said she was concerned that end-of-life counseling would encourage patients to forgo or curtail care, thus hastening death.

“The infamous Section 1233 is still alive and kicking,” Ms. Wickham said. “Patients will lose the ability to control treatments at the end of life.”

Several Democratic members of Congress, led by Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, had urged the administration to cover end-of-life planning as a service offered under the Medicare wellness benefit. A national organization of hospice care providers made the same recommendation.

Mr. Blumenauer, the author of the original end-of-life proposal, praised the rule as “a step in the right direction.”

“It will give people more control over the care they receive,” Mr. Blumenauer said in an interview. “It means that doctors and patients can have these conversations in the normal course of business, as part of our health care routine, not as something put off until we are forced to do it.”

After learning of the administration’s decision, Mr. Blumenauer’s office celebrated “a quiet victory,” but urged supporters not to crow about it.

“While we are very happy with the result, we won’t be shouting it from the rooftops because we aren’t out of the woods yet,” Mr. Blumenauer’s office said in an e-mail in early November to people working with him on the issue. “This regulation could be modified or reversed, especially if Republican leaders try to use this small provision to perpetuate the ‘death panel’ myth.”

Moreover, the e-mail said: “We would ask that you not broadcast this accomplishment out to any of your lists, even if they are ‘supporters’ — e-mails can too easily be forwarded.”

The e-mail continued: “Thus far, it seems that no press or blogs have discovered it, but we will be keeping a close watch and may be calling on you if we need a rapid, targeted response. The longer this goes unnoticed, the better our chances of keeping it.”

In the interview, Mr. Blumenauer said, “Lies can go viral if people use them for political purposes.”

The proposal for Medicare coverage of advance care planning was omitted from the final health care bill because of the uproar over unsubstantiated claims that it would encourage euthanasia.

Sarah Palin, the 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate, and Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, led the criticism in the summer of 2009. Ms. Palin said “Obama’s death panel” would decide who was worthy of health care. Mr. Boehner, who is in line to become speaker, said, “This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia.” Forced onto the defensive, Mr. Obama said that nothing in the bill would “pull the plug on grandma.”

A recent poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation suggests that the idea of death panels persists. In the September poll, 30 percent of Americans 65 and older said the new health care law allowed a government panel to make decisions about end-of-life care for people on Medicare. The law has no such provision.

The new policy is included in a huge Medicare regulation setting payment rates for thousands of services including arthroscopy, mastectomy and X-rays.

The rule was issued by Dr. Donald M. Berwick, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and a longtime advocate for better end-of-life care.

“Using unwanted procedures in terminal illness is a form of assault,” Dr. Berwick has said. “In economic terms, it is waste. Several techniques, including advance directives and involvement of patients and families in decision-making, have been shown to reduce inappropriate care at the end of life, leading to both lower cost and more humane care.”

Ellen B. Griffith, a spokeswoman for the Medicare agency, said, “The final health care reform law has no provision for voluntary advance care planning.” But Ms. Griffith added, under the new rule, such planning “may be included as an element in both the first and subsequent annual wellness visits, providing an opportunity to periodically review and update the beneficiary’s wishes and preferences for his or her medical care.”

Mr. Blumenauer and Mr. Rockefeller said that advance directives would help doctors and nurses provide care in keeping with patients’ wishes.

“Early advance care planning is important because a person’s ability to make decisions may diminish over time, and he or she may suddenly lose the capability to participate in health care decisions,” the lawmakers said in a letter to Dr. Berwick in August.

In a recent study of 3,700 people near the end of life, Dr. Maria J. Silveira of the University of Michigan found that many had “treatable, life-threatening conditions” but lacked decision-making capacity in their final days. With the new Medicare coverage, doctors can learn a patient’s wishes before a crisis occurs.

For example, Dr. Silveira said, she might ask a person with heart disease, “If you have another heart attack and your heart stops beating, would you want us to try to restart it?” A patient dying of emphysema might be asked, “Do you want to go on a breathing machine for the rest of your life?” And, she said, a patient with incurable cancer might be asked, “When the time comes, do you want us to use technology to try and delay your death?”

[The_Noble_Cause]

Hmmm... Palin was right about "death panels".
But she didn't attend an expensive Ivy League university so I guess she's still an idiot huh? Just smarter than all of the Obama drones on this board who claimed the "death panels" were just her fear mongering.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/us/po ... .html?_r=1

There's nothing in this article about death panels. This is the same end-of-life provision that was debated earlier. Why shouldn't Medicare cover the cost of patients deciding with the doctors how they'd like to be treated in case they are severely incapacitated? Perhaps you would prefer the alternative - Congress convening an emergency meeting each time someone wants to pull the plug ala Terri Schiavo? Death is a part of living. Grow up, man.

[RossValoryRocks]

Hmmm... Palin was right about "death panels".
But she didn't attend an expensive Ivy League university so I guess she's still an idiot huh? Just smarter than all of the Obama drones on this board who claimed the "death panels" were just her fear mongering.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/us/po ... .html?_r=1

There's nothing in this article about death panels. This is the same end-of-life provision that was debated earlier. Why shouldn't Medicare cover the cost of patients deciding with the doctors how they'd like to be treated in case they are severely incapacitated? Perhaps you would prefer the alternative - Congress convening an emergency meeting each time someone wants to pull the plug ala Terri Schiavo? Death is a part of living. Grow up, man.

Bullshit TNC...they are going to PUSH it over potential life saving measures because the cost is cheaper, they (the Obama administration) has said as much.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Bullshit TNC...they are going to PUSH it over potential life saving measures because the cost is cheaper, they (the Obama administration) has said as much.

That's always a possibility. Why not let the patients and family members decide for themselves? Your conservative faith in the individual is strangely lacking here.

[S2M]

Personally, when it is time to go - it is time to go. Who wants to be artificial, or let a fucking machine breath for you - out of some selfish notion that you want to live longer(at a reduced quality of life)....you have NO idea how pissed I was when Mantle got that liver. Fucker got his liver on June 8, 1995 - and died Aug. 13 of same year....what a fucking waste. Bypassing kids and shit.

[Seven Wishes2]

Ridiculous.

NO ONE will be taking a position of advocating not pursuing life-saving measures on a human being, no matter what the age, without the expressed conscious consent of the individual in question. Any physician would immediately and permanently have his or her license to practice medicine revoked if that were the case. No-one in the Obama Administration has "said as much".

Really, HimmlerFan. Stop dredging up the ghost of McCarthy with a side of the memories of Nixon.

You REALLY swallowed the load on that one.

[Memorex]

Ridiculous.

NO ONE will be taking a position of advocating not pursuing life-saving measures on a human being, no matter what the age, without the expressed conscious consent of the individual in question. Any physician would immediately and permanently have his or her license to practice medicine revoked if that were the case. No-one in the Obama Administration has "said as much".

Really, HimmlerFan. Stop dredging up the ghost of McCarthy with a side of the memories of Nixon.

You REALLY swallowed the load on that one.

Um, ok.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/211999.php

This has every bit to do with cost. If people want to change the world, fine. Just be honest about it and move on.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Um, ok.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/211999.php

This has every bit to do with cost. If people want to change the world, fine. Just be honest about it and move on.

Since you're the one touting "honesty" can you show or prove that the FDA panel that made this decision faced political pressure from Obama? Until then you're just drawing connections that aren't there. Here are their names. As far as I know, they have served several administrations.

Bruce N. Calonge, M.D., M.P.H. (Chair)
Chief Medical Officer and State Epidemiologist
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Denver, CO

Diana B. Petitti, M.D., M.P.H. (Vice Chair)
Professor of Biomedical Informatics
Fulton School of Engineering
Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ

Susan Curry, Ph.D.
Dean, College of Public Health
Distinguished Professor
University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA

Allen J. Dietrich, M.D.
Professor, Community and Family Medicine
Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, NH

Thomas G. DeWitt, M.D.
Carl Weihl Professor of Pediatrics
Director of the Division of General and Community Pediatrics
Department of Pediatrics, Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH

Kimberly D. Gregory, M.D., M.P.H.
Director, Maternal-Fetal Medicine and Women’s Health Services Research
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA

David Grossman, M.D., M.P.H.
Medical Director, Preventive Care and Senior Investigator, Center for Health Studies, Group Health Cooperative
Professor of Health Services and Adjunct Professor of Pediatrics
University of Washington, Seattle, WA

George Isham, M.D., M.S.
Medical Director and Chief Health Officer
HealthPartners, Minneapolis, MN

Michael L. LeFevre, M.D., M.S.P.H.
Professor, Department of Family and Community Medicine
University of Missouri School of Medicine, Columbia, MO

Rosanne Leipzig, M.D., Ph.D
Professor, Geriatrics and Adult Development, Medicine, Health Policy
Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY

Lucy N. Marion, Ph.D., R.N.
Dean and Professor, School of Nursing
Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA

Joy Melnikow, M.D., M.P.H.
Professor, Department of Family and Community Medicine
Associate Director, Center for Healthcare Policy and Research
University of California Davis, Sacramento, CA

Bernadette Melnyk, Ph.D., R.N., C.P.N.P./N.P.P.
Dean and Distinguished Foundation Professor in Nursing
College of Nursing & Healthcare Innovation
Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ

Wanda Nicholson, M.D., M.P.H., M.B.A.
Associate Professor
Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD

J. Sanford (Sandy) Schwartz, M.D.
Leon Hess Professor of Medicine, Health Management, and Economics
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and Wharton School, Philadelphia, PA

Timothy Wilt, M.D., M.P.H.
Professor, Department of Medicine, Minneapolis VA Medical Center
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN

[Memorex]

Um, ok.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/211999.php

This has every bit to do with cost. If people want to change the world, fine. Just be honest about it and move on.

Since you're the one touting "honesty" can you show or prove that the FDA panel that made this decision faced political pressure from Obama? Until then you're just drawing connections that aren't there. Here are their names. As far as I know, they have served several administrations.

Bruce N. Calonge, M.D., M.P.H. (Chair)
Chief Medical Officer and State Epidemiologist
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Denver, CO

Diana B. Petitti, M.D., M.P.H. (Vice Chair)
Professor of Biomedical Informatics
Fulton School of Engineering
Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ

Susan Curry, Ph.D.
Dean, College of Public Health
Distinguished Professor
University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA

Allen J. Dietrich, M.D.
Professor, Community and Family Medicine
Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, NH

Thomas G. DeWitt, M.D.
Carl Weihl Professor of Pediatrics
Director of the Division of General and Community Pediatrics
Department of Pediatrics, Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH

Kimberly D. Gregory, M.D., M.P.H.
Director, Maternal-Fetal Medicine and Women’s Health Services Research
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA

David Grossman, M.D., M.P.H.
Medical Director, Preventive Care and Senior Investigator, Center for Health Studies, Group Health Cooperative
Professor of Health Services and Adjunct Professor of Pediatrics
University of Washington, Seattle, WA

George Isham, M.D., M.S.
Medical Director and Chief Health Officer
HealthPartners, Minneapolis, MN

Michael L. LeFevre, M.D., M.S.P.H.
Professor, Department of Family and Community Medicine
University of Missouri School of Medicine, Columbia, MO

Rosanne Leipzig, M.D., Ph.D
Professor, Geriatrics and Adult Development, Medicine, Health Policy
Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY

Lucy N. Marion, Ph.D., R.N.
Dean and Professor, School of Nursing
Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA

Joy Melnikow, M.D., M.P.H.
Professor, Department of Family and Community Medicine
Associate Director, Center for Healthcare Policy and Research
University of California Davis, Sacramento, CA

Bernadette Melnyk, Ph.D., R.N., C.P.N.P./N.P.P.
Dean and Distinguished Foundation Professor in Nursing
College of Nursing & Healthcare Innovation
Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ

Wanda Nicholson, M.D., M.P.H., M.B.A.
Associate Professor
Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD

J. Sanford (Sandy) Schwartz, M.D.
Leon Hess Professor of Medicine, Health Management, and Economics
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and Wharton School, Philadelphia, PA

Timothy Wilt, M.D., M.P.H.
Professor, Department of Medicine, Minneapolis VA Medical Center
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN

I actually need to look no further than the healthcare plan to know that economically, it absolutely 100% cannot work without some form of control. Would never be successful without it. So we can argue the point all day long, but simple math holds the answer.

Also, in looking over various articles, I can't find one solid reason for the FDA to pull approval outside of cost. Not saying it's not a valid reason, but I do believe it is the reason.

[Memorex]

And I never will believe under any circumstance that the choices of any governmental agency aren't somehow influenced by the administration - no matter who is in office. I'm not that naive.

[The_Noble_Cause]

I actually need to look no further than the healthcare plan to know that economically, it absolutely 100% cannot work without some form of control. Would never be successful without it. So we can argue the point all day long, but simple math holds the answer.

Also, in looking over various articles, I can't find one solid reason for the FDA to pull approval outside of cost. Not saying it's not a valid reason, but I do believe it is the reason.

Your personal beliefs are not facts. You are making fact-free insinuations. You may feel in your gut that a FDA decision is tied to death panels, but please show your homework before lecturing us about honesty. Also, as an aside, maybe if the US government didn't grant patents to drugs (that are already partially taxpayer funded) they wouldn't cost so much.

[RossValoryRocks]

Bullshit TNC...they are going to PUSH it over potential life saving measures because the cost is cheaper, they (the Obama administration) has said as much.

That's always a possibility. Why not let the patients and family members decide for themselves? Your conservative faith in the individual is strangely lacking here.

Bullshit again...I believe in people making choices...but end of life choices being pushed by a medical community contrained by government rules and regulations in regard to costs all the time while dealing with the stress of a loved one facing those choices is just a recipe for WRONG decisions.

Christ but you can spin...how about applying some COMMON sense instead of spin?

[RossValoryRocks]

I actually need to look no further than the healthcare plan to know that economically, it absolutely 100% cannot work without some form of control. Would never be successful without it. So we can argue the point all day long, but simple math holds the answer.

Also, in looking over various articles, I can't find one solid reason for the FDA to pull approval outside of cost. Not saying it's not a valid reason, but I do believe it is the reason.

Your personal beliefs are not facts. You are making fact-free insinuations. You may feel in your gut that a FDA decision is tied to death panels, but please show your homework before lecturing us about honesty. Also, as an aside, maybe if the US government didn't grant patents to drugs (that are already partially taxpayer funded) they wouldn't cost so much.

Wow...a third bullshit tonight...no usual for you...but on the drug cost thing...almost ALL drug research is done in the US, the ONLY way these companies can recoup the cost is to sell that for a lot of money HERE in the US during the period for which the have the patents, since the socialist governments in almost EVERY other country out there limit what a company can charge.

If the US government did the same to our drug compaies then there would be ZERO drug research done, as there would be NO profit in, and then we would be fucked, wouldn't we?

[Memorex]

I have witnessed this stuff first hand with my son. He was denied medical treatment from blue cross based solely on the cost. We had to take him outside their network to get him treatment and it got rather serious. We had to pay for it all because they refused. Unless I filed a lawsuit, the system is set up so that they are the judge and jury. Sucks.

I could show 50 articles about the FDA choice being cost based, but to be honest I am just really shocked anyone thinks it could be based on anything else. Oh well.

[Rockindeano]

I have witnessed this stuff first hand with my son. He was denied medical treatment from blue cross based solely on the cost. We had to take him outside their network to get him treatment and it got rather serious. We had to pay for it all because they refused. Unless I filed a lawsuit, the system is set up so that they are the judge and jury. Sucks.

Wow. SAVE this quote for all the close minded conservative dolts on here who say the new health care law sucks. THIS is proof that we needed overhaul.

[RossValoryRocks]

I have witnessed this stuff first hand with my son. He was denied medical treatment from blue cross based solely on the cost. We had to take him outside their network to get him treatment and it got rather serious. We had to pay for it all because they refused. Unless I filed a lawsuit, the system is set up so that they are the judge and jury. Sucks.

Wow. SAVE this quote for all the close minded conservative dolts on here who say the new health care law sucks. THIS is proof that we needed overhaul.

I don't disagree with the fact we need overhaul...I object to how they are proposing to overhaul it.

And if you didn't notice...it's the FEDS themselves who are causing the issues Memorex is referring to...or did that escape you?

[Seven Wishes2]

I have witnessed this stuff first hand with my son. He was denied medical treatment from blue cross based solely on the cost. We had to take him outside their network to get him treatment and it got rather serious. We had to pay for it all because they refused. Unless I filed a lawsuit, the system is set up so that they are the judge and jury. Sucks.

I could show 50 articles about the FDA choice being cost based, but to be honest I am just really shocked anyone thinks it could be based on anything else. Oh well.

I'm in EXACTLY the same boat as you here, and I do completely empathize. My son's treatments have cost over $200,000 out of pocket over the past 8 years, and are the only reason I'm still in debt.

Thanks to Obama, children can no longer be turned down for insurance because of pre-existing conditions. The same will be true for adults in 2014.

If the Democrats hadn't had to acquiesce to the GOP on cost control mechanisms (regulations) and the public option, this bill would look a lot better.

Please, though - leave the research to the physicians. Your two cents, as is the case with RWF and LiePaster, does not count as truth when, as in this case, they aren't based in fact

[Memorex]

My point is that the whole system is based on profits, etc. What everyone has to recognize is that there will be offsets for all the benefits. It is crazy to think otherwise. To your point of this bill saying that kids cannot be turned away for pre existing conditions - go ahead and browse all the news stories about the number of insurance companies and unions that have now dropped coverage for children all together. That's just the financial reality.

Here's a good one. Check the unions that have begun raising rates because their plans are cadilac plans and will be taxed at 40%. What sucks about that is they are starting the increase in premiums next year and using that tax as a reason, but the tax doesn't kick in until 2018.

My premiums are going up $120 a month starting next month with no increase in benefit. The letter from the insurance company states the health care law as the reason.

I'm not really taking a position here as it's not the point. The point is, you would be crazy to assume many negative things will not happen financially to many people in order for the plan to cover millions more. So when someone brings up death panels, which are very real, you should not dismiss it. Just as they should not dismiss the reality that more people will be covered.

This whole plan is worse for me on many levels. Higher premiums, a taxed plan, lower FSA contributions starting next year, the inability to pay in pre tax premiums, etc. So i have to look at that and say ok, for what i am losing and paying for, what is the benefit to the whole country. And for that, people just have to look at the positives and decide if it is worth it.

Point is, this is a plan that has benefits, but will be at the cost of many. For some, it will hurt. For others, it will be a saving grace.

[Seven Wishes2]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/aug/10/palin-death-panel-remark-sets-truth-o-meter-fire/

There is no panel in any version of the health care bills in Congress that judges a person's "level of productivity in society" to determine whether he or she is "worthy" of health care.

Palin's claim sounds a little like another statement making the rounds, which says that health care reform would mandate counseling for seniors on how to end their lives sooner. We rated this claim Pants on Fire ! The truth is that the health bill allows Medicare, for the first time, to pay for doctor appointments for patients to discuss living wills and other end-of-life issues. These types of appointments are optional, and AARP supports the measure.

http://cewilton.blogspot.com/2010/12/december-27-2010-putting-death-panel.html

What the original legislation, in fact, provided was money to pay for annual doctor's office visits - for those critically-ill patients who want them - at which the various options for end-of-life care would be explained. One significant option is hospice...

[The_Noble_Cause]

Wow...a third bullshit tonight...no usual for you...but on the drug cost thing...almost ALL drug research is done in the US, the ONLY way these companies can recoup the cost is to sell that for a lot of money HERE in the US during the period for which the have the patents, since the socialist governments in almost EVERY other country out there limit what a company can charge.
If the US government did the same to our drug compaies then there would be ZERO drug research done, as there would be NO profit in, and then we would be fucked, wouldn't we?

Total bullshit. Most of our drugs are partially subsidized by us via the NIH (or some other gov't agency) anyway.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Bullshit again...I believe in people making choices...but end of life choices being pushed by a medical community contrained by government rules and regulations in regard to costs all the time while dealing with the stress of a loved one facing those choices is just a recipe for WRONG decisions.

Christ but you can spin...how about applying some COMMON sense instead of spin?

Who is pushing what? That is just your own anti-gov't paranoia.

[RossValoryRocks]

Wow...a third bullshit tonight...no usual for you...but on the drug cost thing...almost ALL drug research is done in the US, the ONLY way these companies can recoup the cost is to sell that for a lot of money HERE in the US during the period for which the have the patents, since the socialist governments in almost EVERY other country out there limit what a company can charge.
If the US government did the same to our drug compaies then there would be ZERO drug research done, as there would be NO profit in, and then we would be fucked, wouldn't we?

Total bullshit. Most of our drugs are partially subsidized by us via the NIH (or some other gov't agency) anyway.

Half of my family works for Pfizer, I work in the health care industry. Most of our drug are NOT subsidized by the NIH. Some are (HIV being a notable example) but the a VAST majority are not.

The drug manufacturers make their money in the US, period, we pay for drug for the world in essence.

[RossValoryRocks]

Bullshit again...I believe in people making choices...but end of life choices being pushed by a medical community contrained by government rules and regulations in regard to costs all the time while dealing with the stress of a loved one facing those choices is just a recipe for WRONG decisions.

Christ but you can spin...how about applying some COMMON sense instead of spin?

Who is pushing what? That is just your own anti-gov't paranoia.

Probably...I do NOT trust our Government...period...no matter WHO is in charge...but even less of late.