White House appears ready to drop 'public option' - Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

Cool Beans · 08-16-2009, 12:27 PM

Wow, this would be good news! Obama giving up?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090816/..._care_overhaul

Raven · 08-16-2009, 12:47 PM

that's a change

justplugit · 08-16-2009, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raven

that's a change

Rav, i think the old expressions, believe none of what you hear and 1/2
of what you see, and I'll believe it when i see it applies here.

Raven · 08-16-2009, 07:10 PM

i never expected there to be social security benefits
when i reach the age 65....

there'd be some kind of excuse by then...
trillions of dollars worth of deficit seems appropriate.

i don't trust them to do anything right

Cool Beans · 08-16-2009, 07:34 PM

Rush mentioned some of this on thursday, how Obama could save his butt and get some of his support back. All he has to do is step back and say, "Ok, the people have spoken and this bill is not what they want, I'm dropping it and we'll go back to the table with the American people in mind and re-work this in a bipartisan way. It may take longer than I wanted, but in the end we can get a bill that helps the American people". Then he can wait a while and slam the same crap back out on a different plate and hope we take a bite. It's all a way to save face and in the end he may still get us to eat this "sh*t sandwich" of a bill.

Basic idea from Rush, except for the last 3 lines, which are my humble opinions.

Any set back in the Obama administration is a small victory for the Conservatives. "I hope he fails".....

I can hear the gerbils in Spence's head (most of them are in his head anyway) start to spin away on that wheel. I can't wait to see what they spit out of his mouth.....

spence · 08-16-2009, 08:32 PM

We already have a "public option" for million of people, so the notion that this is something new isn't very accurate.

Obama hasn't been able to articulate how the public option won't help costs at the expense of the free market, so to take it off the table isn't a big surprise.

That being said...Right now I'm trying to get Cigna to pay 225 dollars for something they told my wife over the phone was covered, but now say is isn't.

Aside from some meaningless appeals I have little recourse...

All the while the CEO is earning 30 Million+

And people think there's nothing wrong with our system?

-spence

Nebe · 08-17-2009, 01:43 PM

fishbones · 08-18-2009, 10:14 AM

For anyone who really thinks there is a "death panel" provision in the bill, please copy and paste it here. I read the entire section that supposedly included the death panel verbage. While it could certainly be interpreted as doctors having the power to decide who is a good candidate to kill off because they are old and frail, you'd really need to be on the fringe to believe it.

I'm as opposed to the government taking over health care as anyone, but I'm not going to fabricate statements to make the bill look worse than it already is. The section that's being misinterpreted by the Rush's of the world actually talks about end of life counseling and options for people who have terminal illnesses and their families. It's there to help people deal with a very difficult time, not to kill off old, sick people. Even the government wouldn't try to sneak a passage into the proposal that would allow them to murder people. Keep in mind that even terminally ill people may be able to vote.

JohnnyD · 08-18-2009, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fishbones

For anyone who really thinks there is a "death panel" provision in the bill, please copy and paste it here.

Not one of them will be able to because they're just going by what Rush, Palin and Conservative radio have told them.

Or as Cool Beans stated, Rush says that conveniently, the death panel portion was very recently taken out.

Fortunately, I have a copy of the pre-congressional recess proposal that has these supposed death panel clauses in them. If anyone can't find the section in the "newly revised to cover up the death panels" version, I can send them the copy I have.

spence · 08-18-2009, 10:46 AM

Did anyone else see the story on how IBD (Investors Business Daily) reported that had Steven Hawking lived in the UK, his severe multiple sclerosis would have caused the state to deny benefits because of his diminished value to society...and we would have lost a brilliant mind.

Except they forgot to read up that Hawking was born and has always lived in the UK, and praises the quality of care the socialistic system has provided

-spence

Joe · 08-18-2009, 10:52 AM

The death panel interpretation is straight out of Mein Kampf - a classic "Big Lie." A lie so colossal that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously".
They've done a great job of redefining the issue. Now it's not about healthcare, it's about being opposed to death panels. I think we can all agree, death panels would be bad.

scottw · 08-18-2009, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe

The death panel interpretation is straight out of Mein Kampf - a classic "Big Lie." A lie so colossal that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously".
They've done a great job of redefining the issue. Now it's not about healthcare, it's about being opposed to death panels. I think we can all agree, death panels would be bad.

which lie are you referring to? Is that the one where the Nazis looked at the Jews and said "death camps"? "Why, you'd have to be crazy and on the fringe to believe something like that....there are no ovens and anyone that tells you that is part of a conspiracy"..."now step over here and keep quiet"...

I think if you scored it by democrat/chicago standards(the death panel lable)...it was a huge success...

JohnnyD · 08-18-2009, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottw

which lie are you referring to? Is that the one where the Nazis looked at the Jews and said "death camps"? "Why, you'd have to be crazy and on the fringe to believe something like that....there are no ovens and anyone that tells you that is part of a conspiracy"..."now step over here and keep quiet"...

Bring on the proof then. And not some BS commentary where they are adding the the death panel fabrications, not some reference to "I heard on the radio this morning", or "Rush told me to mad about this".

Actual Section and Line numbers. With so many Conservatives talking about it, they must be referencing an exact section of the bill.

scottw, if you can show us all undeniable proof within the bill that death panels exist, and not some obtuse interpretation of vague wording, then I will not post in the Political Forum until November.

Fishpart · 08-18-2009, 11:23 AM

Interestingly enough, with the President who PROMISED more transparency in government, we can't find the current bill anywhere. But we can find a brilliant advertising campaign at whitehouse dot gov....

How we doing with throwing the lobbists out of Washington as promised on the campaign trail????....Oh Yeah, now they all hold cabinet level appointments as tzars without Senate oversight, thats pretty transparent....

Bocephus · 08-18-2009, 10:44 AM

You dont need to mention death panels to scare people. They just need to hear govt involvement and they know that whatever it is, the govt will not manage it correctly and massive waste will follow. Its happening in insurance now, but if govt wanted to fix it instead of owning it, people might be receptive to it. It would be great if there were laws passed to curb malpractice lawsuits, but the lawyers are in the white house.

RIJIMMY · 08-18-2009, 01:53 PM

there is nothing in the constitution that the government should stick their nose in healthcare or that it is a "right" but that hasnt stopped this admin from trying to make it a law. Oh well.

Joe · 08-18-2009, 01:58 PM

They'll make some modifications, then, like the stimulus, claim the lack of bi-partisanship prevented a more reasonable debate, and then push it through along party lines.

JohnnyD · 08-18-2009, 04:36 PM

I wish they would take the whole bill, throw it in the fire and start over with a different approach.

If they want to decrease the cost of health care, I think they are approaching it from the wrong side of the equation. Assess the high cost patients the government pays for, exclude the drug addicts, alcoholics, morbidly obese and other 'self-inflicted sick' from care and watch the costs plummet.

"You're an out of work heroin addict who is suffering from hepatitis and HIV due to using dirty needles? NEXT!!"

"You've lived the last 5 years on a 'diet' of fast food and desserts and now can't leave bed and need your foot amputated due to diabetes? NEXT!!"

This country needs to stop helping those who refuse to help themselves.

After we cull those people out, assess why the costs are so incredibly high. Fix the treatment side of the equation. Doctors are forced to order unnecessary tests in order to cover their rears. Visits to specialists would be less if their malpractice insurance cost less. Limit the amount doctors can be sued for and costs should decrease.

Multiple small bites will yield significantly better results than one substantial overhaul. Then, the smaller aspects that don't work can be culled out or adjusted.

The current approach to reform makes me sick. (Lame pun intended)

buckman · 08-18-2009, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

I wish they would take the whole bill, throw it in the fire and start over with a different approach.

If they want to decrease the cost of health care, I think they are approaching it from the wrong side of the equation. Assess the high cost patients the government pays for, exclude the drug addicts, alcoholics, morbidly obese and other 'self-inflicted sick' from care and watch the costs plummet.

"You're an out of work heroin addict who is suffering from hepatitis and HIV due to using dirty needles? NEXT!!"

"You've lived the last 5 years on a 'diet' of fast food and desserts and now can't leave bed and need your foot amputated due to diabetes? NEXT!!"

This country needs to stop helping those who refuse to help themselves.

The current approach to reform makes me sick. (Lame pun intended)

JD,
This sounds a little harsh to even me. Sounds almost like a "Death Panel". Are you advocating for the provision that you are arguing was never in the bill?

Joe · 08-18-2009, 04:55 PM

77% of Medicare costs are for recipients in their last year of life. It's the old bastids living forever that are running up the bill.

Cool Beans · 08-18-2009, 05:20 PM

I have been reading the section and no it does not actually say "death panel" but could easily be interpreted that way, especially when backed up by statements by Obama, like when the lady asked about her 100 yr old mother who needed a pace maker, originally they (doctors) did not think it was worth the cost/risk, and she had another specialist come in and they got it approved. She asked Obama if her grandmother would be able to get that type of treatment if she would have been under Obama care. He replied, sometimes when costs are not justified by the quality of life, they would, "have to take a pain pill" instead. Or the state of Oregon, telling the lady with cancer the states health care plan would not cover chemo, but would cover the state's legalized doctor assisted suicide. There are plenty of actual statements and cases all over the news to make one easily interpret that section as possibly giving them the control of a "death panel"....

JohnnyD · 08-18-2009, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cool Beans

I have been reading the section and no it does not actually say "death panel" but could easily be interpreted that way

I thought you were going to supply us with the section that states a panel will choose if my grandfather with cancer will be able to get treatment or not?

Cool Beans · 08-18-2009, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe

77% of Medicare costs are for recipients in their last year of life. It's the old bastids living forever that are running up the bill.

EXACTLY!!! We don't spend money treating young healthy people, we spend it all on the unhealthy and elderly, so if you are going to cut costs, the only place it can come from is by limiting the types of treatment and care by those people. You don't actually need a death panel if the state a policy where at certain ages, certain care will or will not be provided.

JohnnyD · 08-18-2009, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckman

JD,
This sounds a little harsh to even me. Sounds almost like a "Death Panel". Are you advocating for the provision that you are arguing was never in the bill?

The whole "Death Panel" fabrications made up by the Right is centered around end-of-life care.

My opinion is that I don't want my tax dollars going to help people that refuse to help themselves. If you're an alcoholic without health care and your liver is failing and you refuse treatment for your alcoholism, then I very honestly don't want tax dollars going towards saving that person. Same goes for the heroin addict that needs thousands of dollars in HIV meds every month.

They did it to themselves, now they should deal with the consequences.

My very blunt opinion. The public should not be paying to extend the lives of people that are a waste of oxygen and choose to never contribute to society.

buckman · 08-18-2009, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

The whole "Death Panel" fabrications made up by the Right is centered around end-of-life care.

My opinion is that I don't want my tax dollars going to help people that refuse to help themselves. If you're an alcoholic without health care and your liver is failing and you refuse treatment for your alcoholism, then I very honestly don't want tax dollars going towards saving that person. Same goes for the heroin addict that needs thousands of dollars in HIV meds every month.

They did it to themselves, now they should deal with the consequences.

My very blunt opinion. The public should not be paying to extend the lives of people that are a waste of oxygen and choose to never contribute to society.

I don't like to see my tax dollars wasted either JD. That's why I don't like Obama. But I sure don't want people thrown aside just because they are fighting a very tough battle with addiction. Hell, we give Pat Kennedy endless second chances. Some of what you speak I agree with. Lets just start with no FREE health care for "undocumented" alians and go from there.

JohnnyD · 08-18-2009, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckman

I don't like to see my tax dollars wasted either JD. That's why I don't like Obama. But I sure don't want people thrown aside just because they are fighting a very tough battle with addiction.

I'm not talking about people fight addiction. That's why I said "if they refuse treatment for their addiction". I feel the same way about someone that's 400lbs - don't want to change your diet? No health care for you.

People that refuse to contribute to society should not be allowed to benefit from society. Even you have said before, people should not be getting handouts - and that carries over to health care.

I feel as though people should be allowed to make their own decisions in life. The government shouldn't tell me what I can or cannot do in my own home if it has no effect on others in society. If you want to pump drugs through your veins, it's fine by me. But don't expect me to pay the bill when you have no job, HIV (or some other disease) and are dying of pneumonia.

But I'm just a crazy liberal.

buckman · 08-19-2009, 05:46 AM

I agree JD

JohnnyD · 08-19-2009, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckman

I agree JD

Everyone!!! Batten down the hatches. It's very possible hell has frozen over and this hurricane will bring widespread destruction - for buckman and I agree.

(I hope we haven't been hearing from you much because the fishing has been so well. I heard Hot Reels banging fish a couple weeks ago when we were out off the Race for bass.)

buckman · 08-20-2009, 10:19 AM

I didn't read the latest in this thread but here's the latest from our Hero and his buddies.

The Dems are demanding Health Ins. companies hand over all financial records including pay to top executives. This group is pathetic. Any more questions about a socialistic USA? They will use this info as a tactic to turn the American people ( the stupid one's) against the industry.

Sounds a little like what the did to Wall street!
Same playbook, same players, same sheep, same socialistic agenda.

Watch and see.