Why we need 'death panels'

I'm not saying it was perfect (far from it) but you did have the freedom to walk away even if it could be painful. Not so under Obamacare. Consider this (this is so important) when did it become the job of government to worry about healthcare. The government that can't get anything done right. It gets done but usually not the first time. Don't bring up the military, completely different mind set and the government is not grafted to the military hiearchy. Only the president can order the military to do something. Anyone else in government had no rank or authority to do anything. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Because the "Deserving" demand healthcare....

Oh really, then lets just end welfare all together Originally Posted by acp5762

Good idea.

Walk away? What about the fine for not having health insurance? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

What about it? Why should I pay the ER bill of someone that does not want to buy insurance?

) when did it become the job of government to worry about healthcare. . Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Do you noy understand when Medicare came to be? Look, if you want to get rid of Medicare, good luck. But the fact of the matter id that we do have Medicare and it is (along with the Defense Budget) breaking this country. Obamace came about because we are trying to get those huge insurance costs under control.

But like I said, if you think you can dismantle it, do so. That is what Ryan was tring to do. Do you think vouchers will cover the costs of end of life care? No fucking way. Private insurance is in it to make money, if you think they will cover end of life care any different than these so called "Death Panels" you are one crazy teacher!

You guys do not understand the system we presently have. You bitch about the deficit, yet you do not want to touch one of the biggest reasons for it! That boggles the mind.

The simple facts are that government has intervened via social engineering and it has always been a mistake. It is impossible to place a value on the life of a person regardless of age. I am sure there are times when the effort to extend the few remaining years with a quality of life that is acceptable fails to achieve the goal but, how is the remaining time that person has left valued and who is it valued by. Do you care about the deficit?

I can fully understand that knee replacement for a person that has terminal cancer is not a good choice but I cannot see not allowing a person to choose whether or not they receive chemo to extend their lives by even a few months. If we can not afford it, we can not afford it. Do you think we should raise taxes?

We as a generation that have expended great amounts of time and money into research and development for medical advances that are designed to not only extend our lives but to extend the quality of our lives and now you want to limit those that have paid the fare to a panel that will decide if you are worthy. 2Dogs, you/we have not paid enough into the system. That is why it is going broke. Do you want your children and grandchildren to pay for that extra two months? Again, you/me have not paid enough into the system to cover that extra two months of care...yet you want the next generation to? That was what the election was about. The current generation wised up. They voted for Obama not for free shit but to say "Enough" to this generation that wants them to foot their bill.

On a personal note, my prognosis was death within five years, then it was death within a few weeks and yet I am alive today. The decisions about what to do were made by my doctor and me and had I waited for a panel to decide my fate I would surely be dead. No you would not...this is not talking about limiting people like you, it is talking about end of life care for old folks who only have a couple of more months! Read the article. I am a ten year survivor of a fatal disease but I fear that at some point there will be a panel that will decide that my daily treatment is too expensive based on what ever criteria they decide. Please let me decide when my life is no longer worth living, not some panel. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Then you should have bought private insurance...do you want everybody else to foot your bill for the last two months of your life? Everybody wants the government out of their life except when they need something. Look , I'm glad you are alive but you fail to understand that you are alive because of all the government research that enabled you to extend your life. Yet you lead the pack bitching about the government. I do not understand that.

Because the "Deserving" demand healthcare.... Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

What is the number one healthcare provider for old folks? Is it private insurance? You will demand healthcare at some point. That same healthcare that you have not paid enough into to recieve this end of life care that you folks are bitching about.

That is no different than these folks we bitch about that are on welfare.

every dumb dem in the last month has claimed we dont have a debt problem
including obama... Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Uh, your handle pretty much says it all (and matches the ignorance and arrogance of your statement), not to mention when you start off a comment by insulting anyone with a different opinion along with misspelling and poor/no punctuation. Plus you offer no proof they are dumb or that we do have a debt problem.

In the last week John Boehner and Paul Ryan just admitted that we don't have a short term debt problem in the last week - http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...ee-with-today/ The long and short of it is they have been lying for years in service of "killing the beast" whether that is good or bad for the country and middle class or not. Ideology over common sense and evidence.

What do you think, households or businesses who owe 75% of their annual income (GDP) have a debt problem? The sovereign government is not a household or a business and the economic and accounting mechanics of how it operates are nothing similar so that analogy is just plain wrong.

Furthermore, almost no one has actually made a case with numbers and well accepted macro-economic principles that there is either a short or a long term debt problem because if they DO understand both macro-economics and the mechanics of a fiat monetary system, they cannot make the case. What it boils down to is basically, "we have a lot of debt and if this were a household or small business that would be bad" which ignores the structural differences between a sovereign currency issuer and a currency user not to mention the core reasons that there are two different economic disciplines called Macro Economics and Micro Economics with core mechanical and accounting differences between how they operate. I'm certainly not saying that we have no fiscal problems at all, but I will say that our fiscal problems are not what is mostly discussed in the media or by the right wing. Our fiscal problems can and will be solved when we solve our employment problems and not before (in fact they are already beginning to be resolved despite the best efforts of the Republicans by the resurgence of the housing market as Warren Buffet predicted a couple years ago).

What you obviously don't understand (and the Fed has made perfectly clear in its various papers over years under Greenspan as well as Bernanke) is that we don't really borrow to finance government. We create (not even really print anymore) money which allows us to set interest rates and fund government without borrowing. Since we print it and two thirds of the debt is in dollars and to ourselves it could be paid off instantly if desirable. Thus no debt problem. Interest rates are hovering around 1% right now so until they rise significantly, no short term debt problem. Also, the U.S. government cannot go "bankrupt" and we don't need credit rating agencies. Bankruptcy is a legal proceeding that does not apply to sovereigns. We aren't broke either. Do you call a billionaire who has no income and is losing $1 Million a year broke? Of course not. Think about it and maybe the lightbulb will come on someday.

Good idea. Originally Posted by ExNYer

It's a good idea. Thats why it will never happen. But then it just might.

Why did you lie WTF? You said that Ryan was trying to dismantle Medicare but that is not completely true is it? Ryan wanted to change the mandate of Medicare in order to keep it viable. It cannot survive in it's present form. As Ryan said repeatedly (and got lied about nearly everytime) anyone over the age of 55 will see no difference. The younger you are the more changes you will see like means testing. The younger age also allows you the time to find a private solution to healthcare. So stop the lies and the fear tactics. In other words, get trying to be a progressive.

Does you OP confirm our health care "system" has "death panels"? Originally Posted by LexusLover

I'm not OP, but of course it does, in the private insurance companies of course. Don't worry righties and Repubs, we already have them and they are in the private sector. What the F(*& do you think it has been when you get sick and they deny payment on your care or outright cancel your health insurance?

Just read Time's article called Bitter Pill - http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...136864,00.html

Once again I'll ask the unanswered question; what made it governments job to make sure that some of us have healthcare and how much we get?

Why did you lie WTF? You said that Ryan was trying to dismantle Medicare but that is not completely true is it? Ryan wanted to change the mandate of Medicare in order to keep it viable. It cannot survive in it's present form. As Ryan said repeatedly (and got lied about nearly every time) anyone over the age of 55 will see no difference. The younger you are the more changes you will see like means testing. The younger age also allows you the time to find a private solution to healthcare. So stop the lies and the fear tactics. In other words, get trying to be a progressive. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Are you dense JD (that was rhetorical of course)? Changing it to "premium support" which is just rightie wonk speak for a voucher. It is the first step in the stated Republican goal since the 1970's of "starving the beast" and the worst of both worlds. It essentially allows private insurance companies and medical companies to charge as much as they want for insurance and procedures while requiring seniors to break their piggie banks to make up the difference between their voucher and the cost of their policies.

Medicare cannot survive if nothing changes (like the increase in the costs of medical care) but things are always changing. Cost curves do not indefinitely continue to go up. They stop at some time. We have an aging population and a dwindling working age population, but once the Baby Boomers die off we have a new boom in the Oughts that will change the demographics somewhat.

Medicare, as it is financed now and the projected curves we can best estimate is able to fully finance 100% of all care through 2024. Hell, if I were able to finance all my bills through 2024 I'd be a happy man and I sure ain't bankrupt because I can't. Medicare and Medicaid will be a whole lot more fiscally secure if they are allowed to negotiate for drugs for ALL programs and patients and if care is paid for health and not per procedure which the ACA attempts to get started on.

I'm not quite 55 so I'm one of the ones at most risk if Ryan gets his way because I won't have much time to plan for my medical care if the difference between his vouchers and my insurance is significant. So hell no I don't want anything to do with Ryan's plans which are sketchy at best and completely disingenuous at worst.

Same story for Social Security which is set to pay in full until at least 2035 or thereabouts. Once we figure out how to get back close to full employment despite the Republicans best efforts to block anything good for the middle class and country both Medicare and SS will be just fine into the foreseeable future.

Once again I'll ask the unanswered question; what made it governments job to make sure that some of us have healthcare and how much we get? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

No, that has been answered. The people did by voting for those who did it. Those who want to undo it are trying to disenfranchise a lot who would not agree with them and then undo it by slight of hand. This is similar to how Scott Walker tried to destroy the Unions in Wisconsin after saying nothing about it during the whole campaign. Basically, say anything to get get in and then do the dirty work for the Koch brothers and their ilk while you can.

The Republicans have run away from most policies they previously held that people liked and there is a dwindling and more radical base that likely won't get elected in national elections until the policies change. Once the people figure out that we need to get rid of gerrymandering, the Republican hold on the House and State legislatures will go away too and possibly even the majority of governorships will start to fall to Dems and the Republican party and the whole right for that matter will be just a regional party as long as they don't get their act together and the Dems don't overreach too much.

Are you dense JD (that was rhetorical of course)? Changing it to "premium support" which is just rightie wonk speak for a voucher. It is the first step in the stated Republican goal since the 1970's of "starving the beast" and the worst of both worlds. It essentially allows private insurance companies and medical companies to charge as much as they want for insurance and procedures while requiring seniors to break their piggie banks to make up the difference between their voucher and the cost of their policies.

Medicare cannot survive if nothing changes (like the increase in the costs of medical care) but things are always changing. Cost curves do not indefinitely continue to go up. They stop at some time. We have an aging population and a dwindling working age population, but once the Baby Boomers die off we have a new boom in the Oughts that will change the demographics somewhat.

Medicare, as it is financed now and the projected curves we can best estimate is able to fully finance 100% of all care through 2024. Hell, if I were able to finance all my bills through 2024 I'd be a happy man and I sure ain't bankrupt because I can't. Medicare and Medicaid will be a whole lot more fiscally secure if they are allowed to negotiate for drugs for ALL programs and patients and if care is paid for health and not per procedure which the ACA attempts to get started on.

I'm not quite 55 so I'm one of the ones at most risk if Ryan gets his way because I won't have much time to plan for my medical care if the difference between his vouchers and my insurance is significant. So hell no I don't want anything to do with Ryan's plans which are sketchy at best and completely disingenuous at worst.

Same story for Social Security which is set to pay in full until at least 2035 or thereabouts. Once we figure out how to get back close to full employment despite the Republicans best efforts to block anything good for the middle class and country both Medicare and SS will be just fine into the foreseeable future. Originally Posted by austxjr

You are a waste of oxygen...

Once again I'll ask the unanswered question; what made it governments job to make sure that some of us have healthcare and how much we get? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The establishment of Medicare and Medicaid, dummy.

The people can vote themselves anything but the Constitution is supposed to prevent the government from following through on this and Jefferson warned against it.