Obama's response in New Hampshire to the so-called death-board issue also was revealing. Some say these boards are tantamount to euthanasia for the elderly. Placards outside the meeting read: "Obamacare, Down the Chute Granny." (Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is spearheading this protest.)
Obama's response? He says reform "would not basically pull the plug on grandma because we decided that it's too expensive to let her live anymore." But the House bill comes dangerously close to giving unelected health boards the power to pull that plug. And as policy students know, it's not always the precise wording of legislation that counts, but the regulatory interpretations of laws that are made by federal and state officials.
So, in a sense, Obama's denial was a non-denial denial. He should have unequivocally demanded that the death-board language be removed from any bill. But he didn't -- perhaps because he agrees with it. In interviews earlier this year, the president said that while he would have fought for his own grandmother's hip replacement, clinically he can see how these expensive decisions should not be made.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/13/obamas_hoof-in-mouth_disease_97875.html
Obama's response? He says reform "would not basically pull the plug on grandma because we decided that it's too expensive to let her live anymore." But the House bill comes dangerously close to giving unelected health boards the power to pull that plug. And as policy students know, it's not always the precise wording of legislation that counts, but the regulatory interpretations of laws that are made by federal and state officials.
So, in a sense, Obama's denial was a non-denial denial. He should have unequivocally demanded that the death-board language be removed from any bill. But he didn't -- perhaps because he agrees with it. In interviews earlier this year, the president said that while he would have fought for his own grandmother's hip replacement, clinically he can see how these expensive decisions should not be made.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/13/obamas_hoof-in-mouth_disease_97875.html
"the status quo is untenable." Our health-care system is rife with "skewed incentives." It gives us "a whole bunch of care" that "may not be making us healthier." It generates too many specialists and not enough primary-care physicians. It is "bankrupting families," "bankrupting businesses" and "bankrupting our government at the state and federal level. So we know things are going to have to change."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
it's totally obvious Obama wants to manage the care you receive
just stop with the nonsense
words have meaning
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
it's totally obvious Obama wants to manage the care you receive
just stop with the nonsense
words have meaning
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aGrKbfWkzTqc
April 29 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama said his grandmother’s hip-replacement surgery during the final weeks of her life made him wonder whether expensive procedures for the terminally ill reflect a “sustainable model” for health care.
The president’s grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, had a hip replaced after she was diagnosed with cancer, Obama said in an interview with the New York Times magazine that was published today. Dunham, who lived in Honolulu, died at the age of 86 on Nov. 2, 2008, two days before her grandson’s election victory.
“I don’t know how much that hip replacement cost,” Obama said in the interview. “I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement just because she’s my grandmother.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------
it's totally obvious Obama wants to bring bureaucratic thinking into health care
denying such only proves he's a liar
April 29 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama said his grandmother’s hip-replacement surgery during the final weeks of her life made him wonder whether expensive procedures for the terminally ill reflect a “sustainable model” for health care.
The president’s grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, had a hip replaced after she was diagnosed with cancer, Obama said in an interview with the New York Times magazine that was published today. Dunham, who lived in Honolulu, died at the age of 86 on Nov. 2, 2008, two days before her grandson’s election victory.
“I don’t know how much that hip replacement cost,” Obama said in the interview. “I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement just because she’s my grandmother.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------
it's totally obvious Obama wants to bring bureaucratic thinking into health care
denying such only proves he's a liar
Is the American public stupid gullible or both? They now fear a counseling session that most doctors already provide to terminally ill and elderly patients is going to send grandama off to be euthanized. That Computer security clauses that are already in most corporate EULA's is going to mean the government will come in and take their 5 year old e-machine.
Seriously I have to applaud the Republican party, they are incredible at exploiting the general ignorance of the American General Public. Bravo for them and shame for the general public.
As a great man once said, Fool me once, shame on you or me Fool me...well a fool doesn't get fooled again.
Seriously I have to applaud the Republican party, they are incredible at exploiting the general ignorance of the American General Public. Bravo for them and shame for the general public.
As a great man once said, Fool me once, shame on you or me Fool me...well a fool doesn't get fooled again.
Case in point: the administration's grotesque mishandling of healthcare reform, one of the most vital issues facing the nation. Ever since Hillary Clinton's megalomaniacal annihilation of our last best chance at reform in 1993 (all of which was suppressed by the mainstream media when she was running for president), Democrats have been longing for that happy day when this issue would once again be front and center.
<!-- -->
<script type="text/javascript" language="JavaScript1.1"> <!-- OAS_AD('Right'); //--> </script> <noscript>
</noscript>
Enjoy this story?
More
But who would have thought that the sober, deliberative Barack Obama would have nothing to propose but vague and slippery promises -- or that he would so easily cede the leadership clout of the executive branch to a chaotic, rapacious, solipsistic Congress? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whom I used to admire for her smooth aplomb under pressure, has clearly gone off the deep end with her bizarre rants about legitimate town-hall protests by American citizens. She is doing grievous damage to the party and should immediately step down.
There is plenty of blame to go around. Obama's aggressive endorsement of a healthcare plan that does not even exist yet, except in five competing, fluctuating drafts, makes Washington seem like Cloud Cuckoo Land. The president is promoting the most colossal, brazen bait-and-switch operation since the Bush administration snookered the country into invading Iraq with apocalyptic visions of mushroom clouds over American cities.
You can keep your doctor; you can keep your insurance, if you're happy with it, Obama keeps assuring us in soothing, lullaby tones. Oh, really? And what if my doctor is not the one appointed by the new government medical boards for ruling on my access to tests and specialists? And what if my insurance company goes belly up because of undercutting by its government-bankrolled competitor? Face it: Virtually all nationalized health systems, neither nourished nor updated by profit-driven private investment, eventually lead to rationing.
I just don't get it. Why the insane rush to pass a bill, any bill, in three weeks? And why such an abject failure by the Obama administration to present the issues to the public in a rational, detailed, informational way? The U.S. is gigantic; many of our states are bigger than whole European nations. The bureaucracy required to institute and manage a nationalized health system here would be Byzantine beyond belief and would vampirically absorb whatever savings Obama thinks could be made. And the transition period would be a nightmare of red tape and mammoth screw-ups, which we can ill afford with a faltering economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
at least a few libs make some sense
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/08/12/town_halls/index.html
<!-- -->
<script type="text/javascript" language="JavaScript1.1"> <!-- OAS_AD('Right'); //--> </script> <noscript>
Enjoy this story?
More
But who would have thought that the sober, deliberative Barack Obama would have nothing to propose but vague and slippery promises -- or that he would so easily cede the leadership clout of the executive branch to a chaotic, rapacious, solipsistic Congress? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whom I used to admire for her smooth aplomb under pressure, has clearly gone off the deep end with her bizarre rants about legitimate town-hall protests by American citizens. She is doing grievous damage to the party and should immediately step down.
There is plenty of blame to go around. Obama's aggressive endorsement of a healthcare plan that does not even exist yet, except in five competing, fluctuating drafts, makes Washington seem like Cloud Cuckoo Land. The president is promoting the most colossal, brazen bait-and-switch operation since the Bush administration snookered the country into invading Iraq with apocalyptic visions of mushroom clouds over American cities.
You can keep your doctor; you can keep your insurance, if you're happy with it, Obama keeps assuring us in soothing, lullaby tones. Oh, really? And what if my doctor is not the one appointed by the new government medical boards for ruling on my access to tests and specialists? And what if my insurance company goes belly up because of undercutting by its government-bankrolled competitor? Face it: Virtually all nationalized health systems, neither nourished nor updated by profit-driven private investment, eventually lead to rationing.
I just don't get it. Why the insane rush to pass a bill, any bill, in three weeks? And why such an abject failure by the Obama administration to present the issues to the public in a rational, detailed, informational way? The U.S. is gigantic; many of our states are bigger than whole European nations. The bureaucracy required to institute and manage a nationalized health system here would be Byzantine beyond belief and would vampirically absorb whatever savings Obama thinks could be made. And the transition period would be a nightmare of red tape and mammoth screw-ups, which we can ill afford with a faltering economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
at least a few libs make some sense
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/08/12/town_halls/index.html
this summation is just plain wrong
in order to have any significant "savings" Obama is talking about, there has to be reduced care for ill and elderly individuals. It's a necessity, it's how socialized systems work, it's what they do.
Obama himself has questioned care given to the ill and the elderly
Obama himself has said we provide "TOO MUCH CARE", it's bankrupting the system.
Once loosely worded legislation become law, the implementation and interpretation of that law is what matters, and there's only one direction this issue can go, only one, only one, as in no other options, there will be limits imposed on end of life care.
When you listen to his words, read the proposals, consider application and current practices, it's totally obvious that Sarah Palin was spot on. As PP pointed out, it's the reason why some Senators are now insisting that section be removed.
Guess what happens when that section is removed? savings are reduced, costs skyrocket and the CBO's numbers will turn for the worse, significantly worse. Obama knows he has no chance in hell of getting this garbage passed under such circumstances.
more thought, less cheerleading please.
Thank god for the great american wake up call, just in the nic of time.
bye bye bambi, you lying sack of shit.
For once think of people who aren't lucky enough to be part of a Union and have to pay full price for Health Insurance or worse don't have the money to pay it themselves or a Union to pay it for them...funny how the closet socialist is railing against other people getting a piece.
So next time my wife are I check into a hospital for medical services, they're going to consult with President Obama as to what care we can receive?
Perhaps you intended to word that differently
==
What I do know is that in the past five years my wife was in the hospital for three major surgeries and in each case, her HMO made numerous in-house decisions regarding what level of care she would receive.
Their decisions directly contributed to our incurring over $20,000 in medical charges despite our presumably being "fully covered" after meeting an annual deductible of $600.
The health care we receive under this insurance plan - (delivered through her Fortune500 employer) - is most certainly very "managed" at this moment.
So speaking for us, we're not unduly concerned at the notion that some agency - either private, public or a combination therein - will play a part in "managing" our access to future health care.
She's the gift that keeps on giving, I can't deny.
I can't get too rough on her because once her divorce finally goes public and becomes final, she'll once again be a "Heath" - though somewhere on a distant leg of the genealogical tree with common roots being no earlier than the mid 19th century.
I could likely write a pretty lengthy essay deriding Nancy Pelosi were I to have sufficient motivation.
But one thing I know for sure is she's a lot more relevant as Speaker of the US House than is an unemployed mother of five blabbing her message of "change" to the world via a Facebook webpage.
