ObamaCare…coming soon

[SK in CV]

[quote=Zeitgeist]I am surprised they are not being sent to some camp in a cattle car in the Obama Health Care Plan. After all, he has no use for the elderly, so why keep the mentally ill. They cannot pay taxes and they are just taking up space. They are incurable. If you do not want to waste a pacemaker on someone who is elderly because it is not worth the cost of the surgery, how can you justify keeping the incurables around. Just asking.[/quote]

I have no idea what any of this refers to. Medicare already exists for the elderly, that would not change. The current House plan doesn’t address the elderly, with the exception of some refined definitions and expanded coverage under medicare. Other than financing problems which have been apparent since at least the early 80’s, it is already a reasonably efficient functioning government plan.

[Zeitgeist]

July 21, 2009
(Video) Obama tells woman instead of a pacemaker we might give old ladies a pill (Updated)

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2009/07/video_obama_tel.php

[Zeitgeist]

July 21, 2009
(Video) Obama tells woman instead of a pacemaker we might give old ladies a pill (Updated)

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2009/07/video_obama_tel.php

[Zeitgeist]

July 21, 2009
(Video) Obama tells woman instead of a pacemaker we might give old ladies a pill (Updated)

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2009/07/video_obama_tel.php

[Zeitgeist]

July 21, 2009
(Video) Obama tells woman instead of a pacemaker we might give old ladies a pill (Updated)

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2009/07/video_obama_tel.php

[Zeitgeist]

July 21, 2009
(Video) Obama tells woman instead of a pacemaker we might give old ladies a pill (Updated)

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2009/07/video_obama_tel.php

[SK in CV]

[quote=Zeitgeist]July 21, 2009
(Video) Obama tells woman instead of a pacemaker we might give old ladies a pill (Updated)

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2009/07/video_obama_tel.php%5B/quote%5D

No, he doesn’t say that at all. This is exactly what he says:

“we can make sure some of the waste that exists in the system, that is not making anybody’s mom better, that is loading up on additional tests, or additional drugs that the evidence shows that is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know, and your mom know that, you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help, maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the pain killer.”

Nothing about not having a pacemaker installed. Nothing about not having medically indicated surgery. Just not wasting money with tests and drugs that don’t improve care. What exactly is the problem with this statement?

Now I think medical professionals should make help patients make medical decisions, not insurance companies (who do it daily now with their treatment by spreadsheet) or the government. But I have heard no proposals regarding changes to medicare protocols regarding restricting reimbursed care. So all this is creating something where there is nothing.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Zeitgeist]July 21, 2009
(Video) Obama tells woman instead of a pacemaker we might give old ladies a pill (Updated)

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2009/07/video_obama_tel.php%5B/quote%5D

No, he doesn’t say that at all. This is exactly what he says:

“we can make sure some of the waste that exists in the system, that is not making anybody’s mom better, that is loading up on additional tests, or additional drugs that the evidence shows that is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know, and your mom know that, you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help, maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the pain killer.”

Nothing about not having a pacemaker installed. Nothing about not having medically indicated surgery. Just not wasting money with tests and drugs that don’t improve care. What exactly is the problem with this statement?

Now I think medical professionals should make help patients make medical decisions, not insurance companies (who do it daily now with their treatment by spreadsheet) or the government. But I have heard no proposals regarding changes to medicare protocols regarding restricting reimbursed care. So all this is creating something where there is nothing.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Zeitgeist]July 21, 2009
(Video) Obama tells woman instead of a pacemaker we might give old ladies a pill (Updated)

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2009/07/video_obama_tel.php%5B/quote%5D

No, he doesn’t say that at all. This is exactly what he says:

“we can make sure some of the waste that exists in the system, that is not making anybody’s mom better, that is loading up on additional tests, or additional drugs that the evidence shows that is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know, and your mom know that, you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help, maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the pain killer.”

Nothing about not having a pacemaker installed. Nothing about not having medically indicated surgery. Just not wasting money with tests and drugs that don’t improve care. What exactly is the problem with this statement?

Now I think medical professionals should make help patients make medical decisions, not insurance companies (who do it daily now with their treatment by spreadsheet) or the government. But I have heard no proposals regarding changes to medicare protocols regarding restricting reimbursed care. So all this is creating something where there is nothing.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Zeitgeist]July 21, 2009
(Video) Obama tells woman instead of a pacemaker we might give old ladies a pill (Updated)

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2009/07/video_obama_tel.php%5B/quote%5D

No, he doesn’t say that at all. This is exactly what he says:

“we can make sure some of the waste that exists in the system, that is not making anybody’s mom better, that is loading up on additional tests, or additional drugs that the evidence shows that is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know, and your mom know that, you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help, maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the pain killer.”

Nothing about not having a pacemaker installed. Nothing about not having medically indicated surgery. Just not wasting money with tests and drugs that don’t improve care. What exactly is the problem with this statement?

Now I think medical professionals should make help patients make medical decisions, not insurance companies (who do it daily now with their treatment by spreadsheet) or the government. But I have heard no proposals regarding changes to medicare protocols regarding restricting reimbursed care. So all this is creating something where there is nothing.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Zeitgeist]July 21, 2009
(Video) Obama tells woman instead of a pacemaker we might give old ladies a pill (Updated)

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2009/07/video_obama_tel.php%5B/quote%5D

No, he doesn’t say that at all. This is exactly what he says:

“we can make sure some of the waste that exists in the system, that is not making anybody’s mom better, that is loading up on additional tests, or additional drugs that the evidence shows that is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know, and your mom know that, you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help, maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the pain killer.”

Nothing about not having a pacemaker installed. Nothing about not having medically indicated surgery. Just not wasting money with tests and drugs that don’t improve care. What exactly is the problem with this statement?

Now I think medical professionals should make help patients make medical decisions, not insurance companies (who do it daily now with their treatment by spreadsheet) or the government. But I have heard no proposals regarding changes to medicare protocols regarding restricting reimbursed care. So all this is creating something where there is nothing.

[Zeitgeist]

OK spinmeister, spin this:

On page 909 the bill states:

“In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following: . . . Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.”

Apart from the legality of such preferences under the U.S. Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the unfairness to those who are not “individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups”, the Democrats’ policy will foster the racial preference climate that continues to stigmatize and demean those individuals who receive the preferences. For example, if you know nothing else about two university students, except that one was probably admitted under a program where intellectual standards were reduced and the student received a preference for being the child of an alumnus, and the other was admitted under more rigorous intellectual standards without receiving any nonmerit-based preference, what are you going to think about these two students? Is the answer any different when the preference is based on race rather than an alumni relationship?

A nonmerit-based preference program based on an individual’s physical appearance or surname is no less a “badge of inferiority” than the one condemned in Brown v. Board of Education. Thanks to the Democrats’ racial preference program, all of the “individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups” at these medical schools and other entities, including those who deserved admission without the racial preference, will wear that badge.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/racial_preferences_in_the_demo_1.html

[Zeitgeist]

OK spinmeister, spin this:

On page 909 the bill states:

“In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following: . . . Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.”

Apart from the legality of such preferences under the U.S. Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the unfairness to those who are not “individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups”, the Democrats’ policy will foster the racial preference climate that continues to stigmatize and demean those individuals who receive the preferences. For example, if you know nothing else about two university students, except that one was probably admitted under a program where intellectual standards were reduced and the student received a preference for being the child of an alumnus, and the other was admitted under more rigorous intellectual standards without receiving any nonmerit-based preference, what are you going to think about these two students? Is the answer any different when the preference is based on race rather than an alumni relationship?

A nonmerit-based preference program based on an individual’s physical appearance or surname is no less a “badge of inferiority” than the one condemned in Brown v. Board of Education. Thanks to the Democrats’ racial preference program, all of the “individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups” at these medical schools and other entities, including those who deserved admission without the racial preference, will wear that badge.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/racial_preferences_in_the_demo_1.html

[Zeitgeist]

OK spinmeister, spin this:

On page 909 the bill states:

“In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following: . . . Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.”

Apart from the legality of such preferences under the U.S. Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the unfairness to those who are not “individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups”, the Democrats’ policy will foster the racial preference climate that continues to stigmatize and demean those individuals who receive the preferences. For example, if you know nothing else about two university students, except that one was probably admitted under a program where intellectual standards were reduced and the student received a preference for being the child of an alumnus, and the other was admitted under more rigorous intellectual standards without receiving any nonmerit-based preference, what are you going to think about these two students? Is the answer any different when the preference is based on race rather than an alumni relationship?

A nonmerit-based preference program based on an individual’s physical appearance or surname is no less a “badge of inferiority” than the one condemned in Brown v. Board of Education. Thanks to the Democrats’ racial preference program, all of the “individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups” at these medical schools and other entities, including those who deserved admission without the racial preference, will wear that badge.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/racial_preferences_in_the_demo_1.html

[Zeitgeist]

OK spinmeister, spin this:

On page 909 the bill states:

“In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following: . . . Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.”

Apart from the legality of such preferences under the U.S. Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the unfairness to those who are not “individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups”, the Democrats’ policy will foster the racial preference climate that continues to stigmatize and demean those individuals who receive the preferences. For example, if you know nothing else about two university students, except that one was probably admitted under a program where intellectual standards were reduced and the student received a preference for being the child of an alumnus, and the other was admitted under more rigorous intellectual standards without receiving any nonmerit-based preference, what are you going to think about these two students? Is the answer any different when the preference is based on race rather than an alumni relationship?

A nonmerit-based preference program based on an individual’s physical appearance or surname is no less a “badge of inferiority” than the one condemned in Brown v. Board of Education. Thanks to the Democrats’ racial preference program, all of the “individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups” at these medical schools and other entities, including those who deserved admission without the racial preference, will wear that badge.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/racial_preferences_in_the_demo_1.html

[Author]

Posts