It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Oscitate
As we saw in the townhall case, where it was exposed in many cases as simple corporate fraud, the truth is as always highly subjective. Left and right are meaningless, there is only a free-for all on public opinion, with a faction of politicians aiming at fomenting anger to gather support.
I'm quite sick of seeing this as a liberal-conservative issue, because it plainly isn't.
Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by pdpayne0418
I dont buy it that your a libertarian........because I am as well, and its very very clear to me that the issues going on with the healthcare plan proposed by Obama , has definate undertones of the exact thing you say isnt true.
Its my opinion that you are either attempting to discredit the worries and concerns of people who have actually gone through this bill, and are connecting dots, or you yourself are buying in to the spin the liberal media is pumping out an amazing rate.
All one has to do is some research into this bill, look at the belief system of the czars hes put in place........and ask yourself some simple economic questions as far as what would "happen" should we have this healthcare plan.....
This isnt a left right issue, the only thing left and right about is that the left in DC is spreading a bunch of b.s. about the people concerned about what is within this bill, and trying to discredit them.....
Other then that, both left and right that have come together in these town hall meetings to discuss this are pretty much on the same page.......
Dont drink the Kool- aid , and dont buy into the hype.......
Like i said, if you ARE a libertarian and not someone else out there to throw a kink into the movement that is happening, then i suggest you read further into this bill and pay attention and connect the dots.
Originally posted by cavscout
reply to post by pdpayne0418
Funny thing, this. As a Libertarian, you are more angry at those on the right fibbing about this bill than you are about those fibbing in support of it?
I don't think you fully understand what a libertarian is.
You should be outraged that this bill even exists as a possibilty in this republic, not angry at those who are trying to defeat it.
I don't support the lies, however I do understand them. These people are fighting a losing battle against the theft of thier money and liberty! They will do what they feel neccesary to keep the wolves at bay.
I think you should find a new catch phrase for yourself.
Originally posted by pdpayne0418
As a libertarian opposed to government-controlled health care for reasons relating to the virtues of small government, I am completely fed up with the far right (and Palin in particular) and their lies about the Obama health care plan. The recent lie from the far right is that the Obama plan will somehow enforce euthanasia on some citizens: see Palin's comments here and the truth here.
Peace,
Daniel
Originally posted by mhc_70
Originally posted by pdpayne0418
As a libertarian opposed to government-controlled health care for reasons relating to the virtues of small government, I am completely fed up with the far right (and Palin in particular) and their lies about the Obama health care plan. The recent lie from the far right is that the Obama plan will somehow enforce euthanasia on some citizens: see Palin's comments here and the truth here.
Peace,
Daniel
I agree that it is a stretch to say this current plan Obama is pushing would enforce euthanasia. But, it does lay the groundwork and open the door to the possibility, which gives her opinion some validity.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
It will force euthanasia on the elderly.
When the government nationalizes a market and sets prices, the inevitable outcome is that demand will exceed supply.
When demand exceeds supply in a price controlled nationalized market, there is only one option left.
ration the care.
That means grandma and grandpa are first on the list to get the axe.
The government will keep its tax producing citizens healthy first before it gives service to those who have outlived their usefulness and no longer provide a source of tax revenue.
Now granted, the proposed bills don't directly nationalize healthcare. However they make such an outcome inevitable by killing the private insurance industry. Once private insurance is dead, expect nationalization to be top priority. Of course, there will be no opposition to it, since everyone will already be dependent upon government insurance.
online.wsj.com...
Take the United Kingdom, which is often praised for spending as little as half as much per capita on health care as the U.S. Credit for this cost containment goes in large part to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, or NICE. Americans should understand how NICE works because under ObamaCare it will eventually be coming to a hospital near you.
The British officials who established NICE in the late 1990s pitched it as a body that would ensure that the government-run National Health System used "best practices" in medicine. As the Guardian reported in 1998: "Health ministers are setting up [NICE], designed to ensure that every treatment, operation, or medicine used is the proven best. It will root out under-performing doctors and useless treatments, spreading best practices everywhere."
What NICE has become in practice is a rationing board. As health costs have exploded in Britain as in most developed countries, NICE has become the heavy that reduces spending by limiting the treatments that 61 million citizens are allowed to receive through the NHS. For example:
In March, NICE ruled against the use of two drugs, Lapatinib and Sutent, that prolong the life of those with certain forms of breast and stomach cancer. This followed on a 2008 ruling against drugs -- including Sutent, which costs about $50,000 -- that would help terminally ill kidney-cancer patients. After last year's ruling, Peter Littlejohns, NICE's clinical and public health director, noted that "there is a limited pot of money," that the drugs were of "marginal benefit at quite often an extreme cost," and the money might be better spent elsewhere.
In 2007, the board restricted access to two drugs for macular degeneration, a cause of blindness. The drug Macugen was blocked outright. The other, Lucentis, was limited to a particular category of individuals with the disease, restricting it to about one in five sufferers. Even then, the drug was only approved for use in one eye, meaning those lucky enough to get it would still go blind in the other. As Andrew Dillon, the chief executive of NICE, explained at the time: "When treatments are very expensive, we have to use them where they give the most benefit to patients."
NICE has limited the use of Alzheimer's drugs, including Aricept, for patients in the early stages of the disease. Doctors in the U.K. argued vociferously that the most effective way to slow the progress of the disease is to give drugs at the first sign of dementia. NICE ruled the drugs were not "cost effective" in early stages.
Other NICE rulings include the rejection of Kineret, a drug for rheumatoid arthritis; Avonex, which reduces the relapse rate in patients with multiple sclerosis; and lenalidomide, which fights multiple myeloma. Private U.S. insurers often cover all, or at least portions, of the cost of many of these NICE-denied drugs.
NICE has also produced guidance that restrains certain surgical operations and treatments. NICE has restrictions on fertility treatments, as well as on procedures for back pain, including surgeries and steroid injections. The U.K. has recently been absorbed by the cases of several young women who developed cervical cancer after being denied pap smears by a related health authority, the Cervical Screening Programme, which in order to reduce government health-care spending has refused the screens to women under age 25.
We could go on. NICE is the target of frequent protests and lawsuits, and at times under political pressure has reversed or watered-down its rulings. But it has by now established the principle that the only way to control health-care costs is for this panel of medical high priests to dictate limits on certain kinds of care to certain classes of patients.
The NICE board even has a mathematical formula for doing so, based on a "quality adjusted life year." While the guidelines are complex, NICE currently holds that, except in unusual cases, Britain cannot afford to spend more than about $22,000 to extend a life by six months. Why $22,000? It seems to be arbitrary, calculated mainly based on how much the government wants to spend on health care. That figure has remained fairly constant since NICE was established and doesn't adjust for either overall or medical inflation.
Originally posted by pdpayne0418
As a libertarian opposed to government-controlled health care for reasons relating to the virtues of small government, I am completely fed up with the far right (and Palin in particular) and their lies about the Obama health care plan. The recent lie from the far right is that the Obama plan will somehow enforce euthanasia on some citizens: see Palin's comments here and the truth here.
Peace,
Daniel