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 weedwhacker
Alxandro, you can't possibly believe that, can you??
"euthanasia"???
Originally posted by jsobecky
Of course there is no 'Death Panel' per se. But Obama did allude to rationing of health care by a panel of 'specialists' today. They would make decisions of what care a patient would receive (which patients, not sure, b/c as usual Obama doesn't want to deal with details...he wants us to trust him).
So that could definitely equate to a "Decision Panel", or whatever you want to call it.
The Media's Treatment of Palin's Outrageous "Death Panel" Claims
...My wife and I have practiced medicine for over forty years combined. There is no truth now, nor has there ever been any truth to the idea that the government encourages euthanasia or infanticide.
Our country is in trouble. Claims like these are routinely refuted by people who know better, but they are recirculated because they are sensational, and the MSM purports to take a balanced position without a thoughtful assessment of the facts. Fox News actually has people on in support of these outrageously false claims.
In fact, these kinds of claims are lies. There is no nice way to say it. This kind of stuff is far beyond the usual politicians' tricks of shading words and imputing meanings that aren't there. To quote a famous American who began the process of ending the McCarthy era in the fifties I address the MSM: "At long last, Have you no sense of decency?" www.huffingtonpost.com...
Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Originally posted by jsobecky
Of course there is no 'Death Panel' per se. But Obama did allude to rationing of health care by a panel of 'specialists' today. They would make decisions of what care a patient would receive (which patients, not sure, b/c as usual Obama doesn't want to deal with details...he wants us to trust him).
So that could definitely equate to a "Decision Panel", or whatever you want to call it.
How well this all factors in to SO's thread on "getting Obama"
[edit on 11-8-2009 by JohnnyCanuck]
“Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously.”
“Allocation by age is not. . .discrimination.”
—Ezekiel Emanuel
This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just alloca- tion of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future genera- tions, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example Is is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason.
Originally posted by jsobeckyBut I think you are stuck with socialized medicine up there, and want us to suffer under the same plan.
Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Originally posted by jsobeckyBut I think you are stuck with socialized medicine up there, and want us to suffer under the same plan.
My cancer was cured for $32 out of pocket. My provincial health tax...which is subtracted from the annual credits runs about $400 annually. Our standard of living is...I'll be generous...equal to yours.
Your patronizing is quite misplaced.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I thought it was pretty good. It's important that those who are buying this fear-mongering look under the surface instead of having the knee-jerk reactions that are ill-informed and don't contribute to a solution.
Originally posted by jsobecky
Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Originally posted by jsobeckyBut I think you are stuck with socialized medicine up there, and want us to suffer under the same plan.
My cancer was cured for $32 out of pocket. My provincial health tax...which is subtracted from the annual credits runs about $400 annually. Our standard of living is...I'll be generous...equal to yours.
Your patronizing is quite misplaced.
Anecdotal evidence is not a reason to adopt socialized medicine. How about the long lines people must endure to get basic tests? Thousands of stories about those people exist.
And your claim of patronizing is amusing. I notice you failed to address the rest of my post. Not surprising, since you cannot refute the facts.
Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Ok, at first glance we are dealing with a nut-job politico...Bachman...and a report dated from 1996.
And the long lineups? Poop...
Canadian health insurance is compulsory, monopolistic, and administered by the various provincial governments under strict control of the federal government. It is illegal for a Canadian citizen to carry private insurance coverage for any health care services covered by the government. Physicians are told by the government how much they can charge for their services; drug prices are set by the government. The supply of medical services in Canada is completely rationed, with no significant private alternative.
The alleged "low cost" of Canadian health care is thus no less a fraud than it was in the Soviet Union. Canadians may not pay the price in dollar terms ... but they pay a steep price indeed in terms of care denied or delayed and the poor quality of service provided by unhappy medical practitioners whose incomes do not match their skill and training.
Take a Number and Wait
Long waiting lines are the worst flaw in the system. The Fraser Institute, a Canadian think tank, calculated in 2003 the average Canadian waited more than four months for treatment by a specialist once the referral was made by a general practitioner. According to the Fraser Institute's work, the shortest median wait was 6.1 weeks for oncology (cancer) treatment without radiation. In some provinces, neurosurgery patients waited more than a year. A simple MRI requires, on average, a three-month wait in Canada.
Three-Tier System
In his Wall Street Journal article, Lemieux quotes Professor Livio Di Matteo of Lakehead University in Ontario describing a three-tier system of health care in Canada. The very rich, DiMatteo pointed out, can go to the U.S. for rapid, personalized, high-tech treatment. A second tier, consisting of well-informed, aggressive Canadians, knows how to navigate the government system to gain every possible advantage, like getting to the head of the queue.
The third tier are the unconnected citizens, who make up the vast majority of patients in the Canadian health care system. They must suffer the slings and arrows of a system notoriously oblivious to anguish, discomfort, humiliation, and other affronts perpetrated by unfeeling bureaucrats on patients whose pain is most definitely not felt by those in charge.
Originally posted by AshleyD
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I thought it was pretty good. It's important that those who are buying this fear-mongering look under the surface instead of having the knee-jerk reactions that are ill-informed and don't contribute to a solution.
Wow. I felt the same thing upon listening to Olbermann. I stopped at the 5:38 mark but just from that 1/3 of the video, I heard:
1). Clear and present danger to safety and security of this nation.
2). Panic, chaos, bash skulls.
3). Mob/Mob rule.
4). Murder.
5). Innocent bystanders will be hurt.
6). Orgy fantasizing about violence.
7). Fantasizing about murder.
8). Carnage.
Did you not hear that? I'd say Olbermann is just as guilty of fear mongering. Pretty blatant, too.
On a side note I laughed at the irony of Olbermann criticizing Beck. They BOTH take orders from Washington. It's a set up. They attack each other, as they're told. It's like pro wrestling. Olbermann and Beck are shills on the same team who are only acting like they're opponents.
I have no respect for Olbermann or Beck. I can even understand some of the criticism against Palin in this case and I will not defend her. But Olbermann, as usual, takes it so over the top with propaganda I could never describe any of his government-organized rants as 'good.'
I beg everyone to REALLY listen to Beck, Olbermann, and the like. Look at the clues and you'll see it. Whether liberal or conservative, drop your bias and pay close attention to the pundits and you'll see what a constructed joke they really are.
Olbermann gets a big fat from me. He, too, is using fear mongering tactics. Why accuse one side of this without acknowledging the other?
Originally posted by Alxandro
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
Actually, it's called the 'End Of Life' counseling, aka euthanasia.
Obama wants to reimburse doctors for consulting patients every five years about end-of-life issues, leaving room to abuse the system for the sake of convenience.
A provision in the House health care bill would provide Medicare coverage for an end-of-life consultation, leading some to believe that the Obama administration is looking to save money by pressuring insurers to provide less coverage to seniors in the later stages of their lives.
link
Originally posted by jsobecky
I won't discuss the Canadian system anymore in this thread, since it is beginning to go off-topic.
However, my posts on Ezekiel Emanuel are definitely on topic. They show that Sarah Palin has a definite concern, and that KO was completely off-base with his attacks.
In her Post article, McCaughey paints the worst possible image of Emanuel, quoting him, for instance, endorsing age discrimination for health-care distribution, without mentioning that he was only addressing extreme cases like organ donation, where there is an absolute scarcity of resources. She quotes him discussing the denial of care for people with dementia without revealing that Emanuel only mentioned dementia in a discussion of theoretical approaches, not an endorsement of a particular policy. She notes that he has criticized medical culture for trying to do everything for a patient, "regardless of the cost or effects on others," without making clear that he was not speaking of lifesaving care but of treatments with little demonstrated value. "No one who has read what I have done for 25 years would come to the conclusions that have been put out there," says Emanuel. "My quotes were just being taken out of context."http://
Originally posted by HotDogNoBun
I can never decide if Olberman is a giant douche or just a turd sandwhich. He is the craziest person I have ever heard speak about anything. I am pretty sure that his man-love for Obama is so great that the President could eat Olbermans entire family and then Olberman would ask him if he needed a cool drink to wash it down.
Originally posted by Eurisko2012
This End of Life counseling is creepy.
Is someone from the U.S. government going to walk into my hospital room
when i'm 80 and try to convince me to just take a pain pill and go home
and wait for death?
One provision allows doctors to be reimbursed for voluntary discussions of so-called living wills with patients, but does not in any way threaten to deny treatment to dying patients against their will.
Originally posted by open_eyeballs
take a look at each and everyone of the anchors, hosts and reporters ties...
blue = dems
red = republicans
that oughtta help...