8/11/2009 7:16:28 PM

senior citizens: you already got yours!

8/11/2009 7:17:39 PM

they already have theirs paid for.

this is bullshit.

8/11/2009 8:22:10 PM

Quote :

"So let's let capitalism kill the gov. health insurance company?"

whatever's going on in your head, you can answer it

i was pulling out speculated sound bites for my own amusement and that one stood out

sure enough... it dun got the drudge siren

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-its-the-post-office-thats-always-having-problems/

8/11/2009 8:35:17 PM

LOL, just read this on a friend's facebook status:

Quote :

"Just read page 644 of the health care reform bill where it states, in sub-article 58, clause 1.d, “all US Citizens over the age of 25 will be sent before a firing squad and exicuted” Swear to god. Scary stuff man."

8/11/2009 9:14:56 PM

Well, I guess Obama doesn't have anything to worry about, AMIRITE?

8/11/2009 9:15:53 PM

The government better keep its hands off my Medicare.

8/11/2009 9:38:05 PM

^ Stupid. The Democrats are probably going to cut it, though.

And there's this (I probably should've posted it in the "Obama Credibility" thread):

President Obama's "Senior" Moment?
August 11, 2009 5:16 PM
Rachel Martin and Jake Tapper report:

Quote :

"President Obama today suggested that the health care reform legislation for which he’s pushing has been endorsed by the American Association of Retired Person. 'We have the AARP on board because they know this is a good deal for our seniors,' the president said. At another point he said: 'Well, first of all, another myth that we've been hearing about is this notion that somehow we're going to be cutting your Medicare benefits. We are not. AARP would not be endorsing a bill if it was undermining Medicare, okay?' The problem? The AARP hasn't endorsed any plan yet."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/08/president-obamas-senior-moment.html

8/11/2009 9:52:40 PM

Quote :

"^ Stupid. The Democrats are probably going to cut it, though."

Shouldn't conservatives be applauding that?

8/11/2009 9:53:45 PM

^ No, you're thinking of the Democrats' nauseating election cycle Mediscare tactics.

Now It’s the Dems Turn to Experience Mediscare

Quote :

"You would think the Democrats would know this. They are now getting a taste of the medicine they have ladled out so lovingly for the last quarter-century whenever a Republican president made noises about 'reforming' Social Security."

http://www.newmajority.com/now-its-the-dems-turn-to-experience-mediscare

[Edited on August 11, 2009 at 9:59 PM. Reason : .]

8/11/2009 9:57:46 PM

Quote :

"Shouldn't conservatives be applauding that?"

8/11/2009 10:00:23 PM

^ That's not the issue, Saul Alinsky. The Democrats are in power--stop misdirecting:

Seniors Uneasy Over Medicare Cuts in Overhaul

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democrats are pushing for Medicare cuts on a scale not seen in years to underwrite health care for all. Many seniors now covered under the program don't like that one bit."

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/07/30/us/politics/AP-US-Health-Care-Overhaul-Medicare.html

8/11/2009 10:03:18 PM

fuck old people

they had they're chance

8/11/2009 10:04:32 PM

Quote :

"^ That's not the issue, Saul Alinsky. The Democrats are in power--stop misdirecting:"

Look Dumbass, I'm not misdirecting. It's a very simple question. Shouldn't conservatives be applauding a cut in Medicare funding. Or are only some socialized programs bad?

I'm not asking what Seniors as a whole think, but what conservatives would think.

[Edited on August 11, 2009 at 10:12 PM. Reason : .]

8/11/2009 10:11:52 PM

Seniors Uneasy Over Medicare Cuts in Overhaul

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democrats are pushing for Medicare cuts on a scale not seen in years to underwrite health care for all. Many seniors now covered under the program don't like that one bit."

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/07/30/us/politics/AP-US-Health-Care-Overhaul-Medicare.html

8/12/2009 1:06:16 AM

I will freely admit that I have skipped large portions of this thread, so what I say here may not be so novel. But I'll say it anyway, because I like to see myself talk. And for the record, I'm playing devil's advocate here.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Obama is planning on rationing health care for the elderly. Is there a clear reason why this would be so terrible?

In broad terms of society, old people cost us a shit ton. We spend an enormous amount of money on end-of-life care, which gets us what, exactly? People on death's door are not any more productive than people who have actually died. In fact, they're less so -- dead people don't continue to draw on exhausted social security funds. They are a net drain on the country's resources.

Why does anybody care? Congress cares because, last time I checked, the AARP has more members than any other organization in the US except for the Catholic Church. (Admittedly my source on this is old, but regardless of whether or not it's still perfect the AARP is huge) People with senior parents care for one of two reasons:

1) They don't want to have to pay for end-of-life expenses themselves, or
2) They actually, sincerely want to keep their parents alive in a completely dependent and largely useless state for years.

Even disregarding the practicality of option (2), if you think most Americans are running off that one then you have more faith in humanity than I do.

The oldest Americans are put on a pedestal for some reason and I want someone to tell me what it is.

8/12/2009 4:04:17 AM

^^ can you even read?

[Edited on August 12, 2009 at 7:29 AM. Reason : i mean fo sho?]

8/12/2009 7:29:09 AM

Rationing is an almost entirely moot point, anyways.

This plan is for people without health insurance. Anything would be an improvement, regardless of the amount of rationing.

And FFS, could someone direct me towards a private insurance plan that doesn't regulate spending?

8/12/2009 7:51:23 AM

Quote :

"In broad terms of society, old people cost us a shit ton. We spend an enormous amount of money on end-of-life care, which gets us what, exactly? People on death's door are not any more productive than people who have actually died. In fact, they're less so -- dead people don't continue to draw on exhausted social security funds. They are a net drain on the country's resources. "

FUCK old people let them rot!!!! Just kidding.

I think part of our problem in the US is culture. In countries like Japan it is considered an honor for a child to house and care for their elderly parents. Within the US though this is hardly the case and parents in many circumstances are expected to receive their funding through gov't programs all while waiting to be carted off to the retirement home.

8/12/2009 8:13:46 AM

^^The plan goes well beyond covering only the uninsured.

8/12/2009 8:20:42 AM

Howso?

8/12/2009 8:30:31 AM

I could go on, but for one, the public option is not just for the uninsured.

8/12/2009 8:45:16 AM

Quote :

"In broad terms of society, old people cost us a shit ton."

Not to mention the fact that these expensive treatments don't even improve their quality of life.

8/12/2009 8:49:21 AM

^^ Could you really go on?

You know-- beyond just reiterating the point I questioned?

[Edited on August 12, 2009 at 9:17 AM. Reason : ]

8/12/2009 9:04:25 AM

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j5c_vGvShEKd-Qlq6KgISg2eYCSgD9A0TGM00

this is getting rather out of hand.

8/12/2009 9:04:38 AM

Quote :

"The oldest Americans are put on a pedestal for some reason and I want someone to tell me what it is."

LOL are you kidding me? The oldest Americans are filed away in a fucking nursing home where nobody has to deal with them. If anything the oldest Americans are ignored... sure, they get ridiculous last-ditch efforts to save their lives once they're barely conscious, but is this "on a pedestal"? Seems to me that people want to keep the elderly alive for the same reason they want to keep their pets alive... it's not in the best interest of the elderly THEMSELVES at all.

8/12/2009 9:16:52 AM

Quote :

"You know-- being just reiterating the point I questioned?"

I'm not sure what you mean by this. How did I reiterate the point you questioned?

8/12/2009 9:18:28 AM

LunaK puhleez. If the worst that happens is someone gets a hate symbol painted on their office's sign, then this is pretty tame by historical standards. Less than 5 years ago, Raleigh progressives "trashed and attempted to set fire to the state Republican Party Headquarters" after Bush won the election.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/113867/

And that's just in your own back yard, friend.

Obviously. I'm not supporting vandalism by anyone. I'm just tired of so many people stirring this "Republicans have lost their mind" bullshit. Its been going on since the election, when everyone was convinced that "McCain is running the most negative campaign in history". The histrionics are just so old.

[Edited on August 12, 2009 at 9:23 AM. Reason : ``]

8/12/2009 9:21:08 AM

"It goes beyond covering the uninsured."

"Really?"

"It goes beyond covering the uninsured."

...

8/12/2009 9:21:50 AM

I was responding to this:

Quote :

"This plan is for people without health insurance."

8/12/2009 9:22:52 AM

And you said that it wasn't.

I'm curious how it isn't.

Does the fact that anyone can join change its intent?

8/12/2009 9:24:37 AM

There is a misunderstanding, then. I took your point to mean that rationing is a moot point because the plan only affects those without health insurance (perhaps I read too much into your post?)

My response is that it isn't just for the uninsured. If it were, the public option would be limited to only the uninsured. Instead of focusing on the uninsured, which would most efficiently be done with narrowly-targeted subsidies for those who truly need them coupled with a plan to actually reduce health-care costs, we are creating an entirely new, unecessary government role in health insurance that adversely affects everyone. Not only will there be a public option, which, based on decades of political history, I am not convinced will play an unfavored, benign role, but we also have an exchange which could effectively kill my freedom of choice in insurance plans (a high-deductible plan coupled with an health-savings account. Based on Obama's rhetoric, it is very likely this would not meet the government's minimum requirements)

8/12/2009 9:40:28 AM

I see your point in that the excgange restricts the amount of coverage you have.

But the "death squad" argument is still moot. You'll always have a second, death-squadless option. Whether or not any of those options are acceptable to you is a separate issue.

8/12/2009 9:47:18 AM

I agree there will be other options under the current structure. I'm just skeptical the public option will not be used as a political tool as the GSEs were. If the public option was truly playing on a level playing field, how would it be any different than the many non-profit health-insurance plans we have today?

8/12/2009 10:09:33 AM

I don't think "level" is supposed to mean "status quo."

The public option is meant to raise the bar to a point that allows competition, but excludes 20% overhead and massive profits.

Quote :

"non-profit health-insurance"

I'm stepping way out of my realm of understanding, but I've read articles detailing how non-profit hospitals/insurers are sometimes every bit as bad as for-profits.

[Edited on August 12, 2009 at 10:44 AM. Reason : ]

8/12/2009 10:42:43 AM

Quote :

"Rep. John Dingell on MSNBC. He compared the current atmosphere to the one he experienced when he voted for the civil rights bill. He says, "At that time we had a lot of Ku Klux Klan folks and white supremacists and folks in white sheets and other things running around causing trouble." -Boortz"

When folks were protesting Bush's Iraq war, the Libs told us it was patriotic to voice objections. But now that the prez is a democrat..any protestors are nazis and clansmen.


Ahh.. the Circle of Life....

8/12/2009 10:53:30 AM

Quote :

"When folks were protesting Bush's Iraq war, the Libs told us it was patriotic to voice objections. But now that the prez is a democrat..any protestors are nazis and clansmen."

No, the protesters are calling Obama a Nazi and many are acting like Nazis and Clansmen by being racist and using violent, undemocratic tactics to try to shut down town hall meetings. Your claim is specious and completely stupid, and I'm sure you know that. The idea that "any protesters" are considered Nazis and Clansmen can be easily refuted with one case where a protester isn't thought of that way. There are tons (most, in fact) who aren't being called Nazis and Clansmen, therefore, your point is logically incoherent.

[Edited on August 12, 2009 at 11:02 AM. Reason : .]

8/12/2009 11:01:22 AM

^^ I'll go ahead and say I'm not cool with the quote.


What's interesting is the "two wrongs make a right" mentality overtaking conservatives in regard to protests. Didn't your mothers tell you that was wrong?

[Edited on August 12, 2009 at 11:02 AM. Reason : ]

8/12/2009 11:02:25 AM

For fucks sakes, I'm really sick of the people trying to draw parallels between people who protested the Iraqi war and the people who are protesting health care reform. It's not the same ball park, not even close.

Back then, people were protesting the waste of life, time, and money on a war that was started based on lies, or at the very least, pretenses that turned out to be false. These people are protesting Obama's attempts to fix health care, which everyone agrees is fucked up, by outright misrepresenting the actual intent and composition of the plans that are being worked out.

Are they using some of the same tactics? Sure, and it wasn't right then just like it isn't right now. But if you can't see the difference between the actual motivation and reasoning behind the protests, and how that makes them wholly incomparable, I can't help you.

8/12/2009 11:19:16 AM

Quote :

"I don't think "level" is supposed to mean "status quo." The public option is meant to raise the bar to a point that allows competition, but excludes 20% overhead and massive profits."

I agree that the status quo is not the answer. The underlying problem is the rising costs of health care. That is what is driving up premiums so that they are unaffordable. Profits, which are either measly or non-existent, have not been growing exponentially and thus are not driving exponentially-growing prices. Thus, the public option does nothing but expand on the status quo - it mearly expands coverage without any regard to the underlying problem that led to unaffordable premiums.

Quote :

"I'm stepping way out of my realm of understanding, but I've read articles detailing how non-profit hospitals/insurers are sometimes every bit as bad as for-profits."

I am sure they are not perfect, but have not read anything that would suggest they are inferior to a public option - assuming the public option does not receive special treatment.

8/12/2009 11:26:41 AM

Quote :

"Back then, people were protesting the waste of life, time, and money on a war that was started based on lies, or at the very least, pretenses that turned out to be false. These people are protesting Obama's attempts to fix health care, which everyone agrees is fucked up, by outright misrepresenting the actual intent and composition of the plans that are being worked out. "

Quote :

"Back then, people were protesting the waste of life, time, and money on a war that was started based on lies, or at the very least, pretenses that turned out to be false. These people are protesting Obama's attempts to fix health care, which everyone agrees is fucked up, by outright misrepresenting the actual intent and composition of the plans that are being worked out. "

Quote :

"Back then, people were protesting the waste of life, time, and money on a war that was started based on lies, or at the very least, pretenses that turned out to be false. These people are protesting Obama's attempts to fix health care, which everyone agrees is fucked up, by outright misrepresenting the actual intent and composition of the plans that are being worked out. "

I'd almost goes as far as saying the protests over healthcare reform has exceeded the radical nature on a grander scale than the protests over the Iraq War. Sure the Iraq war included rallies, maybe a riot or two, and lots of protests but none in the centralized planned way the RNC has been bashing on the health care bill.

Glad to see where people's priorities are.

Blowing up Iraqi's, having our troops shot at, being lied to with false information by the president, 100's of Billions in war spending. NO big deal just the price of being #1 and spreading freedom and democracy!

Threaten to force me to settle on a BMW 328i instead of a 335i BMW due to an increase in my income taxes to pay for health care reform! Now I'm pissed and want to be up in arms over the tyranny of big Gov't!!!!



Anyone shouting like a lunatic at the town hall meeting or holding some crazy sign about "Fascist NoObama" should go sit their ass in the trailer park unless they were equally mad and also protesting against DubYa.

8/12/2009 11:30:11 AM

Damn, I got beat to the punch...

[Edited on August 12, 2009 at 11:38 AM. Reason : failure to read]

8/12/2009 11:36:53 AM

Economist, Alex Tabarrock, on consumer-driven health care:

Quote :

"For about the last 10 years the United States has been experimenting with consumer driven health care plans. CDH plans typically combine a high-deductible insurance policy with a health savings account or health reimbursement account. CDH plans now cover well over 8 million individuals, up considerably from 4.5 million in 2007 and these types of plans continue to grow rapidly. So what have been the results? The American Academy of Actuaries has recently produced a review of high quality research on these plans. Here are their conclusions: The primary indications are that properly designed CDH plans can produce significant (even substantial) savings without adversely affecting member health status. To the knowledge of the work group, no data-based study has emerged that presents a contrary view. Cost-savings in the first year of instituting a CDH plan relative to a traditional plan ranged from 12% to 21%, remarkably large figures. Moreover, costs appear to grow more slowly under CDH plans than under traditional plans. The knock on CDH plans has always been that they could cause people to avoid preventative case. Not only does this appear to be false it's the opposite of the truth: Generally, all of the studies indicated that cost savings did not result from avoidance of inappropriate care and that necessary care was received in equal or greater degree relative to traditional plans. All of the studies reported a signficant increase in preventative services for CDH participants. Especially interesting is that some of the studies found that CDH plans resulted in better compliance with evidence-based care. Note that these results come from CDH plans instituted within the current system. One would expect that the general equilibrium effects of consumer driven health plans would be even larger than the partial equilibrium effects, see Singapore for evidence (but consider Tyler's remarks). The American Academy of Actuaries is a credible organization but I would like to see more of the underlying data. All of the studies the AAA reviewed used credible methodologies, controlled for selection and were based on substantial data but the major studies so far have been industry funded. It's remarkable that in the current debate over how to control health care costs so little attention is being given to the important results of our 10-year experiment with consumer driven health plans."

Here is the study: http://www.actuary.org/pdf/health/cdhp_may09.pdf

[Edited on August 12, 2009 at 11:41 AM. Reason : ,]

8/12/2009 11:40:58 AM

Quote :

"Thus, the public option does nothing but expand on the status quo - it mearly expands coverage without any regard to the underlying problem that led to unaffordable premiums."

This is how it's going to control the costs health care. Presumably, when this thing goes live, a fairly significant percentage of the population is going to opt in to it. The fed is going to be able to negotiate reimbursement rates for medical services and stick maximums on the amount that the plan is going to reimburse.

This means that most people that are on the plan are going to choose to go doctors that charge within whatever the fed sets as their maximum amount a certain service should cost. Just like what you do with your private insurance plan now, sticking with in-network doctors so you pay very little out of pocket. The difference is, if enough people are on this one plan, it's going to force doctors to drop their rates so people on the public plan will go to them instead of their higher priced competitors.

This is why the scope and coverage of this plans needs to go beyond just people who don't have or can't afford health insurance now. It's needs to be a good enough plan that people who already have health insurance will opt to switch to the public plan. If enough people enroll in it, it will absolutely serve to control costs.

[Edited on August 12, 2009 at 11:46 AM. Reason : :]

8/12/2009 11:43:32 AM

self pwn there.

Those spray points — too accurate for Democrats. Only anarchists are so precise.

[Edited on August 12, 2009 at 11:47 AM. Reason : ]

8/12/2009 11:46:08 AM

^^So you are advocating price controls?

8/12/2009 11:47:57 AM

Through competition, yeah sure. If a doctor feels that his services are worth charging more, and he gets enough patients to maintain that, he can continue charging whatever he wants. For example, I currently go to a dentist that charges up to 3x what my companies dental plans maximums for things like fillings and sealants set to. I still go there though because I think the quality of the service is worth it. Not everyone can afford that though, and not every dentist or doctor will be able justify what they charge, so they will have to drop their prices to stay in business.

[Edited on August 12, 2009 at 11:52 AM. Reason : :]

8/12/2009 11:52:08 AM

Quote :

"I'm just tired of so many people stirring this "Republicans have lost their mind" bullshit. "

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_NC_811424.pdf

"Among Republicans just 24% think [Obama] was born [in the US] while
47% express the belief that he was not."

8/12/2009 12:32:34 PM

Quote :

"LOL are you kidding me? The oldest Americans are filed away in a fucking nursing home where nobody has to deal with them."

Nobody except for the extensive staff those places employ. Your point is taken -- they aren't "put on a pedastal" in the sense that they are particularly well off. But they are in the sense that we throw enormous amounts of money at them and feel like we have no choice but to do so. It's never even considered as an option that we might do otherwise.

Quote :

"In countries like Japan it is considered an honor for a child to house and care for their elderly parents."

Why should it be? Hell, the whole nation of Japan is in demographic crisis, weighed down as it is by such a hugely disproportionate number of seniors.

Quote :

" FUCK old people let them rot!!!!"

Medical resources are and will continue to be finite/scarce. For the foreseeable future, the public's need for health care will continue to exceed that demand. So at any given time, we're saying "FUCK [insert group here] let them rot!!!!"

8/12/2009 12:49:43 PM

Quote :

"Back then, people were protesting the waste of life, time, and money on a war that was started based on lies, or at the very least, pretenses that turned out to be false. These people are protesting Obama's attempts to fix health care, which everyone agrees is fucked up, by outright misrepresenting the actual intent and composition of the plans that are being worked out. "

-Shrike

I love this type of reasoning. NO Iraq War protesters misrepresented the actual intent and composition of Bush's plans for war ("Bush is only invading to get to the oil!" "Bush wants to keep bases there forever!!" "This is a religious war against muslims, maaaaannnn"). Whereas ALL health care protesters must be lying about a health care plan that OBVIOUSLY benefits everyone and that no one could disagree with.

If I could give one piece of advice to everyone on thewolfweb, it would be that if your argument rests on the assumption that the people disagreeing with you are either liars or evil, then you probably are not thinking through the issues carefully enough.

That is all.

PS* Shrike, I might need to cut you some slack because I don't know if you actually went to any Iraq War Protests. If you didn't, then trust me that they typically were not the open forums you seem to be describing where accurately sourced information was exchanged in a peaceful manner.

[Edited on August 12, 2009 at 1:28 PM. Reason : ``]

8/12/2009 1:25:34 PM