Hospitals will ration care according to patients age ..page 272 section 1145.page 429 line 13-25 Government will determine and write the end of life order .....second federal Judge to warn this ...Judge Kithil of .Marble Falls Texas ...
Yes I can see the need to find a better system of health care in general. I also am concerned about treatment being restricted in regards to a person's ability to pay for the coverage but this started to happen previously in certain states and is in effect and I was completely against it. A person has the right on a health care proxy to determine whether they want specific treatments at certain times. I do not however believe in the concept of "futile care" and I certainly don't want decisions being made that go above even the person's family. Unfortunately this kind of devaluing of people's lives has started to occur already. When a person is at the end of their life and treatments that are available have been shown not to work an appropriate option is (if the person chooses) a hospice that does not have any form of restriction of coverage but allows a person to have support of other people. I know friends of family members have made this decision.
I agree if they are beyond help but the Obama care states they will ration care according to age ...folks may not be offered it..This ObamaCare was modelled after the UK one ..I have 2 relatives that went into Hospital they would have been treated here but they were dead within 10 days ...they call it palliative care , a team decides if you live or die ..he was 68 and the other one 72 ..they weren't offered care .,they drugged them up so much that when family arrived the poor relative did'nt know them , the Brits have been up in arms about this matter ....By the way the waiting times are appalling..my brother waited months to find out if he had prostate cancer or not ..he didn't so that was good .but he spent many depressed moments thinking he had .There is much more Judge Kithil has spoken about I couldn't find a link ..
Page 50 section 152.... the bill will provide insurance care to all non US residents even if they are here illegally ...Page 58-59 The government will have real time access to an individual's bank Account and will have authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts . It said the healthcare bill would not apply to Congress members ...there's plenty more guys .....
None of what is said here is truth. Give me some sources for your information as I want to see this for myself? For starters there is no rationed care under the health care reform law. Basically in a nut shell the plan is to set up pools, and by setting up pools, just like under regular health insurance, it will lower everyones cost and extend insurance to those who cannot forwhatever reason get it now. Pre existing will also be gone as of 2014. Children will be allowed to stay on the parents policy until 25 or 26 years old which is good especially for children in college. Medicare would be extended to cover an earlier age group depending on ability to pay. Everyone would have the very same kind of insurance your politicians have right now. So how manyof them are rejecting it pray tell? Do you even realize you have played right into the hands of the biggest scam going?
Did you know that the republicans hired a phraseologist to come up with some catchy phrases to turn people against the health care reform so it could not take off? He is the one that came up with the biggest lie in 2010 according to politifact, you know the one where they tell you that it is a government takeover? In the spring of 2009, a Republican strategist settled on a brilliant and powerful attack line for President Barack Obama's ambitious plan to overhaul America's health insurance system. Frank Luntz, a consultant famous for his phraseology, urged GOP leaders to call it a "government takeover."
"Takeovers are like coups," Luntz wrote in a 28-page memo. "They both lead to dictators and a loss of freedom."
The line stuck. By the time the health care bill was headed toward passage in early 2010, Obama and congressional Democrats had sanded down their program, dropping the "public option" concept that was derided as too much government intrusion. The law passed in March, with new regulations, but no government-run plan.
But as Republicans smelled serious opportunity in the midterm elections, they didn't let facts get in the way of a great punchline. And few in the press challenged their frequent assertion that under Obama, the government was going to take over the health care industry.
PolitiFact editors and reporters have chosen "government takeover of health care" as the 2010 Lie of the Year. Uttered by dozens of politicians and pundits, it played an important role in shaping public opinion about the health care plan and was a significant factor in the Democrats' shellacking in the November elections.
Readers of PolitiFact, the St. Petersburg Times' independent fact-checking website, also chose it as the year's most significant falsehood by an overwhelming margin. (Their second-place choice was Rep. Michele Bachmann's claim that Obama was going to spend $200 million a day on a trip to India, a falsity that still sprouts.)
By selecting "government takeover' as Lie of the Year, PolitiFact is not making a judgment on whether the health care law is good policy.
The phrase is simply not true.
Said Jonathan Oberlander, a professor of health policy at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill: "The label 'government takeover" has no basis in reality, but instead reflects a political dynamic where conservatives label any increase in government authority in health care as a 'takeover.' "
An inaccurate claim
"Government takeover" conjures a European approach where the government owns the hospitals and the doctors are public employees. But the law Congress passed, parts of which have already gone into effect, relies largely on the free market:
• Employers will continue to provide health insurance to the majority of Americans through private insurance companies.
• Contrary to the claim, more people will get private health coverage. The law sets up "exchanges" where private insurers will compete to provide coverage to people who don't have it.
• The government will not seize control of hospitals or nationalize doctors.
• The law does not include the public option, a government-run insurance plan that would have competed with private insurers.
• The law gives tax credits to people who have difficulty affording insurance, so they can buy their coverage from private providers on the exchange. But here too, the approach relies on a free market with regulations, not socialized medicine.
PolitiFact reporters have studied the 906-page bill and interviewed independent health care experts. We have concluded it is inaccurate to call the plan a government takeover because it relies largely on the existing system of health coverage provided by employers.
It's true that the law does significantly increase government regulation of health insurers. But it is, at its heart, a system that relies on private companies and the free market.
Republicans who maintain the Democratic plan is a government takeover say that characterization is justified because the plan increases federal regulation and will require Americans to buy health insurance.
But while those provisions are real, the majority of Americans will continue to get coverage from private insurers. And it will bring new business for the insurance industry: People who don"t currently have coverage will get it, for the most part, from private insurance companies.
Consider some analogies about strict government regulation. The Federal Aviation Administration imposes detailed rules on airlines. State laws require drivers to have car insurance. Regulators tell electric utilities what they can charge. Yet that heavy regulation is not described as a government takeover.
This year, PolitiFact analyzed five claims of a "government takeover of health care." Three were rated Pants on Fire, two were rated False.
'Can't do it in four words'
Other news organizations have also said the claim is false.
Slate said "the proposed health care reform does not take over the system in any sense.' In a New York Times economics blog, Princeton University professor Uwe Reinhardt, an expert in health care economics, said, "Yes, there would be a substantial government-mandated reorganization of this relatively small corner of the private health insurance market (that serves people who have been buying individual policies). But that hardly constitutes a government takeover of American health care."
FactCheck.org, an independent fact-checking group run by the University of Pennsylvania, has debunked it several times, calling it one of the "whoppers" about health care and saying the reform plan is neither "government-run" nor a "government takeover."
We asked incoming House Speaker John Boehner's office why Republican leaders repeat the phrase when it has repeatedly been shown to be incorrect. Michael Steel, Boehner's spokesman, replied, "We believe that the job-killing ObamaCare law will result in a government takeover of health care. That's why we have pledged to repeal it, and replace it with common-sense reforms that actually lower costs.”
Analysts say health care reform is such a complicated topic that it often cannot be summarized in snappy talking points.
"If you're going to tell the truth about something as complicated as health care and health care reform, you probably need at least four sentences," said Maggie Mahar, author of Money-Driven Medicine: The Real Reason Health Care Costs So Much. "You can"t do it in four words."
Mahar said the GOP simplification distorted the truth about the plan. "Doctors will not be working for the government. Hospitals will not be owned by the government," she said. "That's what a government takeover of health care would mean, and that's not at all what we"re doing."
How the line was used
If you followed the health care debate or the midterm election – even casually – it's likely you heard "government takeover" many times.
PolitiFact sought to count how often the phrase was used in 2010 but found an accurate tally was unfeasible because it had been repeated so frequently in so many places. It was used hundreds of times during the debate over the bill and then revived during the fall campaign. A few numbers:
• The phrase appears more than 90 times on Boehner's website, GOPLeader.gov.
• It was mentioned eight times in the 48-page Republican campaign platform "A Pledge to America" as part of their plan to "repeal and replace the government takeover of health care."
• The Republican National Committee's website mentions a government takeover of health care more than 200 times.
Conservative groups and tea party organizations joined the chorus. It was used by FreedomWorks, the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute.
The phrase proliferated in the media even after Democrats dropped the public option. In 2010 alone, "government takeover” was mentioned 28 times in the Washington Post, 77 times in Politico and 79 times on CNN. A review of TV transcripts showed "government takeover" was primarily used as a catchy sound bite, not for discussions of policy details.
In most transcripts we examined, Republican leaders used the phrase without being challenged by interviewers. For example, during Boehner's Jan. 31 appearance on Meet the Press, Boehner said it five times. But not once was he challenged about it.
In rare cases when the point was questioned, the GOP leader would recite various regulations found in the bill and insist that they constituted a takeover. But such followups were rare.
An effective phrase
Politicians and officials in the health care industry have been warning about a "government takeover" for decades.
The phrase became widely used in the early 1990s when President Bill Clinton was trying to pass health care legislation. Then, as today, Democrats tried to debunk the popular Republican refrain.
When Obama proposed his health plan in the spring of 2009, Luntz, a Republican strategist famous for his research on effective phrases, met with focus groups to determine which messages would work best for the Republicans. He did not respond to calls and e-mails from PolitiFact asking him to discuss the phrase.
The 28-page memo he wrote after those sessions, "The Language of Healthcare 2009," provides a rare glimpse into the art of finding words and phrases that strike a responsive chord with voters.
The memo begins with "The 10 Rules for Stopping the 'Washington Takeover' of Healthcare.” Rule No. 4 says people "are deathly afraid that a government takeover will lower their quality of care – so they are extremely receptive to the anti-Washington approach. It's not an economic issue. It's a bureaucratic issue."
The memo is about salesmanship, not substance. It doesn't address whether the lines are accurate. It just says they are effective and that Republicans should use them. Indeed, facing a Democratic plan that actually relied on the free market to try to bring down costs, Luntz recommended sidestepping that inconvenient fact:
"The arguments against the Democrats' healthcare plan must center around politicians, bureaucrats and Washington ... not the free market, tax incentives or competition."
Democrats tried to combat the barrage of charges about a government takeover. The White House and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi repeatedly put out statements, but they were drowned out by a disciplined GOP that used the phrase over and over.
Democrats could never agree on their own phrases and were all over the map in their responses, said Howard Dean, former head of the Democratic National Committee.
"It was uncoordinated. Everyone had their own idea," Dean said in an interview with PolitiFact.
"The Democrats are atrocious at messaging," he said. "They've gotten worse since I left, not better. It's just appalling. First of all, you don"t play defense when you"re doing messaging, you play offense. The Republicans have learned this well."
Dean grudgingly admires the Republican wordsmith. "Frank Luntz has it right, he just works for the wrong side. You give very simple catch phrases that encapsulate the philosophy of the bill."
A responsive chord
By March of this year, when Obama signed the bill into law, 53 percent of respondents in a Bloomberg poll said they agreed that "the current proposal to overhaul health care amounts to a government takeover.”
Exit polls showed the economy was the top issue for voters in the November election, but analysts said the drumbeat about the "government takeover" during the campaign helped cement the advantage for the Republicans.
Rep. Earl Blumenauer, an Oregon Democrat whose provision for Medicare end-of-life care was distorted into the charge of "death panels" (last year's Lie of the Year), said the Republicans' success with the phrase was a matter of repetition.
"There was a uniformity of Republican messaging that was disconnected from facts," Blumenauer said. "The sheer discipline . . . was breathtaking."
My health-care prejudices crumbled not in the classroom but on the way to one. On a subzero Winnipeg morning in 1997, I cut across the hospital emergency room to shave a few minutes off my frigid commute. Swinging open the door, I stepped into a nightmare: the ER overflowed with elderly people on stretchers, waiting for admission. Some, it turned out, had waited five days. The air stank with sweat and urine. Right then, I began to reconsider everything that I thought I knew about Canadian health care. I soon discovered that the problems went well beyond overcrowded ERs. Patients had to wait for practically any diagnostic test or procedure, such as the man with persistent pain from a hernia operation whom we referred to a pain clinic—with a three-year wait list; or the woman needing a sleep study to diagnose what seemed like sleep apnea, who faced a two-year delay; or the woman with breast cancer who needed to wait four months for radiation therapy, when the standard of care was four weeks.
In our state, we have Canadians come here frequently for surgery and medications because they cant get the type of care they need or want in Canada.
Go to the hospital here and talk to the doctors and they will tell you how many patients they have that are canadians.
So you come up with an opinion piece from a site that has all the characteristics of being a conservitive fed site and what? I can go to the same site and come back with all those opinions of canadians who disagree with this. Propaganda that is insurance fed I would bet.
I could not find the origine of the site which I find strange. I looked and looked and nothing.
Regardless of what does or does not go on in Canada is another conversation tho and I still would like to know where the sources are stating rationed care according to age in the healthcare reform bill. This sounds like some one just read it and posted it and didnt check it for truth? I would like to view where this was found.
folks can do their own research look up the pages ..it doesn't matter what opinions are, look up HB3200 page 272 section 1145 ...hey anyone interested look that up ... okay even if you let 2 judges out ..the facts are out there .. So do your own homework folks get the truth not propaganda ...
Propaganda teko and you know it ....I am done folks can look if they care to ....you actually want to be told you cannot have treatment after a certain age ...?? you would like a team to say no to treatment because of age ..this happened to some in my family in UK
Its about time you started to take a look and put the real facts up instead of propaganda for a failed President Any one looking on this group I suggest you look at the Healthcare bill for your self and make your own mind up ..I don't need to check it out I lived what you want for America ... sad ...
Do you know the meaning of propaganda? Do you know the difference between truth and agenda? And you lived what who wants for America? You know absolutely nothing about the healthcare reform bill for you to even say such a thing. The UK is a single payor system yes, the reform bill is not. The Uk is a single payor system only? How is it paid? Taxes, tax breaks, 100percent government? How exactly is that anything like the healthcare reform bill that is made up of exchanges just like regular insurance companies. People make up those exchanges in mass numbers therefor bringing the cost down, that is how it works. The part people have a problem with is the mandated part of carrying it. It would not effect anyone that currently has insurance but would give those that dont an option. So how does that compare with the UK? I am seriously asking you to explain tht to me cause your right! I aint gettin it.
lol, I thought you would appreciate that! lol, You know one of these days me and you are gonna meet! Sit down and have a drink together and avoid politics, yeah, you have anice day too. Off on a road trip.
snopes is an ok site. Even they will give an opinon and call it a fact. Regardless, listening to XM radio, left wing radio station yesterday, a gentleman called in and said that he cannot readily get much needed meds for his special needs child since some new programs kicked in. This guy started doing some research and found tha the FDA has called for the production of some of the beneficial meds that his child needs to either be halted or slowed to a snails pace.
(I'm normally not the biggest smaller government advocate but, when government gets this big, you have no idea who is calling the shots and it takes years, even decades to find out who is responsible for crap like this.)
teko, that was nice what you said about just being social and setting politics aside.
brice--I dont think any of us will ever really know the truth about much when it comes to politics. As you all know, I am not as informed on political stuff, but I have to say one thing has become quite clear to me since being on MH.
The left and right are so loyal to their own parties that whenever either side hears something that differs from what their own party is saying, they are convinced the other party is lying, never does either side think their own party may be brainwashing or lying to them.
It seems its gone from just differing on how things should be run, to out right hatred and terrible assumptions and suspicion on both sides.
Where it affects those of us that do have insurance now is our TAXES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh yes, we still get to pay our premiums as high as they are but we can add to our annuel budget significant tax hikes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
$$$$$$ just chiming in where I can . . . $$$$$$$$$$ LOL
Margy, I have to admit, I havent a clue who Allen West is, but I will do my homework I promise! But it should make you happy that Obama dipped into our oil reserves today. C there?
I hear ya on them taxes Kay! Im gonna have to quit my high falootin job of 25 bucks an hour and go to work for walmart and hope they give me enuff hours to git insurance. Then at least I can keep mole alive for awhile! ROFL.... I hope they be hiring! Or maybe a sugardaddy is in order (I do work for rich people after all). lol
No it doesn't quite the opposite he should let us drill for oil the reserves are meant to be used in Emergency time ;like War ..he is wrong Drill Baby Drill Lots up there about Allan West but he isn't running this time .looks like it maybe President Palin instead ....lol.
Taxes? Gonna go up, and you can count on that. I'm no political genius, but I don't see enough spending cuts to cover our debt.... and typical with partisan politics, neither party has any real idea. Every single one of them will say that their plan works, but it will take 12 years. Wonderful, that's potentially 3 presidents down the line....
Probably closer to the truth, nobody has a damn clue as to what is necessary and partisan politics will keep it that way.
tell you what Palin got to be more intelligent than a president who cant even be bothered to find out whether a hero receiving the medal of honor is alive or dead ..wonder why the left wing media wasn't all over that .
The Content on this Site is presented in a summary fashion, and is intended to be used for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended to be and should not be interpreted as medical advice or a diagnosis of any health or fitness problem, condition or disease; or a recommendation for a specific test, doctor, care provider, procedure, treatment plan, product, or course of action. MedHelp is not a medical or healthcare provider and your use of this Site does not create a doctor / patient relationship. We disclaim all responsibility for the professional qualifications and licensing of, and services provided by, any physician or other health providers posting on or otherwise referred to on this Site and/or any Third Party Site. Never disregard the medical advice of your physician or health professional, or delay in seeking such advice, because of something you read on this Site. We offer this Site AS IS and without any warranties. By using this Site you agree to the following Terms and Conditions. If you think you may have a medical emergency, call your physician or 911 immediately.