• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama discusses deathbed measures

I repeat, 4 years and I have not gotten all my fathers medical bills taken care of. I have 3 spiral notebooks on my desk to keep notes of every phonecall(one for each insurer). I am a college dropout, yet I can do my taxes no problem. Untangle insurance, not so much. Thank god for my fathers old union, who I can turn to every so often, and who does get things done for me on this.

Nothing quite as frustrating as calling one company on a bill, being told that another insurance company handles it, calling the other, being told the first handles it, asking them to call the first and explain this, and being told that they are not allowed to do that.

This happens with regularity. As a provider, I see this all the time. I am still waiting to be paid for services from two years ago. I have sent the information 6 times, to 4 different buildings and to the direct office of someone I spoke to. No one has ever "received" the information. :roll: This is the game they play in the hope that the provider/subscriber will just give up, allowing the insurance company to not have to pay for services. Happens all the time. In my practice we are owed thousands and thousands via scams like this. This is a big reason why many practitioners that I know are dropping out of most, if not all insurance plans.
 
I believe that the right way to frame this question is to ask "Should the government have the right to ration health care?".

It is certainly one way to frame the question. Another way is "what is the most efficient/most equitable means of allocating healthcare resources?"

It is the elephant in the living room for every healthcare debate. There is no way to avoid the cold reality that healthcare must be purchased. The doctor must make a living; likewise the pharmacist, the hospital, and every other professional involved in healthcare. Regardless of the healthcare scheme, they must be paid.

Do people waste money on deathbed measures that ultimately do little to either prolong life or enhance quality of life? Quite possibly, even probably. Going gently into that good night is not our way, as a rule.

However, if it is their money, who is government, or anyone else, to say that they should not waste it thus? Bank accounts are just not that helpful to dead people, so why shouldn't people spend their last dime grasping for one more second of life if that is their desire?

Naturally, the rebuttal is that, because of insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid, the money spent is not the patient's money, but other people's money. What claim does any patient have on another person's money to sustain life to the absolute bitter end?
 
So lets see...

1. Trolling.
2. Further trolling.
3. Further trolling with insults and threats.
4. Further trolling with insults and threats and now an "official threat.(harassment)

I reported all of these I expect a mod to take action against him.
I do not expect to see this **** again.

Tell you what. I will do something about it.

Moderator's Warning:
I've already warned you once. Either post on topic, or cease this behavior.
 
Further, no matter how much bureaucracy the government would put on medical coverage, it does not touch what is there now.
The question is not how much bureaucracy government will put on medical coverage, but how much more bureaucracy will be added.

That is the part of the Administration's thesis I find laughable: that a "public option" (government program) would have lower administrative costs. Government programs, if anything, are top heavy in administrative costs as arule; why would healthcare be any different.
 
Tell you what. I will do something about it.

Moderator's Warning:
I've already warned you once. Either post on topic, or cease this behavior.

Stop trolling me.... Stop insulting me... Stop trying to start an argument..Stop harassing me.

You're now entering abusive.

You started this crap..you continued this crap after it became clear I was not going to respond to you. I warned you from the start and reported you multiple times. I asked you to stop from the beginning.

..and what do you do..
...threaten me with whatever because of your actions.
 
Last edited:
The question is not how much bureaucracy government will put on medical coverage, but how much more bureaucracy will be added.

That is the part of the Administration's thesis I find laughable: that a "public option" (government program) would have lower administrative costs. Government programs, if anything, are top heavy in administrative costs as arule; why would healthcare be any different.

Ever deal with Medicaid? It is actually from the user end not bad, mostly pretty well handled and simple. Medicaid part B gets stupid, but for the most part, my stepmothers stuff I can handle with ease. Once she tops her deductibles, almost all the bills she gets are already paid.

By the way, there is an assumption going on here that it is inevitable that the bureaucracy is going to get much worse. A well designed plan should not make it so. The question ofc is whether the plan the government comes up with will be well designed, and that is debatable. I don't think the comparison to the tax code is really fair, since the reason the tax code is so stupid, at least for individuals, is because of all the deductions, or so it seems to me.
 
Moderator's Warning:
First, insinuating ALL Obama voters are worthless is essentially trolling flamebait.

Second, far to many posts without any substance and just whining about trolling. Next one has action taken.

Third, I would advise people to get acquainted with the rules and the proper way to respond to issues. If you want to continue ignoring them then the reprucussions will come.
 
Last edited:
Obama discusses deathbed measures - Los Angeles Times



Huge kudos to Obama for having the balls to say what needs to be said on this. Here's hoping he takes it one step further and reminds people that egardless of the health care system we have, you're not entitled to all the health care that you want. Elder care is one of the biggest black holes in our current system, and needs to be fixed if any new system has any hope of succeeding.

So let me get this straight. Obama talks about cutting costs.

Now we find out exactly what he means by "cutting costs", which is grandma getting shut out of the healthcare she needs.

Glad Obama clarified this.

So by cutting costs, Obama means to ration healthcare.

Eugenics sure has a funny way of creeping back into the mainstream again doesnt it?

Government determining who is worthy of life and who is not. Didnt we fight a world war over this once before?
 
Logans Run was a cool show. No one ever got old because they killed them.

Can we rename it "Obama's Run"?

Nothing like killing people off b/c they are deemed unworthy by the government.
 
So, what you are saying is that no Obama supporter over the age of 18 should be granted any life saving procedures...since they are not worth saving. Sounds like nothing of substance other than pure partisan hackery, and the indirect hope that Obama supporters die, or are not worth saving. Nothing to do with the thread topic. Nothing but a hyperpartisan attack and troll.

I find his comment right on target actually.

If the government can deem a certain segment of the population unfit to live life, in this case the elderly, why is it considered trolling to call for another segment of society to be done away with?

If the people who support soft eugenics want to trumpet not caring for people who have the right to life, then its those people who have opened pandora's box into the deep, dark duldrums of mankind's deepest, innermost evils.
 
I've worked with doctors. Usually I found that the impetus for extra tests was not extra profit, but avoidance of lawsuits.

That is the entire medical industry today. It is the 1st and foremost practice in medicine: do what you have to in order not to get sued.

I have 2 doctors and a PA in my family. When doctors have meetings, its all about lawsuit control. One of my brothers has quit going to these meetings, b/c he says they are a waste of time b/c they dont ever talk about medicine, its all about government SOPs and regulations and bitching and moaning about those.

The entire industry is nothing more then a stopgap at preventing lawsuits. Medicine isnt the primary reason for it anymore.
 
This happens with regularity. As a provider, I see this all the time. I am still waiting to be paid for services from two years ago. I have sent the information 6 times, to 4 different buildings and to the direct office of someone I spoke to. No one has ever "received" the information. :roll: This is the game they play in the hope that the provider/subscriber will just give up, allowing the insurance company to not have to pay for services. Happens all the time. In my practice we are owed thousands and thousands via scams like this. This is a big reason why many practitioners that I know are dropping out of most, if not all insurance plans.

We just had a group of doctors here in town quit the hospital they were at and open up a quick care practice, that doesnt take insurance. If they need serious care, they refer them to a hospital, otherwise they are outside the insurance companies grasp. Also, no medicaid patients. Government is just as bad.
 
The question is not how much bureaucracy government will put on medical coverage, but how much more bureaucracy will be added.

That is the part of the Administration's thesis I find laughable: that a "public option" (government program) would have lower administrative costs. Government programs, if anything, are top heavy in administrative costs as arule; why would healthcare be any different.

Exactly. The idea the government wont have bloated admin costs is ridiculous. As the government itself is a bloated administration cost from the onset.
 
Ever deal with Medicaid? It is actually from the user end not bad, mostly pretty well handled and simple. Medicaid part B gets stupid, but for the most part, my stepmothers stuff I can handle with ease. Once she tops her deductibles, almost all the bills she gets are already paid.

By the way, there is an assumption going on here that it is inevitable that the bureaucracy is going to get much worse. A well designed plan should not make it so. The question ofc is whether the plan the government comes up with will be well designed, and that is debatable. I don't think the comparison to the tax code is really fair, since the reason the tax code is so stupid, at least for individuals, is because of all the deductions, or so it seems to me.

Tell the doctors how wonderful Medicaid is.

Medicaid is also in the process of going belly up.
 
I believe that the right way to frame this question is to ask "Should the government have the right to ration health care?".

As things stand now, the health insurance industry effectively rations health care under some circumstances.
 
This is no surprise coming from Obama. It falls in line with some of the other ideas and actions he's taken so far. This will come under the heading Government enforced euthanasia.
Obama and no other person in his or any other Government position is remotely qualified to make type of decision. I we do it to our selves and fail it's attempted suicide. If we try to help a friend it's murder. But if Obama the butcher of Chicago comes up with the idea it's a cost saving measure that's good for the country.
Even a Muslim should recognize the fact that sometimes unexplainable recoveries happen from time to time when all hope is seemingly lost.
Whats next the forced killing of all children born with birth defects regardless of the parents wishes.
Are we on the path to Nazi style eugenics where we control human mating to create a master race. If so and Michelle Obama has her way white people need not apply.
I hope the Granola Liberals understand what this Mad Man has said and it meaning to their ill loved ones like Mom & Dad.
The is the sickest thing this "person" has said so far, but I fear it won't be the last or worst. This one clearly goes against the principles America has stood for as long as real Americans have been in charge.

I am really getting tired of the rightwing "slippery slope" arguments on every issue. You are dying of cancer with six months to live. Should you get hip replacement surgery, which takes every bit of six months to recover from? Somehow Councilman would like us to believe that if you don't have that surgery it constitutes euthenasia, and he quickly draws a line to Hitler. This type of response is juvenile, unhelpful, and irresponsible.
 
I am really getting tired of the rightwing "slippery slope" arguments on every issue. You are dying of cancer with six months to live. Should you get hip replacement surgery, which takes every bit of six months to recover from? Somehow Councilman would like us to believe that if you don't have that surgery it constitutes euthenasia, and he quickly draws a line to Hitler. This type of response is juvenile, unhelpful, and irresponsible.

:2wave:So is having a crystal ball telling someone they only have 6 months to live.

Can you prove that? I am pretty sure people live alot longer then the average life expectancy or do you live in another universe?
 
I dunno, it seems to me that a doctor would want a procedure to be done even if not necessary just to obtain more money.

I'd doubt that, to be honest. In the UK at least, doctors and surgeons don't get paid per procedure; they just get a set yearly wage. Plus, performing unnecessary procedures is a brilliant way to end up being blacklisted or struck off as a doctor.
 
Stop Trolling me trying to start an argument.

I gave my opinion.
I don't rightly give a **** if you don't find it up to your personal standard.





Reported for trying to further a troll into an argument.

Doesn't looking to me like he is trying to further a troll into an argument. The troll is doing fine all by himself, and needs no help from anybody else. :mrgreen:

On a side note: Now THAT (What you posted) is a Freudian slip if I have ever seen one. LOL.
 
Last edited:
I repeat, 4 years and I have not gotten all my fathers medical bills taken care of. I have 3 spiral notebooks on my desk to keep notes of every phonecall(one for each insurer). I am a college dropout, yet I can do my taxes no problem. Untangle insurance, not so much. Thank god for my fathers old union, who I can turn to every so often, and who does get things done for me on this.

Nothing quite as frustrating as calling one company on a bill, being told that another insurance company handles it, calling the other, being told the first handles it, asking them to call the first and explain this, and being told that they are not allowed to do that.

Just something to point out but your not responsible for your fathers bills.

The insurance company is, just forward them along.
 
Keep reporting. Since it is you that is trolling, YOU might be the one that receives consequences.

Now, lets see what your opinion is:


So, what you are saying is that no Obama supporter over the age of 18 should be granted any life saving procedures...since they are not worth saving. Sounds like nothing of substance other than pure partisan hackery, and the indirect hope that Obama supporters die, or are not worth saving. Nothing to do with the thread topic. Nothing but a hyperpartisan attack and troll.

So, I ask again, do you have anything of substance you want to add? Do you think that folks who are on their deathbeds should receive treatment for ailments that will in no way assist or save their lives? That is what this thread is about...not whether you hate Obama and his supporter or not.

So, anything?

his post relates to the thread, all you are doing is attacking him. Not attacking his post, attacking him.

YOU ARE TROLLING HERE
 
Obama discusses deathbed measures - Los Angeles Times



Huge kudos to Obama for having the balls to say what needs to be said on this. Here's hoping he takes it one step further and reminds people that egardless of the health care system we have, you're not entitled to all the health care that you want. Elder care is one of the biggest black holes in our current system, and needs to be fixed if any new system has any hope of succeeding.





hmmm that is great and all, but I thought we were promised that the government wouldn't be deciding what treatment you or I need....


This seems to suggest just the opposite, no?
 
hmmm that is great and all, but I thought we were promised that the government wouldn't be deciding what treatment you or I need....


This seems to suggest just the opposite, no?

I don't get the impression that it nescesarily means that the gov't would be deciding our treatment, but rather enforcing laws that would make government agencies review doctors notes and take them into consideration and then decide if treatment is worth the money and time, or just make someone comfortable.

However, this is America, and we are full of a bunch of Americans who most of the time can't do anything cometently, so this will fail, but I think the plan is good.
The workers aren't.
 
I don't get the impression that it nescesarily means that the gov't would be deciding our treatment, but rather enforcing laws that would make government agencies review doctors notes and take them into consideration and then decide if treatment is worth the money and time, or just make someone comfortable.

However, this is America, and we are full of a bunch of Americans who most of the time can't do anything cometently, so this will fail, but I think the plan is good.
The workers aren't.

I think under a government system, the incentive will be to not offer as much treatment to the elderly than to others merely because elderly are net tax users and not net tax payers.
 
I don't get the impression that it nescesarily means that the gov't would be deciding our treatment, but rather enforcing laws that would make government agencies review doctors notes and take them into consideration and then decide if treatment is worth the money and time, or just make someone comfortable.

However, this is America, and we are full of a bunch of Americans who most of the time can't do anything cometently, so this will fail, but I think the plan is good.
The workers aren't.



Mandating end of life treatment is exactly deciding treatment! :shock:
 
Back
Top Bottom