»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Obamacare
| The Alley |
|
Obamacare |
|
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan 
|
. Now that the Supreme Court has judged the mandate to be constitutional under the taxing authority of congress, a question: what will insurance cost a young healthy man or woman, not insured through his or her employer, on an annual basis in order to avoid the tax for non-compliance? Another question: using the Court’s rationale, what not doing can the Government not tax as a consequence? I admit, when I first read it, I was reminded of Augustus Caesar’s laws taxing men for not being married and having children . . . So basically Americans have lost the right to be left alone. . |
||
| © Copyright 2012 John Pawlik - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: That depends on how much the individual earns. If the young man or woman earned $14000 a year they’d pay $420 a year. If the young man or woman earned $44000 a year they’d pay $4400 a year. Whether they are healthy or not makes no difference to the cost of insurance however if they decide not to purchase insurance and become sick the cost of any required treatment must be added to the cost of paying the penalty. quote: Your question is a little confusing but I think you’re asking whether the government can tax people for not doing something that US law dictates that they should be doing. The short answer is yes - the SC decision doesn’t change anything in that regard. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The question I'd like answered by contributors here is....tax or penalty? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Do you mean the charge applicable if you choose not obtain a health care policy? It certainly matches the broad economic definition of a Tax: A non-penal, yet compulsory transfer of resources from the private to the Public sector levied on a basis of predetermined criteria. Not purchasing a health care policy isn’t a crime so it can’t be described as a penalty or fine – so I’d say it's a tax. . |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "If the young man or woman earned $44000 a year they’d pay $4400 a year." Again given young and healthy, is that cost higher than it would be if the insurance was based on personal medical history and requirments? $4,400 would be a very high cost to some young and healthy men and women I know in that income range . . . Are you allowed to lessen the cost by opting for a high deductable, (some eight years back I had a $5,000 deductable betting on my own good health and saved significantly on premiums)? . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: The $4400 was based on the average cost of a health care policy for a healthy individual in 2008. Given a historical yearly increase of 6-7% the amount paid would be lower. quote: The $4400 is the maximum an individual earning $44000 would pay; if you can get a qualifying policy cheaper on one of the Health care Exchanges you’re free to do so. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
The effect of the SCOTUS decision gave broad new powers to the Congress to be able to tax us on non-participation in an activity. The Constitution does not grant them that authority. Their taxing authority is limited. This ruling must be challenged and struck down. It should also be struck down due to the fact that if it IS to be considered a tax, the law is illegal in that it originated in the Senate and not in the House as required of tax legislation. Even though the SCOTUS declared that it was Constitutional if it is considered a tax, actually rewriting the law to make it Constitutional, The Liar in Chief and his minions, are STILL declaring it a penalty and not a tax, avoiding all mention of the truth of the SCOTUS decision. *Poof* Down the memory hole of the Ministry of Truth. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
“To be a constitutional tax, it must be an excise tax, an income tax, or a proportional capitation tax.” These are the ONLY types of tax that the United State Congress has a recognized, constitutional power to impose." http://www.westernjournalism.com/chief-traitor-roberts-provides-congress-with-unlimited-power/ |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1589190 |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Sorry but that’s simply not true. H.R. 3590 – which contains the revenue provisions in the health care law - originated in the House, was amended by the Senate, then passed back to the House and approved on March 21 2010: MAJOR ACTIONS: 9/17/2009 Introduced in House 10/8/2009 Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 416 - 0 (Roll no. 768). 12/24/2009 Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment and an amendment to the Title by Yea-Nay Vote. 60 - 39. Record Vote Number: 396. 3/21/2010 Resolving differences -- House actions: On motion that the House agree to the Senate amendments Agreed to by recorded vote: 219 - 212 (Roll no. 165). 3/21/2010 Cleared for White House. 3/22/2010 Presented to President. 3/23/2010 Signed by President. 3/23/2010 Became Public Law No: 111-148 |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
It's my understanding that their was a House version (HR 3962) and a Senate version (H.R. 3590). The house version hit a roadblock in the Senate, the Senate passed their own version, and the House adopted the Senate version through the reconcilliation procedure. The Affordable Health Care for America Act (or HR 3962)[1] was a bill that was crafted by the United States House of Representatives in November 2009. At the encouragement of the Obama administration, the 111th Congress devoted much of its time to enacting reform of the United States' health care system. Known as the "House bill," it was the House of Representative's chief legislative proposal during the health reform debate, but the Affordable Health Care for America Act as originally drafted never became law. On December 24, 2009, the Senate passed an alternative health care bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590).[2] In 2010, the House abandoned its reform bill in favor of amending the Senate bill (via the reconciliation process) in the form of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Health_Care_for_America_Act |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
The Senate passed its healthcare bill, H.R. 3590, the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” on Christmas Eve by a vote of 60-39! ANA wants to make sure you have the latest information on what is happening in Washington, DC! Where is the health care reform debate going? What has happened since the Senate voted on Christmas Eve? All of your questions concerning health care reform are answered here! Both the House bill, the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962), and the Senate bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590), clearly represent a movement toward much-needed, comprehensive and meaningful reform for our nation’s healthcare system. ANA has highlighted the nursing provisions within H.R. 3962 and H.R. 3590 and categorized them by Nursing Workforce Funding, Advanced Practice Registered Nurses, and Quality. http://www.capitolupdate.org/index.php/tag/h-r-3590/ |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Nothing like passing an open-ended law that lets lawyers and bureaucrats keep adding to the law. So on top of a 2700 page law we have 13000 pages of regulations so far with no end in sight. We can kiss whatever is left of our freedoms goodbye if we don't get this montrosity repealed. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/07/lawyers-have-already-drafted-13000-pages-of-regulations-for-new-obamatax-law/ |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Not quite Denise. The House bill did get stuck in the Senate but the Senate didn’t create their own version, which they knew would be illegal. Instead the the Senate amended an existing bill, HR 3590, which originated in the House. The process is a standard legislative procedure and complies with rules governing the passage of bills containing revenue items. . |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Just how many new taxes are there in Obamacare and how much will they cost an average American taxpaying household? . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Then why are these sources stating that it was the Senate bill that was passed, in lieu of the House bill? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Here are some of the hidden taxes, John. http://www.newsmax.com/GroverNorquist/Obamacare-20-hidden-taxes/2012/06/29/id/443995 |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I finally found the answer, Grinch! They played a 'shell game'....took a totally UNRELATED House Bill and gutted it and 'inserted' Obamacare into it. What a bunch of slimeballs these politicians are. The bill that passed the Senate wasn’t technically a Senate bill. Reid took a bill that had already passed the House, stripped out the provisions to turn it into a “shell bill,” and then inserted the text of ObamaCare to get around this requirement. The bill that passed the Senate was H.R.3590, which initially had to do with tax breaks for military homeowners. And yes, they’ve used the “shell bill” strategy before. http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/28/say-doesnt-the-constitution-require-tax-bills-to-originate-in-the-house/ |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Perhaps it’s because they don’t know what they’re talking about.  quote: Yes, as I said: “Instead the Senate amended an existing bill, HR 3590, which originated in the House.” It’s a legitimate congressional process. quote: For using a legitimate process? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Has Obamacare improved things for the people or not? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
No, Grinch, for using a loophole....take a bill that passed in the House on a totally UNRELATED matter, gut it and insert the Senate version of the healtcare bill that the Senate wrote. So they use the House Bill #, stick their own legislation into it and pretend it originated in the House. That totally is not in the spirit of observing the Constiution. It's nothing but a sleazy trick. So in all reality it IS a Senate bill and the people DO know what they are talking about. Ess, it's helped kids be able to stay on their parents' policies until they are 26, and helped some people with pre-existing conditions. But those issues could have been addressed without the government taking over the entire industries of healthcare and insurance. It's hurt me in that my premium copay has gone up 400% so far this past year, and in the future when the exchanges are instituted as my union already told us they will be putting us into those instead of continuing what we have. So much for you can keep your health plan if you like your health plan. And the LIAR in Chief is STILL saying that! Nothing but LIES and a despicable power grab by the federal government. And it will hurt me again when I become Medicare eligible due to Medicare being gutted of $700 Billion to partially fund Obamacare. There will be rationing and cuts in service. An unelected board of bureaucrats will be in charge of determining level of care depending on age and health history. God only knows how much worse this monstrosity will get since they are still writing it. There are already 13,000 pages of new regulations that have been written to pile on top of the over 2000 pages of the legislation. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I agree, Denise. For an administration that promised such an open government where everyone would always know what was going on, they certainly go out of their way to make sure people don't. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. It encourages potential employers to go with machines or overseas or to make due with those they already have. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
My sister just saw an analyst discussing ObamaCare and it's impact on Americans. People who do not have insurance will be required to purchase from the government exchanges. Probable cost for a family policy would be about $12K per year. Policies will be expensive because only full coverage policies will be permitted - no more less expensive catastrophic policies will be permitted. Many employers may drop coverage and pay the $2K per employee penalty. The penalty will apply only to employers with 50 or more employees. They will only pay the penalty for the employees who need a subsidy to purchase from the exchanges. Even if you qualify for a subsidy, it's not going to pay the entire bill. You may still end up having to find $4K - $5K to chip in. If an employee does not qualify for a subsidy, the employer doesn't get fined for that person. If the employer drops your coverage, they are not required to give you the difference as a salary increase to pay for your own policy. If a person cannot afford insurance by 2016, the fine for a family policy will be over $2K per year taken out of your tax refund or as a tax due if you have no refund coming. The fine starts out lower and then works up to over $2K for families that don't have insurance by 2016. This fine will get you nothing as far as health coverage. If you want coverage, you would still need to then purchase a policy. Even though insurance companies cannot deny anyone coverage now, you still need to pay a lot to have that coverage. How many employers big and small will now drop insurance coverage and pay fines on just some of the employees that were dropped? Employers will be in a position to save tons of money, don't need to provide any money to make it up to the employees, and only some employers (50+ employees) will be fined and only for the employees who require a subsidy. I fail to see how this is good for anyone in America. I fail to see how this improves health care or lowers costs! Also, 1/2 trillion $ will be taken from Medicare and moved to Medicaid. So who is really throwing granny off the cliff? THIS NEEDS TO BE REPEALED. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Have you verified any of the claims made by the ‘analyst’ Denise? . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
No, I have to leave the analysis to those who actually understand what is in the 2700 pages plus the ongoing addition of regulations, currently at over 13,000 pages and counting. I've tried to read it but the legalese is beyond my ability to understand. I have heard similar claims by other financial analysts who have waded through it though. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I don't think you necessarily have to read all the legalese, Denise, to understand what's happening. You DO, however, have to refuse to listen to people who have already made up their minds and are intent only on swaying others to their side. Or, at least, listen to BOTH sides of the fence with equally critical evaluation. It's honestly not that hard to find good information. quote: Health Care Options for Young, Healthy, Broke from Associated Press |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I confess to be at a loss. I read in your link, Ron, about different "plans" and deductibles. Isn't Obamacare supposed to be free health care for all? I don't understand what the different levels mean. Apparently it stands for different levels of coverage but doesn't that go against what Obamacare is supposed to represent? I admit befuddlement.. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: That’s a reasonable philosophy Denise, if you don’t understand something deferring to someone who does understand it is totally logical but what makes you believe that this particular analyst knows what he/she is talking about? . |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Given the bill was passed without being wholly read and/or understood, what makes you believe those who passed it knew what they were doing? . |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
On Fox news |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Who said they knew what they were doing? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I'll take information from any source and determine for myself if I think it seems legitimate. As for 'some help' for us lower income folks, that could still mean substantially more than I pay now. I won't know for sure until they define 'some help'. Also, folks can't rely on being found Medicaid eligible since Chief Justice Roberts affirmed States rights not to participate in expanding Medicaid. I think 26 States so far have said they will not participate. And health plans offered under the law will limit individuals' out-of-pocket expenses to about $6,250 per year or less — a bulwark against gigantic, unexpected medical bills. And the above is a joke, right? Seriously? Right now my out of pocket expenses are limited to my co-pays. $20 for Primary Doctor, $40 for Specialist and $200 for the Emergency room, with hospitalization covered at 100%, if admitted. This would be no bargain for me if I get thrown into one of those government plans. This whole convoluted mess that few understand needs to be repealed and they need to start over and address ONLY those items that need fixing....not the current takeover of the entire industries of healthcare and insurance. The Federal government needs to get out of our choices and our pocketbooks. As it stands now this just seems like the newest way for the government to rape the taxpayer. I believe it allocates funds to pay for an additional 16,000 plus IRS agents. It also guts Medicare of $700 Billion to partially fund Obamacare. That doesn't bode well for us baby boomers coming of age. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Still befuddled.... |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
It's not 'free', Mike. The law doesn't even live up to it's name as 'Affordable'. It's just a big government power grab. The only ones who are not subjected to it are the illegals, and those with religious objections to insurance, so I guess they will get any medical care for free without worrying about having to purchase insurance or paying a fine at tax time. Even those newly qualified for Medicaid will pay something since it's described as at 'vitually no cost'. I guess it remains to be seen if those currently on Medicaid will be hit with a federal tax. Even those who qualify for a subsidy will have to pay the full amount upfront, probably on a monthly or quarterly basis, when they purchase the insurance and wait to be reimbursed at tax filing time. For example, a single 26-year-old earning $16,000 might pay $537 toward the annual premium for a mid-level "silver" plan, according to estimates from the Kaiser Family Foundation. The rest of the premium would be covered by a $2,853 tax credit. (Deductibles and co-pays could cost up to an additional $2,083, depending on how much care the person needs.) A 26-year-old earning $35,000 would pay $3,325 in premiums — $277 a month — for the same plan, after only a $66 tax credit. (And that patient might be on the hook for another $4,167 in out-of-pocket costs.) I also wonder if this is based on gross income or adjusted gross income. I suppose we are to take comfort from the fact that the 'penalty' (it's not a penalty according to SCOTUS...it's a TAX) can never exceed the cost of a bronze plan? Private insurers have yet to set the prices for their 2014 plans, because coverage that will comply with the law is still being developed. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that premiums for the bare-bones plan, called "bronze" level, might average between $4,500 and $5,000 per year. Family plans might cost $12,500 per year. But I'm sure glad (sarcasm) that all this will be covered at 'no charge': The plans also will cover at no charge preventive care such as HIV tests, screening for depression or alcoholism, flu shots, hepatitis vaccine, contraception and pregnancy care. I'd prefer to pay $20 myself for a flu shot once a year (the ONLY one of these 'preventive care' options that I would need) than to have it built into my plan at 'no charge' (sarcasm again). Nothing is free. Unless you are an illegal alien. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I tend to treat every piece of information as suspect until I can verify it, otherwise there’s a real danger that I’ll start to believe stuff because I want to believe it regardless of whether it’s actually true or not. quote: They have defined it Denise there are even some online tools to calculate the subsidies. http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx quote: I think you’ll find that most of the states will eventually join the Medicaid expansion scheme Denise but anyone not eligible for Medicaid will still be eligible for the federal subsidy scheme. quote: If that’s true Denise then you’re in a minority. The majority of health insurance policies have co-insurance clauses in addition, or instead of, co-pay costs, both are classed as ‘out of pocket expenses’. The normal co-insurance rate is 80/20, that means that once the agreed deductable limit is reached the insurer only pays 80% of incurred costs and the insured party pays 20%. That means that some people find themselves with bills running into tens of thousands of dollars, some of the best policies already include caps that set a maximum out of pocket cost – the new legislation makes that a minimum standard for all policies. quote: The total number of IRS agents currently employed is around 14,000; do you really believe that the ACA would require another 16,000? quote: Total Medicare costs in 2011 were $555 billion and are projected to rise to $903 billion in 2020, the ACA includes provisions to increase quality of service but cut costs to make more than $424 billion in net savings over a ten year period. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I specifically chose a plan at work that didn't have the 80/20 scenario, Grinch. It was an easy choice, too, since for some reason it was the cheapest of those offered. The only difference was that I have to get a referrel from my primary to see a specialist and I have to use 'in network' doctors, specialists and facilities...no problem...all my doctors are 'in network' anyway. Time will tell, I guess, the actual number of new IRS employees that need to be hired to facilitate the administration of Obamacare over the next 10 years. Since they've planned on needing 1200 right away I can easily assume it will be at least 10x that amount, if not more, given the federal government's record for waste and inefficiency. Hmmmmm......I wonder where all this medicare savings will be found as the number of those eligible steadily increases. Rationing of care, maybe? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
The savings must be possible Denise because the Republicans claim that they’d cut even more than that. The details are a little sketchy regarding how they’d do it but they include a reduction in eligibility which I guess could be classed as a form of rationing. Of course with a finite resource rationing in one form or other is unavoidable, the options are to give all some of it or some all of it. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
The Republican plan is to give younger people the option of going with the traditional plan or going with the same plan that members of Congress have, and not changing the eligibility or coverages currently afforded to those close to Medicare age. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: That’s not actually true – Paul Ryan suggested that the Republican voucher scheme was ‘modelled’ on the reimbursement scheme offered to members of Congress, however it has one fundamental but extremely important difference. Future increases in voucher value in the Congress version is linked to health care costs; the Ryan’s version is linked to inflation via the consumer price index. That means that any increased health care cost for members of Congress is funded by the government whereas anyone on the Republican voucher scheme will have to find the difference between inflation and the rising cost of health care out of their own pocket or forego insurance. On the upside all those unused vouchers will definitely reduce government spending on Medicare. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Technically everything for Congress is funded not by the government but by the taxpayers. Government doesn't have any wealth of its own. It has only what it confiscates from us. So no matter how you slice it....we pay anyway. We pay for them and we pay for ourselves. It's no wonder that 50% of those in Congress are millionaires. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
More Obamacare fallout for the economy: http://sweetness-light.com/archive/companies-fire-workers-to-avoid-o-care-penalty |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Companies going to such actions to limit or eliminate the impact should be no surprise; expect even more in the future. The only economy being stimulated is China’s. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
It gets worse, John. This is what happens when you have idiots with no business sense crafting ridiculous laws. They not only destroy a good healtcare system, they destroy the economy further with their hidden taxes, employers reducing staff and insurance companies, by necessity, due to the new regulations, hiking premiums astronomically. http://washingtonstatewire.com/blog/staggering-health-insurance-premiums-right-around-the-corner-predicts-premera-vice-president/ |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
...and worse: http://www.westernjournalism.com/brain-surgeon-confirms-obamacare-rations-care-has-death-panels/ |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/2383/756/Obamacare_Update:_It_Is_Now_Being_Enforced_The_Horror_Is_Unfolding_--_Michael_Connelly_-_Constitutional_Lawyer.html |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Brain surgeons won’t be able to operate or offer any help beyond ‘comfort care’ to anyone over 70? That’s just plain twaddle Denise. Why do people get so much pleasure out of terrifying old folk? It’s despicable if you ask me. http://www.factcheck.org/2012/01/neurological-death-panels/ |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I agree on the distastefulness of terrorizing onld folks....like threatening their social security and medicare. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I hope it's not true, Grinch. FactCheck doesn't exactly lay the matter to rest for me, though. Also, it's strange that the video hasn't been removed from Levin's podcast archives if it is being asserted that it is not factual. Levin is an attorney. I'm sure he knows the potential ramifications for spreading false information, if that is what it is. I wonder why the Administration hasn't sued him yet if he is spreading false information? They don't hesitate in suing anyone else at the drop of a hat. Time will tell. Maybe we won't have to find out and Obamacare will be repealed. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Yep, they do that everytime someone mentions a budget or a debt ceiling increase, Michael.....if the Republicans don't cave to the Democrats latest outrageous demands the Democrats threaten to cut-off SS & Medicare checks, and throw in the stopping Military paychecks for good measure....and then they turn around and blame it on the Republicans. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Do you mean that you still don’t believe the caller was lying or that you acknowledge that he was lying but still believe that the US government is planning to set up ‘Death Panels’? . |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2907313/posts . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I don't know if the caller was legitimate or not, Grinch. I suspect that he may have been given that Levin, an attorney, still has not removed it from his archives, and did state that he had vetted the caller. I also suspect that Obamacare will go the way of Great Britain's system (one example in the article at John's link) when all the dollars disappear. Yes, there will be rationing, and it will hit the oldest, youngest and those with disabilites the hardest....the way it always seems to go under socialized medicine. How do you think they will handle things with $700 Billion being syphoned from Medicare just as the rolls swell with the baby-boomers? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
From the article at John's link: “What is particularly disturbing about Professor Gillon’s opinions is that he is judging certain disabled people as having lives unworthy of life, balancing those lives against the needs of other patients and seeking to justify killing the disabled on the grounds of rationing,” Ozimic told LifeSiteNews.com. “Such a utilitarian calculus is in substance no difference to the calculus made during World War II by the German authorities: that the disabled should die so that wounded soldiers could live. In any case, assisted food and fluids are basic nursing care, not futile medical treatments.” |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: You believe the caller, who said he was a neurosurgeon (but isn’t), who said he was at seminar for neurosurgeons (but wasn’t) who further claims he received a document about withholding care from patients over 70 (that doesn’t exist) is legitimate? Well I guess you’re free to believe whoever and whatever you want to believe Denise. Personally I prefer to believe real brain surgeons rather than a random idiot claiming to be a brain surgeon: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Alison Dye January 10, 2012 (202) 446-2028 adye@neurosurgery.org Neurosurgeons Condemn False Assertions Made About Health Reform Law on Mark Levin Show Refute Statements that the Law Would Ration Neurosurgical Care for the Elderly Washington, DC – On November 22, 2011, an individual claiming to be a “brain surgeon” made several statements referencing neurosurgical care on a Mark Levin radio show segment. The American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS) reviewed this segment and found that it contained several factual inaccuracies which we wish to clarify. The AANS and CNS are unaware of any federal government document directing that advanced neurosurgery for patients over 70 years of age will not be indicated and only supportive care treatment will be provided. Furthermore, in conducting our own due diligence, the caller who identified himself as a brain surgeon is not actually a neurosurgeon, nor was there any session at the recent Congress of Neurological Surgeons’ scientific meeting in Washington, DC at which a purported government document calling for the rationing of neurosurgical care was discussed. Neurosurgeons are committed to providing timely, compassionate, and state of the art treatment for all patients -- regardless of age -- who have neurosurgical conditions. As such, we have requested numerous times that this podcast be removed from Mark Levin’s website as it portrays inaccurate information which could potentially be harmful to the patients that we serve. The American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS), founded in 1931, and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS), founded in 1951, are the two largest scientific and educational associations for neurosurgical professionals in the world. These groups represent over 8,000 neurosurgeons worldwide. Neurological surgery is the medical specialty concerned with the prevention, diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation of disorders that affect the entire nervous system, including the spinal column, spinal cord, brain and peripheral nerves. For more information, please visit www.aans.org or www.cns.org. http://www.cns.org/advocacy/wc/pdf/MarkLevinStatementFINAL.PDF . |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. http://www.avikroy.org/2010/07/why-americans-dislike-britains-nhs.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161869/Top-doctors-chilling-claim-The-NHS-kills-130-000-elderly-patients-year.html#ixzz1yK7gbr7D http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/art icle-2136999/No-treatment-smokers-obese-Doctors-measures-deny-procedures-unhealthier-lifestyles.html . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Maybe the guy was a whistleblower. It's possible. If so, it isn't likely that the associations wouldn't disavow what he said. In any event, whether he was legitimate or not, just because they claim they are unaware of any govenrment document like that mandating paliative care only under certain circumstances doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or will not exist in the near future hidden among the 13,000 and counting pages of new healthcare regulations courtesy of Sebelius that are being piggy-backed onto the law (just as the law was designed). As such, we have requested numerous times that this podcast be removed from Mark Levin’s website as it portrays inaccurate information which could potentially be harmful to the patients that we serve. How exactly is this 'misinformation' potentially harmful to the patients that they serve? They will only be harmed if they are actually refused life-saving care. If, in fact, this is indeed misinformation, and they do continue to receive life-saving care, then they won't be harmed. If by harmed they mean the patient may become concerned and upset about whether it is true or not, then all they have to do is ask their neurosurgeon. How do you suppose that the Medicare shortfall will be handled when the money runs out, in light of the swelling of the rolls and the simultaneous syphoning of $700 Billion from Medicare to fund Obamacare, if not for severe Qual/Life System rationing? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: It means that it’s extremely unlikely to exist Denise; it also means that such a document certainly hasn’t been circulated to neurosurgeons but what it definitely proves is that the dipstick caller was lying. quote: It’s potentially harmful because it may deter some old folk from seeking medical attention based on the ludicrously false information that there’s a ‘death panel’ of neurosurgeons out there intent on killing them. Propagating the notion that neurosurgeons are actively going to harm old folk is not only irresponsible it’s also an undeserved slur of a fine body of medical professionals who do exactly the opposite of what they’re being accused of. quote: As I’ve already pointed out the total Medicare costs in 2011 were $555 billion and are projected to rise to $903 billion in 2020, the ACA includes provisions to increase quality of service but cut costs to make more than $424 billion in net savings over a ten year period. So they’re going to save $424 billion, the Republicans say they can save more without increasing the quality of service and I believe that they could. Would that be classed as “syphoning” funds from Medicare too? . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Grinch, patients don't actually 'seek out' neurosurgeons in the situation that the caller was referring to.....and therefore would not forego seeking treatment out of fear that neurosurgeons are trying to harm them. The gist of the call was that emergency treatment for strokes/brain bleeds at 2 AM in the morning would be in jeopardy since bureaucratic pre-approval would be required. I hope that such a protocol does not exist, but call me a skeptic. NOTHING that this administration has done has been transparent or above board, in my opinion. How do you suppose that the ACA will improve quality of service while at the same time cutting costs? After how we now see that ACA does NOT lower healthcare costs, insurance premiums, OR allow us to 'keep our own plans and doctors' if we like them, again, call me skeptical. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/312573/britain-s-nhs-no-fun-and-games-john-fund . |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
