Jump to content

MrDeeds

Obamacare or lying right-wing nuts?

Recommended Posts

Obama Says Grandmother’s Hip Replacement Raises Cost Questions

By Hans Nichols

April 29 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama said his grandmother’s hip-replacement surgery during the final weeks of her life made him wonder whether expensive procedures for the terminally ill reflect a “sustainable model” for health care.

The president’s grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, had a hip replaced after she was diagnosed with cancer, Obama said in an interview with the New York Times magazine that was published today. Dunham, who lived in Honolulu, died at the age of 86 on Nov. 2, 2008, two days before her grandson’s election victory.

“I don’t know how much that hip replacement cost,” Obama said in the interview. “I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement just because she’s my grandmother.”

Obama said “you just get into some very difficult moral issues” when considering whether “to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill.

“That’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues,” he said in the April 14 interview. “The chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health- care bill out here.”

Obama promised during his presidential campaign that a health-care overhaul would be a top priority, and he said at a Missouri town hall meeting today that he hopes Congress will pass health-care legislation this year.

The issue has been divisive, and finding an answer that will keep costs down while extending coverage to the estimated 46 million Americans without health insurance has eluded past presidents.

‘Ruthless Pragmatism’

Obama also said his economic advisers aren’t constrained by ideology or connections to former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin. “What I’ve been constantly searching for is a ruthless pragmatism when it comes to economic policy,” he said, in the interview.

Obama also pointed to Canada as an example of a country that has effectively regulated commercial and investment banking without requiring legal separation of those activities.

“When it comes to something like investment banking versus commercial banking, the experience in a country like Canada would indicate that good, strong regulation that focuses less on the legal form of the institution and more on the functions that they’re carrying out is probably the right approach to take,” he said.

Obama Says Grandmother’s Hip Replacement Raises Cost Questions - Bloomberg.com

Proponents of government health care are trying to paint the opponents of Obama's healthcare plans as lying, misinformed, astroturfs, stupid, racists, dumb, etc etc. And while I am appalled at the lack of civility and disresprect that is being shown at these townhalls meetings, I am smart enough to understand that there are legitimate fears and concerns that are being expressed by citizens. Not all of these fears and concerns have come from evil right wingers who "scare and mislead the American people." as President Obama said yesterday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...I am smart enough to understand that there are legitimate fears and concerns that are being expressed by citizens. Not all of these fears and concerns have come from evil right wingers who "scare and mislead the American people." as President Obama said yesterday.

obama said that all fears and concerns are from evil right wingers who just want to scare and mislead? i didn't hear that part.

i agree with you - there are legitimate fears and concerns being expressed by citizens, and they should be addressed fully and honestly by the proponents of the bill. whether or not that can be done at a town hall - i don't know, but i'm beginning to doubt it. for some, no amount of reassurance will overcome the fear. i think that's irrational. it would help if people would cite a specific provision of the bill (it's available to read online) they are concerned about. like the example cited above - hip replacement for someone dying of terminal cancer. or maybe a liver transplant. tough, difficult quetions that our current health care/insurance system has been dealing with for decades. how does the house bill alter the status quo in this area - does it at all? how has medicare/medicaid/va dealt with this same question all these years? how do private insurers and hmo's decide if an elderly woman dying of cancer with alzheimers gets a hip replacement? is there some basis in fact to believe that the house bill changes something in this area?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The attempt by some is to marginalize and discredit any opposition to the health care plan by painting the opposition as right wing swastika carrying nutty protesters. Same thing they did with the "tea parties". The press and Democrats put the most viral of the nuts on TV - and say "Look - zany idiot rude GOPers who hate Obama are behind this" then toss a sprinkle of racism in, and WALAH! On the surface they look like zany racists Obama haters.

It's a good plan, and it's also one that any intelligent human can see right through. The Dems have taken a play right out of a very old playbook. This was done with the Vietnam protesters. They were portrayed as drug using anarchists, bent on bringing down America. Once you've demonized the other side like this - the thoughtful people that are objecting based on real reason are drowned out and hardly ever heard from again. It's no fun for Chris Matthews to put someone on his show that has real points to make. Rather - put some nut that took a gun to a rally on the air and give the airtime to him - then he can paint the entire opposition as violent crazed idiots. You even see it out here with people like Couga bringing up the most fringe elements of the GOP, and painting the whole party that way. Wouldn't be at all surprised if he wasn't instructed to do things like that from his democratic pals. But then again, Couga is intelligent enough to know that negative political tactics work. He's said so himself out here before and has chastised the Dems for not imploring those tactics enough.

Anyone falling for this garbage needs to go back to Politics 101. When we are sitting around wasting time talking about the fringe element, what aren't we talking about? THE HEALTH CARE BILL! But it's better TV to give the nuts the airtime. I mean after all, actually discussing the bill would be tedious and boring TV. :ponder:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The attempt by some is to marginalize and discredit any opposition to the health care plan by painting the opposition as right wing swastika carrying nutty protesters. Same thing they did with the "tea parties". The press and Democrats put the most viral of the nuts on TV - and say "Look - zany idiot rude GOPers who hate Obama are behind this" then toss a sprinkle of racism in, and WALAH! On the surface they look like zany racists Obama haters.

It's a good plan, and it's also one that any intelligent human can see right through. The Dems have taken a play right out of a very old playbook. This was done with the Vietnam protesters. They were portrayed as drug using anarchists, bent on bringing down America. Once you've demonized the other side like this - the thoughtful people that are objecting based on real reason are drowned out and hardly ever heard from again. It's no fun for Chris Matthews to put someone on his show that has real points to make. Rather - put some nut that took a gun to a rally on the air and give the airtime to him - then he can paint the entire opposition as violent crazed idiots. You even see it out here with people like Couga bringing up the most fringe elements of the GOP, and painting the whole party that way. Wouldn't be at all surprised if he wasn't instructed to do things like that from his democratic pals. But then again, Couga is intelligent enough to know that negative political tactics work. He's said so himself out here before and has chastised the Dems for not imploring those tactics enough.

Anyone falling for this garbage needs to go back to Politics 101. When we are sitting around wasting time talking about the fringe element, what aren't we talking about? THE HEALTH CARE BILL! But it's better TV to give the nuts the airtime. I mean after all, actually discussing the bill would be tedious and boring TV. :ponder:

I think both the Republicans and Democrats do it. I also think that Obama and others have said there are legitimate concerns that people have over healthcare reform and I think they're trying to address those concerns in these town hall meetings he's having.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a commercial (scare ad) put out by 'citizens over 60' or something like that with the gruff narrating voice from the budweiser 'we salute you' ads. It decried health care reform with all the typical scare tactics.

At that moment, I knew I was for health care reform. My general rule of thumb is if the senior citizen lobby is for something, I'm against it. And vice versa. No group gets kowtowed to more than them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you have guys like me, I'm finding this whole thing amusing, the traditional bomb throwing democrats are being trapped likes rats in a cage by their constituents. I'm waiting for one of them to break out in tears, it was humorous watching old Arlen Spector standing there taking it, then having to spout the talking points in retort.

The media has given up holding these idiots accountable, it's nice to see the people doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then you have guys like me, I'm finding this whole thing amusing, the traditional bomb throwing democrats are being trapped likes rats in a cage by their constituents. I'm waiting for one of them to break out in tears, it was humorous watching old Arlen Spector standing there taking it, then having to spout the talking points in retort.

The media has given up holding these idiots accountable, it's nice to see the people doing so.

This post made me think about the parallels between the media and the health insurance industry. Ideally, both should have goals above making profits, but in the real world they need to make money. Instead of good, reasonably priced care for all, we get good care for some and expensive care for all. Instead of good, balanced reporting, we get talking heads and personalities that cater to one side of the spectrum or the other, because partisan viewers and readers are generally more passionate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I saw a commercial (scare ad) put out by 'citizens over 60' or something like that with the gruff narrating voice from the budweiser 'we salute you' ads. It decried health care reform with all the typical scare tactics.

At that moment, I knew I was for health care reform. My general rule of thumb is if the senior citizen lobby is for something, I'm against it. And vice versa. No group gets kowtowed to more than them.

Then I'll get a Senior Group to come out FOR Obama Care and put out some ads. That should be a real conundrum for you! :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My general rule of thumb is if the senior citizen lobby is for something, I'm against it. And vice versa. No group gets kowtowed to more than them.
I'm sure most of the senior citizens and their lobbists enjoy their lives. I'm sorry you don't. I hope you live long enough to remember your inane comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I saw a commercial (scare ad) put out by 'citizens over 60' or something like that with the gruff narrating voice from the budweiser 'we salute you' ads. It decried health care reform with all the typical scare tactics.

At that moment, I knew I was for health care reform. My general rule of thumb is if the senior citizen lobby is for something, I'm against it. And vice versa. No group gets kowtowed to more than them.

Then you must be against it right?

Link

AARP says Obama misrepresented them, they do not endorse health care bill

The AARP says the president went too far Tuesday when he said the seniors lobby had endorsed the legislation pending in Congress, Fox News reported this morning.

At the town hall in New Hampshire yesterday, Obama said, "We have the AARP on board because they know this is a good deal for our seniors." He added, "AARP would not be endorsing a bill if it was undermining Medicare."

But Tom Nelson, AARP's chief operating officer, said, "Indications that we have endorsed any of the major health care reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate."

See for full story on Fox News.

Bookmark this page and come back often for the latest news and information of interest to Dallas-area residents. You can also subscribe to my RSS feed to have the latest headlines sent straight to your computer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama brings up a legitimate point, especially as at relates to keeping down Medicare costs. Unfortunately, congress does not have the backbone to control costs. He could reduce the overall cost of health care by allowing people to buy out of state private health insurance, or federalizing health care regulations (assuming the federal regulations would be less obtrusive than all the current state regulations).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Medicare is sure costing a lot! But I have to say that we have to be careful about some of the "savings" measures because it may be penny wise and pound foolish.

Here's one example relating to my family: Until 2002, alzheimer's was considered a mental condition and not a physical illness. Because of this, testing, treatments and services were NOT COVERED by medicare. Here's part of the rub: alzheimer's is typically a clinical diagnosis, i.e. they look at the symptoms and rule out what they can test for. Then they say, "alzheimer's." A PET scan can confirm (but not rule out) alzheimer's but until the Bush administration made that change, the test wasn't available to these elders because of the diagnosis. After it was reclassified as a disease, we were able to get a PET scan which didn't confirm alzheimer's so get that off of her chart as a diagnosis. We were also able to get therapies for her which extended her ability to remain in an apartment with a lower level of support for an additional two years. That's two fewer years in a nursing home at around $5K a month. Had she gone into the nursing home earlier, she would have run out of money earlier and gone onto medicaid who does cover nursing home care. I'm pretty sure that what they pay the nursing home is less than what we pay, but consider two years at, say, $3.5K. That's $84,000 of medicaid funds for the nursing home alone; the actual cost probably exceeds that because there are a number of other things that medicaid would cover for her that medicare does not. We're talking the investment of a PET scan for around $2000-$3000 plus around $10,000 worth of therapy over a several year period vs. $84,000 paying for a nursing home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an answer to the entire health care debate. Enroll every citizen in the U.S. into the Health Care plan that the Senators and politicians have. We'd all be happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have an answer to the entire health care debate. Enroll every citizen in the U.S. into the Health Care plan that the Senators and politicians have. We'd all be happy.

Until we got a look at our new taxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Medicare is sure costing a lot! But I have to say that we have to be careful about some of the "savings" measures because it may be penny wise and pound foolish.

Here's one example relating to my family: Until 2002, alzheimer's was considered a mental condition and not a physical illness. Because of this, testing, treatments and services were NOT COVERED by medicare. Here's part of the rub: alzheimer's is typically a clinical diagnosis, i.e. they look at the symptoms and rule out what they can test for. Then they say, "alzheimer's." A PET scan can confirm (but not rule out) alzheimer's but until the Bush administration made that change, the test wasn't available to these elders because of the diagnosis. After it was reclassified as a disease, we were able to get a PET scan which didn't confirm alzheimer's so get that off of her chart as a diagnosis. We were also able to get therapies for her which extended her ability to remain in an apartment with a lower level of support for an additional two years. That's two fewer years in a nursing home at around $5K a month. Had she gone into the nursing home earlier, she would have run out of money earlier and gone onto medicaid who does cover nursing home care. I'm pretty sure that what they pay the nursing home is less than what we pay, but consider two years at, say, $3.5K. That's $84,000 of medicaid funds for the nursing home alone; the actual cost probably exceeds that because there are a number of other things that medicaid would cover for her that medicare does not. We're talking the investment of a PET scan for around $2000-$3000 plus around $10,000 worth of therapy over a several year period vs. $84,000 paying for a nursing home.

Yes, when the doctor's motivation is to diagnose the disease instead of perform every test under the sun to cover his own tail and get paid and because insurance pays for it anyways, I think good things happen more often than not.

But the simple fact remains, if you want to cut costs, you have to cut benefits. Trimming the fat will only do so much. That's why my ideal reform is basically providing access to cheap, inconvenient, basic Medicare-lite style coverage for those who want it, while maintaining the current system for those who are willing and able to pay for it, either alone or a supplement.

Of course Big Insurance would never let that happen. Of course on the other hand, big gov't seems too incompetent to write an effective bill. Because Big Insurance cares about profits and Big Gov't cares about politics and votes. Nobody in charge of this really gives a crap about health care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Until we got a look at our new taxes.

Yep, eventually there's going to need to be a turning point in some program where something gets cut. The deficit and debt are soaring, yet when's the last time benefits have been reduced? I say raise taxes, cut some soc. security benefits, cut some Medicare benefits, take away some holiday pay for gov't employees, tax union benefits. At some point, sacrifices are going to have to be made if we're going to get back to even. This debt we are running up is basically a bubble, so I don't view it as real. But it's human nature to think once you are given something, it's yours, and so if it is taken away or stops being given, then it was stolen.

LOL at the people who were asked if the recession was over, and they still feel 'wronged' because even if it is over, it's going to take them 6 years to get back to their peak from two years ago. Which was during a BUBBLE and NOT REAL and is what caused this whole mess. They just WANT THE BUBBLE BACK! It's unbelievable. It seems like a few months ago the term 'Depression' was being thrown out, and now one piece of good news and people are back in the same greedy mindset that got us into trouble in the first place.

/RANT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like a few months ago the term 'Depression' was being thrown out, and now one piece of good news and people are back in the same greedy mindset that got us into trouble in the first place.

/RANT

It's like an recovering alcoholic who slips and has a drink - and falls back into it full speed - ignoring all the problems it caused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have an answer to the entire health care debate. Enroll every citizen in the U.S. into the Health Care plan that the Senators and politicians have. We'd all be happy.

I pointed it out in another post, but there is a bill that was brought up by a republican that wants to use this plan as the public option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's like an recovering alcoholic who slips and has a drink - and falls back into it full speed - ignoring all the problems it caused.

Now that you mention it, a drink doesn't sound too bad. Drink my worries away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I pointed it out in another post, but there is a bill that was brought up by a republican that wants to use this plan as the public option.

That's actually smart from a conservative standpoint: I'm sure that plan is so loaded nobody would be able to afford it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, when the doctor's motivation is to diagnose the disease instead of perform every test under the sun to cover his own tail and get paid and because insurance pays for it anyways, I think good things happen more often than not.

You know what, I really don't think that there's any benefit to the doctors to order a bunch of unnecessary tests except, as you noted, protection from malpractice accusations.

Which brings up another point. Can we have health care reform without tort reform?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know what, I really don't think that there's any benefit to the doctors to order a bunch of unnecessary tests except, as you noted, protection from malpractice accusations.

Which brings up another point. Can we have health care reform without tort reform?

Have you met anybody who wouldn't be in favor of tort reform, as it relates to doctors? I assume that's not really a legislative issue? Or is the lobby too strong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tort reform is often code for protecting the rich from paying when they mess up.

Need more details on what is meant by it here and what evidence there is to support change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...