The Right Prescription
How Much Is a Year of Your Life Worth?
Obamacare puts a price on your head.
All advocates of socialized medicine, including the President and his congressional accomplices, believe that government-imposed rationing is necessary to control health care costs. Having little faith in the judgment of individual patients and even less in the workings of the market, they are convinced that only the state is capable of efficiently allocating our medical resources. Very few of these people, however, have the courage of their convictions. With a few notable exceptions, they vehemently deny that they are for rationing. Indeed, as a matter of general strategy, they have done their best to exclude the “R” word from the reform debate. President Obama has gone so far as to explicitly to admonish his political allies “to avoid terms like ‘rationing’” while promoting the Democrat health care agenda.
But, make no mistake about it, rationing will be an integral component of Obamacare. Last Sunday the President’s budget chief admitted, “I’m not prepared to rule it out,” when pressed for a straight answer on the issue. And another of Obama’s advisors famously frets about the insistence of American physicians on doing “everything for the patient regardless of cost.” Thus, stopping such costly interventions will be a primary mission of the “Federal Coordinating Council for Effectiveness Research,” a new hive of health care apparatchiks created by the infamous “porkulus” bill. This new bureaucracy is intended to operate like its European counterparts, meaning that it will assign a monetary value to your life and deny your care if you contract a malady whose cost-of-treatment exceeds that amount.
If you are under the impression that it is impossible to calculate the value of a human life, you are obviously not a progressive policy expert or health care bureaucrat. This calculation, so elusive for philosophers and sages throughout the millennia, is child’s play for such people. They have, in fact, already devised a formula for pricing out your life. It is called the “quality-adjusted-life-year” (QALY), and it assigns a numerical value to a year of life. A year of perfect health, for example, is given a value of 1.0 while a year of sub-optimum health is rated between 0 and 1. If you are confined to a wheelchair, a year of your life might be valued at half that of your ambulatory neighbor. If you are blind or deaf, you also score low. All that remains is to assign a specific dollar value to the QALY and, voilà, your life has a price tag.
Imagine, for a moment, what the harvest would have been had this soulless valuation system been applied throughout the West for the past three or four centuries. QALY would have rated John Milton, blind at the time he wrote Paradise Lost, at considerably less than 1. And the hearing-impaired Beethoven would have been lucky to score 0.5 on the QALY scale. For a more modern example, think of Stephen Hawking. Hawking is arguably the most gifted scientist since Isaac Newton, but QALY would value his life at very nearly zero. There would, however, have been winners in the life-rating lottery. The life of Ted Bundy, a good-looking, articulate young man in perfect physical health, would have been valued at a perfect 1.
And, lest you imagine that QALY is mere academic concept unlikely to be applied in the real world, it is already being used in countries burdened with socialized medicine. In Great Britain, for example, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) uses “cost per QALY” to determine if patients should receive expensive treatment or drugs. It was with this formula that NICE calculated the precise amount six months of an average Brit’s life is worth. As the Wall Street Journal reports, “NICE currently holds that, except in unusual cases, Britain cannot afford to spend more than about $22,000 to extend a life by six months.” In other words, patients whose country has guaranteed them “free” health care are in some cases refused treatment because the incremental cost per additional QALY is too high.
Nonetheless, despite the obvious moral dubiousness of QALY, some progressive policy experts openly advocate its use in the United States. Princeton Bioethics Professor Peter Singer recommended this approach just last week in the New York Times Magazine: “If a reformed U.S. health care system explicitly accepted rationing, as I have argued it should, QALYs could play a similar role in the U.S.” Singer is untroubled that some severely ill patients will go without treatment simply because it is expensive: “A QALY approach may then lead us to give priority to helping others who are not so badly off and whose conditions are less expensive to treat.” That the “badly off” patient may have been taxed all his life to support “universal” health care evidently has no meaning for the Professor.
Dr. Robert Wachter, Associate Chairman of the Department of Medicine at UC San Francisco, is likewise unconcerned about such “badly off” patients. Wachter writes at his blog that Singer’s position would amount to mere common sense “in a society of grown-ups.” In an apparent attempt to personify every “arrogant doctor” cliché known to man, Wachter pompously lectures his readers to the effect that government-imposed rationing is inevitable while heaping scorn on the Great Unwashed for daring to entertain alternative viewpoints: “Will the society that brings you Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck (or, I’m beginning to think, some of our Democratic representatives) deal with it in an effective, mature way? I truly doubt it.”
Wachter, like many progressives, has a gift for unintentional irony. The real obstacle to an “effective” public discourse about rationing has nothing to do with talk radio hosts, television personalities, Blue Dog Democrats, or the immaturity of American society in general. It is, rather, the moral cowardice of the President and his allies in Congress that prevents a serious debate about rationing. If Barack Obama, Max Baucus, Nancy Pelosi, and the rest of their fellow travelers were honest, they would admit that they agree with Singer and Wachter. They would look us in the eye and tell us that the only way to control health care costs is for Washington to impose a Draconian rationing scheme that effectively puts a price on each of our heads.
Such a confession would certainly spark a vigorous national conversation. And this discussion would no doubt last until November of 2010, when the voters would give the Democrats the bum’s rush they so richly deserve.
About the Author
David Catron is a health care revenue cycle expert who has spent more than twenty years working for and consulting with hospitals and medical practices. He has an MBA from the University of Georgia and blogs at Health Care BS.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (119) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by David Catron
More Articles From The Right Prescription
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/07/24/how-much-is-a-year-of-your-lif
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
kway| 7.24.09 @ 6:39AM
Steven Hawkins would be so screwed....
kway| 7.24.09 @ 6:47AM
Why not apply this theory to all government agencies and departments.
Kitten stuck up a tree? No local firetruck dispatch for you kitty.
Over 70 - need food stamps? Sorry, no food for you.
In a wheelchair - need a place to live? Sorry, your QALY does not justify Section 8 assistance.
Disabled - need a ride? Sorry - no special accomodations for busses or subways. Too expensive. Try work at home or starve.
Blind? No braile for you
No speakee English? Sorry, too expensive to translate every government document known to man to help you out.
Appleby| 7.24.09 @ 7:16AM
Does this QALY apply to Ted Kennedy? The day it does, I will believe in it.
And by the way, how soon do the members of Congress start receiving Death Counseling? Can I be the one that gives them the talk?
Hank Rearden| 7.24.09 @ 7:19AM
There was a health plan like this before in a rather obscure nation in central Europe. All of the handicapped, mentally retarded, and lame were rounded up and sacrificed for the greater good. What was the name of that nation again????
Curly Smith| 7.24.09 @ 7:39AM
It's not really "rationing", it's "fairness". The elderly, the infirm, and the societal inconvenient are "greedy" consumers of health care that could otherwise be used for the "good of the people". "Social Justice" requires that they die. It's nothing personal, now take your cyanide pill and die for the good of the nation.
Bdub| 7.24.09 @ 7:50AM
Frightening that they have already thought this out to the extent you mention. But not that surprising, as the QALY notion is really just an extension of Sanger's eugenics program. And Mengele's.
Some lives will be more equal than others.
Pingback| 7.24.09 @ 8:01AM
Health Care BS - HOW MUCH IS A YEAR OF YOUR LIFE WORTH? links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Melvin| 7.24.09 @ 8:02AM
Look at it this way people, for the first time since the dawn of man, we have now empowered ourselves to play God over the decision of who lives, who is allowed to continue to live and the moral authority to tell our neighbor when they have outlived their usefulness and that they must die for the common good of the collective.
Melvin| 7.24.09 @ 8:09AM
If a faceless bureaucrat tell anyone in my family that they have outlived their usefulness or that a live saving treatment is too expensive and my loved ones are given a bottle of aspirin and told to go to death counseling, I will make the character in "Man on Fire" played by Denzel Washington look like Walt Disney.
Forgive me Father for what I may be forced to do.
What line do the pseudo God's in Washington D.C. have to cross before we rebel against their madness?
Tim| 7.24.09 @ 8:44AM
Bad news: no hip operation for you grandma.
Good news: no co-pay for your cyanide capsule.
Mike| 7.24.09 @ 8:54AM
Mr Catron writes: "Having little faith in the judgment of individual patients and even less in the workings of the market, they are convinced that only the state is capable of efficiently allocating our medical resources." What Mr. Catron fails to mention and conservative refuse to believe is that "the market" rations health care and makes decisions about the value of human life every day. And "the market" is not providing the best health care for the least money. Any honest analysis of ha health care costs and outcomes in the USA compared to the other industrialized nations bear this out. We do not have the best health care in the world. To think that all people in the U.S. who die because they can't afford the market price of health care have made a rational choice for this outcome is lunacy. When insurance companies refuse to write policies because of preexiting conditions, they are rationing. When insurance companies rescind policies because of illness, they are rationing. When the companies cap life time coverage, they are rationing. Insurance companies choose profits over life and conservative ideologues support this market driven reality.
moron| 7.24.09 @ 9:16AM
It's great fun to see Obama cornered in by political correctness!!! He can't confess to rationing, but he is correct, the only way to control expenses is by rationing. What needs to become legal is a method by which additional care could be purchased--that is what happens in other countries. Here it is illegal and a felony to charge outside the medicare system. But hey that is another political correctness trap for the One. He can't politically allow for purchase of a higher quality care. And the patients will suffer.
BUD MEDFORD| 7.24.09 @ 9:22AM
PLEASE INCLUDE QALY IN THE EXISTING GOVERMENT HEALTH CARE PLAN THAT CONGRESS HAS FOR ITS MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES. A LOT OF THEM WILL FIT IN THE BELOW .5 GROUP IT WOULD BE A GOOD TEST TO SEE IF IT WOULD WORK. I'M SURE TEDDY KENNEDY WILL APPROVE IT. HE COULD BE THE FIRST TEST CASE.
Curly Smith| 7.24.09 @ 9:26AM
Nice touting of the Obama line, Mike, but you're wrong on all counts. You can, in fact, buy insurance if you have pre-existing conditions. It's sold across the nation by multiple insurers. You can obviously use a computer so do a search. But there isn't any need for a search is there? You know that the insurance is available... what you're really saying is that insurance for those with pre-existing conditions should cost the same as insurance for those who are hale and hearty. What you're saying is that the currently insured, both healthy and with conditions, should pay more so that those who've not bothered to maintain their insurance premiums can pay less. Once again, another situation where those who play by the rules are punished while those who flaunt the rules are rewarded.
But answer me this Mike... if you'd rather spend your money on a fancy cell phone than on buying health insurance then how much do you really value your life? We're rational beings Mike, we set priorities, we focus on the things we deem important and let the small stuff slide. Why should I place a higher value on your life than you do?
Mike| 7.24.09 @ 9:44AM
Curley,
Nice touting of the conservative line. Okay, you can buy insurance if you have some preexisting conditions, provided, of course, you have the resources to do so. As for the phone vs health insurance canard: how much does it cost to have phone service every month (using to cheapest option)? How much is the least expensive health care policy? Are you Curley willing and able to live without the ability to communicate via phone?
s in severn| 7.24.09 @ 10:13AM
Fight it, we have to fight this with every breath we take, we have to fight for ourselves, our children and our parents.
The "socialization" of this Republic has to stop!
Canadian Straw Man| 7.24.09 @ 10:58AM
July 17, 2009
More ads claim that Congress is pushing a Canadian-style health care bill.
Summary
Two ads from related independent groups make claims about an overhaul of the health care system, saying Congress wants a government-run health care system:
One ad claims that “Washington wants to bring Canadian-style health care to the U.S.” But the health care bills moving through Congress don’t call for a single-payer system like Canada’s, and legislation that does support a purely government-run system is quietly dying in committee. Obama, too, has said repeatedly that he doesn’t back a conversion to a single-payer system.
Another ad, targeting specific members of the Senate, similarly claims that “Congress is rushing to take over health care.” It says that a government health insurance option would cause “tens of millions” to move from their current insurance to a government plan. That claim is on the mark, according to one study, which found that millions would move from private insurance to a much cheaper government option.
Analysis
We've written before about conservatives claiming that Congress, or Obama, or Washington, or Democrats in general want the U.S. to have a Canadian-style, government-run health care system. The truth of the matter is that the president has repeatedly said he doesn't. In fact, since being sworn in as president, Obama has riled advocates of such single-payer systems by largely excluding them from the health care debate. He has answered several questions from members of the public who asked at town hall events: "why not" have such a system. Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and one of the leaders in drafting legislation, has said bluntly: "single-payer is not going to get even to first base in Congress." Yet, the Canada claims continue.
In an ad airing (for the third time this year) on national cable channels, a group called Patients United Now says that "Washington wants to bring Canadian-style health care to the U.S." The group's back-up for the claim? An opinion piece that we previously found to be riddled with errors; an article from CQ.com that says the National Institutes of Health will fund comparative effectiveness research studies that examine cost – which, the article notes, the NIH already does; and another news article in the San Francisco Chronicle that reported conservatives have criticized such research, saying it leads to "rationing," while proponents have said it will improve health care and reduce costs.
Patients United Now: "Survived"
Shona Holmes: I survived a brain tumor. But if I’d relied on my government, I’d be dead. I’m a Canadian citizen. As my brain tumor got worse, my government health care system told me I had to wait six months to see a specialist. In six months, I would have died.
Announcer: Government runs health care in Canada. Care is delayed – or denied. Some patients wait a year for vital surgeries – delays that can be deadly. Many drugs and treatments aren’t available– because government says patients aren’t worth it.
Holmes: I’m here today because I was able to travel to the US, where I received world-class treatment. Government health care isn’t the answer. And it sure isn’t free.
Announcer: Now, Washington wants to bring Canadian-style health care to the US. Government should never come between your family and your doctor. Learn more at PatientsUnitedNow.org.
Holmes: My advice to Americans?
As patients, it’s your care. Don’t give up your rights.
As we've said before, the stimulus legislation, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, called for the creation of a council that would coordinate and support comparative effectiveness research, which examines which medical drugs and treatments are most effective, and in some cases, most cost-effective. The government has funded such studies since the late '70s. In this chart of research funding, the NIH estimates it will have spent $50 million on "cost effectiveness research" each year from 2007 to 2010.
To be sure, the cost factor prompts critics to say the research will lead to the government, or perhaps insurance companies, denying certain medical procedures based on cost alone. Proponents say such research provides valuable information to the public and physicians on which procedures work best and whether more costly treatments are actually more effective. Patients United Now, a 501(c)3 project of Americans for Prosperity Foundation, says in its back-up that funding comparative studies is "a critical step toward rationing," but ARRA specifically forbids the council coordinating such research from issuing any restrictions or even guidelines on care:
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the Council to mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer. ... None of the reports submitted under this section or recommendations made by the Council shall be construed as mandates or clinical guidelines for payment, coverage, or treatment.
Patients United Now also points to Rep. John Conyers' "Medicare for all" legislation, a single-payer health care bill that the Michigan congressman has introduced for several years running. This year, Conyer's bill, H.R. 676, was introduced in January and hasn't moved from committee since. It quietly died in committee in the last Congress and in previous attempts.
Shona's Story
The ad begins with an emotional story from Shona Holmes, a Canadian who says she would have had to wait six months to see a specialist about a brain tumor. Instead, she traveled to the United States – the Mayo Clinic in Arizona – to pay for faster treatment that restored her deteriorating vision. Holmes' story has appeared in several newspaper articles, and she has spoken to the House Energy and Commerce Committee. An article on Shona's case on the Mayo Clinic's Web site quotes her neurosurgeon as saying, "We needed to remove the cyst to save her vision."
Her case and another, of Lindsay McCreith, who traveled to Buffalo, N.Y., to have surgery on a brain tumor, are well known. Both filed suit in Ontario to overturn laws that effectively ban citizens from having private insurance or paying for care themselves. (Similar provisions in a Quebec statute were struck down by Canada's Supreme Court in June).
The ad goes on to claim that "[s]ome patients wait a year for vital surgeries." We can't say how many "some" are, but the back-up for the ad points to one case in Ontario in which a man waited nearly a year for skull replacement surgery. Another article in the Globe and Mail in January 2008 cited a study conducted for the Canadian Medical Association that found while most Canadians get treatment within recommended wait times, some don't. "The average Canadian patient who was not treated within the medically acceptable period in 2007 waited a year for a hip or knee replacement and seven months for cataract surgery," the Globe and Mail reported.
We certainly won't argue with anyone's desire to get surgery – particularly for a brain tumor – sooner rather than later. But as we've said about other ads, all this sets up a straw man argument, criticizing Canada's health care system despite the fact that a purely government-run system isn't what's being seriously considered in Congress or being proposed by the president.
Government Running Health Care?
Another group, a 501c(4) called Patients First and backed by Americans for Prosperity, has another ad on the airwaves, this one targeting 12 senators. The one-week, $1.3 million ad buy was announced by the group July 8.
AFP Patients First Ad
Announcer: Washington now runs your banks, insurance and car companies. But do you trust Washington with your life? Congress is rushing to take over healthcare too, paid for by $600 billion in new taxes, and cutting $400 billion from Medicare. Plus, tens of millions will lose their current insurance, and wind up on the government health plan. What will happen to your family's healthcare if Washington runs it? Tell Senator Warner to vote no on government run healthcare.
The ad asks, "[D]o you trust Washington with your life?" and claims that "Congress is rushing to take over healthcare too."
As we've said, not so much. But the ad also refers to a public health insurance option, like Medicare, that some in Congress want to see as part of an overhaul of the health care system. The numbers on taxes and cuts (others would say "savings") to Medicare refer to draft legislation being written by legislators in the House, who, according to the Bloomberg News article cited in the ad, were still negotiating on the inclusion of a government insurance option. Since then, a House bill has been released, and it does contain such a provision.
The Patients First ad says that "tens of millions will lose their current insurance, and wind up on the government health plan." That's based on an analysis by the Lewin Group, which says it operates independently as part of UnitedHealth Group, owner of the insurer United Healthcare. Comparing the House bill to Lewin's findings, the government plan, which would be significantly cheaper than private plans, would attract about 43 million people, 32 million coming off of private coverage. That's "tens of millions," as the ad says, and we'll note again that the ad was released before the details of the House bill were announced. According to the study, there also would be a reduction in the number of the uninsured of 27 million. Those numbers are based on enrollment in the public plan being only open to small firms and individuals, and payments to doctors and hospitals being similar to Medicare rates. The House plan would pay doctors Medicare rates plus 5 percent. A Senate bill that passed the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee also proposes a public option open to individual and small businesses; reimbursement rates would be negotiated, however, which could well lead to fewer people moving to a government plan. (For more on the Lewin Group study, see our previous article about a health care ad that wasn't so careful in its wording.)
Lewin's estimate is just that, however, and the Congressional Budget Office projected different numbers in an analysis of these two bills. The CBO estimated that fewer people would take up the public option under the House bill, finding that "total enrollment in the public plan would equal about 11 million or 12 million, counting both individually purchased policies and employer-sponsored enrollees." As for the Senate bill from the HELP committee, the CBO said its public option "did not have a substantial effect on the cost or enrollment projections, largely because the public plan would pay providers of health care at rates comparable to privately negotiated rates."
Different versions of this ad are aimed at 12 Democratic senators: Mark Warner of Virginia, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Max Baucus of Montana, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Harry Reid of Nevada, Mark Begich of Alaska, Michael Bennet of Colorado and Thomas Carper of Delaware.
– by Lori Robertson
Correction, July 20: We originally wrote that one version of the ad was aimed at Sen. John Warner of Virginia. He's a former senator; the ad targets Sen. Mark Warner.
Sources
Galloway, Gloria. “Wait for surgery savages economy, doctors say.” The Globe and Mail, 15 Jan 2008.
Congressional Budget Office. Letter to Rep. Charles B. Rangel. 14 Jul 2009.
Sheils, John and Randy Haught. “The Cost and Coverage Impacts of a Public Plan: Alternative Design Options.” Lewin Group. 6 Apr 2009.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Pub. L. 111-5. 17 Feb 2009.
U.S. National Institutes of Health. Estimates of Funding for Various Research, Condition, and Disease Categories. NIH.gov. 15 Jan 2009, accessed 16 Jul 2009.
Mayo Clinic. Profile: Shona Holmes. Mayo Clinic Web site. Summer 2007.
Reichard, John. "NIH Chief Doesn’t Rule Out Cost Component to Comparative Studies." CQ Healthbeat News. 26 Mar 2009.
Related Articles
The 'Real' Uninsured
Some critics say fewer people lack access to health coverage than official statistics make it appear. We break down the numbers.
Pushing for a Public Plan
Two liberal groups ramp up their efforts in support of a major health care overhaul.
More Health Care Scare
Could a public insurance plan spell the end of private insurance companies?
Government-Run Health Care?
A conservative group's ad implies Congress is on its way to instituting a British- or Canadian-style health system.
I used to post as Bob| 7.24.09 @ 11:03AM
Mike everything is rationed, food, housing, cell service healthcare. The market sets a price and the individual decides what level of quality and how much to purchase.
Such that if I am living large I can have my friends over and we can eat Kobe beef at $100 per pound. If I am a working stiff I will drop a $.98 ham hock into a $.79 bag of red beans and my crew will have red beans and rice.
Same is true in the healthcare arena.
The point you are intentionally missing is who makes the choice.
I am infinitely more comfortable making those hard decisions myself with my family and doctor then I am some uninterested uncaring bureaucrat who spend most of their day calculating how long until their retirement.
I may choose to get a second or third job to be able to enjoy my father’s company for another year. OR as was the actual case we decided not to use extraordinary means to artificially prolong his life as was his wish. The point Mike is the decision was made not against some arbitrary yard stick implemented by some faceless unknown bureaucrat it was made by his family who knew his wishes in consultation with doctors we knew and trusted.
Are there imperfections in or current system, certainly? Look across the width and breadth of everything government undertakes Postal Service, Amtrak, Fanny and Freddy education, public transportation, social security, Medicare, and Medicaid to name a few, and tell me you find anything approaching perfection in anything the government does. We live in an imperfect world, I for one wish to maintain as much control of the critical life decision as I can. I am certain the market provides a far better system than anything devised and administered by government.
Curly Smith| 7.24.09 @ 11:28AM
Mike, as I said, we are rational beings, we make choices. If you are a Conservative, then you also believe that you're responsible for your choices. The collectivist agenda, on the other hand, seeks to remove all negative consequences for poor choices in an effort to destroy the individual for the sake of the "group". Look at the African-American community to see how that's working for them.
As a Conservative, I believe that I own me. I believe that I'm better able to make decisions about my life than the State is. You, however, are advocating that the State owns me. You seem to believe that a life philosophy based on Blanche DuBois ("I have always depended on the kindness of strangers") is better than depending on yourself. If so, you're forgetting that while strangers can be kind, they can also be very, very cruel. And you're also forgetting the lesson from the play that the strangers were only kind because they got something in return. In the play, it was sex; in politics, it's power.
Again, if you don't value your life enough to insure your health then why should strangers? Why should the irresponsible have any claim on the work product of the responsible? Why should society play to the lowest common denominator instead of advocating excellence and civic responsibility? Why make a virtue of failure and punish success? Unless you want more failure and less success...
All of the above is predicated on the notion that I'm better able to make decisions about my life than "society" is. If you believe that "society" is better able to run your life than you are then you have my pity. I'll still do everything that I can to stop your agenda but I'll pity your poor, pathetic existence and I'll wonder why you allowed the political left to destroy what should have been your indomitable spirit.
Sue| 7.24.09 @ 12:07PM
The value of your healthcare is determined when you need it and for what you need it for. If you have a brain tumor, $50,000 for that brain surgeon isn't too bad if the other option is death. If you need a hip replacement so you can have "quality of life" then $25,000 isn't too bad a price either.
The problem is paying for the medical technology that has been so prevalent in the past 100 years. President Coolidge's son died from an infected blister because we didn't have antibiotics in the early 1900s - we are so used to having the best of the best that we fail to see what it was like for the previous generations.
The greatness of our healthcare system today is that it doesn't discriminate. All elderly patients receive the most up-to-date technology; the poor are covered via the Medicaid system; the disabled are covered via the Medicare system. The costs have risen because of the technology, the usage of that technology, the rising aging population and the extended life expectancies.
The only way expenses can be reduced is to do the opporsite of the above causes for the cost.
1). Reduce technology use and innovation; 2.) deny certain classes of citizens "free" healthcare; 3.) By reducing the use of technology, reduce the life expectancy of the elderly.
The solution is to get the government out of providing health care and go back to a market-based system with competition using regulations for certain issues as pre-existing conditions and catastropic coverages.
For end-of-life care, nursing home bills are a big chunck of Medicaid expenses. When we place our loved ones into a nursing home, we are asking the government to spend upwards of $50,000 or more per year to support daily care.
I don't believe there is any form of "health reform" that would adequately address this issue. The expense is there and is not going away for a long, long time. We will all be in for a shock as to how to pay for this time bomb.
Privitize medicaid and medicare; don't socialize everyone's care.
Mike| 7.24.09 @ 12:16PM
Bob and Curley,
Bob, you write: "Mike everything is rationed, food, housing, cell service healthcare. The market sets a price and the individual decides what level of quality and how much to purchase." You're right. Everything is rationed and the individual decides, except when the decision is made for the individual as when insurance companies rescind your policy or refuse to even offer you a policy. Our freedom is more controlled by the market than we would like to admit. I believe in personal responsibility and the think the market, imperfect though it is, is the best economic system devised. What I recognize is that there are market forces that overwhelm any responsible decision I can make. I learned that lesson all to well as I watch my portfolio, responsibly and rationally assembled , disintegrate in the current economic crisis. Is government regulation socialism? If so, I can accept that. I would like to see more regulation of insurance company practices.
Joe| 7.24.09 @ 12:51PM
Let me be the first to help. Peter Singer's life is worthless. He should be denied any care for any problem that may befall him.
Spike| 7.24.09 @ 1:08PM
Couple of things I've learned in life. If someone give something for "free"... get alot of because it ain't worth much. The other, "nothin's for nothing".
in_awe| 7.24.09 @ 1:15PM
Sledgehammer meet fly.
It is undeniable that there are areas of our national health care system that are broken. But the Democrat's (statist) approach is to junk the entire car when a new set of shock absorbers and a tune-up would do.
Why is the reform discussion always posited as an all or nothing approach? Couldn't a safety net approach really address the 10MM poor that can't afford insurance but the current income threshold keeps out of existing government programs? Couldn't a risk pool (like exists for auto insurance) address the pre-existing condition situation? All at a markedly lower cost to our economy and without threatening the free market basis of our health care and injecting government into the most critical decisions of our lives?
One of the beauties of the federal system as envisioned by the Founding Fathers was the role individual states could play in experimenting with novel solutions to problems. The last time this was tried (in my memory) was the welfare crisis in the 1980's and 90's when different states tried different rules to achieve improved outcome. By acting as petri dishes we had the chance to see what worked and what didn't. Why shouldn't we rely on this approach again?
Or maybe we tier the population into control and test groups. I propose that every person employed by the federal government (outside the military branches) be in a 5 year test group. At the end of the five years, those workers could opt to continue or opt for private coverage. If what is proposed is so wondrous we will have achieved much of the promised savings (given the huge numbers of federal workers involved), and by the end of the 5 years the rest of the country will be clamoring to join. Or not.
I used to post as Bob| 7.24.09 @ 1:44PM
Mike I think government intervention into the healthcare market is in large measure causing the problem.
Tax regulations allow deductions to some while denying the exact same expense to others. Medicare sets the fees and then shifts cost by paying only a fraction. Medicare determines treatment options by similar methods. Mandated coverage where politicians to curry favor demand certain treatments be covered in any policy.
Government meddling in healthcare has brought us to this point.
Simple undeniable fact every time the government regulates they actively choose winners and losers and not as you may think as in insurance companies over individuals but special favors for select individuals or companies over everyone.
Look at how the house dems bought votes in the tax and cap bill. To buy the vote of congressman A his major contributor got a special position in the legislation that will pay dividends well into the future.
Regulation tilts the table for a select few; markets while imperfect tend to be more level.
If the problem is access why must we destroy the entire system to add 12m-18m people who are the uninsured?
Why are we considering providing coverage to illegals?
If as the president claims there will be hundreds of billions saved by fixing the fraud and corruption in Medicare don’t we fix that first and use the funds to provide coverage for the uninsured above?
My fundamental take on all of this is why, before we destroy a working private system and allow a government that has consistently failed to accomplish its loft aims in ANY previous social undertaking ,don’t we first require them to first fix one of these other train wrecks before creating another.
Your comment on your portfolio further proves my point; government intervention is at the root of the destruction of your portfolio.
Mike| 7.24.09 @ 2:06PM
Bob,
A cursory study of history demonstrates that when Great Britain and the United States were laissez-faire economies, there were wild economic swings. There were also bubbles. These will always be a part of our system, but many of problems since the Great Depression were ameliorated by government intervention in the economy. That both political parties walked away from oversight and regulation of the financial sector as it was beoming one of the most important parts of the total economy helped to create the current situation. We don't have to fall into the trap that there are only two choices - pure market economy or total socialism.
Curly Smith| 7.24.09 @ 2:22PM
Mike, before you consign yourself to the bliss of socialized medicine, perhaps you should spend some time contemplating the technological and pharmacological advances that socialized medicine have brought us. Oh well, not to worry, I'm sure that we don't need any more medical devices, nor do we need any more drugs.
The sad truth is that our market driven, and very heavily regulated, medical system has been subsidizing the countries with socialized medicine for decades. We've paid for the medical advances just like we've paid to keep them free from everybody but their own governments. It's been a free ride for the socialists, just like it's always a free ride for the takers. We create, they take and then complain that we're not creating cheaply enough.
I understand that you're scared, although I'm not sure what you're scared of. Look around, is any of "health care crisis" rhetoric true or is it just more spin to scare the rubes into ceding the last vestiges of their freedom? Think about what you're really asking for: you want better quality health care for the irresponsible wastrels and, to pay for it, you're willing to accept lower quality health care for the responsible citizens. In what sane world does that make sense?
It doesn't matter all that much to me, I've got a supply of willow bark but I worry that you'll be left in the lurch.
Marcell| 7.24.09 @ 3:31PM
I love the debate when the facts are not on your side & you, the conservatives, are forced to make things up. Then, what happens is many of you will get angry & blame the MSM for not buying your faulty premises.
The funny thing about the conservative faulty premises is that they are whining about creating a system that the Canadians, & more than likely the Europeans enjoy.
Repubs are trying to give the false impression that government being in the business of health care is the equivalance of a military take over by what ever invaded Europe & improved their health care.
Time is not on your side anymore, because it gives us the time to knock wholes in your lies, & define your agenda.
********************
Canadians happy with primary health care, study says
On July 23rd, 2009 BLACK CELL said:
A large-scale survey finds that most Canadians have high praise for their family doctor
Marina Jiménez
Thursday, Jul. 23, 2009 06:47PM EDT
The largest survey on primary health care ever conducted in Canada found that most people have high praise for their family doctor, and a staggering 92 per cent would recommend their physician to a relative or friend.
Canadians – except those living in Nunavut – have excellent access to primary health care: 85 per cent of people aged 12 and older have a regular doctor, and two thirds have been seeing the same doctor for five years or more, according to the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) study, released yesterday.
“I feel darn good that 92 per cent of Canadians would recommend their family doctor to a friend. That is the litmus test,” said Sharon Johnston, a family physician and University of Ottawa professor.
Very few Canadians complained about not having a family doctor – despite the oft-repeated grievance about a shortage of physicians in some parts of the country.
The report is being released just as the Canadian health-care system is coming under increased scrutiny south of the border. President Barack Obama is attempting to reform the U.S. system with a $1-trillion initiative that would bring health care to 47 million Americans who lack coverage. His opponents have complained about the spiralling cost of his proposed overhaul, and pointed to alleged shortcomings in Canada's health-care system.
Trish McAlaster/The Globe and Mail
However, the CIHI report identifies only one area for improvement in primary health care, which otherwise receives high marks for its accessibility and quality.
The report found small gaps in the management of the 40 per cent of Canadians who have chronic health conditions, including diabetes, heart disease, arthritis, emphysema and cancer.
Forty per cent of those with chronic illnesses reported they have no long-term treatment plan. Fewer than one quarter of these patients receive written instructions from their family doctor about how to manage their disease. Though this is not a clinical requirement, it is increasingly recognized as an important part of care.
The study also found that while most of these patients get the clinically recommended annual checks for blood pressure, blood sugar, weight and cholesterol, a small number said they do not.
This gap in care may lead to unnecessary hospitalizations and emergency-ward visits as people's diseases progress more rapidly than they need to.
“There are a lot of positive findings in this study,” noted Greg Webster, CIHI's director of primary health-care information. “But gaps in primary health-care access, continuity and quality can lead to poorer health for patients and increased demand for hospital-based services.”
Studies show that a treatment plan, including written instructions about medications, diet and exercise, may help patients manage a chronic disease, he added.
The study is based on 11,000 respondents to a 2008 household-based survey and excludes those living on first nations reserves. It is important to note that it is based on patients' memories, which aren't always 100 per cent accurate.
Primary-care physicians deal with everything from chronic disease to mental health, maternity and child care, end-of-life care and common ailments such as flu.
The study found that 95 per cent of Canadians with chronic health conditions had a regular place of care, either a family doctor, or community health centre.
Two thirds of Canadians said their doctor allows them enough time to discuss their fears and concerns about their health.
More than 54 per cent of those surveyed required ongoing medical care within the past year. Of those, only 13 per cent experienced difficulties getting an appointment or contacting a doctor. Most were able to see a doctor within seven days.
Of the patients with diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure or history of stroke, 25 per cent said they didn't have their weight checked on an annual basis. One fifth said their cholesterol or blood sugar wasn't monitored, while 8 per cent reported not having their blood pressure measured.
“Even a small gap translates into complications,” noted Mr. Webster. “We also have an aging population so a lot of people are affected by chronic disease.” Diabetics, for example, have an elevated risk of developing heart and kidney disease, so monitoring their condition is key.
The concept of patient self-management is relatively new, say experts, and will take time to be fully implemented. Not all doctors feel comfortable raising lifestyle changes the day they diagnose a patient with diabetes or heart disease. And not all patients are prepared to check their blood sugar level, or change their diet and start exercising.
“Supporting patients to manage their own health is a paradigm shift. It requires a change in training and in the patient-doctor understanding,” said Dr. Johnston. “We are working at it slowly.”
Studies show that involving patients in their own care can save the system money, and lead to better outcomes. People with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who are taught how to manage their illness have fewer hospital admissions, for example. Counselling patients about risky behaviours, including smoking cessation, can also stop premature death and illness.
Dr. Johnston said she was heartened by the study's many optimistic findings, including the relatively short wait times. Eighty-five per cent of adults requiring immediate care for a minor problem were seen within a day.
This is the first national study of its kind to analyze patients' expectations of primary care. It found that Canadians identified continuity, co-ordination, patient-centred care, satisfaction, outcomes and interpersonal communication as important features of the primary health-care system.
I used to post as Bob| 7.24.09 @ 4:28PM
Freezing the Zone? Call me a kook but I think the ONE is up to his misdirection antics again… watching the news unfold this Gate and Cambridge Cops dust up is taking up a lot of oxygen. I suspect his late afternoon semi apology will provide cover for the flagging healthcare initiative and allow Rahm and company some quality time for quiet behind the scenes Blue Dog arm twisting. At minimum it will provide a serious diversion of attention from the healthcare debate as the easily flamed passions of race get analyzed.
jacksmith| 7.24.09 @ 4:34PM
LEAD, FOLLOW, OR GET OUT OF THE WAY. (Thomas Paine)
We have the 37th worst quality of healthcare in the developed world. Conservative estimates are that over 120,000 of you dies each year in America from treatable illness that people in other developed countries don’t die from. Rich, middle class, and poor a like. Insured and uninsured. Men, women, children, and babies. This is what being 37th in quality of healthcare means.
I know that many of you are angry and frustrated that REPUBLICANS! In congress are dragging their feet and trying to block TRUE healthcare reform. What republicans want is just a taxpayer bailout of the DISGRACEFUL GREED DRIVEN PRIVATE FOR PROFIT health insurance industry, and the DISGRACEFUL GREED DRIVEN PRIVATE FOR PROFIT healthcare industry. An insurance bailout is all you really get without a robust government-run public option available on day one.
These industries have been slaughtering you and your loved ones like cattle for decades for profit. Including members of congress and their families. These REPUBLICANS are FOOLS!
Republicans and their traitorous allies have been trying to make it look like it's President Obama's fault for the delays, and foot dragging. But I think you all know better than that. President Obama inherited one of the worst government catastrophes in American history from these REPUBLICANS! And President Obama has done a brilliant job of turning things around, and working his heart out for all of us.
But Republicans think you are just a bunch of stupid, idiot, cash cows with short memories. Just like they did under the Bush administration when they helped Bush and Cheney rape America and the rest of the World.
But you don't have to put up with that. And this is what you can do. The Republicans below will be up for reelection on November 2, 2010. Just a little over 13 months from now. And many of you will be able to vote early. So pick some names and tell their voters that their representatives (by name) are obstructing TRUE healthcare reform. And are sellouts to the insurance and medical lobbyist.
Ask them to contact their representatives and tell them that they are going to work to throw them out of office on November 2, 2010, if not before by impeachment, or recall elections. Doing this will give you something more to do to make things better in America. And it will help you feel better too.
There are many resources on the internet that can help you find people to call and contact. For example, many social networking sites can be searched by state, city, or University. Be inventive and creative. I can think of many ways to do this. But be nice. These are your neighbors. And most will want to help.
I know there are a few democrats that have been trying to obstruct TRUE healthcare reform too. But the main problem is the Bush Republicans. Removing them is the best thing tactically to do. On the other hand. If you can easily replace a democrat obstructionist with a supportive democrat, DO IT!
You have been AMAZING!!! my people. Don't loose heart. You knew it wasn't going to be easy saving the World. :-)
God Bless You
jacksmith — Working Class
Republican Senators up for re-election in 2010.
* Richard Shelby of Alabama
* Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
* John McCain of Arizona
* Mel Martinez of Florida
* Johnny Isakson of Georgia
* Mike Crapo of Idaho
* Chuck Grassley of Iowa
* Sam Brownback of Kansas
* Jim Bunning of Kentucky
* David Vitter of Louisiana
* Kit Bond of Missouri
* Judd Gregg of New Hampshire
* Richard Burr of North Carolina
* George Voinovich of Ohio
* Tom Coburn of Oklahoma
* Jim DeMint of South Carolina
* John Thune of South Dakota
* Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas
* Bob Bennett of Utah
Pingback| 7.24.09 @ 5:08PM
*BREAKING: ZELAYA INVADES HONDURAS THRU NICARAGUA « FactReal links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
I used to post as Bob| 7.24.09 @ 5:28PM
Someone should call house keeping it appears that a little clean up is order..
Marcell| 7.24.09 @ 8:56PM
The health bill is like roast simmering while the side dishes are being prepared... The Repugs are funny, because they are the jokers dancing & singing "NO" for our entertainment.
Our health care meal is nearly ready.
P.S. Your dough dough head leaders are using you like puppets... "SUCKERS"
Blame it on blind faith
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYc875zkDxg
***************************
Grassley, Ross See Health-Care Bill Likely This Year (Update2)
Share | Email | Print | A A A
By Ryan J. Donmoyer
July 24 (Bloomberg) -- The top Senate Republican drafting health-care legislation and a leader of House Democrats balking at the plan predicted there won’t be committee or floor votes by the August congressional recess, though they said a bill will eventually pass.
Charles Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said “it’s going to be difficult” for his panel to approve legislation in the next two weeks. The odds of enacting an overhaul later this year are “very, very good,” the Iowa senator said in an interview with Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt,” airing today.
Representative Mike Ross of Arkansas, chairman of the health-care task force for the Blue Dog Coalition, about 50 self-described fiscally conservative House Democrats, said it would be a mistake for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to bring the measure to the floor before the recess.
“I don’t think they have the votes,” Ross said in a separate “Political Capital” interview. By year’s end, “we will meet the president’s goal of passing meaningful and substantive health-care reform,” he said.
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel said today Democratic leaders are weighing a plan to bring the legislation to the floor next week, bypassing the Energy and Commerce Committee, which is stalled in negotiations.
Bypassing Waxman Panel
“That is a real option,” said Rangel, a New York Democrat whose panel was one of two in the House that already approved the bill this month. Henry Waxman, chairman of the energy and commerce panel, said he may waive a vote by his committee if talks with the Blue Dogs fail.
“I won’t allow them to turn over the control of the committee to the Republicans, which is what they’ve threatened to do,” Waxman, a California Democrat, told reporters.
Ross responded that the Blue Dogs “have played a constructive role” in the debate.
“We are not trying to kill health-care reform,” he said in a statement. “We are trying to save it.”
Grassley was supportive of a proposal by Democratic Senator John Kerry to impose an excise tax on insurers that offer “high-end insurance policies.” Such a levy would have the same cost-reducing “discipline effect” as an earlier proposal to tax some workers on employer-provided benefits for the first time, Grassley said.
“We’re interested in it, not for the sole reason of raising money, although it would do that,” Grassley said. “We’re interested in it as a discipline within health care.”
August Deadline
Delaying legislative action would hand President Barack Obama, who earlier this year set an August deadline for passage in both chambers, a political setback and halt momentum that had picked up when three committees, including one in the Senate, approved versions of the bill.
It would also give critics of the legislation a month to rally opposition.
Two weeks of closed-door talks between Grassley, Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, and four other senators failed to produce an agreement the panel could consider, and Majority Leader Harry Reid said yesterday the Senate won’t vote on the measure until September.
Among other things, Grassley said senators on the finance panel are trying to reduce “perverse incentives to waste money” in the health system, including tax subsidies for insurance.
“We’re spending hours and hours getting into detail that other committees have not,” he said.
Public Option
Grassley said he was discouraged when Obama reaffirmed a preference during his July 22 news conference for creating a government-run insurance option. Grassley said the president has told him in private conversations that he would consider alternatives, such as a plan in the Senate to create co- operatives that compete with private-sector insurers.
“It would have been good if he had said to the entire country what he said to me privately, that he would look to alternatives” to the government-run plan, Grassley said. “We have a very good alternative by going with cooperatives.”
Asked if he would leave the table if Democrats drop the cooperatives, Grassley said the government-run program would “run everybody out of business,” and Americans won’t be able to keep the insurance they have.
Ross said in the interview that members of his coalition are also resisting the immediate creation of a government-run insurance plan and would prefer to see legislation focus on reforming private-sector insurance practices. The public option should be put in place only if those companies fail to deliver, he said.
Trigger Mechanism
“A public option should be there to ensure that private insurance companies do right,” Ross said. “If they don’t, a trigger would be pulled and then they would have that competition from the government.”
The Blue Dogs are pushing for an independent Medicare advisory council to evaluate whether cost-savings targets are met, Ross said. The panel would be structured differently than the current advisory group known as MedPAC to ensure that concerns such as preserving patients’ access to specialty care and equitable distribution of Medicare reimbursements to health- care providers are met.
“We’re talking about something different, something more modern, something based on common sense that will work,” Ross said. “Currently, what we have is broken.”
Grassley said he might support such a commission if it is structured so that rural areas are well-represented and Congress gets an opportunity to alter recommendations, rather than be forced to accept or reject all recommended cuts.
Aiming for a Bill
He said Republican leaders, while publicly voicing determination to kill a Democratic bill for political gain, are privately resolved to produce a bipartisan bill.
“They said we’ve got to show the Democrats they don’t have a vote to nationalize health insurance and then they’ll come to us and we’ll get a compromise,” Grassley said, describing conversations he has had with Republican leaders. “I’m trying to be one step ahead of the Republicans that are saying that by trying to get a workable compromise ahead of time.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Ryan J. Donmoyer in Washington at rdonmoyer@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: July 24, 2009 14:16 EDT
Steve| 7.24.09 @ 9:57PM
Our fine Government cannot give somthing
to somebody without first TAKING it from
someone else--There is no FREE
Jeremy Janson | 7.24.09 @ 11:17PM
This is so disgusting. Even to ration care for those who can't afford it is evil enough, but to go out and deprive people of care just so some bloak can buy a plasma screen TV is abominable!
Richard Baker| 7.24.09 @ 11:45PM
Margaret Sanger and Heinrich Himmler would be sooo proud of their acolytes. Death to all, and to All a good death!
Pingback| 7.25.09 @ 2:03PM
July 25, 2009 - Podcast and articles on The Patriot Room links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 7.25.09 @ 2:46PM
The Truth About Government-run Health Care :: Michael Island links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
A Conservative | 7.25.09 @ 2:48PM
READ THE BILL. It is not about access to already-accessible American health CARE. It is not about "affordable" health INSURANCE. In sum, it is about a federal takeover of every aspect of medicine in America. It is about the government deciding if you can be born, what kind of parenting you will get, what doctors will be available to treat you, all the way straight through to when you will die. It is socialized medicine. Period. And socialized medicine run by those who think the United States Constitution is a flawed document, headed up by a man who has never once held a legitimate, private sector job in his entire life, instead sponging his existence off the federal tax monies paid by real, hard-working Americans.
It is all utterly, devastatingly WRONG.
Pingback| 7.25.09 @ 3:15PM
The ObamaCare = “Meeting The Trains and Pointing Those To The Showers” links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Jeff| 7.25.09 @ 4:41PM
Loaded with rhetoric, lacking facts. Reminds me of every single American Spectator article ever. Do the Republicans have a plan for anything besides tax rebates or generalized assertions about the free market knowing best?
Lisa| 7.25.09 @ 6:22PM
I am one of those whose care would be the first to be rationed. I have incurable cancer. Palliative chemo cost 10K a month. CT scans are 3K. Nursing & doctor care about 1K per month. Its costly to keep me alive. I currently have insurance thru a group plan from my former employer. I still have good quality of life at 46 years of age.
What would those beaurocrats tell my three children and my parents? Sorry, its too expensive to keep her alive?
Shame on those who would force even more hardship, grief, and agony on cancer patients and their families!
bobc| 7.25.09 @ 8:05PM
These progressives are destroying our Country, and our values and have warped the minds of our kids in school.
With this article, I now know why they attacked Gov. Palin's son Trig so savegely.
Richard Baker| 7.26.09 @ 10:47AM
Jeff:
Your ilk seems to believe that we're all helpless to decide anything for ourselves. Freedom and Liberty are the opposite. Maybe you should find a country where the government will hold your hand and attend your every need. I can think of several.
Historical Fraud| 7.26.09 @ 2:14PM
Behind The Bible Fraud -
What Was The Church
Trying To Hide?
By Robert Adams
New Dawn Magazine.com
6-21-5
Be sure to reload this page for the latest comments!
When I first spoke to a close Christian friend of mine about the publishing of Tony Bushby's The Bible Fraud, her reaction was one that many Christians have expressed, and one that made me aghast. She didn't want the book available because it would "persuade them away from the Bible and the word of God." Further discussions with her and many other Christians around the world about The Bible Fraud all result in the Bible being quoted as the ultimate reference for the apparent "words of God," and therefore the basis for their arguments. The problem lies in that they believe the Bible is infallible.
If we examine the oldest known Bible to date, the "Sinai Bible" housed in the British Museum (I believe that, during his many years of research, Tony had a private viewing of this priceless book), we find a staggering 14,800 differences from today's Bible and yet it still remains the word of God?
As Tony points out, the history of our 'genuine' Bibles is a convoluted one. Firstly we cannot be sure that we have the full version as it was originally intended. In 1415 the Church of Rome took an extraordinary step to destroy all knowledge of two second century Jewish books that it said contained the true name of Jesus Christ. The Antipope Benedict XIII firstly singled out for condemnation a secret Latin treatise called "Mar Yesu" and then issued instructions to destroy all copies of the book of Elxai. The Rabbinic fraternity once held the destroyed manuscripts with great reverence for they were comprehensive original records reporting the life of Rabbi Jesus.
Later, Pope Alexander VI ordered all copies of the Talmud destroyed, with the Spanish Grand Inquisitor Tomas de Torquemada (1420-98) responsible for the elimination of 6,000 volumes at Salamanca alone.
Solomon Romano (1554) also burnt many thousands of Hebrew scrolls and, in 1559, every Hebrew book in the city of Prague was confiscated. The mass destruction of Jewish books included hundreds of copies of the Old Testament and caused the irretrievable loss of many original handwritten documents.
The oldest text of the Old Testament that survived, before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls" was said to be the Bodleian Codex (Oxford), which was dated to circa 1100 AD. In an attempt by the church to remove damaging Rabbinic information about Jesus Christ from the face of the earth, the Inquisition burnt 12,000 volumes of the Talmud.
In 1607, forty-seven men (some records say fifty four) took two years and nine months to re-write the Bible and make it ready for press. It was, by the order of King James, issued with a set of personal 'rules' the translators were to follow. Upon its completion in 1609, it was handed over to the King James for his final approval. However, "It was self evident that James was not competent to check their work and edit it, so he passed the manuscripts onto the greatest genius of all time... Sir Francis Bacon"
The first English language manuscripts of the Bible remained in Bacon's possession for nearly a year. During that time ... "he hammered the various styles of the translators into the unity, rhythm, and music of Shakespearean prose, wrote the prefaces and created the whole scheme of the Authorized Version. At the completion of the editing, King James ordered a 'dedication to the King' to be drawn up and included in the opening pages. He also wanted the phrase 'Appointed to be read in the churches' to appear on the title page.
The King James Bible is considered by many today to be the 'original' Bible and therefore 'genuine' and all later revisions simply counterfeits forged by 'higher critics'. Others think the King James Bible is 'authentic' and 'authorized' and presents the original words of the authors as translated into English from the 'original' Greek texts. However, as Tony points out, the 'original' Greek text was not written until around the mid fourth century and was a revised edition of writings compiled decades earlier in Aramaic and Hebrew. Those earlier documents no longer exist and the Bibles we have today are five linguistic removes from the first bibles written. What was written in the 'original originals' is quite unknown. It is important to remember that the words 'authorized' and 'original', as applied to the Bible do not mean 'genuine', 'authentic' or 'true'.
Richard Baker| 7.26.09 @ 4:06PM
Historical Fraud seems to be unable to coalesce his thoughts into an original expression. Copy/paste is no argument, it's computer laziness.
Pingback| 7.26.09 @ 4:38PM
TAKEbackMEDICINE.org » Dr. Emanuel (Hidden Agendas Part 4) links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
What is life worth| 7.26.09 @ 5:51PM
POISON OF LIBERALISM
8. Under various names there exists in all countries approximately one and the same thing. Representation, Ministry, Senate, State Council, Legislative and Executive Corps. I need not explain to you the mechanism of the relation of these institutions to one another, because you are aware of all that; only take note of the fact that each of the above-named institutions corresponds to some important function of the State, and I would beg you to remark that the word "important" I apply not to the institution but to the function, consequently it is not the institutions which are important but their functions. These institutions have divided up among themselves all the functions of government - administrative, legislative, executive, wherefore they have come to operate as do the organs in the human body. If we injure one part in the machinery of State, the State falls sick, like a human body, and ... will die.
9. When we introduced into the State organism the poison of Liberalism its whole political complexion underwent a change. States have been seized with a mortal illness - blood poisoning. All that remains is to await the end of their death agony.
10. Liberalism produced Constitutional States, which took the place of what was the only safeguard of the GOYIM, namely, Despotism; and A CONSTITUTION, AS YOU WELL KNOW, IS NOTHING ELSE BUT A SCHOOL OF DISCORDS, misunderstandings, quarrels, disagreements, fruitless party agitations, party whims - in a word, a school of everything that serves to destroy the personality of State activity. THE TRIBUNE OF THE "TALKERIES" HAS, NO LESS EFFECTIVELY THAN THE PRESS, CONDEMNED THE RULERS TO INACTIVITY AND IMPOTENCE, and thereby rendered them useless and superfluous, for which reason indeed they have been in many countries deposed. THEN IT WAS THAT THE ERA OF REPUBLICS BECOME POSSIBLE OF REALIZATION; AND THEN IT WAS THAT WE REPLACED THE RULER BY A CARICATURE OF A GOVERNMENT - BY A PRESIDENT, TAKEN FROM THE MOB, FROM THE MIDST OF OUR PUPPET CREATURES, OR SLAVES. This was the foundation of the mine which we have laid under the GOY people, I should rather say, under the GOY peoples.
WE NAME PRESIDENTS
11. In the near future we shall establish the responsibility of presidents.
12. By that time we shall be in a position to disregard forms in carrying through matters for which our impersonal puppet will be responsible. What do we care if the ranks of those striving for power should be thinned, if there should arise a deadlock from the impossibility of finding presidents, a deadlock which will finally disorganize the country? ...
13. In order that our scheme may produce this result we shall arrange elections in favor of such presidents as have in their past some dark, undiscovered stain, some "Panama" or other - then they will be trustworthy agents for the accomplishment of our plans out of fear of revelations and from the natural desire of everyone who has attained power, namely, the retention of the privileges, advantages and honor connected with the office of president. The chamber of deputies will provide cover for, will protect, will elect presidents, but we shall take from it the right to propose new, or make changes in existing laws, for this right will be given by us to the responsible president, a puppet in our hands. Naturally, the authority of the presidents will then become a target for every possible form of attack, but we shall provide him with a means of self-defense in the right of an appeal to the people, for the decision of the people over the heads of their representatives, that is to say, an appeal to that same blind slave of ours - the majority of the mob. Independently of this we shall invest the president with the right of declaring a state of war. We shall justify this last right on the ground that the president as chief of the whole army of the country must have it at his disposal, in case of need for the defense of the new republican constitution, the right to defend which will belong to him as the responsible representative of this constitution. (Iran? Grenada? Kuwait? Iraq? Panama? Somalia? Bosnia? Kosovo? Indonesia?)
14. It is easy to understand that in these conditions the key of the shrine will lie in our hands, and no one outside ourselves will any longer direct the force of legislation.
15. Besides this we shall, with the introduction of the new republican constitution, take from the Chamber the right of interpolation on government measures, on the pretext of preserving political secrecy, and, further, we shall by the new constitution reduce the number of representatives to a minimum, thereby proportionately reducing political passions and the passion for politics. If, however, they should, which is hardly to be expected, burst into flame, even in this minimum, we shall nullify them by a stirring appeal and a reference to the majority of the whole people ... Upon the president will depend the appointment of presidents and vice-presidents of the Chamber and the Senate. Instead of constant sessions of Parliaments we shall reduce their sittings to a few months. Moreover, the president, as chief of the executive power, will have the right to summon and dissolve Parliament, and, in the latter case, to prolong the time for the appointment of a new parliamentary assembly. But in order that the consequences of all these acts which in substance are illegal, should not, prematurely for our plans, fall upon the responsibility established by us of the president, WE SHALL INSTIGATE MINISTERS AND OTHER OFFICIALS OF THE HIGHER ADMINISTRATION ABOUT THE PRESIDENT TO EVADE HIS DISPOSITIONS BY TAKING MEASURES OF THEIR OWN, for doing which they will be made the scapegoats in his place ... This part we especially recommend to be given to be played by the Senate, the Council of State, or the Council of Ministers, but not to an individual official.
16. The president will, at our discretion, interpret the sense of such of the existing laws as admit
recycling containers | 7.27.09 @ 7:32AM
You share valuable information and excellent design you got here! I would like to thank you for sharing your thoughts and time into the stuff you post!! Thumbs up. Please come visit my site recycling containers when you got time.
civil engineers | 7.27.09 @ 7:33AM
I was thinking of looking up some of them newspaper websites, but am glad I came here instead. Although glad is not quite the right word… let me just say I needed this after the incessant chatter in the media, and am grateful to you for articulating something many of us are feeling - even from distant shores. Please come visit my site civil engineers when you got time.
A Question| 7.27.09 @ 3:34PM
I had an interesting thought this weekend. If 6 months of life is worth $22,000, a year’s worth is $44,000 (yeah, I know, duh!!). Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the government decrees a life span to be 80 years. So if a 20-year-old drunk street racer is speeding, trying to avoid a police chase because he has outstanding warrants, and he smashes into a car where a 79-year-old decorated war veteran is driving his 79-year-old wife (and mother of three and grandmother of six) to the accountant’s office to file their 63rd annual tax return, the government is going to pay up to $2,640,000 for the health and rehabilitation of the 20-year-old ($44,000/year times 60 years), but will only pay up to $44,000 to save the life of either victim of the crash.
What a country!!
Alex| 7.27.09 @ 4:12PM
This will likely fall on deaf ears, but I'd like to hear just exactly how we are supposed to live in a system that will spend millions of dollars on millions of people? We live in the real world, where we have limited resources for health care, as we have limited resources for everything else. Right now, we still judge who deserves health care and who doesn't. If you're lucky enough to be born rich and white, you likely get health insurance. If you're sick and were born into a poorer family, you have a small chance of getting health care. How is this a fair system? Countless people die every day, or have their limbs amputated or put on dialysis because they didn't have access to care when they needed it, because everyone else was too busy consuming it. We need to stop treating healthcare like it's an unlimited resource, because it's not.
Bill| 7.27.09 @ 8:13PM
Is ObamaCare really "backdoor genocide"? For one to make such an 'audacious' claim, he/she would need to show a strong motive. Well consider this, once government healthcare take holds, a huge block of elderly and largely conservative voters will, do to rationed care, fade into the sunset earlier and in larger numbers than ever before. This will change voter demographics in favor of the far left. Think about and wake up America, your worst nightmare lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Bill| 7.27.09 @ 8:24PM
Alex,
You are a sick man. Your illness however exists in your mind. Opportunity does exist for everyone. Some choose to be wards of the state others choose to sacrifice there time and God-given talents to earn more for those they love. The difference between these two America's is not skin color...it is in the determination and perserverance of the idividual. Alex, your philosophies are at best un-American and at worst Marxist.
Bob NT| 7.27.09 @ 8:32PM
Alex
Tell me about fair sir Please. Do you really think that those of us that are responsible and have worked hard to achieve something were born rich.... very few can walk in Ted Kennedy's shoes.
Most of us studied hard or worked hard and while others were having a good time we put in the extra effort to take care of our families.
Who do you think writes the checks that pay for all the ‘fairness gifts’ the government is going to hand out?
Alex here is a news flash for you, we were all born with an equality of opportunity. No one has ever guaranteed an equality of outcome and certainly does not guarantee that those who choose not to be productive choose not to educate themselves who cede responsibility for all they have and all they are to the government should in “fairness” be entitled to the same outcomes as those who have worked hard and earned what they have.
Sue| 7.27.09 @ 10:22PM
The only good about a program like this from the early '20s would have meant that FDR's life would have been downgraded too.
Ooops - In Amity Shlaes' book The Forgotten Man, Roosevelt took it upon himself to define "disability" for the state and needless to say, he wasn't generous. He did this to save the "state" money because they were in the "Great Recession - uh, then "Depression" caused by him and his reckless spending ways along with that crazy Hoover and his tariff bill.
He also had a nationalized healthcare plan which included all physicians joining his "National Service Corps." But, along came WW II and a much better economy, then he died and so long to that. I understand that Truman tried to implement it as well, however, I don't remember reading about that in his biography.
Obama and his ilk are calling the doctors members of the "National Service Corps" on the flowchart of Socialized Medicine/Bureauracy; the flowchart can be found on the GOP website or Glenn Beck's website. Yes, the flowchart is real and will be the result of socialized medicine.
Just think about it people; one huge downturn in the economy and you may as well kiss your ass goodbye. They won't be interested in paying for your pills, your knee replacement, your chemotherapy, or even your so-called counseling to end your life.
Pingback| 7.28.09 @ 1:30PM
Shoving Healthcare Down Your Throat. « The View from Southern California links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Alex| 7.28.09 @ 1:48PM
I must admit, the responses to my comment are disappointing, if not unsurprising.
Bill: You actually make no response to my comment, but instead use this opportunity to defame my character, of which you know nothing about. I still await to hear a response to my comment, on how we can possibly appropriate unlimited resources to healthcare.
Bob: Thank you at least for responding to my comment. You suggest that we are all free to make our lives our own, that we are given opportunities to learn and grow in whatever ways we can. I assume you mean that we all have access to basic goods, such as education and appropriate health care Otherwise, how can we possibly think we have a level playing field? If you really hold it to be true that a child born in the suburbs has the same opportunities as a child born in the ghetto, then they must have access to similar avenues to exercise their skills. If we really were born with an "equality of opportunity," then why should we deny some individuals, based on their family or location, the opportunities of good schooling and good health?
This is, as far as I can see, the argument for government-sponsored education. Do you have issues with that as well? Because as far as I can tell, if we value education as a basic social value, as something to create a level playing field for all individuals to pursue as their skills and ambition allow, then surely basic access to healthcare should be included in that as well! Have you ever gone into your place of work when you weren't feeling well? Were you at your best? Likely not, because being ill is a lousy state to be in, and does not allow anyone to use their skills and knowledge to the fullest. Now imagine feeling sick every single day, as diabetics with uncontrolled blood sugar feel, or those born with congenital heart defects that couldn't be repaired. Do these people REALLY have the equality of opportunity?
You hold the same basic tenets as I do, that we all, as Americans, should be free to pursue our interests and enjoy the fruits of our labor. So please explain to me why refusing to allow tens of millions of people in the US access to affordable, effective healthcare that will allow them the strength and fortitude to pursue their ambitions is the American way.
And please, if you are going to respond, keep the comments civil. You know nothing of my character, and I know nothing of yours, so there is no reason to assume the worst in each other.
Melanie| 7.28.09 @ 3:08PM
Fellow citizens,
Like so many of you, I am in favor of a federal government that has the smallest possible influence in the way that I order my days and pursue my passions. It's easy to understand so many of the fears articulated here about what could happen if something as intimate and critical as your medical care were to be determined by government bureaucrats instead of by medical professionals who have professed willingness to take on the tremendous responsibility to on behalf of their patients.
That said, just as I don't want the federal bureaucrats dictating whether I receive care or not, I don't want a for-profit insurance company making those decisions either! Under our current system, this is the (sometimes deadly) state of affairs.
Healthcare is being rationed already; it's being rationed by companies that have everything to loose by paying the high costs associated with treating patients with serious medical conditions. These companies have policies in place to avoid making payments, to drop members who are "risky," and to prevent people who are likely to need care from signing up in the first place. Don't believe me? Read the statements by any number of the ex-CEOs of major insurance companies who have come forward to tell the inside story in the hopes of calming the tremendous guilt they report feeling as a result of the decisions they made: decisions that sacrificed American lives to bolster the bottom line.
The existing system has caused harm to me personally. Denied coverage (despite my ability to pay for it) on the basis of a pre-existing condition, I found myself in a situation last year in which state-mediated health care saved my life. The state of Maryland operates a high-risk pool, providing insurance coverage through a private insurance company. I pay a standard monthly premium and deductible, but due to the state's program, I am allowed access to an insurance plan that I was unable to get on the private market due to my health history. The plan is still administered by the private company, and I have the same benefits and headaches that any other member does. However, without government intervention, I would have been unable to obtain insurance coverage last year. The illness that I suffered from would have either taken my life or my financial future.
I am educated, financially successful, and a health care professional myself (in a family full of other health care professionals.) None of those things, none of my individual merits or hard work, preserved me from the dangerous flaws of the current system. You could easily find yourself in my place, whether you believe that or not.
I think there is some measure of intelligence to what states like Maryland have done. For my part, I am working hard to take my health into my own hands and be less dependent upon centralized systems in general, because I with each passing day I loose a bit more faith in our ability as a country to solve this problem.
It would be tremendously encouraging if on discussion boards such as this one, I more regularly heard my fellow countrymen and women discussing possible solutions in addition to decrying the ones already on the table. It would restore a bit of my faith if we could build each other up with the kind of ingenuity, stick-tooitiveness, and willingness to work hard that characterized generations of Americans who went before us. These days, I mostly hear complaints. I rarely hear constructive commentary.
I challenge each of you to contribute an idea or two toward a vision of a healthier, stronger, America. I'll go first:
What I would like to see, is more Americans taking control of their own health. I'd like to see us getting strong and active again, improving our cardiovascular health, reducing our risk of cancers, and reducing the incidence of stress-related illness by eating food that's actually nourishing, moving our bodies as they were designed to be moved, and connecting with the people in our communities. I'd like to see us do the things that we know how to do to keep ourselves healthy, and getting ourselves educated if we don't already have these skills. Instead of relying upon doctors, government, or corporations to save us from ourselves, let's follow in the footsteps of our heroes and roll up our own sleeves. I'd like to see us implementing these strategies in our own households and neighborhoods, without any government programs, private foundation grants, or other bureaucratic babysitters telling us how we should care for ourselves and the people we care about.
Who's up for the challenge?
Pingback| 7.29.09 @ 12:06AM
Less Than 1,000 Pages and 2 Lawyers | CRAZY REPUBLICAN FEMINIST links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
hfh| 7.29.09 @ 2:23AM
"effective" public discourse about rationing has nothing to do with talk radio hosts, television personalities, Blue Dog Democrats, or the immaturity of American society in general. It is, rather, the moral cowardice of the President and his allies in Congress that prevents a serious debate about rationing.
おまとめローン
グループウェア
格安航空券
網頁設計
アウトソーシング
キャッシング
水 通販
フランチャイズ
インプラント
電話占い
Bill| 7.29.09 @ 8:28PM
Alex,
I will respond to your comments to me. The value of a human life has no dollar limit and because it is so precious, the choices regarding who, what, when, why and how medical treatments are given belong to the individual patient, their families and the doctors that care for them...not a government bureaucracy! It's clear to all of us in this country that reform is needed in our health care system. Reducing frivolous malpractice litigation, addressing the illegal immigration strain on our health care system, and the continued development and expansion of private health care savings account are few of the reforms that will reduce costs.
Your right, I don't know you, and if I did, you seem like a nice enough person and I would probably enjoy having a conversation with you...but if we were to engage in conversation I would tell you this:
Your philosophies are Marxist and evil in nature in spite of the fact that you may not be aware that they are. You believe and are publicly promoting socialist forms of government that seek to reduce and eventually eliminate individual rights, freedoms and you support a socialist government controlled health system that will shorten the lives of the elderly because of rationing of health services.
It's nothing against you personally. You and I have opposing political views that are irreconcilable. I truly believe that your philosophies are venom and enslave those who hold on to them because they brainwash individuals into believing that they are unable to rise above their circumstances.
The snake potion you are selling eats away at the fabric of free America. You are a racist of the worst kind because you try to convince those who are born into poor families that only the government can help them improve the quality of the lives. Your Utopian world of "level playing fields" is a fantasy and it destroys the very spirit of individual pursuits of life, liberty and happiness.
You and your fellow slave masters represent all that has gone wrong in our country. You justify taking a person's property, by force, and giving it to someone who hasn't earned it because you think its fair.
I not only reject your political philosophies, I will aggressively (within the four corners of the law) oppose them for the rest of my life.
P.S. I have no idea how your references to public education are relevant to this debate (in most cases, but not all, public education is inferior to private education so it is very clear that this comparison is not helping your argument).
Pingback| 7.30.09 @ 2:40PM
Public Health Care “Option” Will Lead To Government Takeover « A Conservative Wandere links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Alex| 7.31.09 @ 8:45AM
Bill,
I have to admit, I find myself frustrated. You use such inflammatory language when it's really not appropriate to do so. I know we both feel passionately on this subject, but just because I want some form of government healthcare doesn't make me a Marxist. I again implore you, if you continue to have this conversation, to stick to the issues, and to refrain from using words like slave-masters and evil, etc.
But let me address your points:
1. You say that the value of a human life has no dollar amount, that it is so precious that no bureaucratic organization should make decisions regarding who lives and who dies. Then what do you have to say about the 22,000 adults who died in 2006 just because they didn't have health insurance? (http://www.familiesusa.org/issues/uninsured/publications/dying-for-coverage.html)
Right now, we already have organizations making life and death decisions for people they don't know. They are called insurance companies. As Melanie aptly discussed, the current system already rations people by deciding who gets access to healthcare and who doesn't. For a particularly accurate and disturbing view of this, please research Dr. Linda Peeno's Congressional testimony (http://www.thenationalcoalition.org/DrPeenotestimony.html).
We have a system that actively kills people by denying them coverage. How is that congruent with your belief that the value of human life is priceless?
And I am sorry that you believe our views are irreconcilable. In fact, you still do not know what my views are. You seem to believe that, since they express the desire to have some level of basic care provided by the government, then I'm an evil Marxist hell-bent on destroying people's lives and the sanctity of freedom in America. Tell me, do you believe the same of civil-rights movement in the 60s? Do you think it was a horrible Marxist plot to allow African-Americans in "white" schools?
It's clear from your comments you come from a past of being relatively well-off. Clearly, you believe that any individual can rise to become as successful as anyone else, regardless of where they come from. You clearly have not spent much time with people in poverty. You have not worked, as I have, with homeless adults and children who find themselves shut out, their ambition and skills wasted because the system, as it is currently designed, stops them from doing what they need to help themselves.
I wonder, do you think that because I was born into a well-off family, that I am due the spoils of my parents? How is that fair? I lucked out and was born of parents who were given some advantages and were able to use their ambition to provide some comfort in their lives. When they die, how is it that I deserve their financial legacy? It was pure luck that I was born into their family, and yet you believe that because of my family's fortunes, I am due their spoils.
Lastly, you show your ignorance of my political ideals most aptly with your postscript. I in fact would greatly support a two-tier system, with the government providing a basic level of healthcare with the opportunity for those with the means to purchase more health insurance. I think the example of public education in this country provides a great example of something that we, as a society, view as a social good important enough for the government to subsidize. I agree with you that people should be allowed to use their ambition and skills to the utmost, as I said in previous comments. I believe that offering a basic set of healthcare will allow individuals to pursue their own interests and ambitions, as is the American ideal.
BNuckols| 8.1.09 @ 9:17AM
KWay,
We don't have the fire department come into our homes to blow out the candles and make sure we turned the iron off.
The police do not stand guard in your home, much less by your bedside as you sleep.
Car insurance, house insurance, all have deductables and the equivalent of copays.
And yet, Congress wants to mandate coverage from first dollar with free physicals and preventive care, along with the suicide option and abortion option.
Pingback| 8.3.09 @ 6:30AM
Advice For Treating Cataracts - The Blog Planet links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 8.7.09 @ 2:45PM
Steps to Get a Quality Georgia Life Insurance Policy « Wicked Blogging links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 8.9.09 @ 2:58PM
Health Care BS - PALIN IS RIGHT ABOUT DEATH PANELS links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
philip m. torrance III | 8.13.09 @ 12:01AM
. the reason Obama has not emphasized rationing as an economizer,
is that there have been such fine examples like the Mayo clinic
of getting good results based on prevention
and careful use of resources .
. to insure we have choice,
the commission would be deciding simply what the insur'co would pay;
we can pay for any additional services using our own money,
at the same prices we the insur'co would have to pay .
. I'm sure that's what Obama has in mind;
because he said that if we like our care, we can keep it;
and the one care we do have now
is being able to buy any service we can afford out of pocket .
-- appreciating Michael Moore, usa
philip m. torrance III | 8.13.09 @ 12:03AM
. the reason Obama has not emphasized rationing as an economizer,
is that there have been such fine examples like the Mayo clinic
of getting good results based on prevention
and careful use of resources .
. to insure we have choice,
the commission would be deciding simply what the insur'co would pay;
we can pay for any additional services using our own money,
at the same prices we the insur'co would have to pay .
. I'm sure that's what Obama has in mind;
because he said that if we like our care, we can keep it;
and the one care we do have now
is being able to buy any service we can afford out of pocket .
-- appreciating Michael Moore, usa
philip m. torrance III | 8.13.09 @ 12:03AM
. the reason Obama has not emphasized rationing as an economizer,
is that there have been such fine examples like the Mayo clinic
of getting good results based on prevention
and careful use of resources .
. to insure we have choice,
the commission would be deciding simply what the insur'co would pay;
we can pay for any additional services using our own money,
at the same prices we the insur'co would have to pay .
. I'm sure that's what Obama has in mind;
because he said that if we like our care, we can keep it;
and the one care we do have now
is being able to buy any service we can afford out of pocket .
-- appreciating Michael Moore, usa
Pingback| 8.19.09 @ 12:46PM
Health Care BS - DEATH OF “DEATH PANELS” GREATLY EXAGGERATED links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Eric Singer| 8.28.09 @ 1:17PM
QALYs will not end with balancing health expense against your life. QALYs will expand so that the governemtn includes other things it "owes" you, like Social Security. As the governement runs out of money, there will be a relentless pull to score medical procedures in a way that reduces senior life expectancy so that Social Security payouts are less.
http://www.ibdeditorial.com/IB.....ric,singer
Mike| 12.10.09 @ 5:10AM
The QALY of government officials will tend to quickly become zero when they start denying care to people and their families.
FRANKO| 12.15.09 @ 11:42AM
wtf is this website for smart people? i dont have one fucking clue what everyone is talking about here.
Pingback| 12.21.09 @ 1:27AM
Health Care BS - CNN: PALIN DEATH PANELS “LIE OF THE YEAR” links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.12.10 @ 2:59PM
Three Deadly Mistakes That Consistently Wreck Your Life links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.15.10 @ 2:55PM
Grandma's Secret Potion of Faith links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
electronics | 4.22.10 @ 4:26AM
USB WebCma
liyang | 4.26.10 @ 5:30AM
You are what you eat, or so the saying goes. But a new generation of molecular biologists is starting to give that old adage a decidedly high-tech twist.
http://www.udtek.com/dell_Car-.....2a_41.html
UKNorth | 11.3.10 @ 3:32AM
he countenance of North Face Jackets Perdana Menteri pGFP saudara, dan teknologi inovatif While greater than the North Face the Dalaia tersusun jubah Outdoor kasut sepasang Dan, Polartec, LLC pemaju of Dan, Dan, North Face UK Akan pengeluar Polartec pemasar laid to my charge to be North Face mens given to Hari untuk mengetahui pengaruh Parfum: North Face Jacket Kishtwar ufti of Dan Tahun pada North Face Clothing.
Louis Vttion handbags | 12.9.10 @ 12:43AM
he countenance of North Face Jackets Perdana Menteri pGFP saudara, dan teknologi inovatif While greater than the North Face the Dalaia tersusun jubah Outdoor kasut sepasang Dan, Polartec, LLC pemaju of Dan, Dan, North Face UK Akan pengeluar Polartec pemasar laid to my charge to be North Face mens given to Hari untuk mengetahui pengaruh Parfum: North Face Jacket Kishtwar ufti of Dan Tahun pada North Face Clothing.
Lelani J | 6.5.11 @ 9:59AM
Is it really true what they are saying? UTI Treatment