Obama Blinks

How sad that after just eight months in office this President already begins to succumb to Washington lobbyists and hair-splitting logic. Obama gave in to Big Pharma and with his increasingly shaky waffling on the public option we can see he's preparing to cave in to insurance companies, too. Unlike what John Mackey of Whole Foods wrote in his infamous Wall Street Journal piece, citizens DO have a human right to healthcare, and you are correct, Jerry, that this issue is a defining one for Obama's presidency.
He sends more troops to Afghanistan, he sells out to the pharmaceutical corporations, now he calls the public healthcare option a mere "sliver" of his healthcare reform! The Republicans in Congress will oppose anything he proposes anyway, lying about euthanasia and abortion provisions, so why not go all-out and ENLARGE the public option? Intelligent folks in Europe are aghast at the crudity of our public debate and the vacillating weakness of liberals and lefties in this country.

The immense body of single-payer supporters in Lois Capps' district have been very disappointed that the Democratic leadership immediately took that option "off the table," refusing to even discuss its relative merits and drawbacks.

As I've been told, advocates were informed by Representative Capps' office that there would be no "Town Hall Meetings" in Santa Barbara during the Congressional recess at which they could voice their displeasure and urge her to speak out in favor of such consideration. Evidently, when she was hit from both sides by those who said "holing up" isn't what we pay our public servants to do, she decided she would have to face the music. Does anyone know where and when the three promised events are to take place?

And don't we think a public option, if it is to happen, should be open to anyone wanting to escape insurance industry abuse and waste, not just those who "can't afford" it?

Over and over again physicians, you know, the ones who DO the job we're talking about, say selling insurance across state lines (i.e., competition) is the answer to insurance reform. Which is NOT healthcare reform, but I digress. Why this simple (and yes, suggested by John McCain!) solution doesn't HAPPEN is the question we should be asking. (As in, what insurance lobbyists is Obama beholden to?) And plans like HSAs, says another physician, force people to have some financial "skin in the game." And finally any healthcare reform must also include immigration reform. We simply cannot add "47 milliion" people to the workload of our healthcare providers and not get RATIONING. I expect many of you to argue. Go ahead. I'm ready with facts and links.

Jonk, since the passed House bill stipulates "US citizens" why do we need to fold more controversy into this debate with more on illegal immigration? A diversion.
Second, health care has always been "rationed" -- right now the insurance companies do this. Giant health insurance companies WellPoint, UnitedHealth Group, and Assurant refuse to stop their vicious practice called "rescission" which is their fancy term for retroactively cancelling coverage on their policyholders who develop expensive diseases. These companies profit from discriminating against sick people, thus we need a public option forcing them either to compete or go out of business.

DrDan: I can assure you intelligent folks in THIS country are aghast at the "crudity of our public debate."

Shall I deliver a DIRECT QUOTE from HR 3200 that pertains to so-called death panels?

"For purposes of this section, the term 'order regarding life sustaining treatment' means, with respect to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to the treatment of that individual that-- "(i) is signed and dated by a physician... or another health care professional... including a nurse practitioner or physician assistant..."

Okay, DrDan: this does not say MY doctor, it says A doctor, or A nurse or PA, can sign a form that in effect can end my life. The reason? "If there is a signifcant change in the health condition of the individual, including diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, etc..."

WHO should make that determination? MY DOCTOR. And me. Not some bureaucrat without a medical degree who cares primarily about money.

No one with a brain wants to waste money on needless pointless care. But as physicians know (are you a doctor, DrDan?) medicine is full of tough calls. Let's talk TORT REFORM. Doctors are confronted with issues of life and death under the specter of lawsuits as a rule. Tell me how that helps???

Jonk: from HR 3200 - Sec. 152. Prohibiting Discrimination in Health Care. "...all health care and related services (including insurance and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services."

WITHOUT REGARD TO PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS: in other words, black, white, male, female, legal OR ILLEGAL.

Get with it folks. We can sure CAPPS is not with it!

"why do we need to fold more controversy into this debate with more on illegal immigration?"

Because illegal immigration, and legal immigration by those with low skills and education levels is bankrupting the state, and Jerry Roberts et. al. refuse to discuss it. Lois Capp's voting record indicates she supports almost unlimited immigration, but a lot of the Republicans such as Abel Maldonado, Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman are no better.

There would be more support for single-payer health care if our government and immigration policy stopped dividing us by ethnicity and race. As it stands, different racial/immigrant/ethnic groups will see themselves competing against each other for health-care dollars under a government-run system. The current health care bill calls for racial preferences in medical school admissions and scholarships -- who is to say that health services will similarly not be allocated on the basis of race?

Hey, folks, first of all, I'm not the one who mentioned anything at all about immigration or immigration reform or undocumented residents getting or not getting coverage under the public plan. I'm the guy who complained that single-payer isn't being discussed -- even though President Obama said not long ago that it would be the best solution if we were starting from scratch. Sadly, we're not even at scratch; we're deep in a hole that the current system has dug for us. So "reform" without single-payer is really just an attempt to slow the rate of descent into the for-profit health care industry's gaping maw.

And why don't people use their real names on these threads? We'd get a lot less bluster, I'm sure. Me, I'll bluster in the open and surely live to regret some of what I say, but doing so does tend to keep me grounded.

maximum, you are very busy sharing your deliberate misreadings of HR 3200; my guess is they are not simply your mistakes, as they echo with the wisdom of the pundits.

Your panties are in a bunch about illegal aliens benefiting from Healthcare reform. It seems the bill could hardly be plainer:

:::: "SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS. :::::

"17. Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States. "

I also feel sorry you confused "personal characteristics," the crux of discrimination and the focus of the definition you supplied, with "legal standing," which would pertain to illegal aliens (who, in case it's not clear, maximum, are exempt from this bill).

maximum- that section of the proposed bill was taken out- sadly, those with a financial and/or political agenda fabricated a lie that this meant 'death panels'

in truth, this section proposed that medicare cover the costs of a person consulting with a doctor regarding their end of life decisions- this is called an advanced directive and allows the individual to decide whether they want life support, feeding tubes etc- a very very important document to have but many do not- as anyone in the medical profession can tell you, it is a nightmare for the patient and family when a person does not have an advanced directive

those who created and perpetuated this lie knew exactly what they were doing - i feel sorry for the people who were misled- this is elder abuse in the worst way- created by those with a financial and political agenda- there is a special place in hell waiting for these so called humans

To Binky and River: BS!!! Fortunately I know you are lying. I only hope others catch on...

Again,maximum, you misread and misrepresent what is actually in the bill (as well as selectively quoting what's in there to suit your argument):

"Shall I deliver a DIRECT QUOTE from HR 3200 that pertains to so-called death panels?" -- maximum.

[He then proceeds to offer part of the section, without context.]
----
Here's the introductory paragraph of the section which "maximum" thinks creates some sort of 'death panel.'

:::: ‘Advance Care Planning Consultation

16 (1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:

-- - - - - - post too long, continued in next - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - continued from previous - - - - - - - - - -

[skipping to 'maximum's' quoted text]

(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term ‘order regarding life sustaining treatment’ means, with respect to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to the treatment of that individual that--

1-1 ‘(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care professional (as specified by the Secretary and who is acting within the scope of the professional’s authority under State law in signing such an order, including a nurse practitioner or physician assistant) and is in a form that permits it to stay with the individual and be followed by health care professionals and providers across the continuum of care;

‘(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care professional (as specified by the Secretary and who is acting within the scope of the professional’s authority under State law in signing such an order, including a nurse practitioner or physician assistant) and is in a form that permits it to stay with the individual and be followed by health care professionals and providers across the continuum of care;

‘(ii) effectively communicates the individual’s preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual;

‘(iii) is uniquely identifiable and standardized within a given locality, region, or State (as identified by the Secretary); and

‘(iv) may incorporate any advance directive (as defined in section 1866(f)(3)) if executed by the individual."

---

So, this area of the bill spells out how a life-sustaining order of treatment can be enforceable, and who authorizes such an order. Exactly what exists in hospitals today.

The authorized signatures come from a medical professional (exactly like now). They must be authorized to sign such documents by the State Secretary of Health (exactly as now, with state licensing of doctors). These directives must be executed by the named individuals.

This section of the bill actually ensures these decisions can only be made by you or your representatives authorized to do so.

What "maximum" and others would have you believe, that the GOVERNMENT can supply an advanced directive for an end of life decision (such as Do Not Resusitate); which is nowhere in HR 3200.

----
But don't take my word for it; this website has a nice searchable version of the bill, which allows comments. You may find it interesting to see these "anti-" arguments rebutted by the facts:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h32...

Wait, I thought there was no bill... when I hear from DOCTORS that this bill is extremely flawed, I believe them, not you BINKY WINKY. But don't get me a wee-wee'd up.

maximum- check this out, it is a good nonpartisan site to learn more about what is or is not BS re current issues

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...

a link to the truth o meter for health care- there is so much to be debated & criticized about this issue but it is hard to have a rational, productive discussion when people believe and argue for or against things that have been proven false- of course, some will cling to their beliefs no matter what the evidence is to the contrary but hopefully they are in the minority

Yes, River, that is the point. There IS way too much to discuss to quickly check the "done" box on healthcare reform. To pk: stop with the "that's been removed from the bill" chatter. When something is in a bill it's the INTENT of the writer(s) to have it there. We are nowhere near the RIGHT bill. Those in the healthcare profession are right to criticize these bills... For a few links check out:

Price said the whole idea should be scrapped and lawmakers should start anew with a plan that ensures sure patients - not Washington or insurance providers - are the top priority.
"We all know that when the government is setting the rules and is backed by tax dollars, it will destroy, not compete with, the private sector," said Price, a doctor. "The reality is, whether or not you get to keep your plan, or your doctor, is very much in question under the president's proposal."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/U...

Another huge effect would be the power of the Medical Advisory Committee. Unelected, virtually unsupervised individuals would control what health care looked like in this country, who was covered, who paid, and what services were covered at what compensation.

Cost shifting from the healthy to the unhealthy and those who engage in risky lifestyles would increase dramatically. The only control of this would be through lobbying the members of the MAC.

And finally, this bill would not effect members of Congress despite Mr. Obama’s campaign promise to offer Americans “the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves."

http://www.epmonthly.com/index.php?optio...

It is important that Congress take all the time it needs to read and fully understand what is being proposed. It must not be rushed through to meet some artificial timeline.
http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/0823...

maximum- re your claim of BS

"Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) acknowledged on Sunday that the claims he made two weeks ago -- that Democratic health care legislation would allow the government to "pull the plug on grandma" -- did not reflect the language of the bills.

In an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation," the Iowa Republican admitted that the current legislation being considered by Congress didn't include the infamous death panel provision that would allow the government to determine who should live or die."

River, as I said earlier, until it was "caught" it was in the bill... and the intent of the writers IS THAT IT BE IN THE BILL. Since you haven't read the bill, this is the only issue you can talk about...? News flash: There are many other provisions in both Kennedy-Dodd bill and Pelosi (HR 3200) bill that take control out of YOUR doctor's hands and put it into the hands of government (cost-controlling) panels. NO THANK YOU! If I wanted British healthcare I'd be over there having a tea right now... ditto for Canadian. And I absolutely know Canadians who come down here to get the operations they can't get up there... DUH.

Max- I've read and compared the bills (there are more than one). You must be confusing me with another poster. Or you like to make things up. My post was in response to your orginal false claim- but you like to change the subject it seems. Not worth trying to respond to the rest of your misconceptions, maybe someone else will.

Uh, river, I was responding to post right above mine... maybe you have a continuity problem? Do you "read" the bills as carefully... kinda like a Congress person? Yikes...

max- i'm responding to the posts in which you addressed me by name- go back & read your posts

Gotta go to work, river. I lump you among the blame-it-on-Bush crowd. So it goes... at any rate I gotta go pay some more taxes for the ignorant likes of you!

Interesting - I employ a lot of people- maybe I'm paying taxes for you. Which of course has nothing to do with any of the discussion, but that is your point, right?

river, get a life. I have one... okay? I'm glad you employ people, really! Just don't try and take MORE of MY hard-earned dollars -- that's all I ask. But that's not enough for the Liberal Left. Now they want my BODY too.

Obama Lied, Grandma Died. Not for me and mine!

Okay max- good luck with your life

Yeah, I gotta read up on the CIA "torture" allegations. The most pathetically obvious ploy to detract us from the healthcare debate seen yet.

I suppose the Liberal Left is fine with another 9/11. What the heck? 3000 (or more, if they detonate something worse.) But hey, dead Americans = less "patients" to clog the system, right? Next we'll be "counseling" the aggrieved prisoners???

Uh... what about all the 9/11 widows, widowers and parentless children? And the veterans that Obama wants to counsel to "voluntarily" end their life sooner?

Y'all must be in big trouble. Absolutely pathetic.

Here’s what Bush did to people who were suspected of being bad guys, though many have been released because there was really no evidence that they were ever a threat to anyone: (a) threatening to blow their brains out, torture them with drills, rape their mothers, and murder their children; (b) choking them until they pass out; (c) pouring water down their throats to drown them; (d) hanging them by their arms until their shoulders are dislocated; (e) blowing smoke in their face until they vomit; (f) putting them in diapers, dousing them with cold water, and leaving them on a concrete floor to induce hypothermia; and (g) beating them with the butt of a rifle.

Here’s what Reagan did: signed the Convention Against Torture, which compels the U.S. to prosecute anyone authorizing torture and proclaims that "no exceptional circumstances whatsoever . . . may be invoked as a justification of torture,” and said that the Treaty "will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today."

You liberal posters really are the useful idiots. Too bad the big bad CIA is bumped outta the headlines by the death of "the liberal lion." I can hear it now: "let's pass health reform for Ted." ONE slight problem. Would Ted have gotten his surgeries under Obamacare? Ohhhhhhhh.... those pesky facts!!

from maximum's nasty references to binky, jonk, river and other thoughtful responders ["ignorant" etc.], it's obvious he's a cyberbully, and don't deserve more serious and decent responses. Thank you river, binky and others who sliced and diced max. He moans a lot and those like him who have to resort to ad hominem insults merely reflect the emptiness of their thinking.

DrDan I already called you out, you are no doctor... but I digress. Feel better now? Say ah...