BOGUS HEALTHCARE SCARE EMAILS

[Randall]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/euthanasia.asp

[westvirginia]

Why would bogus scares be needed when the real thing is scary enough?

[Ursa Majoris]

Scaremongering is the modus operandi for right wing politicians and their shrieking radio apparatchiks.

 

Ooooh, mushroom clouds, lawnmower engine-powered drones spreading anthrax, Obama will take all your guns, government euthanasia, Logan's Run, bwaaark, bwaaark..........

 

Chicken Little must be so envious.

[Pope Flick]

Why would bogus scares be needed when the real thing is scary enough?

 

 

That;s like asking why did Barry Bonds do steroids even though he was headed to the HoF?

 

It's easier than having to do the real work of doing the real thing. In this case, addressing what's been proposed.

 

My favorite thus far is the guy who 'tweeted' his take on one of the 3 bills page by page. The pages and statements stop jiving about 4 or 5 in.

[TimC]

Will Obama spend millions in Government dollars to keep a 101-year old alive for a few more months?

 

It's a simple question really.

[i_am_the_swammi]

It's a simple question really.

 

Should he?

[dmarc117]

Scaremongering is the modus operandi for right wing politicians and their shrieking radio apparatchiks.

 

Ooooh, mushroom clouds, lawnmower engine-powered drones spreading anthrax, Obama will take all your guns, government euthanasia, Logan's Run, bwaaark, bwaaark..........

 

Chicken Little must be so envious.

 

 

the earth is on fire!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[TimC]

Scaremongering is the modus operandi for right wing politicians and their shrieking radio apparatchiks.

 

Ooooh, mushroom clouds, lawnmower engine-powered drones spreading anthrax, Obama will take all your guns, government euthanasia, Logan's Run, bwaaark, bwaaark..........

 

Chicken Little must be so envious.

 

As opposed to the far left wing liberal hippie pot smoking insane people that are too stupid to make any decisions for themselves and take care of their own self and want the Gubment to run everything about our lives?

 

Will Obama be up in his big chair giving a thumbs up or down whether you live or not? Because that's where you people are leading us.

 

Suckle that Obama teet, suckle it good.

Edited August 4, 2009 by TimC

[Ursa Majoris]

As opposed to the far left wing liberal hippie pot smoking insane people that are too stupid to make any decisions for themselves and take care of their own self and want the Gubment to run everything about our lives?

 

Will Obama be up in his big chair giving a thumbs up or down whether you live or not? Because that's where you people are leading us.

 

Suckle that Obama teet, suckle it good.

Yep, I imagine Obama will spend every day for the next 8 years sitting in a White House room checking off boxes on an unending stream of live-or-die forms submitted by the health system.

[Azazello1313]

Yep, I imagine Obama will spend every day for the next 8 years sitting in a White House room checking off boxes on an unending stream of live-or-die forms submitted by the health system.

 

you're right, that was kind of a silly assertion, tim.

 

it'll be some GS-11 government bureaucrat doing the box-checking.

[Ursa Majoris]

it'll be some GS-11 government bureaucrat doing the box-checking.

I wonder if he'll be paid more or less than the health insurance guy who does it now?

[westvirginia]

I wonder if he'll be paid more or less than the health insurance guy who does it now?

 

Duh - it's the gov't. Less money but better benefits and more time off.

[Perchoutofwater]

Scaremongering is the modus operandi for right wing politicians and their shrieking radio apparatchiks.

 

Ooooh, mushroom clouds, lawnmower engine-powered drones spreading anthrax, Obama will take all your guns, government euthanasia, Logan's Run, bwaaark, bwaaark..........

 

Chicken Little must be so envious.

 

The left never participates in this kind of thing

[polksalet]

Scaremongering is the modus operandi for right wing politicians and their shrieking radio apparatchiks.

 

Ooooh, mushroom clouds, lawnmower engine-powered drones spreading anthrax, Obama will take all your guns, government euthanasia, Logan's Run, bwaaark, bwaaark..........

 

Chicken Little must be so envious.

 

"If we do not give the fat cats on Wall Street a bazillion dollars borrowed from China our economy will crumble"

 

You mean that kind of fear mongering?

Edited August 4, 2009 by polksalet

[Square]

Will Obama spend millions in Government dollars to keep a 101-year old alive for a few more months?

 

It's a simple question really.

I should know better as this thread looks like anything but a reasonable place for discussion (but apparently I'm a masochist).

 

Do you really think the current system works and is sustainable over the next several decades? It's a simple question really.

 

 

 

I've grown up in a conservative state and leaned right for a long time (less so recently) but from a business standpoint I just don't see the current system working. Business can't stand to have healthcare costs increase double digits every year. Insurance companies keep things purposely complicated so average people can't understand what is going on. I'm not saying the Government will do a better job, but I just don't think the current system works. The government might be the only thing large enough to force (some) change. The statistics I've seen show that we spend more than any other country yet we are ranked around 30 or so globally for our healthcare system. So I don't trust the government, but if you think an insurance company is going to keep that 101 year old woman alive because they have bigger hearts... I really don't know how to respond to that.

[Savage Beatings]

Clearly someone got confused about the term End of Life Counseling (which refers to lowered expectations in healthcare during the twilight of one's life and which is indeed in the bill). I cna see how End of Life Counseling could be misinterpreted as Ending One's Life. Or perhaps it wasn't legitimate confusion... perhaps it was someone deliberately trying to manipulate the term into something a lot more scary.

 

If it was honest confusion, then the person who was confused about the term is an idiot. If it was deliberate manipulation, then the person is even a bigger idiot. The actual issue of End of Life Counseling in the bill should be scary enough for Seniors without the red herring of euthanasia.

[WaterMan]

I should know better as this thread looks like anything but a reasonable place for discussion (but apparently I'm a masochist).

 

Do you really think the current system works and is sustainable over the next several decades? It's a simple question really.

 

 

 

I've grown up in a conservative state and leaned right for a long time (less so recently) but from a business standpoint I just don't see the current system working. Business can't stand to have healthcare costs increase double digits every year. Insurance companies keep things purposely complicated so average people can't understand what is going on. I'm not saying the Government will do a better job, but I just don't think the current system works. The government might be the only thing large enough to force (some) change. The statistics I've seen show that we spend more than any other country yet we are ranked around 30 or so globally for our healthcare system. So I don't trust the government, but if you think an insurance company is going to keep that 101 year old woman alive because they have bigger hearts... I really don't know how to respond to that.

 

On top of that, how will CEOs be able to swindle more money from investors/employees and still be able to retire with a 10 million going away gift if they have pay for health insurance?

[The Irish Doggy]

The counseling sounds like a great idea to me.

[westvirginia]

Link from a Stanford Professor of Radiology and chief of Raidoneurology

 

 

 

Some tidbits:

 

 

1. Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.

 

 

 

2. Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.

 

 

 

3. Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.

 

 

 

4. Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians.

 

 

 

5. Lower-income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians.

 

 

 

6. Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the United Kingdom.

 

 

 

7. People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed.

 

 

 

8. Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians.

 

 

 

9. Americans have better access to important new technologies such as medical imaging than do patients in Canada or Britain.

 

 

 

10. Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations.

 

 

So yes, I do think the current system works. It could be better, but socializing the entirety of HC is NOT the answer. Name me one thing (other than the military, which has a most{if not the most} ridiculous bureaucracy) that the gov't does well?

[Duchess Jack]

Link from a Stanford Professor of Radiology and chief of Raidoneurology

 

 

 

Some tidbits:

 

 

 

 

 

 

So yes, I do think the current system works. It could be better, but socializing the entirety of HC is NOT the answer. Name me one thing (other than the military, which has a most{if not the most} ridiculous bureaucracy) that the gov't does well?

 

why are talking about details like 'preventative screening' from other countries? are we buying into their health care plans or making our own? we are Americans afterall and should be able to do things better than other countries - including universal health care.

[caddyman]

"If we do not give the fat cats on Wall Street a bazillion dollars borrowed from China our economy will crumble"

 

You mean that kind of fear mongering?

Be kind to Ursa. He is clearly senile. It is only the right that cheats on their wives, fear mongers, and lies. The left is clearly above any of those things.

[Pope Flick]

Link from a Stanford Professor of Radiology and chief of Raidoneurology

 

 

 

Some tidbits:

 

 

 

 

 

 

So yes, I do think the current system works. It could be better, but socializing the entirety of HC is NOT the answer. Name me one thing (other than the military, which has a most{if not the most} ridiculous bureaucracy) that the gov't does well?

 

 

That's not what is being proposed. Even inclusion of a public option doesn't "socializ(e) the entirety of HC." That is a lie.

 

Go write an email chain, you seem well qualified.

 

One thing? Keeping the country afloat for over 220 years through multiple wars and social unrest. That counts.

[Avernus]

"If we do not give the fat cats on Wall Street a bazillion dollars borrowed from China our economy will crumble"

 

You mean that kind of fear mongering?

 

I like this one better...ala Brad Sherman

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaG9d_4zij8...feature=related

[Azazello1313]

I should know better as this thread looks like anything but a reasonable place for discussion (but apparently I'm a masochist).

 

Do you really think the current system works and is sustainable over the next several decades? It's a simple question really.

 

 

 

I've grown up in a conservative state and leaned right for a long time (less so recently) but from a business standpoint I just don't see the current system working. Business can't stand to have healthcare costs increase double digits every year. Insurance companies keep things purposely complicated so average people can't understand what is going on. I'm not saying the Government will do a better job, but I just don't think the current system works. The government might be the only thing large enough to force (some) change. The statistics I've seen show that we spend more than any other country yet we are ranked around 30 or so globally for our healthcare system. So I don't trust the government, but if you think an insurance company is going to keep that 101 year old woman alive because they have bigger hearts... I really don't know how to respond to that.

 

there are ways of controlling costs besides the government taking over and forcing them down. for one, start treating health benefits as taxable income (which could be offset by a lump sum tax credit)....then people have some incentive to pay attention to costs and shop for the most appropriate plan for them. that's the big one, most of our health care inflation can be explained by the fact that the individuals making health care choices don't experience the economic impact of their choices directly. and you could make insurance portable, from job to job, allow insterstate pools and plans, etc. all of these would create a more dynamic, competitive market for health care, which would impact prices.

 

also, there's a lot of talk about "preventive" medicine in a lot of the proposals going around....but it depends what you're talking about as to whether that will save money or actually cost more. if you're talking about additional screening tests and the like, those end up costing more money, not saving. BUT...if you somehow instituted tax credits for those who demonstrate a certain level of fitness. it would be tricky to come up with a palatable way of doing this, but that's the only kind of "prevention" that is likely to actually save on health care costs.

 

The statistics I've seen show that we spend more than any other country yet we are ranked around 30 or so globally for our healthcare system.

 

we may rank 30 in life expectancy, but that is dependent on so many factors (like lifestyle choices) other than the quality of the health care system. also, you should read this:

 

Advocates of national health insurance cite an apparently devastating fact: the United States spends more of its gross domestic product on medical care than any nation in the world, yet Americans do not live longer than Western Europeans or Japanese. More Americans lack insurance coverage as well. It is no wonder that so many people demand reform.

 

But the American health care system may be performing better than it seems at first glance. When it comes to medical innovation, the United States is the world leader. In the last 10 years, for instance, 12 Nobel Prizes in medicine have gone to American-born scientists working in the United States, 3 have gone to foreign-born scientists working in the United States, and just 7 have gone to researchers outside the country.

 

The six most important medical innovations of the last 25 years, according to a 2001 poll of physicians, were magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography (CT scan); ACE inhibitors, used in the treatment of hypertension and congestive heart failure; balloon angioplasty; statins to lower cholesterol levels; mammography; and coronary artery bypass grafts. Balloon angioplasty came from Europe, four innovations on the list were developed in American hospitals or by American companies (although statins were based on earlier Japanese research), and mammography was first developed in Germany and then improved in the United States. Even when the initial research is done overseas, the American system leads in converting new ideas into workable commercial technologies.

 

In real terms, spending on American biomedical research has doubled since 1994. By 2003, spending was up to $94.3 billion (there is no comparable number for Europe), with 57 percent of that coming from private industry. The National Institutes of Health’s current annual research budget is $28 billion, All European Union governments, in contrast, spent $3.7 billion in 2000, and since that time, Europe has not narrowed the research and development gap. America spends more on research and development over all and on drugs in particular, even though the United States has a smaller population than the core European Union countries. From 1989 to 2002, four times as much money was invested in private biotechnology companies in America than in Europe.

 

Dr. Thomas Boehm of Jerini, a biomedical research company in Berlin, titled his article in The Journal of Medical Marketing in 2005 “How Can We Explain the American Dominance in Biomedical Research and Development?” (ostina.org/downloads/pdfs/bridgesvol7_BoehmArticle.pdf) Dr. Boehm argues that the research environment in the United States, compared with Europe, is wealthier, more competitive, more meritocratic and more tolerant of waste and chaos. He argues that these features lead to more medical discoveries. About 400,000 European researchers are living in the United States, usually for superior financial compensation and research facilities.

 

This innovation-rich environment stems from the money spent on American health care and also from the richer and more competitive American universities. The American government could use its size, or use the law, to bargain down health care prices, as many European governments have done. In the short run, this would save money but in the longer run it would cost lives.

 

Medical innovations improve health and life expectancy in all wealthy countries, not just in the United States. That is one reason American citizens do not live longer. Furthermore, the lucrative United States health care market enhances research and development abroad and not just at home.

 

The gains from medical innovations are high. For instance, increases in life expectancy resulting from better treatment of cardiovascular disease from 1970 to 1990 have been conservatively estimated as bringing benefits worth more than $500 billion a year. And that is just for the United States.

 

The American system also produces benefits that are hard to find in the numbers. The economist Arnold Kling in his “Crisis of Abundance: Rethinking How We Pay for Health Care” (Cato Institute, 2006) (catostore.org/index.asp?fa=ProductDetails&method=cats&scid=37&pid=1441301) argues that the expected life span need increase by only about half a year for the extra American health care spending to be cost-effective over a 20-year period. Given that many Americans walk less and eat less healthy food than most Europeans, the longevity boost from health care in the United States may be real but swamped by the results of poor lifestyle choices. In the meantime, the extra money Americans spend to treat allergy symptoms, pain, depression and discomfort contributes to personal happiness.

 

Compared with Europe, the American system involves more tests, more procedures and more visits with specialists. Sick people receive more momentary comforts and also the sense that everything possible has been done. This feeling is of value to the family even when the patient does not improve. In contrast, European countries have not created comparably high expectations about the medical process. If we count “giving people what they would want, if they knew it was there” as one measure of medical value, the American system looks better.

 

American health care has many problems. Health insurance is linked too tightly to employment, and too many people cannot afford insurance. Insurance companies put too much energy into avoiding payments. Personal medical records are kept on paper rather than in accessible electronic fashion. Emergency rooms are not always well suited to serve as last-resort health care for the poor. Most fundamentally, the lack of good measures of health care quality makes it hard to identify and eliminate waste.

 

These problems should be addressed, but it would be hasty to conclude that the United States should move closer to European health care institutions. The American health care system, high expenditures and all, is driving innovation for the entire world.

 

how do we keep pushing innovation while keeping costs contained? that is the big question. government strong-arming can do one, but can it do both? evidence would seem to suggest that no, it can't.

Edited August 5, 2009 by Azazello1313

[WaterMan]

Why can't we just copy other countries? Give health insurance and stay out of wars. Seems simple.