|
Obama: "There are no death panels!"
|
So if there were no death panels why were death panels removed for the bill?
And what about Barbara?
The Ultimate Cost Saver By Jeffrey Lord on 8.18.09 @ 6:08AM
So.
The infamous Section 1233 "death panel" has been pulled from the Senate version of the House ObamaCare Bill. Or so goes the tale as this is written.
Does this mean no more government rationing coming our way?
Naaaaah. This entire concept of ObamaCare is based on the principle of government rationing. The President has even jokingly talked about unplugging Grandma.
But "unplugging Grandma" is not much of a joke if you were Barbara Wagner. Who?
Barbara Wagner was a waitress. She drove a school bus. She worked as a home health care aide. Along the way as she worked her fingers to the bone she was married, had kids, was divorced, became a grandmother, then a great-grandmother.
Barbara also smoked cigarettes, and eventually this developed into lung cancer.
So far, so good and so bad. Good -- the jobs, the kids, the family. The bad -- the illness. Everyone doesn't smoke, everyone will die. Most will have a health issue somewhere.
Yet in death Barbara Wagner -- who died in the last year at 64 -- may well be the cross to the Dracula that is ObamaCare. (A hat tip here to Mark Levin, who brought attention to Barbara's plight on pages 109-110 of his bestselling book Liberty and Tyranny.)
Barbara, you see, lived in Oregon. The state where there are two interesting government programs.
The first is something called the "Oregon Health Plan." Here is the single sentence the OHP uses to describe its mission:
To plan and implement medical programs assuring access to basic care for eligible clients.
In another words, OHP is a state-run plan that is not unlike what the ObamaCare advocates refer to as the "public option" in the sense that the State -- as in the state of Oregon in this case -- is "assuring access" to care for those in economic distress.
There is also another law in Oregon (the only law of its kind in the 50 states) called the "Death with Dignity Law." Again, let's rely on Oregon to define this:
On October 27, 1997 Oregon enacted the Death with Dignity Act which allows terminally-ill Oregonians to end their lives through the voluntary self-administration of lethal medications, expressly prescribed by a physician for that purpose. Meaning, if you wish to take your own life, the state will lend a hand. No unseemly smothering with a pillow or anything like that. Just a nice, simple drugged out exit with barbiturates. Not unlike the way the King of Pop was popped. Snoozing one minute, on into the eternal comfort the next. Free at last, free at last, thank the State Almighty -- free at last!
You can already see what's coming, can't you?
As things worsened for Barbara, she found herself acclimating to wearing an oxygen tube wrapped around her face and running into her nose. The State paid -- and paid as well for a wheelchair, for chemotherapy, radiation and a special bed. For a while things were better. Remission seemed at hand. Then, one day, it didn't. What John Wayne called the Big C had returned with a vengeance. Yet there was a glimmer -- a faint glimmer but a glimmer nonetheless -- of hope for Barbara. That glimmer was a drug called Tarceva, and her doctor recommended it to Barbara.
So the request went in to the State of Oregon -- let's call it "The State" for short -- and, as the sun rising in the East can be predicted with a fair degree of certainty -- what do you think The State said to Barbara the waitress, the school bus driver, the health care aide, the mother, grandmother and great-grandmother?
Let's let Barbara herself tell the story in her own words in a report at the time from ABC News:
"It was horrible. I got a letter in the mail that basically said if you want to take the pills, we will help you get that from the doctor and we will stand there and watch you die. But we won't give you the medication to live."
A letter in the mail. An unsigned letter in the mail. A letter from The State "that basically said if you want to take the pills, we will help you get that from the doctor and we will stand there and watch you die. But we won't give you the medication to live."
Now. Does any of this ring a bell?
Listen/read carefully here:
-
The words of Barbara Wagner: "I got a letter in the mail that basically said if you want to take the pills, we will help you get that from the doctor and we will stand there and watch you die. But we won't give you the medication to live."
-
The words of President Barack Obama: "There's going to be some disagreement, but if there's broad agreement that, in this situation the blue pill works better than the red pill, and it turns out the blue pills are half as expensive as the red pill, then we want to make sure that doctors and patients have that information available to them."
In the case of Barbara Wagner, the Obama approach was followed, literally and figuratively to the letter. The State decided the "blue pill" that would take Barbara's life was, in the President's own words, "half as expensive as the red pill." The problem? The proverbial "red pill" here -- the drug Tarceva, would be used to extend Barbara's life. The "blue pill" -- State sanctioned barbiturates -- was designed to quite deliberately kill her.
So in other words, while Obama ridicules the notion that his critics are talking about "pulling the plug on Grandma" -- in the world of hard cold fact that was quite literally what that unsigned letter from the State of Oregon to Grandma Barbara Wagner was all about. Offering to pick up the tab for pulling the plug on this Oregon Grandma because, in the words of Dr. Walter Shaffer, medical director of the state Division of Medical Assistance Programs, "We can't cover everything for everyone. We try to come up with polices that provide the most good for the most people."
Translation in ObamaCare language? You're out, Grandma Barbara. No red pill that might stand a chance of making you better. But don't worry. We'll pay for the blue pill that will take you out. We will be right there at your side to see you off. Oh, and thanks for cleaning all those tables, driving the bus, changing all those old people diapers. Did we mention the grandkids said to say goodbye The pharmaceutical company that manufactures Tarceva heard about her plight and stepped up the plate, giving her the drug. Sadly, it was not enough to prevent her death. But Barbara Wagner's legacy is considerable.
She has become the real-life and deeply disturbing face of ObamaCare. The woman who wanted so desperately to live but was told in cold, chillingly banal bureaucratese by The State: tough cookies.
Again, let's listen to what is being said here.
"We need evidence to say it is a good use of taxpayer's dollars." -- Dr. Jeanene Smith, administrator for the Office of Oregon's Health Policy and Research staff, on why Oregon rejected Wagner's plea for the drug.
Medical care should not be given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens…. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia." -- Obama health care advisor Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel writing in the Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. 1996.
In other words, Oregon, using the language of government rationing, was attempting to practice with Barbara Wagner what is called "passive euthanasia."
For those who are unfamiliar with or startled by the term, here is a succinct definition as provided by a 1997 New York Times story focusing on the time in a life when "doctors, family members or they [patients] themselves" decide it is no longer possible or reasonable to sustain life.
''It's called passive euthanasia,'' said Dr. Norman Fost, director of the Program in Medical Ethics at the University of Wisconsin. ''You can ask who's involved and is it really consensual, but there is no question that these are planned deaths. We know who is dying. Patients aren't just found dead in their beds.''
Catch that phrase? "Planned Deaths."
A deliberate decision is made to withhold treatment -- because of costs -- and let someone die.
Doubtless Dr. Fost is correct that this kind of thing happens frequently. The difference between what Dr. Fost was discussing in 1997 and what is being discussed with ObamaCare is the insertion of The State into this decision -- which is exactly what the state of Oregon tried to do with Barbara Wagner.
With utter predictability, the New York Times of August 14, 2009, has tried to rescue ObamaCare by publishing a front-page attack headlined this way: "False 'Death Panel' Rumor Has Some Familiar Roots."
Quite aside from the usual attacks that have nothing to do with health care -- citing people "falsely calling him [Obama] a Muslim and questioning his nationality" -- the article fails completely to address the central charge of ObamaCare critics that it would inevitably lead Americans to a horror-scape of government rationed care -- precisely as was practiced in Oregon with Barbara Wagner. Specifically, the Times says this: "There is nothing in any of the legislative proposals that would call for the creation of death panels or any other governmental body that would cut off care for the critically ill as a cost-cutting measure."
Yet there is no mistake here with ObamaCare and its prime advocate, Mr. Obama himself. The core objective is to establish a system that, inescapably, will lead to government rationing. The Wall Street Journal asks the question this way:
From the point of view of politicians with a limited budget, is it worth spending a lot on, say, a patient with late-stage cancer where the odds of remission are long? Or should they spend to improve quality, not length, of life? Or pay for a hip or knee replacement for seniors, when palliative care might cost less? And who decides? In Britain, the answer is the government decides. In Oregon, that is precisely what was happening with the official letter from The State to Grandma Barbara.
The frightening core of ObamaCare that is increasingly understood is this:
The next Barbara Wagner could be you.
I can't wait 'til a few of the liberal whiners get THEIR letters! Chuckle!
Print- •
-
Share
- Share this item
-
Grab the link
Copy and paste the link:
- Blog about it
- Close
- •
-
53 Comments
- •
-
Flag
-
Thank you for your contribution.Flag this as inappropriate
- Close
-
- •
Follow KennethSchustereit
Comments
Ok suzy then quit letting the blind lead you around by the nose.. let me ask you this.....If Obama is so sure of himself, then why lie abou the AARP endorsing his bill?
Obama suggested that the health care reform legislation for which he’s pushing has been endorsed by the American Association of Retired Person.
“We have the AARP on board because they know this is a good deal for our seniors,” the president said.
At another point he said: “Well, first of all, another myth that we’ve been hearing about is this notion that somehow we’re going to be cutting your Medicare benefits. We are not. AARP would not be endorsing a bill if it was undermining Medicare, okay?”
The problem?
The AARP hasn’t endorsed any plan yet.
The country’s largest advocacy group for Americans over 50 issued a statement after the event saying, “While the President was correct that AARP will not endorse a health care reform bill that would reduce Medicare benefits, indications that we have endorsed any of the major health care reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate.”
http://flapsblog.com/2009/08/11/obama...
I mean why lie about who's supporting it if there is nothing wrong with it. I understand that section 1233 is a revised version of Section 1861 of the Social Security act to add "advanced care planning consultation" to be covered by medicare but the goverment really has no buisness in that. And now AARP does support medical reform but not a specific one and won't support anything that cuts medicare benifits.
August 27, 2009 at 10:45 a.m.JR, quit being such a chicken-little. The sky is not falling and there is no plan for death-panels.
So let’s look at the issue. First up, what is Section 1233? Susan Larson, a registered nurse at the Mayo Clinic, responds in the Post Bulletin saying, “In regard to Section 1233 of the proposed health care bill, medical caregivers are instructed to have discussions with seniors about their end-of-life care, at least every five years, or yearly if the medical condition of the patient makes significant changes or they develop a chronic illness.” This means, that doctors will talk to their patients about end-of-life issues such as end of life directives and living wills. That is, the patient is given the choice as to how there last days will be spent, before their last days are upon them and they are no longer in a state to answer for themselves.
If the patient wants all the medical treatment they can receive, then that’s what they get. However, if they don’t want to rack up bills for their relatives, they can also choose to forgo expensive treatments, that are less likely to be effective. For example, expensive surgeries that may expand a patient’s life by a few weeks. Some patients would want them anyway, some would not. With Section 1233, the patient is given these options and then able to make the choice that they want.
Pulled from an interview with Republican Senator Johnny Isakson by Ezra Klein from the Washington Post, the Georgia legislator notes that a large chunk of health care costs come during the last sixty days of life. What this bill does, is direct doctors to give patients a counseling session to help bring awareness to their end-of-life options. He also notes that the counseling is voluntary, and patients can opt out if they so wish. As to the euthanasia claims?
“How someone could take an end of life directive or a living will as [euthanasia] is nuts. You’re putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don’t know how that got so mixed up.”
August 27, 2009 at 9:42 a.m.Ive said it before and I'll say it again, the goverment needs to keep themselves out of everybodies health. It's that simple. The section 1233 is just a way of saying there is a plan for these "death panels" without saying it. It isn't about "reinbursing doctors" its about assisted death. Why does the name "Dr. Kavorkian" come to mind? Anything that works semi-well goes to hell when the goverment gets involved.
August 27, 2009 at 8:07 a.m.All insurance companies have formularies since there are so many drugs in the same class, for cost saving measures they need to pick 1 or 2. The drug companies compete for the buisiness in order to keep market share. In order to do this they offer the insurance companies rebates. When MCD finally woke up to this practice, they offered to all drug companies coverage of their drugs as long as they recieved the same rebates the insurance companies recieved. Pfizer refused & Lilly held out for a while. Pfizer lost market share & Lilly was losing so they decided to cut their losses & join in. They held out hopes that the doctors would stand up for their drugs and call in the prior authorizations...Lilly had more success than Pfizer did but not enough. So many drugs per class, they are all pretty much the same, a few differences in side effects & user friendliness, wasn't worth the hoops that had to be jumped through.
MCR D plans by far have the absolute worst formularies out there. Those plans are the reason why I am against any more government involvement in our healthcare. The government was the one who granted those companies the ability to participate in MCR D program & they are worse than any private insurance plan I have ever seen as far as medication coverage.
August 27, 2009 at 1:57 a.m.Naproxen is an NSAID...Celebrex is an NSAID, COX-2 selective.
Where did you pull that 95% from???? Are you a Pharmacist, Doctor, biochemist? Which 5% do you think are bad?
August 27, 2009 at 1:30 a.m.I know it is not the generic. They are both NSAIDS. My complaint is with insurance companies that overrule the doctors orders.
August 27, 2009 at 1:27 a.m.Naproxen is not the generic of Celebrex...they are in the same drug class but not even close to being the same drug or generic equivalent. Your mom needs to have the doctor write again for Celebrex & call in prior authorization....some insurance companies require 2 drug failures before they will pay for non-formulary drugs.
Oh, btw, it is the pharmaceutical companies who peddle their contract pricing to the insurance companies....generic companies are mostly all covered by insurance as their prices are all very much in line with each other. Big Pharma is vying for market share with their name brands.
August 27, 2009 at 1:18 a.m.I never said that all generics were bad. Probably 95% (my gestimate) work just fine for most people. The problem I have is the way insurance companies try to decide what is best for you by jacking with what has worked for you for years.
Take NSAIDS, for instance. My mom took Celebrex for years for her arthritis and bad knees. It worked the best for her and she had tried all the others before settling on Celebrex.
August 27, 2009 at 12:47 a.m.Insurance company decides that they do not want to pay for Celebrex anymore and makes her doctor prescribe Naproxen, although it had been tried before. To cover the increase in pain, doctor prescribed 2 different pain meds, so now she is taking 2-3 different medications to control the pain. I just don't get that.
Synthroid & Levothyroxine were not always AB rated....meaning Levothyroxine was not a true "generic"...it could not be switched if the doctor wrote for Synthroid. Recently though the maker of Levothyroxine pushed to have it AB rated to Synthroid, challenged the FDA & won, so it could be the generic equivalent. Abbott Pharmaceuticals, maker of Synthroid, sent the drug reps out in force to keep Drs writing DAW for Synthroid. I do agree though, drugs such as Synthroid & seizure medications should not be played with...one should stick with what they were originally started on. If you were started on Levothyroxine, you should stay on it if it is having the desired effect.
Generics are not bad nor deadly. I see people every day who function fine on their generic medication. If it weren't for generic medications, these people would most likely be dead.
The first link provided talked about Toprol & it's generic equivalent metoprolol.....Toprol is Toprol XL an extended release version of Lopressor....Lopressor is metoprolol tartrate, Toprol XL is metoprolol succinate...the article didn't get the drug names exactly correct, IMO, it goes against their credibility. Especially since the generic version is pretty new & the makers of Toprol XL are losing scripts=$$ to the generic. When Drug comapnies have no other options, they make an extended release version of an older drug as it is easy to get FDA approval, cheap to make & they can corner the market again for awhile.
Big Pharma is doing whatever possible to keep their name brands alive, there aren't very many new drugs in any of their pipelines, their wells are running dry as their patents run out & generic companies challenge their new formulations. How anyone can say the generic companys are getting rich off of their equivalent medications is laughable....how many generic drug reps are there? Ummmmmmmmm.......I guess they have some selling to the wholesalers.
Every new drug that comes out in a drug class is increased in price from the previous drug in that class. When Prozac hit the market it was costing the consumer $4 a capsule I believe...it cost 0.08 to make.....every other anti-depressant that came out after was increased in price by a considerable percentage (my friend was a drug rep she told me the exact amount but it escapes me). If I am depressed, I would much rather take my chances with a different base than have to choose between food/shelter & my medication.
It all boils down to each individuals body, we all react to medications differently. If you have issues with one medication, notify your Dr. so he/she can try something else, another drug in the class, generic form, dosage form, whatever. To scare people away from generic medication is wrong, considering the difference in cost, you could be scaring someone straight into the grave.
August 27, 2009 at 12:29 a.m.One minute I disagree but the next I gotta agree. There is a major difference in generics from the real drug. It is propoganda put out that says they are the same.
Generics are allowed to be 25% on either side of the drug standard. From prescription to prescription that can be a total of a 50% swing.
In some cases, having such a difference in the level of the medicine in your body can kill you. Go back and review drug titrations and metabolic processes for the original drug. That is the standard created.
Then take those facts -- they are available and statistically add the 50% swing in quality ie amount of titration mix and thus impact on the metabolic expression, and your life.
You can find the amount of medicine that is need say to stop seizures if taking a generic swings --you end up with a major seizure, coma and die. Same with heart medicine --end result heart attack. Blood pressure medication --stroke. Thyroid has complications too. These I am most familiar as with the metabolic medications I take. My doctors fight everyday with the insurance companies and I pay higher prices to keep the right medication in the body for the right time. I want this energizing bunny to keep going.
Generics can kill you. The drug companies who sell the the generics put out propoganda so they can sell them contractually to insurance companies to cut costs. That is why the insurance companies push them also. This goes back to collateral damage versus expenses. If you die, you are an expense off their books anyway.
August 26, 2009 at 11:01 p.m.They are still not the same for all people. Generic's are not all the same as they are made in different places, and in some instances, different countries. The "other" ingredients are different and effect how it enters the system in different people.
August 26, 2009 at 8:03 p.m.Since my son developed food allergies and he is sensitive to many different things, I know how "seemingly innocent" things can negatively effect some people.
Someone asked about snopes.com PatB?
I am going to first start by experience. Snopes was started in response to all the floods of emails we use to receive before spam filters both at corporate and personal levels. At work we turned to them for quick email validity checks on viruses and scammers begging for email. In 1996 (they started in 95) they were all we had. It was a needed life line.
My mom was sending me emails constantly that were scams. Some frightened her etc. I taught her where to go before EVER hitting the forward button. My family new I despised being forwarding all the little girl or boy lost stories that were asking for money and they were lies.
Snopes dealt with urban legends. As more people bought pcs and logon --we had more stuff than ever circulate.
Today I went to the website and don't recognize it. I have not used them in years. I have learned to use my own search methodology to look things up, call corporations, etc. for myself if needed.
The site is owned by a couple that do their best to track down the source of everything. If they can't they try to put undocumented. They do use more than the internet itself. I would not ever use them as a first and final resource. Use it to start your research if you are writing something. If it is just quelling curiosity it should be okay.
August 26, 2009 at 7:24 p.m.and another site
http://www.consumerwarningnetwork.com...
The minute differences in drugs can effect people in many different ways.
August 26, 2009 at 6:39 p.m.I have to agree with Suzy that Synthroid and any generic derivative there of is nasty to your metablolic system. And doctors are forcing patients to use knowing it can damage or not work.
Because natural thyroid medication such as armour thyroid are not approved, insurances had to pay for them. But they cause less side affects to a metabolic system.
August 26, 2009 at 6:35 p.m.I was asked about truthorfiction.com. It took me tracing back to who was registered by domain then two blind companies. Once I found out who owned it. It was easy to find him, he is not hiding.
The founder of TruthorFiction.com is Rich Buhler. He has defined himself as a:
broadcaster, speaker, author, journalist and producer
He also is the president and owner of Braches Communications in California a Radio-Television-Film production company
He says he has won numerous awards including a Doctor of Humanities from Biola University.
He says he writes for the armed forces.
He says he is the dean of christian talk radio. Says along with Crawford Broadcasting in 1981 he pioneered Talk from the Heart on KBRT in 1981 that started a new era in christian radio. (HUH?)He says he is the most listened to christian radio show in the nation. --Would have to research.
Says he has written and published books.
Is the voice for protecting the unborn, an advocate for those with physical, emotional, sexual abuse or neglect.
He thinks abuse is a mental health issue (as apposed to being just mean and evil)
As for the website --he just searches the Internet when he receives questions or documents. Uses a housewife and student for parttime support.
Folks there is no master mind here. Doing something he likes. But this site is not supported by masterminds only other internet resources.
August 26, 2009 at 6:33 p.m.The only one I know of personally is the generic version of Synthroid, but here is a site that explains it a little further.
http://www.epilepsy.com/newsfeeds/vie...
August 26, 2009 at 6:32 p.m.thought that FactCheck.com was a project of the Annenbergs who were bigtime Republicans?
The Elder Annebergs both that are dead and the children have fully removed from the web pages of the foundation were Republicans. Read all about the the children. They are a prime example of a second and third generation who do not have to earn a living. They become quite comfortable spending other people's money for noble causes. And note that they are focused on France and China. Yes China.
The top three mice at factcheck.org....check their total background out. Their entire history. They were only placed into play after the children took over. They were not created by the original mom from what I can tell.
One has ties to CNN and I think Harvard. Does Harvard ring any bells.
Two has liberal ties to the Times magazine even though she helped on the plame thing. Go back further and see what she is tied to. I did.
Three graduated from our great University of Texas who now has its own institute that stays at the border working with the Catholic church to bring women and children over who are illegals. Read her liberal writing background.
I also found by research that in past month that other public sites that fact checking have found that the website factcheck.org are coloring facts and numbers about the medical bill.
Also there are some media interviews by the director that absolutely repeat word by word what Obama is saying.
So...that said. They are trying to appear just legitimate enough.
Have you heard what the new FCC czar said today about the media control by Chavez. He lauded it. Does that tell you where they want to go. And yes that does not make sense unless you read some specific books and read about some key players behind the scene of this government. AND I hate not being proud of my government. I am an American. And I am ashamed of our government.
August 26, 2009 at 5:05 p.m.Suzy, I wish you could speak with just five of the doctors I know in regards to researching this area. They are not "just in my area of health". One is involved in medical care for Texans. He is quite afraid of what he will be told to do with stroke victims and such. He has been in the closed door meetings with the people from Mount Olympus.
Just because it does not make sense...does not make it a reality. But that is what the machine wants us to believe. You know the words...trust us we are from the IRS?
Same thing ....20 million times worse.
August 26, 2009 at 4:41 p.m.where are the death squads? Just answer that? I haven't seen it anywhere in the bill. We are not a nation of murders. We do not kill people on public aid, so why would it start if this bill was passed? This Country's policy is to help people who cannot help themselves. Why do you think that would change?
August 26, 2009 at 4:32 p.m.The bill is designed to help more people get the care they need. How is that bad? How does that parallel with a death squad? That is the part that makes no sense.
PatB,
I have have been trying to stay out of the medicall bill stuff and politics because of ignorance that pushes my buttons.
I have not explored sites in a while. Because of my research background among the tons of other things that have "colored my zebra" -- I always try to back track on who is writing and owns the sites. I am a curious cat. That is how I invented my personal style of jump site and link tie research (another subject).
I am going to have to go back to my bat cave. Somehow several topics have pushed all my buttons on one day. Sorry folks for being soap boxie. I have said in Communications Ain't Easy that I would get impertinant and passionate sometimes. I am sure all my stripes are flashing brightly if they could be scene.
If you really knew me, I really believe in everyone's rights to have rights. I don't want them taken away. Even when we throw barbs, spears, and sometimes unload a cannon. So Forgive me today.
Suzy you hit my intensity button with your statement of it does not make sense. Everyone will never know how much I wrote and erased and wrote and erased because I realized how deep I am falling. I don't want to start spitting all over my screen. LCDs don't like being cleaned.
I will go back to my forensic book on how a murder was tracking two women. But then again that didn't make sense either, so guess it did not happen. But the women are dead....the man confessed.
Sometimes this world does not make sense. That does not make our world unreal. It just makes it tougher to live in.
August 26, 2009 at 4:23 p.m.I said nothing of hate. I said thank you for knowing that you are for your self. You falsely believe there are not death squads.
And by inference of it is okay today you infer it is okay to have them for the Victoria commmunity tomorrow.
Thus, in doing that you are not here as a person to help fellow man, you will not step up hand help, death squads with take neighbors silently.
I hate no one. I can't. I use to want to...but a mind altering event with God removed the ability. I work with people all over the world from every walk of life. Do you?
I don't hate. I am not racist. I will never be. I will fight to my death for free speech, right to bear arms, and every color of skin. I want everyone here to have the right to speek. That is not hate.
People that deny what is happening in front of their face and then saying oh well if is happening then why are we fussing. By saying that a loud message of apathy about the people in the Victoria Community is sent. That comment is blood curdling knowing what is in that health care bill.
Be real and liberal ask for Ted's medical care. It is more liberal than the health bill they want to force down our throat.
So does a statement that says "if it does not make sense it can't be true?" How do you respond to the following:
In March 1942 trains carrying Jews began arriving daily. Sometimes several trains would arrive on the same day, each carrying one thousand or more human beings coming from the ghettos of Eastern Europe, as well as from Western and Southern European countries.
Between 1.3-1.5 million people were murdered in the gas chambers of Auschwitz ALONE-- more than 90% were Jews. The other ten percent were Poles, Soviet Prisoners of War, Sinti Roma, Jehovah Witnesses, homosexuals and others. The vast majority of the victims --who came from both Western and Eastern Europe including Belgium, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, and other countries-- were unaware of their destination and of their fate. They were transported like animals in cattle-cars and arrived in a state of total collapse to the camp. Most of the people actually never really entered the camp, but just crossed it on the way to the gas chambers.
Prisoners' personal identities were taken mainly by the act of tattooing their arms with numbers -- replacing their personal names.
Tell the families that even thow what the Germans did --made no sense in the world --so it must not be true. Can't be true. But sorry we don't know what happened to your relatives.
Have you ever even met a person with the prison tatoos? I have. They have a look you will never forget. Ever in your life. It made no sense. It DID happen. Don't use fuzzy logic.
August 26, 2009 at 4:12 p.m.I thought that FactCheck.com was a project of the Annenbergs who were bigtime Republicans?
August 26, 2009 at 3:42 p.m.Catahula,
August 26, 2009 at 3:38 p.m.How about TruthOrFiction.com
Is it OK?
catahula
where did you learn reading comprehension? How did you get all of that from what I have written here today? Please do not try to presume that you know anything about me or what makes me tick.
August 26, 2009 at 3:36 p.m.I guarantee that everything that you wrote is dead wrong and if you would step back and actually read what I wrote and try to look past your own "feeling", you would know differently. But, you don't want to know differently. "In your eyes", if I'm not for you, I hate you...right?
Sorry, it is because I care for people and I see where all of this is leading. I know that things have to change. People have to change...they have to stop having kids that they cannot afford. They have to take personal responsibility and quit expecting other people to take care of them. This country is about to go down and then there will be help for no one. One day there will be a revolt, and then your people will be in the crossfire. I do not want to see that happen.
I have yet to see where a government-run healthcare is even in the bill. It's a public "option"...a pool of insurance companies that people can "buy" their insurance from "if they choose" and if they cannot afford it, the government steps in and helps those who cannot afford it. It creates competition so the strangle-hold that the insurance companies have over us is broken. They will have to provide affordable, fair insurance policies or lose business.
If small businesses are paying for insurances now, why will they have to go to government run insurance to stay afloat. THEY ARE PAYING NOW and not going broke. They may opt to quit paying for the insurance to save money, but it is not because they will go broke.
The bill is designed to stop, or at least slow down, the rationing that is happening now. I have a danged good insurance, but it is still rationed. I have to go to the doctor they tell me to go to. I have to go to the clinic they tell me to go to. I have to go to the hospital they tell me to go to for non-emergencies. I cannot go directly to a specialist when I know that is what I need. . Instead, I have to go through a couple of doctors so I can get referred to someone else. They can decide to drop a doctor from the "list" and then we have to find a new doctor
I cannot go to any pharmacy that I want to. Certain drugs have to be pre-approved. Certain procedures have to be pre-approved. Sometimes they are not pre-approved. Rationing...you bet!!
There is a panel that decides if I need that procedure or not. I could be dropped from that insurance if I developed an illness that they don't want to pay for. Rationing...yep!!
Years ago, when my husband was working in the oil field...during the oil bust of the 80's, his hours slowed down so much that he was forced to change to another company. We had company insurance, I was pregnant too. The company that he went to had the same exact insurance from the same company and they would not cover the pregnancy or birth because it was a pre-existing condition...remember, it was the same insurance company at both companies.
This is the kind of thing that Obama wants to stop and I am all for it. Insurance companies need to be held accountable and it isn't going to happen unless some changes are made. For all of you that think that you are safe with your private insurance, you better think again. If this healthcare plan is not adopted in some form, the insurance companies will be more confident that they can get away with anything they want to. you better hope you don't get a serious health problem. You may find yourself dropped because they do not want to pay for you anymore. Then, you go through your life savings, so you can apply for public aid. Insurance companies got you by the nads now. Just let them keep on doing it and see what happens.
August 26, 2009 at 3:19 p.m.For those of you that use Factcheck.org --I did too. But then one day I saw a strange fact. So I looked up just who was factcheck. It took a lot of digging and much of what was there during the presidential campaign has been fluffed and revised to sound soooooooooooo good.
All three of the three people that started factcheck were radicals. The were of "institutions" that supported some of the extreme visions we are hearing today.
I do not know if Obama "sits on the board" --he was not on the original board but he had ties to the original creators. Factcheck was created for the Obama presidential campaign process. Unknownst to the public it was created as a place for people to supposedly go for the truth....
However, be careful as with everything. Much of their information is massaged to lead your nose and mind where they want it to go. So a place I originally thought "finally" I blew off and had to start doing my own work again. If we would all quit going there, the hits would go down and would send a message.
Not one person involved with Factcheck originally has any type of view except extreme. They may throw a face up there now for looks. But what happens behind the sceens --the Obama Machine knows of it all.
August 26, 2009 at 3:13 p.m.Thank you Suzy. Up front I know that you do not care to keep babies alive that are innocent and have done nothing wrong in this world. I want to watch if your family is hit with this crisis. Let me watch you cry and beg as mothers do all over the world. How ignorant you seem.
Thank you Suzy for knowing now you do not care whether your neighbors and the people of this community live or die. Just as long as you get yours.
Thank you Suzy for being honest. Thank you for knowing. And I will remember the poem. They may come for me. But when they get to you --there will be no one to defend you so you can die in fear.
Thankyou Suzy for sending such a message to the community of Victoria that you will not contribute to life, help the infirm, and support all. You want us to die because you believe it does not happen.
Thank you Suzy for letting us know you wear blinders and are ignorant of facts and it would be useless to fight with you.
So in return do I pray you have family that face what I see families facing everyday as a Zebra? Is it then and only then you will see the ugly truth of the future? Is it then you will be begging the community for help. Oh wait they got us first. Beg on sister, there will be no one to help you. No medicine for any illness or disease. Be happy you will die quickly. You must have lots of money and it will not be able to buy anything. You will receive directions on how to die.
See -- that is the death squad. The reduced medical care. The withheld medical care. We are fighting we don't want it. Why do you. Just because it is occurring does not make it morally right. Just because murder is happening is it okay? Same argument same logic.
I want TEDCARE -- the same level of care he got if we are to get socialized medicine. Stop Pelosi today --she is using Ted's death to push the bill!!!!
August 26, 2009 at 3:05 p.m.I have no clue about snopes....Obama either still sits or did sit on the bored for factcheck.org
August 26, 2009 at 3 p.m.Turkey,
August 26, 2009 at 2:55 p.m.I thought that Snopes.com was a "left-wing nut job web site". Now you tell me that Factcheck is ,too?
Who's truth can we belive?
Gather it right from H.R. 3200. It's all there for you to read. Granted this is not the only bill that is to be "looked" at...or railroaded through.
August 26, 2009 at 2:47 p.m."From what I gather..." Now we get to the quick of things. What you gather depends greatly upon where you gather it. All too often we confuse "objective sources" with "sources that tell us what we want to hear"
I personally think little more will come out our current healthcare go-around than a few bloody noses and a lot of hurt feelings. The one thing about our government above all else is that it is designed to keep anything from actually getting done. As we speak, the Democrats are splintering as the bill becomes more moderate. Same with guns. There are some die-hard idealists in Congress, but many care about little more than getting re-elected.
August 26, 2009 at 2:29 p.m.If you look, Massachusetts has a state run health care system in place, but only 10% of the state say its gotten better, 29% say it's gotten worse and 53% say it hasn't changed. I've got private insurance, and I have to admit that it's pretty much the best I've ever seen. I've had a goverment job and what I have now blows it away. I'm not willing to loose that because the goverment offers cheaper health care. Cheaper isn't always better, sometimes you get what you pay for. My plan wants you to get the generic brand of prescriptions but if it's not availible, they still pay for the name brand, and usually it doesn't cost me that much more. So, why would I want to give up a good thing to have somebody tell me that it's this pill or nothing.....doens't make sense.
August 26, 2009 at 2:25 p.m.It's the fact that we don't want the goverments hand in everything we do. Granted, one way or another they are, but I know personally I don't want so slimey politician trying to force feed me what they think healthcare should be when they themselves won't use it. It will force small buisness owners that provide company insurance to drop the covarge they have for the gov. run insurance program just to stay afloat. And Billy as far as the goverment getting my guns....they can have it after they pry it out of my hands. It's my right as an american to own guns, plain and simple. From what I gather from the bill is that the goverment is going to get to choose who lives and who dies.
August 26, 2009 at 2:06 p.m.Not going to work, Suzy. Rational questions will not be addressed. Unless your screaming from the rooftops about how the government is going to take our guns and force us to gay marry aborted illegal aliens in mosques, no one here is going to take you seriously.
August 26, 2009 at 1:57 p.m.tell me what's different about what you think is gonna happen as opposed to what is happening now?
August 26, 2009 at 1:34 p.m.We are being had? But it's right there in black and white suzy.
August 26, 2009 at 1:24 p.m.I think maybe you all should all step back, take a deep breath, and know that there isn't any such thing as "death panels". It makes no logical sense, and when something doesn't make sense, it isn't true.
I can guarantee that what yall think of as the "death panels" that you don't want included in the bill, is already in existance today. Healthcare rationing is already happening. Insurance companies are already deciding what pills and medication they will cover and what they won't cover. Some of the aids medications are not covered by insurances. some of the alzheimers meds are not covered. Insurance companies make you use generic meds or they will not pay for them, even though many times the generic drugs are inferior.
All of these frightening terms are a product of the people who want to keep healthcare as it is now. they found the terms that would scare people the most and ran with it. Some of the things that are being said are so comical...and intelligent people are actually buying into it. It makes me wonder what the new definition of intelligent is. People, you are being had.
August 26, 2009 at 1:22 p.m.I believe 110% that they were trying to sneak the death panels in there. Unplugging grandma would save them money in a goverment run health care system.
August 26, 2009 at 12:52 p.m.I am posting in both places for those that don't believe. Believe a man that saw his friends killed and did nothing.
Martin Niemöller's famous quotation: "First they Came for the Communists" He was a German theologian and Protestant (Lutheran) pastor, founder of the anti-Nazi Bekennende Kirche (Confessing Church) in 1934, and a president of the World Council of Churches from 1961 to 1968.
Do you know of the groups he listed in his poem over time (40 years)?
Communists
Incurably sick
Jews or Jehovah's Witnesses (depending on which speech)
People in countries occupied by Nazi Germany.
Trade Unions
Social Democrats
Socialists
schools
the Catholics
the press
Protestant Church
There are in fact several "correct" versions. Niemöller named different groups when he first coined the saying, probably in 1946, than when it was revived in the 1970s and he was again asked about it.
The groups he mentioned in several 1946 speeches were (in order, see below):
Communists
Incurably sick
Jews or Jehovah's Witnesses (depending on which speech)
People in countries occupied by Nazi Germany.
As years went by, he changed the words during different speeches.
Are we now a communist or socialist country --by a learned man's description it would seem so. Have we no strenght to fight for liberty like our forefathers did for us. Or are we evolved into spineless leeches that prey on government propogandanized perceptions of who is wealthy and must be punished and in reality --the government is coming for us all in one fashion or another.
August 26, 2009 at 12:35 p.m.Nuclearmothman
The "infamous" Section 1233 was about reimbursing doctors for consulting with patients about end-of-life issues and living wills.
If you read all of section 1233 it isn't about reinbursment. And as far as who supported it, I could careless, I'm not a repulican or a Dem. The section is to long to post as a comment so I posted it as a blog. Feel free to read it...
http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/weblo...
And Cat, I know Factcheck is all about Obama, thats what I was suprised to find that on there. I try not to look at anything on that site since it's a left wing nutjob website.
August 26, 2009 at 12:19 p.m.I won't go with most anything that the Factcheck group does unless I check myself because I know from whence the top three come from. They are like some of Obama's czars. And that is a fact itself. I checked....
As for the death panels...yes they exist. Now and more are planned for the future. Being a zebra I am thrown into a world many of you do not live in. A very rare medical world. The US government keeps all of us in a database. If we do not have insurance, keeping alive can be a daily struggle of begging private and corporate sources for the one medicine that will keep you alive because the government may not provide it because of cost.
We were born with genetic issues --we did not go out and drink, smoke drugs, do dangerous things to injure our bodies --we work hard everyday to stay alive. Many of us worked productive lives for over 40 years or more before being struck. Some are babies needing care when born –do we chop their heads off then? And because we may not look deformed on the outside, people do not believe us, care, and most doctors are not trained to recognize or treat genetic disorders.
I have been in hospitals where they refuse to give the proper maintenance care as written by NIH standards because of ignorance and refusal of care. They had never seen my genetic disorder. Thank God I lived despite the care I was not receiving.
But back to that database for people with rare diseases. It does exist. And the government reviews the patients. It will be so easy turn the medical care spigot off for those in that database. Many in the group have the fear of being the first the death squad panels go for.
Gang I am not being a fear monger. I am wearing the shoes that walk the walk. So yes, this entire debacle with the medical bill scares the living heck out of me. Because I remember the writing about who they come for first...and when they get to me..I doubt anyone will be there to fight for me..given the polarization I see in this community.
Kenneth may scream in our faces. Maybe we don't like what he says. But some of it is current truths. When Pilot gives blood he is a god. All of you bickering should do so too. And be organ donors. And instead of fighting like a bunch of dogs over the last bone....
Figure out positively what we are going to do as a community. One of the czars said in the next five years they are going to de-evolve our current life in America. Another said they would destroy capitalism. So all we have is ourselves to help each other. We need to get to it. Let’s start meeting on what to do.
Rationed health care exists now. Believe it or not. And if they come for me first. They will get to you. And I won't be there to fight for you --if we don't stick together.
I don't want the Obama machine healthcare program. I want the Tedcare medical plan --same as congress.
August 26, 2009 at 12:12 p.m.Also, let's not forget that Section 1233 was sponsored by a Republican senator, John Isakson, (R)Georgia. Of course, he has since redacted his support, bowing to pressure from the "deathers" who have misrepresented the provision.
August 26, 2009 at 12:10 p.m.The "infamous" Section 1233 was about reimbursing doctors for consulting with patients about end-of-life issues and living wills. This was added to avoid situations like the Terry Schiavo case that became such a political football when Republican congressmen like Tom DeLay and John Cornyn,(you know, the "government shouldn't interfere with private decisions" people) decided to interfere with the Schiavo's private decisions.
The "death panels" myth was cooked up by Betsy McCaughey, a paid shill for a major medical company, and a failed politician, who also helped kill health care reform in the 1990's. Section 1233 was effectively killed by the falsehoods and outright lies from the far Right fearmongers, like McCaughey, and like Sarah Palin (who coined the term "death panels").
But what seems to keep eluding the "deathers" is the meaning of the word "voluntary." There was nothing in the language of 1233 that would have mandated an end-of-life decision, or would have mandated who got care and who didn't.
As for the Wagner case, again we see the Right wing fearmongering spin machine at work, with half-truths and glaring omissions. No one "unplugged" her. No one forced her to end her life. Here are the facts: Barbara Wagner was a smoker who contracted lung cancer. She made the choice to smoke and paid the ultimate consequences for that choice. Oregon picked up the bill for her treatment and care, right up to the day she died, even after taking the drug Tarceva. And what is left out of the story is the fact that the infamous letter also included a list of options the plan covered, like hospice care and palliative drugs to ease the pain. Of course the drug company is trying to look like the hero here by so generously providing a drug that wasn't a cure, only a stop-gap measure that in most clinical studies, only extended life for an average of 4-6 months. So what is the complaint here? That Oregon didn't pay for an experimental drug that wouldn't have made any significant difference in this woman's quality of life? The other side of the story is the fact that a private insurance company would have dropped her like a hot potato right from the start, and she wouldn't have gotten any care at all.
And isn't it odd that Conservatives, who are so against the government paying for anything, or interfering in our private lives (unless you're gay, then it's all right for government to intrude and tell you you don't have the right to marry the person of your choice), and are supposedly about self-reliance, are now complaining so bitterly that the government didn't step in to provide this woman with a $4000 drug that would not have saved her. Cruel as it may seem, death will come for all of us eventually. But what matters is the quality of our lives, not the quantity.
August 26, 2009 at 11:58 a.m.GoliadChica
"Please stop the partisan BS, u lose credibility with every post"
But yet you have failed to prove that the Liberals have done anything right. I have yet to see you post a fact about anything on the Obamacare.
This directly from Factcheck.org...
Obama, Aug. 11: The rumor that’s been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for "death panels" that will basically pull the plug on grandma … this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, et cetera. So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they’re ready, on their own terms.
Obama is referring to Section 1233 of H.R. 3200, which is titled “Advance Care Planning Consultation.” As we explained a few weeks ago, it "would require Medicare to pay for some end-of-life planning counseling sessions with a health care practitioner."
August 26, 2009 at 10:48 a.m.Don't you have anything better to do, Kenneth?
August 26, 2009 at 9:44 a.m.I see your point, and it is a valid one, but our current insurance and healthcare system does similar things under a different name. You can't even get insurance in some cases unless you are completely healthy. The pre-existing condition clauses in many insurance policies prevent many people young old and in between from getting the care that they need. Even if you're lucky enough to be able to get health insurance through your workplace, the monthly premiums have shot up at rates far exceeding pay increases. There are plenty of honest, hard-working families living above the poverty line that have had to make tough choices when it comes to family health coverage.
I've read many of your blogs and you generally seem to be long on complaint and short on constructive solutions. What is your ideal situation for the healthcare problem? The problem as I've seen it by reading blogs and watching the various news networks is that people are more interested in fighting that fixing. The only two solutions that have been voiced by the last two Presidents has been Bush's plan to hand it 100% over to the companies that have been lording over honest people for years now, and Obama's plan that seems to have generated a new Red Scare.
I'm pretty sure there is something in between.
August 26, 2009 at 9:17 a.m.That poor woman dying from a selfinflicted condition while her church and family stood by and didn't help her. Pity.
The no healthcare for those with dementia must be a really scary possibility for some...right Kenneth?
August 26, 2009 at 9:08 a.m.The language is already in Medicare, you know the single payer government health insurance for seniors? There are no death panels, u are being lead around by the nose by people who work against your self interest.
Please stop the partisan BS, u lose credibility with every post.
August 26, 2009 at 9:04 a.m.