PDA

View Full Version : AARP losing members over support for osamacare



Bob Gutermuth
08-18-2009, 01:57 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/18/aarp-losing-members-health-care-faces-challenge-grassroots-senior-advocacy/

For those who don't know AARP is also anti gun.

Buzz
08-18-2009, 02:15 PM
Makes sense, they have had the crap scared out of them by lies.



Try this on for size: Palinism. What is it? It is an updated version of McCarthyism, which takes its name from the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy, the Wisconsin liar, demagogue and drunk, and means, according to Wikipedia, "reckless, unsubstantiated accusations, as well as demagogic attacks on the character or patriotism of political adversaries." As far as we know, Sarah Palin is not a drunk

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/17/AR2009081702177.html

Cody Covey
08-18-2009, 02:57 PM
I find it kind of odd that the administration is crying so much over the lies but has come out with nothing really but broad generalization of what the plan will do. He's good at infomercials why not get on TV and tell us in detail what is going to be in the bill and the details backing that up. Don't tell me that you won't be including a provision when we can see it in the bill. Tell us how we are "misinterpreting" your language in the bill..

Buzz
08-18-2009, 03:15 PM
You know Grassley, they guy who talked about un-plugging grandma, the one who said you have good reason to be scared?

http://iowaindependent.com/18673/grassley-was-for-death-panels-before-he-was-against-them

And the defense from his office, pure BS!

Hew
08-18-2009, 04:52 PM
You know Grassley, they guy who talked about un-plugging grandma, the one who said you have good reason to be scared?

http://iowaindependent.com/18673/grassley-was-for-death-panels-before-he-was-against-them

And the defense from his office, pure BS!

Here's a portion of his "defense:"


Congressman Braley also misses the larger point when he fails to realize that the concerns about the advanced planning provisions in the Pelosi bill are made because they are proposed in the context of a bill that is ostensibly working to save money by spending less on health care in health care reform, and in a bill that creates a government-run plan that will surely lead to rationing of health care just like has happened in other countries that have government-run systems.

What's BS about pointing out the differences between the advanced planning counseling tucked into some 2003 Medicare legislation vs. the Death Panel (j/k :p) in Pelosi's bill in 2009? Would you care to take a stab at arguing that they're contextually the same?

YardleyLabs
08-18-2009, 06:29 PM
Here's a portion of his "defense:"

What's BS about pointing out the differences between the advanced planning counseling tucked into some 2003 Medicare legislation vs. the Death Panel (j/k :p) in Pelosi's bill in 2009? Would you care to take a stab at arguing that they're contextually the same?
They are actually exactly the same. The only modification being made in HR 3200 was to allow physicians to be paid for the service and to make it optional. Grassley supported bills that made it mandatory for hospitals to ask all Medicare patients about their advance planning directives at time of admission and to provide them with information at that time. He also supported a bill that would make such counseling a requirement when people first join the Medicare program. Both enjoyed widespread support but leadership was provided by Republicans. In HR 3200, which contains no "death panels" whatsoever, the actual modification is to make counseling a reimbursable service under Medicare. The context is the same.

Hew
08-18-2009, 08:21 PM
The context is the same.
LOL. My question was rhetorical as I couldn't imagine in a million years that someone would think that the medicare legislation that Grassley voted on in 2003 has the same breadth, depth, costs, ramifications, impact on our country, etc. as the health care legislation that's on the table now. The context of end of life counseling is COMPLETELY different now than then.

Buzz
08-18-2009, 08:34 PM
So, your argument is that since the current bill under consideration is much bigger and far reaching, the concept of end of life counseling is somehow different and much more scary now?

Insurance companies are rationing healthcare now. Just this year BC/BS denied an MRI for me and an ultrasound for my wife. My doctor told me that we should take a drive to Rochester because they probably wouldn't have the guts to deny an order for these tests from a doctor at Mayo Clinic. In any case I'd be rolling the dice on whether I'd end up responsible for two expensive tests.

Hew
08-19-2009, 05:16 AM
I know you guys like to pretend that only the zany right wingnuts are expressing concern about the "Death Panels," but here's Nat Hentoff, a well-respected liberal's liberal, saying pretty much the same thing Sarah Palin has said (withouth using the words "Death Panel" that throw Henry into a tizzy):


I am finally scared of a White House administration

I was not intimidated during J. Edgar Hoover's FBI hunt for reporters like me who criticized him. I railed against the Bush-Cheney war on the Bill of Rights without blinking. But now I am finally scared of a White House administration. President Obama's desired health care reform intends that a federal board (similar to the British model) as in the Center for Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation in a current Democratic bill decides whether your quality of life, regardless of your political party, merits government-controlled funds to keep you alive. Watch for that life-decider in the final bill. It's already in the stimulus bill signed into law.

Remainder of article: http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/hentoff081909.php3

Gerry Clinchy
08-19-2009, 05:50 AM
the actual modification is to make counseling a reimbursable service under Medicare.

What would be the reason that the status of such counselling should be changed to reimbursable?

It would appear that such services are now provided by doctors and hospital staff at no charge. It could simply be a requirement for payment of a regular office visit. And there are agencies and senior centers and other groups that offer this information at no charge already.

It would appear that the inclusion of this service as a reimbursable medical expense would be in anticipaton of some larger need for it to control costs, while protecting the medical professionals from legal consequences.

Considering that we already know that these legal disputes already exist to some extent in today's health care framework, do the framers of the legislation anticipate that such disputes will become more numerous within the framework of the proposed legislation?