Obama's healthcare: You can keep the change! State, National, International, posted by Keep the Change, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jun 17, 2009 at 11:04 am
The actress Natasha Richardson died after falling skiing in Canada . It took eight hours to drive her to a hospital. If Canada had our healthcare she might be alive today. We now have helicopters that would have gotten her to the hospital in 30 minutes.
Obama wants to have our healthcare like Canada's and England's.
In England anyone over 59 cannot receive heart repairs or stents or bypass because it is not covered as being too expensive and not needed.
Looks like Obama is sure keeping his word ****CHANGES. We better have our funerals paid up, may be needing it sooner rather than later with no doctors on our side to keep us healthy. What will this world be like in another 20 YEARS WHEN OUR KIDS ARE READY FOR RETIREMENT?
Most of you know by now that the Senate version (at least) of the "stimulus" bill includes provisions for extensive rationing of health care for senior citizens.. The author of this part of the bill, former senator and tax evader, Tom Daschle was credited recently by Bloomberg with the following statement.
Bloomberg: Daschle says "health-care reform will not be pain free. Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them."
If this does not sufficiently raise your ire, just remember that Senators and Congressmen have their own healthcare plan that is first dollar or very low co-pay which they are guaranteed the remainder of their lives and are not subject to this new law if it passes.
We have an election coming up in one year and nine months. We have
the ability to address and reverse the dangerous direction the Obama administration and it allies have begun and in the interim, we can make their lives miserable.
Posted by Cindy, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Jun 17, 2009 at 11:11 am
This was posted earlier and I thought it interesting.
"I have been following this debate over national healthcare and the more I learn about it the more I do not believe it makes sense and I believe there has to be another motivator going on here. Even though they can walk into any hospital or clinic and not be turned away for care the Obama administration says there are 45,000,000 uninsured and the cost to insure these people runs from 1.7 trillion to 4 trillion. This morning I was watching the sub committee meeting and these numbers came out. Of the supposed 45,000,000 uninsured, 11,300,000 are already eligible under programs already funded, 9,700,000 are illegal aliens, and another 11,000,000 make over $75,000 dollars per year. This means that out of a population of over 300,000,000 people we are going to pay between 1.7 and 4 trillion to insure maybe 14,000,000? The real interesting feature aside from the economics is that the people currently being covered by private insurance will be endangered by the government undercutting pricing and creating a situation where private insurance carriers cannot be competitive."
In addition, I found out that our elected officials in Washington will not be part of this program as they have special insurance and are offered 15 different free plans.
Posted by Keep the Change, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jun 17, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Jake, Why is it garbage? It's easy to make a statement like that, particularly if you walk away and don't explain it. Is that the left-wing liberal way of doing things? No reason or rational explanation?
Posted by Very Concerned, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jun 17, 2009 at 12:51 pm
The first thing that needs to go is the gold-plated insurance coverage for our federal workers and our "representatives". they should get no better coverage than medi-care, no less, no more. Which "representative" will bring forth this bill? Hint: don't hold your breath that anyone will!
Posted by whatever, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jun 17, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Um, It is well known that when Natasha Richardson came down the hill she said she was okay and denied medical help. The paramedics that were there waiting for her were told to leave...if she and whoever she was with had just let her be examined she likely would have been hospitalized and have been okay. She went back to her hotel room and by the time she got to a local hospital it was too late. Do you really think they don't have helicopters in canada??
I am an RN and worked in the ER for many years. THis happens ALL the time with head injuries in this country. You are fooling yourself if you think it doesn't. Just because this happened in Canada to a celebrity so you heard about it, does not mean this doesn't happen here all the time.
Where did you hear this rubbish, Sean Hannity. I didn't even read the rest of what you wrote, when you start with that ridiculous example of what healthcare is like in canada,. come on. You obviously don't know what you're talking about.
Posted by Sheerluck_Holmes, a resident of the Jensen Tract neighborhood, on Jun 20, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Can anyone say that our health care system has improved in the last 30 years? If we continue with this trend we won't be debating whether we want a system like Canada/France/England, but rather how it became like ones in third world countries ...
it amazes me how middle-class folks parrot corporate press releases when it comes to health-care ..
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Jun 20, 2009 at 9:51 pm Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
From the original post: "In England anyone over 59 cannot receive heart repairs or stents or bypass because it is not covered as being too expensive and not needed. "
This sounds too over the top ... that's because it is. Does anyone really believe that people would stand for such a ridiculous rule that would put lives at jeopardy? Hey, I've got some land in Florida to sell you.
I tried searching for this on Google. All I found was information about a ban on drug-coated stents because of cost. This is from back in 2007: Web Link And it looks like the ban was reversed not long after: Web Link
Hey, let's spin this up and make it sound like all stents and heart repairs are being banned in England due to cost because there's an American public out there gullible enough to believe it!
Posted by Right Wing Wrong Again, a resident of the Carlton Oaks neighborhood, on Aug 9, 2009 at 7:51 am
Keep the change,
To dam bad this forum is anonymous, or we could consider YOU full of BEANS from here on out and IGNORE your Copy and Paste LIES! This does NO ONE any good! You ALSO forgot to credit the source! It seems that time ,time and again, you right wingers are just spreading blaten lies all over gods creation! I thought that integrity was a major conservative value? The TRUTH is:
Daschle didn't say seniors should accept rather that treat conditions that come with age
Bookmark this story:
Buzz up!ShareThisSome chain e-mails remind us of a bad Three's Company episode. One roommate overhears something a little wrong and leaps to all sorts of misguided conclusions. Hijinks ensue.
The latest chain e-mail sent to us from a reader puts some words into the mouth of former Sen. Tom Daschle that raised our eyebrows. Daschle, you may recall, was once President Barack Obama's choice to be secretary of health and human services. He stepped down from consideration amid revelations about tax problems, but some think his fingerprints can be seen in some of the health provisions in the economic stimulus package signed by the president in February.
According to the e-mail (read the full text here ), Daschle was quoted in a Bloomberg story saying, "Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them."
We thought that sounded a bit impolitic, and fairly callous, for a former senator to say, and so we decided to check it out.
As with most e-mail claims, it starts with a grain of something.
Bloomberg did run a story about health provisions in the stimulus package on Feb. 9, 2009, under the headline "Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan: Betsy McCaughey." It was a commentary piece written by Betsy McCaughey, former lieutenant governor of New York and an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.
McCaughey warned that the stimulus included several troublesome provisions identical to ideas outlined by Daschle in his 2008 book, Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis. Midway through the article, McCaughey includes this paragraph:
"Daschle says health care reform 'will not be pain-free.' Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt."
We contacted McCaughey to see which parts of this were her words and which were Daschle's.
The phrase that health care reform "will not be pain-free" is a direct quote from Daschle, she explained. She said the sentence beginning "Seniors should be more accepting" was her paraphrasing of an argument in Daschle's book in which he quotes David Mechanic, a health care policy expert at Rutgers University, saying, "more and more of what were once seen as social, behavioral, or normative aspects of every day life, or as a normal process of aging, are now framed in a medical context. ... Whether wrinkles, breasts, or buttocks, impotence or social anxieties, or inattention in school, they all have become grist for the medical mill."
We think it's a stretch to summarize Daschle's position as saying that seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. Not treating wrinkles is one thing. Not treating, say, heart disease, is another. But that's fair enough for McCaughey to opine. This is labeled an opinion piece. The point is that these are McCaughey's words, not Daschle's.
The last sentence, "That means the elderly will bear the brunt," was her conclusion, McCaughey said.
McCaughey said she is a meticulous scholar and "I regret any misrepresentations made by others of my work or Mr. Daschle's views."
Our efforts to reach Daschle for comment were not successful.
In the chain e-mail, quote marks are shifted, clouding the issue of who is actually speaking, and the e-mail suggests that Daschle actually said that.
The e-mail begins: "Apparently, seniors are expendable — treating us is not worth the expense (unless you're a congressman!).
which completely debunks every claim made in the e-mail, and this is by far not the only one that does so. I have friends in the UK too, and asked them about this. A couple have relatives who received heart bypass surgery in their 70s and 80s. The claims being made about socialised medicine are pretty much all lies perpetuated by the insurance companies who benefit from the misery of their customers, and the ignorant masses who believe this. Do not let your opinions be guided by those so obviously vested interests!