Healthcare

[Mike]

Ron,

I, and probably many others, see this like we see the CA ban on black cars. While the proposal never really stated that black cars would be outlawed, the descriptions and requirements all but secured the banning of black cars. In the end a rule that calls for special glass, which was also part of the initial discussion, is what is being implemented.

My fear is that all these lawyer/beauracrats are throwing EVERYTHING out there, just to let half of it drop from the proposal so they can say there was a compromise, when in actuality they end up possibly getting more than they thought they would.

This is a discussion I have had with others about this issue and others. Why should ther be any compromise or discussions? Why can't the answer just be NO!?

Is healthcare expensive? YES

Should things change to make healthcare more affordable to more people? MAYBE

Should the government control how healthcare is given or received? NO

Is this bill/proposal the answer to the healthcare "problem"? NO!!

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Health Care Bill Page 425 - The Truth

As far as I can tell it will allow the elderly to become educated on care options, willing wills, and end of life care and this education will be covered by the health plan. I'm not seeing anything in there about a forced consultation or suicide. Makes sense that most folks as they get up there in years would want to know about various care options, how to make wills, and so on.

Like the fellow that wrote the piece, I'm not endorsing the health care plan or condemning it. But "facts" that this that are circulating will damage any intelligent discussion.

Ron, You're right, but it also counsels about hospice and living wills, etc. Basically it is to prep you prior to jumping down the hospice shute. It feels morbid. My feeling is that there is far too much wrong with this bill. If the congressman and senators read this bill cover to cover (which I would bet that most all of them haven't) and speak to the people they represent, the bill would get voted down in a heartbeat!

 

[domtoni]

Last I heard the latest compromise according to Sen. Paul Ryan R-Wisconsin is not satisfactory. Not sure what is involved but came from a very reliable friend.

 

[Ron Earp]

What are you trying to say? Did you even listen to it?

The "Page 425" info I'd heard about on my way into the office this morning. Then I saw you'd posted about it too so I decided to see if all the info being passed around about it was 100% true. I listened to the piece you posted and then went and read page 425 to see if it indeed asserted the following:

will require EVERYONE who is on Social Security to undergo a counseling session every 5 years with the objective being that they will explain to them just how to end their own life earlier. Yes...They are going to push SUICIDE to cut medicare spending!!! Also, planned denial of medical care for seniors.
​

And from my reading found out it does not require everyone on SS to undergo counseling every five years and has nothing to do with ending their life earlier. It does not outline a plan from the government to push suicide to cut medicare spending.

As I mentioned earlier it would appear this section concerns the plan coverage of consultations having to do with wills, end of life care, care options and so forth. Folks in the plan can have these consultations to learn about options every five years. I know my own folks have just done such a thing to "get their affairs in order", as they say. They don't plan on checking out anytime soon, and I certainly hope they don't, but they wanted to learn about various options with insurance, wills, trusts, and so forth. It isn't fun to think about but my folks are realistic and want to know about what might happen to them in the latter part of their life.

My comment about "facts" merely reflects my concern about what people consider factual regarding the health care debate. If the "Page 425" interpretation that is spreading like wildfire on the radio and email is what people consider factual then it'll be hard to have a logical debate on health care because the "Page 425" information doesn't appear to be based in fact.

I, like many of you, would probably like for the government to slow down on moving forward with health care reform. The US hasn't ever had a national coverage plan so why is there a huge rush to create one in a matter of months? Seems to be that any decision this large should be carefully thought over and it might take a couple of years to put a viable plan together. Where's the fire?

Sorry about writing on a political debate. I rarely do that. But the "Page 425" info I'd heard on the radio and seen in email interested me and once I saw it here I wished to report my findings.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

As Al stated page 425 is dooms day for elderly.
I CANNOT BELIEVE THIS! This used to be a civilized nation, what happened?!

<HR id=stopSpelling align=center SIZE=2 width="100%">​

This audio report (see link below) is so bizarre that I had to check on the "Truth/Fiction" and "Snopes" websites to make sure it was not a hoax. So far, anyway, it's not mentioned. Prepare to be stunned . . .


Click this link: http://tinyurl.com/mcmq6h

On Page 425 of Obama's health care bill, the Federal Government will require EVERYONE who is on Social Security to undergo a counseling session every 5 years with the objective being that they will explain to them just how to end their own life earlier. Yes...They are going to push SUICIDE to cut medicare spending!!! Also, planned denial of medical care for seniors.



​

<!-- end of AOLMsgPart_2_c44e9023-0706-4c0c-a1d7-ae3b14dad26f -->

I believe they said that was former NY state lieutenant governor Betsy McCaughey being interviewed. I've heard her speak before, she is well informed and has actually read the bill. Did you hear her say that $500 billion was going to be taken out of Medicare to help pay for this bill? Like they have been robbing from Social Security since the Korean War. The government uses money that doesn't belong to them with regularity. You're right, it's VERY scary. I'm 65, I workout pretty hard at the gym 4 days a week, my body fat is around 10%. I'm in as good shape as I was at 30. But if something unforseen was to happen and I was on that plan, I'd be scared to death!

 

[roaldin]

Pardon the interruption.

I see you have checked this thread Ron so I'll ask here.
You have mentioned before that you could drop the paddock from being indexed. I would personally miss threads like the F1 thread but would it be possible to split the paddock in two? -

1) Car related (relevant) - indexed (edit: oh yeah, and fun things like joke threads)
2) Political, religious etc (non relevant) - not indexed.

Or something along those lines.

For my part I would have no problem seeing threads like this disappear.
I've had a pretty good laugh at some of this stuff but really, there are plenty of places I can go if I want to entertain myself with conspiracy theories etc. This is primarily a car forum isn't it?

I understand how easy it is to get into these sort of mindsets and conversations, especially if you have other issues, but FWIW I think this latest series is really degrading this otherwise excellent forum.
One or two threads occasionally is one thing (and can be quite entertaining to join in on, especially after a beer or two ) but this is getting to be a bit of a flood.

Although yours is a great country, we don't all live there. Your forum but this stuff is getting tiresome in my view.

Sorry for the interruption folks.

Tim.

 

[domtoni]

Chaps,

I heard the same interview. Before I wrote anything, I again listened to the first two minutes of the interview. Top two points:
- $500 B is being cut from Medicare, reducing the money available to the elderly
- the counseling sessions will also teach people how to end their life, refuse nutrition and water

If you get a serious disease, then you have to go through the counseling sessions all over again.

Her point is the elderly are not to be a burden on the state.

I saw yesterday in the Times that women over 55 with cancer do not get the same women who are younger.

 

[Ron Earp]

Pardon the interruption.

I see you have checked this thread Ron so I'll ask here.
You have mentioned before that you could drop the paddock from being indexed. I would personally miss threads like the F1 thread but would it be possible to split the paddock in two? -

1) Car related (relevant) - indexed
2) Political, religious etc (non relevant) - not indexed.

Or something along those lines.

I hear you but it'd be sort of hard to do with all the interests, don't you think?

For example, I rarely post on political threads (not sure what got into me today) and don't read them. I enjoy some paddock threads, but I definitely don't like the F1 threads (not picking on you or your example). I do like the airplane threads. Ditto motorcycles. I don't like the nakkid women threads (plenty of other places to get that if you need). I do enjoy the joke thread. And so on.

The paddock is a catch all place for all sorts of discussion.

But I think we can try and do without indexing them and see how that goes. We mentioned that in another thread and just didn't get around to trying it.

R

 

[domtoni]

Tim,

No disrespect but threads like this, I find them very informative, I would hate to see it disappear. I like the international perspective I get here.

The beauty with a forum is you don't have to take part.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Pardon the interruption.

I see you have checked this thread Ron so I'll ask here.
You have mentioned before that you could drop the paddock from being indexed. I would personally miss threads like the F1 thread but would it be possible to split the paddock in two? -

1) Car related (relevant) - indexed (edit: oh yeah, and fun things like joke threads)
2) Political, religious etc (non relevant) - not indexed.

Or something along those lines.

For my part I would have no problem seeing threads like this disappear.
I've had a pretty good laugh at some of this stuff but really, there are plenty of places I can go if I want to entertain myself with conspiracy theories etc. This is primarily a car forum isn't it?

I understand how easy it is to get into these sort of mindsets and conversations, especially if you have other issues, but FWIW I think this latest series is really degrading this otherwise excellent forum.
One or two threads occasionally is one thing (and can be quite entertaining to join in on, especially after a beer or two ) but this is getting to be a bit of a flood.

Although yours is a great country, we don't all live there. Your forum but this stuff is getting tiresome in my view.

Sorry for the interruption folks.

Tim.

Tim, With due respect, This is a subject that will effect Americans for generations to come. It's VERY important and people should know about it! And you do have the rest of this great site to look at!

 

[roaldin]

Domtoni - Not suggesting these discussions can't happen here, just not so, well, everywhere.
I am really trying not to take part...

Ron, I know what you mean but I was just thinking of the "don't discuss at parties" stuff - Politics and religion. Other topics are less consistently angry.

Anyway I'll jump back out of the pool now before temptation gets to me.

Tim.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Domtoni - Not suggesting these discussions can't happen here, just not so, well, everywhere.
I am really trying not to take part...

Ron, I know what you mean but I was just thinking of the "don't discuss at parties" stuff - Politics and religion. Other topics are less consistently angry.

Tim.

Tim, Tell me the person's name that is forcing you to be bored and angry by this thread, and I'll talk to him personally!

 

[John Milmont]

It seems the biggest problem with 425 is this part

"the reasons why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual’s family and the reasons why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes;"

This seems that its going to make it so that you will have to explain why the person getting "end-of-life" care should live.

I wonder if they will suspend care when your waiting to have the consultation...

 

[Ron Earp]

Ron, I know what you mean but I was just thinking of the "don't discuss at parties" stuff - Politics and religion. Other topics are less consistently angry.

Nah, can't agree with you on that one. The Paddock is just that, a paddock where all sorts of discussions might occur. Personally I try to avoid discussing politics and religion, or lack thereof, in mixed company but that doesn't mean everyone has to follow suit.

And that F1 topic got hot from time to time!

R

 

[roaldin]

Tim, Tell me the person's name that is forcing you to be bored and angry by this thread, and I'll talk to him personally!

LOL! (Didn't say I was angry BTW)

These threads can be damn seductive as I'm sure you know. I'm trying not to say anymore because my dog walking franchise could do without the bad press.

Fair enough Ron, figured I'd make the suggestion. (BTW F1 is all Mosely's fault. )

Anyway that's it for me - back to it gentleman.

Tim.

 

[Jack Houpe]

Chaps,

I heard the same interview. Before I wrote anything, I again listened to the first two minutes of the interview. Top two points:
- $500 B is being cut from Medicare, reducing the money available to the elderly
- the counseling sessions will also teach people how to end their life, refuse nutrition and water

If you get a serious disease, then you have to go through the counseling sessions all over again.

Her point is the elderly are not to be a burden on the state.

I saw yesterday in the Times that women over 55 with cancer do not get the same women who are younger.

Exactly Domtoni! My mother is 88 years old, she may not have much time left but I would not want some government official counseling her on hospice or any other issue concerning her departure and I sure don't want her being profiled because of her AGE.

If you listened to the interview like I did then how else can you conceive that the government doesn't think the elderly are to be a burden on the system. Most of us here (baby boomer's) on this forum have paid our dues, and the government has been eating away at SS for years but when its our time to collect what we have been paying in they (government) will be telling you how to die to save a buck for the younger person who is still paying in or using it. This is a doctor or loved ones job not some government employee who has no knowledge of the person other than a piece of paper stating age and SS number.

If you don't want political points discussed on this forum then don't even open the tread. I for one vote and discuss my views, if you don't agree with them then thats YOUR RIGHT just as is mine.

 

[Rick S.]

What? You mean giving nutbars free transgender surgeries shouldn't be allowed in the public system? *gasp*

And here I always thought having my penis chopped off and a vagina sewn on, for free, if I felt like I wanted to be a woman was my god given right! :drunk:

the operation where a penis is added is called "addadictome"

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Nah, can't agree with you on that one. The Paddock is just that, a paddock where all sorts of discussions might occur. Personally I try to avoid discussing politics and religion, or lack thereof, in mixed company but that doesn't mean everyone has to follow suit.

And that F1 topic got hot from time to time!

R

Agreed Ron, the paddock gives me the opportunity to voice opinions and attitudes that I would never discuss at a party.
Some threads in the paddock I enjoy, some I ignore.
If you don't like a subject no one is forcing anyone to read it.

 

[Cliff Beer]

I have a high deductible too and luckily I am self insured as a backup. I am a proponent of high deductibles on all the insurance policies I have.

How does that HSA work for you? I am looking into that as well.

I just read this article on MSN which touches on what I talked about earlier:

"Medical problems caused 62% of all personal bankruptcies filed in the U.S. in 2007, according to a study by Harvard researchers. And in a finding that surprised even the researchers, 78% of those filers had medical insurance at the start of their illnesses, including 60.3% who had private coverage, not Medicare or Medicaid.

Medically related bankruptcies have been rising steadily for decades. In 1981, only 8% of families filing for bankruptcy cited a serious medical problem as the reason, while a 2001 study of bankruptcies in five states by the same researchers found that illness or medical bills contributed to 50% of all filings.

This newest, nationwide study, conducted before the start of the current recession by Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler of Harvard Medical School, Elizabeth Warren of Harvard Law School and Deborah Thorne, a sociology professor at Ohio University, found that the filers were for the most part solidly middle class before medical disaster hit. Two-thirds owned their homes, and three-fifths had gone to college.

But medically bankrupt families with private insurance reported average out-of-pocket medical bills of $17,749, while the uninsured's bills averaged $26,971. Of the families that started out with insurance but lost it during the course of illnesses, medical bills averaged $22,658"

what I find interesting is that found that the filers were "for the most part solidly middle-class". And a bill of less than $25,000 can put them under! How does a family in the "middle class" not have a cushion to cover that? I guess I did listen to my mom at least once when I was a kid (she would say different) - she taught me that lesson.


Mike

Mike, I think you hit it right on the head here - the reason medical costs cause so many bankruptcies is because nobody has any savings! Even "middle class" folks don't have any money in the bank. Everyone is living off debt, even supposedly "well to do" people, so when something goes wrong (like a major illness) it all comes crashing down. People are just as responsible here (in addition to the medical profession, politicians, etc.) - they need to start exercising some judgment and foresight and keep some money in the bank in case something goes wrong!

Somebody along the way (my mom) taught me it's noble and wise and prudent to live below one's means = put some damn money in the bank. I've done that for 25+ years now and it's not that difficult! Come on people, let's get a clue!

 

[Cliff Beer]

Exactly Domtoni! My mother is 88 years old, she may not have much time left but I would not want some government official counseling her on hospice or any other issue concerning her departure and I sure don't want her being profiled because of her AGE.

If you listened to the interview like I did then how else can you conceive that the government doesn't think the elderly are to be a burden on the system. Most of us here (baby boomer's) on this forum have paid our dues, and the government has been eating away at SS for years but when its our time to collect what we have been paying in they (government) will be telling you how to die to save a buck for the younger person who is still paying in or using it. This is a doctor or loved ones job not some government employee who has no knowledge of the person other than a piece of paper stating age and SS number.

If you don't want political points discussed on this forum then don't even open the tread. I for one vote and discuss my views, if you don't agree with them then thats YOUR RIGHT just as is mine.

Here's some interesting background data...

When SS was conceived and first put into effect, on average, people were living approximately five years after retirement. So, you retired at 60-65 and you died around 65 to 70 (on average). Fast forward to 2009, many people are retiring at 60-65 (typically well before they can afford to as most have little to no savings) but living to 75-85. Their retirement years have extended to more like 15-20 rather than 5, 3-4 times the original assumption. So, net, the baby boomers who are retiring now, haven't put nearly enough into the system over their working carears to support that extended retirement period.

Let's not fret about how the next generation coming along might somehow cheat the current baby boomer retiring generation, let's talk about the more important phenomenon of how what has been contributed by the babyboomer generation isn't sufficient to support 20+ years of living and medical costs in retirement! That's the 800lb gorilla in the room. No politician will even start to tackle that problem for fear of losing votes in the 60+ demographics (that's the demographic with the highest voting %) but that's the real underlying issue here.