"The High Costs of Dying..."

by j. wright - 11/23/2009
.
Last Sunday I watched a portion of 60 Minutes on CBS-TV. Their first segment had to do with national health care. It began with an opening statistic (whose validity some might question) claiming $50 billion is expended annually to keep ailing seniors alive for an additional two months or so in their last days. Is the "do no harm" axiom now dependent on costs? Or on the sanctity of life?

We all should remember, it’s still the PATIENT'S choice to linger in possible pain with the HOPE (Remember that word? A favorite of many liberals) that their condition might improve. Remember that liberal favorote; CHOICE? It's not up to the Doctor or the Government to decide. Not yet anyway

CBS, as self-appointed experts in medicine and national economics, concluded in the case of extending a fellow human's life for an indeterminate length of time, that $50 billion dollars is obviously too much American capital to waste. We need to become more "cost effective."

On October 19, Senate Democrat Majority Harry Reid stated almost sneeringly that Medical Tort Reform would save "only" $50 billion a year.

On August 31, 2009 the NY Times said medical tort reform is moving to the fore of the health care debate, that medical malpractice cost the system $50 billion a year. Reid referred to it as a small fraction of the $2 trillion that health care reform would cost. Obviously a faux pas on Harry's part, one of those nasty unintended consequences of forgetting which lie to rely upon. His Senate bill claims to cost "only" $847 billion during the next ten years. Do the math... multiply $50 billion ten times: $500 billion. A small fraction, Harry?

If Medical Tort Reform were put in place, how many fewer needless tests and costly medications would our current system push in order to prevent frivolous lawsuits? No, apparently it’s easier to expect ailing seniors to just die rather than to take potential income away from trial lawyers, cronies who contribute tons of money to the Democrat Party. Sleaze politics

Is $50 Billion too much to spend on aging seniors or is it too little to save on overall health care? Decisions, decisions. It's still $50 billion every year. The Republican minority have insisted that any Health Care Reform include ways to save billions in Tort Reform. Harry Reid says no way. The Republicans also offered up eleven (11) amendments during the debate of these many bills, a,endments that would force the lawmakers to drop what they have now and be nsured like the rest of the country will be under their great plan. All eleven were nixed. These jokers are OUR employees, but who'd have guessed that?

$50 billion is either a drop in the bucket or it’s a needless waste of money. It depends on where your values lie. My question is simple, why should U.S. government bureaucrats now get into the business of determining when the ailing should die, or live, and for how long?

Proponents of the government plan say that many doctors feel that those final stabs at prolonging an uncomfortable life do more harm than good and not much good. I say it doesn't matter what the doctors or the government "feels" or concludes. If the patient is awake, lucid and can communicate their wishes, to either pull the plug or give it another try, it's their CHOICE.

How much longer we will have the FREEDOM of CHOICE is debatable under this president and our current lawmakers. The lawmakers passed Medicare and Medicaid years ago to afford seniors some type of medical care... as usual, their numbers were way off the target, like ten times less than the actual costs when it paned out. Quite a mistake. Now the Democrat lawmakers, seeing that mistake, want to take away between s450 - s500 billion in payments to doctors and care providers, who subsequently will NOT accept Medicare patients, or will discover a way to cut their losses like rationing care. The elderly will be the ones left holding the bag.

This new health care boondoggle will cause thousands of doctors to retire or move off shore; it will add millions of people that are now uninsured and still leave millions of Americans without coverage. Care and treatment will not improve, costs will increase. The deficit will expand. Our debts to foreign nations will increase as well. It will ultimately insure illegal aliens (for their future votes following amnesty legislation) and worst, it will use taxpayer money to fund voluntary abortions. Those are the bad things. It’s possible the good things that are included in the bill won’t justify the bad.

What in hell are those lawmakers (Democrats) thinking? They seem all to willing to pass a really bad law instead of trying to improve what we have now.

jaq~

Passing A Bad Bill is Better Than Not Passing Any?

by j. wright - 11/19/2009
.
Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Company, behind closed doors again, NOT in the glare of C-Span cameras for all the world to see (as Candidate Obama promised) finally introduced the Senate's version of nationalized health care/insurance overhaul that the CBO estimates will cost $849 billion for the first ten years. Of course the new taxes to pay for this program begin now. The benefits, or lack of same, of the new plan will go into effect for the taxpayers six or seven years down the road, AFTER the 2012 elections. After the first ten years, who knows what the cost will be, or if the country will be solvent enough to afford it?
.
We've seen what happened to Medicare in the 25 years it has been in effect. It has exploded to ten times the cost of what was predicted by our "experts" in Washington. If "comprehensive health care reform" follows suit, our economy could totally collapse. There are areas where the goverenment should not involve itself (Read: meddle) and IMO, ths is one of them. Besides, its constitutionality is questionable, but who is examining at that?
..
The nearly $250 billion (1.4 trillion) "Doctor fix,” a stand-alone bill that strips a formula that automatically cuts Medicare physician payments out of "comprehensive" health reform, is still off budget, not paid for and raising the deficit. The Wall Street Journal writes, “This doctor maneuver is such a cleverly dishonest solution to their many contradictory promises that we're surprised Democrats didn't think of it sooner.” Will President Obama look the other way and break another huge campaign promise and sign health care reform into law while knowing it will definitely increase the deficit?
.
It should be interesting to see how he reacts after being taken "to the wood shed" by the Chinese over the ever expanding U.S. deficit, the incessant federal spending, and the threat of massive inflation in the future, which would place the billions of dollars the Chinese have 'invested' in the U.S. government in jeopardy.
.
The inmates are running the asylum and the Chinese recognize that. Too bad the MSM doesn't. They are too busy chasing former Governor Sarah Palin's skirt doing fact checks on her recent best selling book. Too bad someone from the Fourth Estate didn’t do as thorough a fact check on candidate Obama before the 2008 elections.
.
jaq~

President Obama says Health Care Overhaul Isn't About Him

by j. wright - 11/09/2009
.
In August of this year, according to Senator Charles Grassley, (R-IA), “A Democrat congressman last week told (him) after a conversation with the president that the president had trouble in the House of Representatives, and it wasn’t going to pass if there weren’t some changes made and the president says, ‘You’re going to destroy my presidency.‘ “
.
That president is none other than Barack H. Obama. The very same who stood in front of his vaunted teleprompter and asserted at various times that, “…this (health care reform) isn’t about me.”
.
The same “ruin my presidency” line was reportedly used as leverage on some of the reluctant Democrat Representatives in the House last week when President Obama caucused with them pushing for passage of Speaker Pelosi’s 2,000+ page bill.
.
If it isn’t about Obama, who is it about? It isn’t about the majority of the taxpayers who will have to eventually pay for this boondoggle called reform. Since when does the legacy of one president take precedence over the welfare of the 307 million Americans to whom he swore an oath?
.
Poll after poll taken in recent weeks have shown a majority of Americans are not in favor of a government takeover of our current health provider system. Yes, changes must be implemented but not at the expense of destroying what is good about we have now.
.
Speaker Pelosi stood on the steps of the nation’s capitol and pronounced, “…we have listened to the people.” The same ordinary people she insulted and derided following the Tea Party protests and Town Hall meetings last summer?
.
In my opinion, we have a self-serving, arrogant, out-of-control administration and legislative branch where elected officials totally ignore the wishes of their employers, the taxpayers. This is not the America where I grew up.
.
jaq~

Socialized Health-Care Is Already on the Books

by j. wright - 11/05/2009
.
In a televised interview recently, Dr. David Janda, orthopedic surgeon, University of Michigan, was featured as a guest. Janda, an author as well, is not a supporter of Obamacare in any fashion.
.
In his interview he indicated that half of the proposed government take-over of our health care system is already law, "slipped" into the previous Stimulus package (H.R. 1 EH, The American Investment and Recovery Act of 2009) and will soon take effect. You remember that bill: $787 billion in borrowed dollars, more than 1,000 pages mostly unread. Find it on the Internet at: http://readthestimulus.org/hr1_final.txt
.
Tragically, he indicated, no one from either party objected to the health provisions “slipped in” without discussion, which affects every one of us (see pages 445, 454, 479). Our medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. A new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure our doctors are doing what the federal government (bureaucrats) deem appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to have the remaining doctors who haven’t left the profession give up autonomy and learn to operate less like solo practitioners. Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties.
.
He also implied that if Obamacare passes into law, that 45% of the nation's current physicians will "retire" from practice. Add that fact to another, that more than 30 million new insured will be expecting treatment and we will have a total mess.
.
The previous “Stimulus” bill, now law, generated yet another bureaucracy, the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (see pages 190-192). Its goal is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they allegedly drive up costs. Mercy! Talk about achieving the lowest common denominator!
.
Unfortunately, the elderly will be the hardest hit. As Democrat Tom Daschle wrote in his recent book, ”Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them.”
.
Keep in mind this is already the law of the land. “I’m from the government, I’m here to help.” Doesn’t make a lot of sense, does it?
.
jaq~