President Empathy

Gonz

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
Not even in Congress yet & already, we're limiting care...

Q She's 105 now, over 105. But at 100, the doctor had said to her, I can't do anything more unless you have a pacemaker. I said go for it, she said go for it. But the arrhythmia specialist said, no, it's too old. Her doctor said, I'm going to make an appointment, because a picture is worth a thousand words. And when the other arrhythmia specialist knew her, saw her joy of life and so on, he said, I'm going forward. So that was over five years ago. My question to you is, outside the medical criteria for prolonging life for somebody who is elderly, is there any consideration that can be given for a certain spirit, a certain joy of living, quality of life? Or is it just a medical cutoff at a certain age?

THE PRESIDENT: But, look, the first thing for all of us to understand is that we actually have some choices to make about how we want to deal with our own end-of-life care. And that's one of the things, I think, that we can all promote. And this is not a big government program. This is something that each of us individually can do, is to draft and sign a living will so that we're very clear with our doctors about how we want to approach the end of life.

I don't think that we can make judgments based on people's spirit. That would be a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that say that we are going to provide good, quality care for all people --

Q But the money might never have been there for her pacemaker or for your grandmother's hip replacement.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, and that's absolutely true. And end-of-life care is one of the most difficult, sensitive decisions we're going to have to make. I don't want bureaucracies making those decisions. But understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another. If they're not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they're being made by private insurers. We don't always make those decisions explicitly. We often make those decisions by just letting people run out of money or making the deductibles too high or the out-of-pocket expenses so onerous that they just can't afford the care.

And all we're suggesting -- and we're not going to solve every difficult problem in terms of end-of-life care; a lot of that is going to have to be we as a culture and as a society starting to make better decisions within our own families and for ourselves. But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system that's not making anybody's mom better, that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know, and your mom know, that you know what, maybe this isn't going to help, maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.

And those kinds of decisions between doctors and patients, and making sure that our incentives are not preventing those good decisions and that the doctors and hospitals all are aligned for patient care -- that's something we can achieve. We're not going to solve every single one of these very difficult decisions at end of life, and ultimately that's going to be between physicians and patients. But we can make real progress on this front if we work a little bit harder.
Click to expand...

WH
 
oh no, it wasn't nothing.

the text gonz highlighted, taken completely out of context, makes obama seem like a real meanie! bad bad bad meanie!

what ever shall you poor oppressed conservatives do now???
 
maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.

It's a choice..as is saying 'fuck it' and walking out of the hospice and dying at home instead. It's a choice that's currently being made by Insurance company Execs and policy-monkeys but should be made by the individual, their family and their doctors (giving advice).
 
Hey, I'm no big Obama cheerleader, but getting sick and tired of everybody giving the guy so much grief, and often over the most trivial B.S. Call him on the B.S., if you disagree with his policies, but he IS our President. His cabinet IS our Executive Branch right now. I don't agree with a lot of his ideas, but I listened closely and never once heard him "apologize for America". There is a big difference in acknowledging that mistakes were made, and "apologizing". I think the guy is trying his damndest to solve a lot of problems. I just don't see him as the Evil Socialist that a lot of mud-slingers try to convince us he is. He seems to me much more of a realist, a pragmatist, than Dubya or Slick Willie were. Give the guy a chance, and then vote otherwise next time if you don't like the results.
 
Oh and BTW Gonz, wait til your insurance limits your care. If you ever have enough claims for health issues with the system as it is now, it is not a question of if it will happen but rather a question of when.
 
"What you people don't realize is he is bringing you all this change, and all you can do is write a bunch of crap about him!"

images



:banana2:
 
MrBishop said:
It's a choice..
Click to expand...

Yep, one made by "Insurance company Execs and policy-monkeys , by the individual, their family and their doctors".

There is a choice. When the only option is the government, the choice is removed.
 
randomJACKASS said:
Oh and BTW Gonz, wait til your insurance limits your care. If you ever have enough claims for health issues with the system as it is now, it is not a question of if it will happen but rather a question of when.
Click to expand...

Look into Canada & Britain. Restricted care, when there are options vs no option at all.
 
JTP said:
I just don't see him as the Evil Socialist
Click to expand...

Every move this man has made has Marx written all over it. I did vote for another. My vote failed. Unfortunately, those whose vote elected him are haveing buyers remorse.
 
Gonz said:
There is a choice. When the only option is the government, the choice is removed.
Click to expand...

This sentence confirms that you don't really know what the plan is and are just spouting off nonsense.

Unfortunately, those whose vote elected him are haveing buyers remorse.
Click to expand...

Nope, not really. Now there was a shit ton of buyers remorse with Bush but with Obama not so much.
 
Gonz said:
Every move this man has made has Marx written all over it.
Click to expand...

I'm a Marx fan myself, especially Groucho and Harpo. Not a big fan of Karl, though. All joking aside, would you consider the Roosevelts Marxist?
Both T.R., a Republican, and FDR, a Democrat, were accused of being Socialists in their day, T.R. for his trust-busting and Progressive reforms and Square Deal, and FDR for his New Deal programs. The C.C.C. and T.V.A. put a lot of people to doing honest work that benefited the whole community. A lot of those guys and gals would have starved or turned to a life of crime. I have plenty of criticisms of both Roosevelts, but in all, I think they did best by curbing the excesses of runaway capitalism and probably saved this country from a Commie Revolution. It was a damned near thing, both in the first decade of the 20th century, and again in the 30's. They were not "traitors to their class", what they did was save their mostly ungrateful wealthy friends and families from self-destruction. Dubya did capitalism and the idea of Free Enterprise a great disservice by being an Enabler for out-of-bounds excesses- see Enron, etc. He should have given them some strong medicine and enforce some damn discipline, instead of looking the other way. Slick Willie Clinton betrayed us too, in different ways. But I just don't see Obama as a Marxist or even a Socialist. Maybe I'm missing something, got an open mind- enlighten me with some facts. No shop-worn rhetoric, please.
 
Teddy was a full blown "progressive", as were most of the early Republicans. Look at what a mess Wilson made. Yep, I'd consider FDR a socialist.

Our government is founded on the principle of the individual. All power comes from the individual & is lent to the government. The federal government has no authority to regulate the individual.

Socialism, and it's poorly named twin progressivism, is founded on the principle of the group. Whatever doesn't benefit the group is outlawed.

I don't want to & won't live for the communmity. What benfits me & my family & friends, will ultimately help the group but I'll be damned if that's in my top 5 list of Should I?

Enron? They went to jail, under GW.

Go back & blame Carter for stengthening the (I can't recall the name - it forced for more inner-city loans, to people who couldn't afford them) program. It was then strengthened by Clinton. Barney Frank still insists it'll work. Our current mess is predominately from bad loans, sponsored by bad gov''t programs & subsidized by Fannie & Freddie & high gas prices...consumerism run amock, not capitalism. If folks can't take a jump in gas prices without destroying the economy, then the problem lies with them...not the engine that allowed them the freedom to operate at their own risk.

Read the Constitution. It does not allow the federal government the powers to help the individual or business. It does not allow the federal government authority to do much of anything. Which is as it ought to be. The individual is power. The county & state are granted some, by the individual. Taking over banks & insurance companies & manufacturers is a marxist move. Granting the federal government near unlimited power to regualte everything from power to fuel to ultimately your every move (the cap & trade thing) is marxist. Next, we'll be granting immunity to nearly 30 million illegal aliens - just to gain their vote. Follow that up with federally mandated healthcare. More gov't control.

Obama is not the primary leader of this pack, he's just the latest head.
 
Gonz said:
....miscellaneous ultra right wing pipe dreams....
Click to expand...

You know why there is no system like you described in today's world? Because it wouldn't work! There are very few people in the world who are stuck on this idea for good reason. There would be no cohesion or rules of fair play. At best we'd have a lot of feuding between states and a dissolution of the union within probably less than a decade.

But by all means keep dreaming and being angry because it doesn't happen, and it won't happen, thank god!
 
Gonz said:
Teddy was a full blown "progressive", as were most of the early Republicans. Look at what a mess Wilson made. Yep, I'd consider FDR a socialist.
Click to expand...

Yes, T.R. was a full-blown Progressive in the best way- he brought about many much-needed reforms and was a conservationist when the country really needed it most. The J.P. Morgans and Collis Huntingtons of the country were put on notice that they were free to be incredibly wealthy, but they couldn't run roughshod over everything and act like they owned the government. Woody Wilson made a mess of things, being too idealistic and not grounded in reality, but he was a Democrat, not a Republican. I've often wondered how things would have been different if the Bull Moose Party had won. Poor old Taft never even wanted to be prez. T.R. just handed the ball to him and went on safari for a year, then got all pissy when Taft tried to be his own man. T.R. should have stayed another term. He was riding high, doing good and had most of the people behind him. He got the Panama Canal dug, that alone makes him great. You think McKinley or anyone else would have had the vision or energy to do that? But the country had to suffer Wilson, then Harding, then Coolidge. Herbert Hoover was a brilliant organizer and would have been a great president, but he inherited a mess from Harding and Coolidge. A lot of people think Hoover was the big bad boogeyman, but dammit, the Depression wasn't his fault. Blame Coolidge and his lassez-faire hands-off attitude towards the Wall Street crowd. Just let them run amok like kids in a candy store. Will we ever learn that BigBiz just can't control itself? Not that a big Gov. Bureaucracy is the answer, either, but that brings us to FDR. He did a lot of things that were just plain wrong- trying to "pack" the Supreme Court is just one example. But a lot of his programs just made good practical sense at the time. Sure, the WPA was a sort of "make-work, look busy" deal for awhile, but the CCC and etc. put many folks to work doing good, productive things. Here in Harris County, Georgia, most people vote Republican now but still consider FDR a great Prez. Hell, the Soil Conservation Service alone did agriculture a world of good. Ag's a big mess now, but it ain't FDR's fault. We were headed for a world of hurt in the 30's, - famines, crop failures, etc. but FDR and Co. was inventive and flexible- try this and if it doesn't work, try something else. Find practical solutions. People wring their hands today and develop ulcers over this economy, but our grandparents were the ones who knew what real "Hard Times" were. Okay, call FDR a Socialist if you want, but he saved this country from the likes of Huey Long and Wendell Willkie. There were plenty of wannabe Stalins and Hitlers right here in the Good Ol USA who wanted to take over and seize control, set up their own little dictatorships, FDR was a power-hungry control freak, too, but he knew when to reign it in, most of the time, and he really wanted to preserve the basic freedoms for all. LBJ was prez when I was born, and for all his mistakes, he still got some things done that needed doing, some of which were long overdue. Then came Nixon, who was brilliant, but had that age-old flaw of hubris and paranoia that was his downfall. They just don't make 'em like the Roosevelts anymore. i don't expect any miracles from the present administration, but wish them luck. Throwing out most of the incumbents in Congress, banning lobbyists, and abolishing political parties would correct a lot of problems, but we all know none of those things are gonna happen. Our democratic republic is a great big mess and always has been, but I'll take it over Communism or Fascism any day.
 
Once a government plan is in place, private insurance companies will be run out of business.

Established MDs will retire. The best students won't enter the field.


Angry Docs Say Proposed Government-Run Health Care Plan Will Drive Physicians out of Medicine


Access to the latest drugs will be curtailed. The federal health czar will determine which drugs and treatments are cost effective -- compared to medically effective.




If you believe the White House, there are 30 million Americans who support a government health care takeover. But if you look at the funding behind the Obamacare campaign, it's the same few leftist billionaires, union bosses and partisan community organizers pushing the socialized medicine agenda. Let's connect the dots.

On Thursday, a national grass-roots coalition called Health Care for America Now (HCAN) marched on Capitol Hill to demand universal health care.

In fact, 1825 K St. is Ground Zero for a plethora of progressive groups subsidized by antiwar, anti-Republican, Big Nanny special interests.
Click to expand...
 
Cerise said:
Once a government plan is in place, private insurance companies will be run out of business.

Established MDs will retire. The best students won't enter the field.
Click to expand...

Yes, because that's what happens in all the other countries that have government plans.

Oh wait, it doesn't. They actually have better healthcare that they spend far less money.

These weak scare tactics are crap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top