Opposition to health care reform "fishy?" - Page 2

beachmouse · 08-06-2009, 10:24 AM

As for why every five years, hey, things change a lot over that time period, both in terms of the patient's health and advances in medicine. If you've got a family history of chronic and ultimately fatal disease A, and suddenly drug B, which can vastly improve the quality of life for disease A patients, hits the market, then you may need to make changes in your official legal plan since you won't suffer so much anymore if you develop disease A. Or if you end up developing chronic and painful condition C instead, you may find yourself not wanting heroic measures to save your life anymore like you did when you could comfortably walk to and from your own mailbox on your own every day.

As for the 'report anything fishy', it's at the point where congressmen and senators are getting assaulted and even getting death threats over the health care reform bills. Maybe not such a bad thing to tip authorities off over what sounds an awful lot like possible domestic terrorism:

The Washington Monthly

Dominoes · 08-06-2009, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Here4Good

Where can I find this kind of information? Is it something you got as an analysis from a trade group? It's frustrating to have knowledge gaps like this.

Go to this link:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...3200ih.txt.pdf

This is the entire house bill. Go to pp. 431-432.
It details Expansion of Physician Quality Reporting Index (PQRI) for End-of-Life Care. There will be reporting codes on the medical claims submitted by doctors and they have to report these codes once every five years or get docked payment on all medicare patients starting in 2011.

I would ask any of the other posters who question my sources if they have read the 1000+ bill. It is a bunch of mumbo-jumbo to a layperson, but a physician or health administrator can read and see how they are going to cut your pay if you don't do what they want.

goodwitch58 · 08-06-2009, 10:44 AM

It is common here to source your information if you are giving something other than an opinion. I believe we are simply asking for your sources, not questioning them

Andy A. · 08-06-2009, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LuciferSam

How does it follow that discussing end of life plans with a doctor will lead to Medicare witholding payment? I think it's just common sense to discuss end of life plans with just about anyone who will listen. Doctors, attoneys, relatives... I know for certain there are conditions in which I would not want to be kept alive, and would want do not feed and do not resuscitate orders issued. Many are wary to discuss these issues and by the time it matters it is too late. They end up stuck in a living sort of limbo when they would much rather be dead while at the same time they are costing Medicare hundreds of thousands of dollars. Before I become alarmed by this bill, I will need to see something specific in the wording that freaks me out. The notion of letting go of someone in their later years is simply no cause for alarm to me, and neither is the prospect of myself dying with dignity.

You're right. Dying with dignity should be discussed. By me, my family and my doctor. Not with some government bureaucrat.

Here4Good · 08-06-2009, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dominoes

Go to this link:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...3200ih.txt.pdf

This is the entire house bill. Go to pp. 431-432.
It details Expansion of Physician Quality Reporting Index (PQRI) for End-of-Life Care. There will be reporting codes on the medical claims submitted by doctors and they have to report these codes once every five years or get docked payment on all medicare patients starting in 2011.

I would ask any of the other posters who question my sources if they have read the 1000+ bill. It is a bunch of mumbo-jumbo to a layperson, but a physician or health administrator can read and see how they are going to cut your pay if you don't do what they want.

Didn't mean to offend, just looking for information. I am an information junkie.

And, I read it, and it reads to me like the PQRI standard are for the "creation of and adherence to orders for life-sustaining treatment". I do not know the exact quantitative impact on this particular part of the standard to a private practitioner's practice revenue.

Every time, and I mean every time I went to Sacred Heart with my parents, I got the advance directive paperwork handed to me, which suggests to me that they think it's a good idea to discuss it, and they are often asked about it. Understand, the directive "Keep me alive at all costs and with any means possible" is a valid advance directive.

I don't know, really, how consumers are supposed to choose a doctor anymore. Do doctors publish a full manifesto of all of their beliefs, so that we can know what they might or might not think is acceptable to discuss with patients? Should we call the doctor's office with a list of questions concerning how they would act in each circumstance? Seriously, I am not being facetious - I think it is completely within every doctor's rights to not perform treatments with which they do not agree. I just don't know how the layman is supposed to navigate these waters without help.

Here4Good · 08-06-2009, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy A.

You're right. Dying with dignity should be discussed. By me, my family and my doctor. Not with some government bureaucrat.

Where does the bill say you have to discuss it with the government?

hnooe · 08-06-2009, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Here4Good

Where does the bill say you have to discuss it with the government?

It doesn't--fear campaigns, once again, work well on certain groups I guess.

Obama has not done a great job of attesting to what reform will or won't do for the average Joe. From this forum, it is obvious that certain people will always be skeptical of the government involvement in anything besides defending them from foreign enemies.

Andy A. · 08-06-2009, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goodwitch58

It is common here to source your information if you are giving something other than an opinion. I believe we are simply asking for your sources, not questioning them

Just as an observation, I have noted with interest that every time a Conservative point of view is presented with which many on this board don't agree, there is almost an immediate request for "source" from that segment of the forum. To me, and I assume several others, it relays the fact that we are lying or making things up to support our point of view. Usually the person posting factual information has researched it, though occasionally this may not be the case. I also notice that rarely does a Conservative ask for a varification of sources. It is, too me and I'm sure others, insulting that our veracity is so often question by some.

poppy · 08-06-2009, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy A.

You're right. Dying with dignity should be discussed. By me, my family and my doctor. Not with some government bureaucrat.

I believe the "practitioner" mentioned in post #50 is your doctor, but if you are consulting a government bureaucrat for you health needs I would be nervous too.

LuciferSam · 08-06-2009, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Here4Good

Where does the bill say you have to discuss it with the government?

Just more swift boat tactics.

Here4Good · 08-06-2009, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy A.

Just as an observation, I have noted with interest that every time a Conservative point of view is presented with which many on this board don't agree, there is almost an immediate request for "source" from that segment of the forum. To me, and I assume several others, it relays the fact that we are lying or making things up to support our point of view. Usually the person posting factual information has researched it, though occasionally this may not be the case. I also notice that rarely does a Conservative ask for a varification of sources. It is, too me and I'm sure others, insulting that our veracity is so often question by some.

I didn't think Dominoes was stating a conservative POV, just that he (she?) had brought up something I hadn't heard before. I'm not labelling, I've just seen too much misinformation, and I assumed that Dominoes appears to be a medical professional, they had better info than most.

I didn't disagree. I just asked for information. Please don't see that as an attack; I can't vouch for others, but I really just wanted the source.

poppy · 08-06-2009, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotDeadYet

It is simply beyond me how you get from a living will to assisted suicide.

Moreover, I would think that the further to the right that you are, that is the more libertarian you are, the more you would be in favor of a living will, in order to keep your choices your own. Eventually, unless we die suddenly, we may very well find ourselves in the position of other people making these decisions for us. The purpose of a living will is to retain control over end of life care.

It's also beyond me how anyone can get from a covered benefit to a mandate. Insurance covers all kinds of things people regularly refuse, from mammograms to back surgery to chemotherapy. If we start removing all the covered procedures that some people would object to and refuse for themselves, then eventually there would be nothing left.

So, one more time folks - a covered benefit is not a mandate. If you don't want the benefit, don't use it. Do your living will yourself, or don't do one at all.

I sure wish I knew all this before I agreed to that pap smear.

Dominoes · 08-06-2009, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Here4Good

Where does the bill say you have to discuss it with the government?

The physician has to report it to receive full payment on their visits. Therefore, it will be a mandate.

The end-of-life questionaires are given out by all hospitals as they are mandated by JHACO, which is the accrediting body of all hospital facilities. It is not being done just because it is a good idea, it is being done by government mandate.

So, I just bust the balloon of the leftist activist here and they find some other minutia to argue about. Unbelievable

beachmouse · 08-06-2009, 12:08 PM

JCAHO isn't a government agency. It's a private non-profit accrediting agency. Many states are perfectly happy to accept certifications from other accrediting agencies that do the same thing JCAHO does.

TooFarTampa · 08-06-2009, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dominoes

The physician has to report it to receive full payment on their visits. Therefore, it will be a mandate.

The end-of-life questionaires are given out by all hospitals as they are mandated by JHACO, which is the accrediting body of all hospital facilities. It is not being done just because it is a good idea, it is being done by government mandate.

So, I just bust the balloon of the leftist activist here and they find some other minutia to argue about. Unbelievable

No, really. I think most of us who are unfamiliar with physician reimbursement are trying to get a clearer picture. As you say it is complex.

I did read that portion of the bill but it was confusing to me because I do not know the terminology or even where to look.

So are you saying that under this bill, if primary care physicians do not provide end-of-life consultations every five years to a patient over a certain age, they will not be reimbursed for the entire amount of their visit with that patient?

Or, even worse, are you saying that if PCPs don't provide end-of-life consultations to all of their patients over a certain age every five years, all of their visits will be reimbursed at a reduced rate?

There don't appear to be enough primary care physicians to fill the needs of the poplace, so anything that specifically harms their compensation is important to know about. I don't see it as a small detail at all. I would be interested in knowing how this might work. I tried to hunt around for physician discussions on this but couldn't find anything.

Dominoes · 08-06-2009, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hnooe

It doesn't--fear campaigns, once again, work well on certain groups I guess.

Obama has not done a great job of attesting to what reform will or won't do for the average Joe. From this forum, it is obvious that certain people will always be skeptical of the government involvement in anything besides defending them from foreign enemies.

Please just read the bill. You can see for yourself what it contains. If you believe whatever the President, the Speaker, the Senate Pres, or even Rush Limbaugh from the right says; you are not getting the whole story. Everyone has a hidden agenda here and it is hidden in legislation that the average person cannot understand.

Stating that Obama is attesting to what it will or won't do is ludicrous. Do you think he is going to get up on the podium and say that a there will be a subsidised public health plan that is going to drive private insurers out of business over the next 10 years? Do you think he is going to say when that plan gets overloaded and there is an even larger deficit that health care will get rationed? Do you think he is going to say that the wealthy alone cannot fund this and there will be tax increases for the middle class? Do you think he is going to say that the unfunded mandates on the states will require states to raise current taxes or institure new taxes?

If you are for this reform despite these facts, then you should support it and I have no problem with you. But to say that these questions are not serious ones that are nearly certain to happen as the legislation currently stands is simply moronic.

Dominoes · 08-06-2009, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TooFarTampa

No, really. I think most of us who are unfamiliar with physician reimbursement are trying to get a clearer picture. As you say it is complex.

I did read that portion of the bill but it was confusing to me because I do not know the terminology or even where to look.

So are you saying that under this bill, if primary care physicians do not provide end-of-life consultations every five years to a patient over a certain age, they will not be reimbursed for the entire amount of their visit with that patient?

Or, even worse, are you saying that if PCPs don't provide end-of-life consultations to all of their patients over a certain age every five years, all of their visits will be reimbursed at a reduced rate?

There don't appear to be enough primary care physicians to fill the needs of the poplace, so anything that specifically harms their compensation is important to know about. I don't see it as a small detail at all. I would be interested in knowing how this might work. I tried to hunt around for physician discussions on this but couldn't find anything.

The PRQI is how the government is tracking health care quality. There are certain codes for illness that have PRQI codes that match with them. For example, if we report the diagnosis code of hypertension. There are a few PRQI codes that must be reported on the claim as well to assure that we asked the proper questions related to hypertension. The data is collected by medicare and at the end of the year if you report 90% of the codes you were supposed to you get a 2% bonus on ALL of you medicare payments. If you report 89%, you do not get the bonus. PRQI has been around for about 3 years and it is being phased in. Right now, you get a bonus for reporting; but by 2015 they are going to start deducting from your payment if you are not reporting. It is an administrative nightmare that is going to drive older physicians out of practice when the penalties for not reporting are phased in. The PRQI is where the end-of-life issue is being placed. So while not a mandate, your physician will get penalized if they don't report these codes every 5 years after 2015.

Winnie · 08-06-2009, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jensieblue

Do you feel this way about Medicare? Medical teaching hospitals?

Have they started asking the public to report anything "fishy" heard in opposition to their plans? Unles they have, I have no problem with Medicare nor with Medical teaching hospitals.

Dominoes · 08-06-2009, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachmouse

JCAHO isn't a government agency. It's a private non-profit accrediting agency. Many states are perfectly happy to accept certifications from other accrediting agencies that do the same thing JCAHO does.

I did not say they were a government agency, but I am pretty sure that their accreditation is required of hospitals for federal funding. There is significant government involvement in JCAHO, I apologize for missing the acronym. I have been in hospitals in 4 states, and they all use JCAHO, so I am unaware of other accrediting bodies for hospitals. They do require from these hospitals documentation on end-of-life issues on every patient that is updated yearly.

TooFarTampa · 08-06-2009, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dominoes

The PRQI is how the government is tracking health care quality. There are certain codes for illness that have PRQI codes that match with them. For example, if we report the diagnosis code of hypertension. There are a few PRQI codes that must be reported on the claim as well to assure that we asked the proper questions related to hypertension. The data is collected by medicare and at the end of the year if you report 90% of the codes you were supposed to you get a 2% bonus on ALL of you medicare payments. If you report 89%, you do not get the bonus. PRQI has been around for about 3 years and it is being phased in. Right now, you get a bonus for reporting; but by 2015 they are going to start deducting from your payment if you are not reporting. It is an administrative nightmare that is going to drive older physicians out of practice when the penalties for not reporting are phased in. The PRQI is where the end-of-life issue is being placed. So while not a mandate, your physician will get penalized if they don't report these codes every 5 years after 2015.

That is very interesting how PRQI is scheduled to change from a carrot to a stick.

Here4Good · 08-06-2009, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dominoes

The physician has to report it to receive full payment on their visits. Therefore, it will be a mandate.

The end-of-life questionaires are given out by all hospitals as they are mandated by JHACO, which is the accrediting body of all hospital facilities. It is not being done just because it is a good idea, it is being done by government mandate.

So, I just bust the balloon of the leftist activist here and they find some other minutia to argue about. Unbelievable

Are you referring to me as a leftist activist? I asked a civil question.

Winnie · 08-06-2009, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachmouse

As for the 'report anything fishy', it's at the point where congressmen and senators are getting assaulted and even getting death threats over the health care reform bills. Maybe not such a bad thing to tip authorities off over what sounds an awful lot like possible domestic terrorism:

The Washington Monthly

Quote:

Now, I haven't seen any reports as to who this Democratic lawmaker is, or whether the run-in was filmed or photographed. For that matter, we don't know just how serious the confrontation was -- there's a qualitative difference between a shoulder-check in a hallway and taking a swing at someone -- or whether it prompted a police report.

Even this young 'journalist' doesn't appear convinced there was any real assault. His subsequent remarks in the article cause me to think he is biased and immature. Once somebody starts name-calling, they lose my consideration.

In any case, I do believe any threats or violence should be reported to the police.

Many of these left-leaning sites are sounding like they have completely forgotten the treatment President Bush and his administration received at public events. Politics is a tough business. Still, it is part of their job to listen to the people they represent.

Dominoes · 08-06-2009, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Here4Good

Are you referring to me as a leftist activist? I asked a civil question.

I apologize. It does come across that way. I was answering your question in the first part and then speaking of some who had their bubble burst my previous post. I should have done 2 seperate replies.

Winnie · 08-06-2009, 05:10 PM

I just saw that Robert Gibbs said "nobody is collecting names." Whew, I feel better.

'Nobody Is Collecting Names': White House Responds to Charge Itâ€™s Monitoring Speech of Health Care Reform Opponents - Political Punch

Also of interest,

Quote:

When asked today whether it is misinformation that in 2003 President Obama, then a state senator, supported a single-payer health care system, Gibbs suggested that since as a presidential candidate and president Mr. Obama has changed his position, and dropped his advocacy of single payer, the clips are misleading.

That 2003 statement was in the "misleading" video that started this. The White House should have just explained that President Obama had now changed his mind about it. Instead they tried to present it as a misrepresentation. Same ole, same ole in D.C.

Beach Runner · 08-06-2009, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotDeadYet

BR, I will try one more time. It is NOT mandated. The new proposed benefit would pay for a consultation once every five years. In other words, you can use the benefit every five years, but not oftener. And, you can use it not at all, if that is your choice.
If you understood the living will fully and signed a POA, then you might not want any help. On the other hand, if say for instance you developed some complicated illness you didn't anticipate and you wanted some professional help making sure your living will reflects your wishes in these new circumstances, then you might want to use this benefit.
A covered benefit is not the same thing as a mandate.

But why pay more taxes to cover this benefit when every time you check into a hospital, it's part of the admissions procedure?

goodwitch58 · 08-06-2009, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy A.

Just as an observation, I have noted with interest that every time a Conservative point of view is presented with which many on this board don't agree, there is almost an immediate request for "source" from that segment of the forum. To me, and I assume several others, it relays the fact that we are lying or making things up to support our point of view. Usually the person posting factual information has researched it, though occasionally this may not be the case. I also notice that rarely does a Conservative ask for a varification of sources. It is, too me and I'm sure others, insulting that our veracity is so often question by some.

Andy, I think this is insulting -- the last time I requested Dominoes source his information, I stated that I was not questioning his medical opinion--I just wanted to know where he got his information. He replied that it was from the Florida Medical Association--I was able to primary source that myself and further look into the point I was interested in.

I have no idea whether he is conservative or progressive, and frankly I don't care. He had mentioned something that I wanted to find out more about, and I wanted to know where the information could be found.

It is common here to source our materials if it is not opinion, and most everyone does it without prodding. Just because more progressives ask for attribution than conservatives do, does not mean that asking for the source is casting any cloud over what is being posted.

And, in the above case, as TFT states, few of us are familiar with internal physician coding or the lingo associated with that. It seems to me that if the point is worth posting, then certainly supplying the source to someone who is interested enough to read your post, should not be a problem.

believer · 08-06-2009, 06:49 PM

Socialist or Social LIte

Andy A. · 08-06-2009, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goodwitch58

Andy, I think this is insulting -- the last time I requested Dominoes source his information, I stated that I was not questioning his medical opinion--I just wanted to know where he got his information. He replied that it was from the Florida Medical Association--I was able to primary source that myself and further look into the point I was interested in.

I have no idea whether he is conservative or progressive, and frankly I don't care. He had mentioned something that I wanted to find out more about, and I wanted to know where the information could be found.

It is common here to source our materials if it is not opinion, and most everyone does it without prodding. Just because more progressives ask for attribution than conservatives do, does not mean that asking for the source is casting any cloud over what is being posted.

And, in the above case, as TFT states, few of us are familiar with internal physician coding or the lingo associated with that. It seems to me that if the point is worth posting, then certainly supplying the source to someone who is interested enough to read your post, should not be a problem.

Gooewitch58, sorry you find it "insulting". I find many things posted here "insulting". As I said in my post, it is an observation and I believe a valid one.

Bob · 08-06-2009, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by believer

Socialist or Social LIte

spam, the other white meat

LuciferSam · 08-06-2009, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goodwitch58

Andy, I think this is insulting -- the last time I requested Dominoes source his information, I stated that I was not questioning his medical opinion--I just wanted to know where he got his information. He replied that it was from the Florida Medical Association--I was able to primary source that myself and further look into the point I was interested in.

I have no idea whether he is conservative or progressive, and frankly I don't care. He had mentioned something that I wanted to find out more about, and I wanted to know where the information could be found.

It is common here to source our materials if it is not opinion, and most everyone does it without prodding. Just because more progressives ask for attribution than conservatives do, does not mean that asking for the source is casting any cloud over what is being posted.

And, in the above case, as TFT states, few of us are familiar with internal physician coding or the lingo associated with that. It seems to me that if the point is worth posting, then certainly supplying the source to someone who is interested enough to read your post, should not be a problem.

Goodwitch, you have to understand. Everything Andy says is 100% true because it's common sense. After all, he read it in a chain email that told him to send it to everyone he knows. How could you possible question his veracity ?

TooFarTampa · 08-06-2009, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by believer

Socialist or Social LIte

Yes, and it doesn't make sense. Socialism is the opposite of what The Joker was trying to achieve. But, whatever! Makes for a nice visual.

LuciferSam · 08-06-2009, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Here4Good

Are you referring to me as a leftist activist? I asked a civil question.

I sure hope he deals better with his patient's concerns than he does with ours. He has the bedside manner of a coroner.

idlewind · 08-06-2009, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winnie

Spam is one thing, "fishy" casual conversation is quite another!

Of course you trust President Obama's White House and did not trust that of President Bush. I am/was wary of both.

You win the prize Winnie.

The point is I do not trust either one of them. It smacks of "big brother."

I guess that if Bush had requested the same information on those who oppose the war Lucifersam and bob would have been all for it.

LuciferSam · 08-06-2009, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by idlewind

You win the prize Winnie.

The point is I do not trust either one of them. It smacks of "big brother."

I guess that if Bush had requested the same information on those who oppose the war Lucifersam and bob would have been all for it.

I haven't stated my opinion on this one way or another.

hnooe · 08-06-2009, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by idlewind

You win the prize Winnie.

The point is I do not trust either one of them. It smacks of "big brother."

I guess that if Bush had requested the same information on those who oppose the war Lucifersam and bob would have been all for it.

Hey I am feeling Left o u t

idlewind · 08-06-2009, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hnooe

Hey I am feeling Left o u t

Revenge is sweet. You left me out of your right wing extremist list so I left you out of my left wing extremist list.

hnooe · 08-06-2009, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by idlewind

Revenge is sweet. You left me out of your right wing extremist list so I left you out of my left wing extremist list.

Sorry but you have been MIA, glad you are back!

idlewind · 08-06-2009, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hnooe

Sorry but you have been MIA, glad you are back!

Having to work day and night to save money to buy ammo.

Thanks for the welcome though, it's great to be loved.

I was hoping you would say I was left out because I am the one independent thinker around here, so now I am crushed all over again.

LuciferSam · 08-07-2009, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy A.

Just as an observation, I have noted with interest that every time a Conservative point of view is presented with which many on this board don't agree, there is almost an immediate request for "source" from that segment of the forum. To me, and I assume several others, it relays the fact that we are lying or making things up to support our point of view. Usually the person posting factual information has researched it, though occasionally this may not be the case. I also notice that rarely does a Conservative ask for a varification of sources. It is, too me and I'm sure others, insulting that our veracity is so often question by some.

Supporting evidence please.

lerxst · 08-07-2009, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy A.

Just as an observation, I have noted with interest that every time a Conservative point of view is presented with which many on this board don't agree, there is almost an immediate request for "source" from that segment of the forum. To me, and I assume several others, it relays the fact that we are lying or making things up to support our point of view. Usually the person posting factual information has researched it, though occasionally this may not be the case. I also notice that rarely does a Conservative ask for a varification of sources. It is, too me and I'm sure others, insulting that our veracity is so often question by some.

Andy, oftentimes but not always when a factual concrete source of information is referenced by a conservative you can usually tell by the responses and it's almost predictable. 1) a deafening silence 2) scorn and ridicule and 3) "bait masters" come out of the woodwork. Not everyone is concerned with truth unfortunately, to the community organizer, "truth to him is relative and changing" "it is not fixed" according to Saul alinsky's playbook. Hence the charges on here to "evolve". Truth suddenly becomes important when the organizer " obeys rule # 4 in Alinsky's playbook, "make them live up to their own book of rules".
thanks for being so bold to voice this excellent observation.

Here4Good · 08-07-2009, 07:52 PM

Oh, FTLOG, never freakin mind. I thought I could learn something from someone who was obviously a professional in the field being discussed. I'll PM them next time and avoid all this navel-gazing.

If any of you had been paying attention, I have been pretty conservative/libertarian on my opinions on this topic and had been trying to find those things on which we could agree.

singinchicken · 08-08-2009, 07:53 AM

Seems that the whole idea may be illegal in the first place.
Wha??? Oops!

Let, first, start by saying "Oh, gee...Fox News...Whatever..."

The White House strategy of turning supporters into snitches when they see "fishy" information about the health care debate may run afoul of the law, legal experts say.

White House Move to Collect 'Fishy' Info May Be Illegal, Critics Say - Political News - FOXNews.com

Of course, nothing will come of it, but it does raise interesting questions...

poppy · 08-08-2009, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by singinchicken

Seems that the whole idea may be illegal in the first place.
Wha??? Oops!

Let, first, start by saying "Oh, gee...Fox News...Whatever..."

The White House strategy of turning supporters into snitches when they see "fishy" information about the health care debate may run afoul of the law, legal experts say.

White House Move to Collect 'Fishy' Info May Be Illegal, Critics Say - Political News - FOXNews.com

Of course, nothing will come of it, but it does raise interesting questions...

Instead of asking for misleading and false info one could resort to illegally wiretapping citizens and---oh wait, that would never happen in America.

singinchicken · 08-08-2009, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poppy

Instead of asking for misleading and false info one could resort to illegally wiretapping citizens and---oh wait, that would never happen in America.

No...that would never happen in the USA...
.
.
.
.
wait....
.
.
.
What?

Lynnie · 08-09-2009, 08:23 AM

So, disagreeing with the plan makes the opposition a 'fear pusher?' Facts do not equal fear, unless you are a afraid of the facts.

Y'all!

Lake View Too · 08-09-2009, 02:47 PM

Lynnie: Sarah Palin is calling the plan Evil. Do you think the plan is evil? Do you think it is misdirected? Do you think it is too expensive? Do you think it is unfair? These are all the questions that are not being asked because people like Palin are shouting words like evil and death. If this isn't fear-mongering I don't know what is. The opposition to this plan seemed to have no intention of debating the issues in a civil manner.

LuciferSam · 08-09-2009, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lynnie

So, disagreeing with the plan makes the opposition a 'fear pusher?' Facts do not equal fear, unless you are a afraid of the facts.

Y'all!

I think mobs disrupting discussion and politicians lying equals fear. There may be some valid arguments against the plan. If so they are obscured by swift boat tactics. Makes you wonder though. Why do the detractors get violent and/or misrepresent the plan in order to make their case? The plan can't be perfect. There's got to be something I wouldn't like about the plan. I'm waiting to hear something other than some crazy out-of context distortion of the truth.

Lynnie · 08-09-2009, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake View Too

Lynnie: Sarah Palin is calling the plan Evil. Do you think the plan is evil? Do you think it is misdirected? Do you think it is too expensive? Do you think it is unfair? These are all the questions that are not being asked because people like Palin are shouting words like evil and death. If this isn't fear-mongering I don't know what is. The opposition to this plan seemed to have no intention of debating the issues in a civil manner.

Hey. I don't agree at all with the verbiage you mention. But, the fear tactic is on both sides. I don't think the plan is 'evil.' That said, I do not agree with the recently proposed plan. I think using pressure to push it through prior to August recess leaves something to be desired. Of course, this didn't happen and it is now behind us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LuciferSam

I think mobs disrupting discussion and politicians lying equals fear. There may be some valid arguments against the plan. If so they are obscured by swift boat tactics. Makes you wonder though. Why do the detractors get violent and/or misrepresent the plan in order to make their case? The plan can't be perfect. There's got to be something I wouldn't like about the plan. I'm waiting to hear something other than some crazy out-of context distortion of the truth.

I think having the discussions is absolutely necessary. There are most likely reactions and over reactions on both sides of the aisle, which emanate from__________ ?????

I still believe reform will come. It won't make everyone happy as most movements like this do not. I am not one who makes statements to persuade based upon 'fear.'

Winnie · 08-09-2009, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LuciferSam

I think mobs disrupting discussion and politicians lying equals fear. There may be some valid arguments against the plan. If so they are obscured by swift boat tactics. Makes you wonder though. Why do the detractors get violent and/or misrepresent the plan in order to make their case? The plan can't be perfect. There's got to be something I wouldn't like about the plan. I'm waiting to hear something other than some crazy out-of context distortion of the truth.

It isn't the detractors getting violent.

But on to the bolded portion. Yes, these points are from Heritage which is conservative but they cover my top 5 points within their top ten:

Fix Health Care Policy | Top 10 Reasons Obama's Health Care Plan Is Wrong for America

Quote:

1. Millions Will Lose Their Current Insurance. Period. End of Story: President Obama wants Americans to believe they can keep their insurance if they like, but research from the government, private research firms, and think tanks show this is not the case. Proposed economic incentives, plus a government-run health plan like the one proposed in the House bill, would cause 88.1 million people to see their current employer-sponsored health plan disappear.
3. The Umpire Is Also the First Baseman: The main argument for a “public option” is that it would increase competition. However, if the federal government creates a health care plan that it controls and also sets the rules for the private plans, there is little doubt that Washington would put its private sector “competitors” out of business sooner or later.
5. Individual Mandate Means Less Liberty and More Taxes: Although he once opposed the idea, President Obama is now open to the imposition of an individual mandate that would require all Americans to have federally approved health insurance. This unprecedented federal directive not only takes away your individual freedom but could cost you as well. Lawmakers are considering a penalty or tax for those who don’t buy government-approved health plans.
6. Higher Taxes Than Europe Hurt Small Businesses: A proposed surtax on the wealthy will actually hit hundreds of thousands of small business owners who are dealing with a recession. If it is enacted, America’s top earners and job creators will carry a larger overall tax burden than France, Italy, Germany, Japan, etc., with a total average tax rate greater than 52%. Is that the right recipe for jobs and wage growth?
10. Rushing It, Not Reading It: We’ve been down this road before—with the failed stimulus package. Back then, we also heard that we were in a crisis and that we needed to pass a 1,000-plus-page bill in a few hours—without reading it—or we would have 8% unemployment. Well, we know what happened. Now, one Congressman has even said it’s pointless to read one of the reform bills without two days and two lawyers to make sense of it. Deception is the only reason to rush through a bill nobody truly understands.

LuciferSam · 08-09-2009, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winnie

It isn't the detractors getting violent.

Really, it's the detractors engaging in the threatening disorderly shout downs where people want to have intelligent civil discussions in order get out the facts.