Former Top Canadian Dr. Brian Day: Obamacare Will Bring Rationed Care & Skyrocketing

Southern Man said:
Ok, Okay WHAT?!!?! Are you admitting that you were WRONG? Why not say so in no uncertain terms? What's the matter, Southie :chicken: ? but you and Obama still want to put Federal dollars into the equation of "take the pain pill or treat the condition". That's a huge problem, isn't it? *shrug*
Click to expand...
It's only a problem if dumb toots like you DON'T READ WHAT'S AVAILABLE. Like I said, READ the Factcheck.org link, which will answer your question....unless you're so insipidly stubborn you just can't accept the answer.
http://factcheck.org/2009/07/false-euthanasia-claims/
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
It's only a problem if dumb toots like you DON'T READ WHAT'S AVAILABLE. Like I said, READ the Factcheck.org link, which will answer your question....unless you're so insipidly stubborn you just can't accept the answer.
http://factcheck.org/2009/07/false-euthanasia-claims/
Click to expand...
Southern Man said:
Doooood, your messiah already stated his intentions:

[youtube]U-dQfb8WQvo[/youtube]
Click to expand...

THINK, YOU PROUDLY IGNORANT FOOL, THINK! Did Obama say in no uncertain terms, "NO, my plan would have forced the doctors NOT to give the option that saved her life"?

Nope,

The "edited" excerpt has him stating that her mom would be spared unnecessary tests, drugs, etc.

Again, you coward, READ the Factcheck.org link......grow up and be honest.
 
Taichiliberal said:
THINK, YOU PROUDLY IGNORANT FOOL, THINK! Did Obama say in no uncertain terms, "NO, my plan would have forced the doctors NOT to give the option that saved her life"?

Nope,

The "edited" excerpt has him stating that her mom would be spared unnecessary tests, drugs, etc.

Again, you coward, READ the Factcheck.org link......grow up and be honest.
Click to expand...
LOL "spared unnecessary tests, drugs" that would save her life.
 
Southern Man said:
LOL "spared unnecessary tests, drugs" that would save her life.
Click to expand...

Again, Did Obama say in no uncertain terms, "NO, my plan would have forced the doctors NOT to give the option that saved her life"?

Nope.

Stop being a wussy.....grow up and deal with the FACTS. http://factcheck.org/2009/07/false-euthanasia-claims/

Stop waffling and flat out admit you were wrong. You haven't even the guts to give the nod to Christie when she produced FACTS that corrected you on this thread.
Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - Former Top Canadian Dr. Brian Day: Obamacare Will Bring Rationed Care & Skyrocketing

Or continue to laugh, you clown, laugh!
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
Again, Did Obama say in no uncertain terms, "NO, my plan would have forced the doctors NOT to give the option that saved her life"?

Nope.

Stop being a wussy.....grow up and deal with the FACTS. http://factcheck.org/2009/07/false-euthanasia-claims/

Stop waffling and flat out admit you were wrong. You haven't even the guts to give the nod to Christie when she produced FACTS that corrected you on this thread.
Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - Former Top Canadian Dr. Brian Day: Obamacare Will Bring Rationed Care & Skyrocketing

Or continue to laugh, you clown, laugh!
Click to expand...
You do realize that the factcheck you keep linking to deals with an entirely different claim, right?

I mean in one (your link), the lady says that end of life counseling would be used as a way to force people to "choose" not to get care.

In the post and here they are talking about there being a panel of people who would decide cost to benefit ratios, and they believe that Obama is talking about just such a thing in a round about way. Your link deals only with the end of life counseling, nothing about the panels that will exist to deal with cost to benefit analysis and whether it is wise to have the entity doing that actually exempted from lawsuits.

The two are not remotely the same thing, so your link shows you either cannot comprehend what people mean when they say things or you are being deliberately obtuse.
 
Damocles said:
You do realize that the factcheck you keep linking to deals with an entirely different claim, right?

I mean in one (your link), the lady says that end of life counseling would be used as a way to force people to "choose" not to get care.

In the post and here they are talking about there being a panel of people who would decide cost to benefit ratios, and they believe that Obama is talking about just such a thing in a round about way. Your link deals only with the end of life counseling, nothing about the panels that will exist to deal with cost to benefit analysis and whether it is wise to have the entity doing that actually exempted from lawsuits.

The two are not remotely the same thing, so your link shows you either cannot comprehend what people mean when they say things or you are being deliberately obtuse.
Click to expand...


You have to back track and follow the thread....the factcheck.org link I am referring to is in response to (yet another) one of Southie's incorrect earlier claims .

Southie has a bad habit of trying to divert attention away from when he's proven wrong on a point by bringing up another point.

As I stated before, the (new) edited clip DOES NOT have Obama flat out saying that this woman would be denied the care she got that saved her life under his plan. Period.
 
Taichiliberal said:
You have to back track and follow the thread....the factcheck.org link I am referring to is in response to (yet another) one of Southie's incorrect earlier claims .

Southie has a bad habit of trying to divert attention away from when he's proven wrong on a point by bringing up another point.

As I stated before, the (new) edited clip DOES NOT have Obama flat out saying that this woman would be denied the care she got that saved her life under his plan. Period.
Click to expand...
Let's assume it was his intent to have such panels make decisions just like that. Do you think he'd be out talking about it in no uncertain terms?

Now let's look at it a bit more realistically, let's just assume that at some time we'll be hitting a cost wall, where we could no longer afford care at a high level for everybody. Do you think maybe this may be an unintended consequence? Or do you believe that they would cut care for everybody equally, thus ensuring that nobody had a high level of care?

The reality is, it would be foolish indeed to hand that power over to a group who have been exempted from any regular recourse by the consumer. This in no uncertain terms suggests that it would not be a "competition" at all, only one entity could cut costs in the way one certain to have no recoil from the consumer.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
You have to back track and follow the thread....the factcheck.org link I am referring to is in response to (yet another) one of Southie's incorrect earlier claims .

Southie has a bad habit of trying to divert attention away from when he's proven wrong on a point by bringing up another point.

As I stated before, the (new) edited clip DOES NOT have Obama flat out saying that this woman would be denied the care she got that saved her life under his plan. Period.
Click to expand...

Damocles said:
Let's assume it was his intent to have such panels make decisions just like that. Do you think he'd be out talking about it in no uncertain terms?

Now let's look at it a bit more realistically, let's just assume that at some time we'll be hitting a cost wall, where we could no longer afford care at a high level for everybody. Do you think maybe this may be an unintended consequence? Or do you believe that they would cut care for everybody equally, thus ensuring that nobody had a high level of care?

The reality is, it would be foolish indeed to hand that power over to a group who have been exempted from any regular recourse by the consumer. This in no uncertain terms suggests that it would not be a "competition" at all, only one entity could cut costs in the way one certain to have no recoil from the consumer.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not going to "assume" this...I'm going to stick by what I said earlier. To "assume" as you do here is just belaboring the intent to essentially put words/intentions into the man's mouth. Hence, there's no need to continue discussion in that vein.
 
Taichiliberal said:

No, I'm not going to "assume" this...I'm going to stick by what I said earlier. To "assume" as you do here is just belaboring the intent to essentially put words/intentions into the man's mouth. Hence, there's no need to continue discussion in that vein.
Click to expand...
Right, That's why I posted the other portions of my post. The first part is a simple reality check, no matter who was in that office, if they had the goal to ration care that way would not proudly proclaim it.

The second part is reality how many who disagree with this "plan" see it, as unintended consequences of a well-intentioned but unwise move.

If you don't think we'd ever hit a cost wall, then yeah, there really is no possible way to ever hold a conversation with you on this subject.
 
Damocles said:
Right, That's why I posted the other portions of my post. The first part is a simple reality check, no matter who was in that office, if they had the goal to ration care that way would not proudly proclaim it.

The second part is reality how many who disagree with this "plan" see it, as unintended consequences of a well-intentioned but unwise move.

If you don't think we'd ever hit a cost wall, then yeah, there really is no possible way to ever hold a conversation with you on this subject.
Click to expand...

As I stated before, the (new) edited clip DOES NOT have Obama flat out saying that this woman would be denied the care she got that saved her life under his plan. Period.

So let's just totally disengage from that train and start anew....based on what is said or written, not just pure speculation, supposition or conjecture.

I might appear stubborn on this point...but I find less heated debates if we stay focused on point for point facts as a base.
 
Taichiliberal said:
As I stated before, the (new) edited clip DOES NOT have Obama flat out saying that this woman would be denied the care she got that saved her life under his plan. Period.

So let's just totally disengage from that train and start anew....based on what is said or written, not just pure speculation, supposition or conjecture.

I might appear stubborn on this point...but I find less heated debates if we stay focused on point for point facts as a base.
Click to expand...
And again, that proves nothing. If anybody in that office believed that at any point it would mean exactly that they still would not directly state any such thing regardless. Repeating that is just nonsense noise generated to no avail.

So, I moved the conversation into reality and what people see as happening, which you seem to be quite capable of ignoring or totally incapable of understanding.

Here it is again:

Now let's look at it a bit more realistically, let's just assume that at some time we'll be hitting a cost wall, where we could no longer afford care at a high level for everybody. Do you think maybe this may be an unintended consequence? Or do you believe that they would cut care for everybody equally, thus ensuring that nobody had a high level of care?

The reality is that in those people's opinions, it would be foolish indeed to hand that power over to a group who have been exempted from any regular recourse by the consumer, such as a lawsuit. This in no uncertain terms suggests that it would not be a "competition" at all, only one entity could cut costs in the way one certain to have no recoil from the consumer could, that entity that exempts itself from lawsuits.
 
Damocles said:
And again, that proves nothing.

Wrong, what the edited clip proved was that the contention Southie put forth was DEAD WRONG, as I demonstrated.

That's it. Period. End of story. Fini.
If anybody in that office believed that at any point it would mean exactly that they still would not directly state any such thing regardless. Repeating that is just nonsense noise generated to no avail.

So, I moved the conversation into reality and what people see as happening, which you seem to be quite capable of ignoring or totally incapable of understanding.



Here it is again:

Now let's look at it a bit more realistically, let's just assume that at some time we'll be hitting a cost wall, where we could no longer afford care at a high level for everybody. Do you think maybe this may be an unintended consequence? Or do you believe that they would cut care for everybody equally, thus ensuring that nobody had a high level of care?

The reality is that in those people's opinions, it would be foolish indeed to hand that power over to a group who have been exempted from any regular recourse by the consumer, such as a lawsuit. This in no uncertain terms suggests that it would not be a "competition" at all, only one entity could cut costs in the way one certain to have no recoil from the consumer.
Click to expand...

Sorry Damo, but I'm damned sick and tired of having these discussions turned arguments based on nothing more than supposition and conjecture....and people treating that as if it's facts and logic derived from it. If you're hell bent on doing so, go ahead with all the accusations, assumptions and assertions you want. You'll just have to do it without me. Later.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Sorry Damo, but I'm damned sick and tired of having these discussions turned arguments based on nothing more than supposition and conjecture....and people treating that as if it's facts and logic derived from it. If you're hell bent on doing so, go ahead with all the accusations, assumptions and assertions you want. You'll just have to do it without me. Later.
Click to expand...
It is conjecture to pretend there would never be cost issues. You prefer people only speak within the framework of your own conjecture and you pretend that it is instead "fact." I've never seen a more solid case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Politics is conjecture, projections, and opinion. It is the coin we deal with here. If you are "sick" of holding a conversation with somebody of a different opinion then you have come to the wrong place.

We'll go back through this one more time for the slow.

1. What Obama says there, doesn't prove anything at all for the very real reason that any politician, even if he believed such a thing would happen, would not say it directly.

So, we need to start talking within a more realistic conversation because that one will be fruitless.

I offered this:

2. Now let's look at it a bit more realistically, let's just assume that at some time we'll be hitting a cost wall, where we could no longer afford care at a high level for everybody. Do you think maybe this may be an unintended consequence? Or do you believe that they would cut care for everybody equally, thus ensuring that nobody had a high level of care?

The reality is that in those people's opinions, it would be foolish indeed to hand that power over to a group who have been exempted from any regular recourse by the consumer, such as a lawsuit. This in no uncertain terms suggests that it would not be a "competition" at all, only one entity could cut costs in the way one certain to have no recoil from the consumer.
 
Now let's look at it a bit more realistically, let's just assume that at some time we'll be hitting a cost wall, where we could no longer afford care at a high level for everybody. Do you think maybe this may be an unintended consequence? Or do you believe that they would cut care for everybody equally, thus ensuring that nobody had a high level of care?
Click to expand...

Living Wills and removing the profit factor will avoid that problem.

Living wills will ensure that people who do not wish to be "experimented on" will have that clear, acceptable option.

As long as there is profit involved hospitals/doctors will continue to prescribe procedures knowing the dismal percentage of success.

For example, it is not uncommon for elderly cancer patients to forgo further treatment knowing the additional 3 or 4 months they might live will be 3 or 4 months of acute suffering from the side effects of treatment.

In a "for profit" situation the emphasis is on accepting the treatment, whereas, if the profit factor is removed the patient will be given the unbiased statistics/percentages/chances of survival.

In a society like ours, where the sanctity/value of life is connected to religious beliefs, there are those who will feel obliged to live regardless of the pain and suffering they will have to endure by their being encouraged due to the profit motive of others. In plain terms in a not-for-profit system the option to accept or refuse treatment will not be influenced by profit.

EXCERPT: In February, CQ Weekly confirmed what both Reinhardt and Ginsburg are saying: “Experts are increasingly adopting the view that the biggest cause of rising costs is not the aging population, which has so often been blamed in the past, but the insatiable appetite doctors and their patients have developed for the latest devices and medicines: high-tech equipment such as particle accelerators, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) machines, artificial joints, specialized stents, and the ever-expanding array of pharmaceuticals for treating hypertension, heart failure, HIV, depression and other chronic illnesses.

“The director of the Congressional Budget Office, Peter R. Orszag, is among the most influential people in Washington holding this opinion,” the report continued. "There's been an overemphasis on aging and demographics," says Orzag. “In his estimate, overuse of health care and technology is the main driver of medical inflation.” END
http://www.healthbeatblog.org/2008/04/health-care-spe.html


//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Damocles said:
It is conjecture to pretend there would never be cost issues. You prefer people only speak within the framework of your own conjecture and you pretend that it is instead "fact." I've never seen a more solid case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Politics is conjecture, projections, and opinion. It is the coin we deal with here. If you are "sick" of holding a conversation with somebody of a different opinion then you have come to the wrong place.

We'll go back through this one more time for the slow.

1. What Obama says there, doesn't prove anything at all for the very real reason that any politician, even if he believed such a thing would happen, would not say it directly.

So, we need to start talking within a more realistic conversation because that one will be fruitless.

I offered this:

2. Now let's look at it a bit more realistically, let's just assume that at some time we'll be hitting a cost wall, where we could no longer afford care at a high level for everybody. Do you think maybe this may be an unintended consequence? Or do you believe that they would cut care for everybody equally, thus ensuring that nobody had a high level of care?

The reality is that in those people's opinions, it would be foolish indeed to hand that power over to a group who have been exempted from any regular recourse by the consumer, such as a lawsuit. This in no uncertain terms suggests that it would not be a "competition" at all, only one entity could cut costs in the way one certain to have no recoil from the consumer.
Click to expand...
 
Taichiliberal said:
Again, Did Obama say in no uncertain terms, "NO, my plan would have forced the doctors NOT to give the option that saved her life"?

Nope.

Stop being a wussy.....grow up and deal with the FACTS. http://factcheck.org/2009/07/false-euthanasia-claims/

Stop waffling and flat out admit you were wrong. You haven't even the guts to give the nod to Christie when she produced FACTS that corrected you on this thread.
Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - Former Top Canadian Dr. Brian Day: Obamacare Will Bring Rationed Care & Skyrocketing

Or continue to laugh, you clown, laugh!
Click to expand...

Did Obama say "I want to kill old folks"? Not in those exact words, no. But he didn't say "I want to usurp the Constitution" either, which he obviously is willing to do. LOL
 
apple0154 said:
Living Wills and removing the profit factor will avoid that problem.
Click to expand...
It will not if there is no money to follow the request in the wills. If my living will requests that all steps be taken to extend my life, it would not be "followed"... You seem sure that most living wills would request an end, I am not quite so sure about that.

Living wills will ensure that people who do not wish to be "experimented on" will have that clear, acceptable option.
Click to expand...

Nobody is arguing against living wills, this is the most ridiculously disguised straw man ever.

As long as there is profit involved hospitals/doctors will continue to prescribe procedures knowing the dismal percentage of success.
Click to expand...
As long as there are people who want to live, doctors will continue to prescribe procedures that may not have a high percentage of success.

For example, it is not uncommon for elderly cancer patients to forgo further treatment knowing the additional 3 or 4 months they might live will be 3 or 4 months of acute suffering from the side effects of treatment.
Click to expand...

Again, nobody is arguing against living wills, and such directives must be followed even today. It is silly to say that is what they are arguing against.

What most believe is that the government run program will run into cost issues and that the panel that has the job to work on "cost to benefit" analysis will cut care that they may wish to have, regardless of what their living will states.


In a "for profit" situation the emphasis is on accepting the treatment, whereas, if the profit factor is removed the patient will be given the unbiased statistics/percentages/chances of survival.
Click to expand...
*sigh*


In a society like ours, where the sanctity/value of life is connected to religious beliefs, there are those who will feel obliged to live regardless of the pain and suffering they will have to endure by their being encouraged due to the profit motive of others. In plain terms in a not-for-profit system the option to accept or refuse treatment will not be influenced by profit.

EXCERPT: In February, CQ Weekly confirmed what both Reinhardt and Ginsburg are saying: “Experts are increasingly adopting the view that the biggest cause of rising costs is not the aging population, which has so often been blamed in the past, but the insatiable appetite doctors and their patients have developed for the latest devices and medicines: high-tech equipment such as particle accelerators, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) machines, artificial joints, specialized stents, and the ever-expanding array of pharmaceuticals for treating hypertension, heart failure, HIV, depression and other chronic illnesses.

“The director of the Congressional Budget Office, Peter R. Orszag, is among the most influential people in Washington holding this opinion,” the report continued. "There's been an overemphasis on aging and demographics," says Orzag. “In his estimate, overuse of health care and technology is the main driver of medical inflation.” END
http://www.healthbeatblog.org/2008/04/health-care-spe.html


//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Click to expand...

Whether or not it is the "biggest cost" it is the easiest to justify and the most likely place they would start cutting costs because of that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top