The truth about Obamacare death panels

The truth about Obamacare death panels

Posted in the Quakertown Forum

Inquiring Mind

Conshohocken, PA

#1 Oct 6, 2012
Lost in the recent debate was the lie by President Obama that the IPAB set up to oversee Obamacare spending could not, by law, interfere with the quality of patient care. While there are words to that effect, they are meaningless. The reason is that the IPAB is made up of unelected bureaucrats who control payments to doctors and hospitals. Some may say this is no different than what insurance companies do now. HOWEVER, the IPAB mandates can only be changed by Congress and even then only within a 7-month window by a 3/5 majority in 2017. And after that, the law "precludes Congress from EVER making changes. If that isn't a blatant abuse of power and a scenario for death panels, I don't know what is. No wonder Pelosi didn't want people to read it before it was signed into law.

http://m.gosanangelo.com/news/opinion/columni...
Nope

Newtown Square, PA

#2 Oct 6, 2012
On a related subject, a friend of ours runs a home health care business, sending out nurses and caretakers to homes. Since most of her patients are on Medicare, the new health care law will severely cut back the amount of money she receives to pay her employees. She can't afford to offer a group plan, so everyone has their own insurance. Now, she will be fined/taxed for not offering healthcare. She is going to have to cut back her employee's hours just to make ends meet.

People don't realize how this new behemoth is affecting their healthcare providers. "Oh, it's great, I'm getting free health care." Well, someone has to pay for it...and it's the middle class business owner that will suffer. Then, watch as the unemployment rate skyrockets because they can't afford to keep some of their employees working because their overhead has substantially increased.

IM, I'm correct on this, right?

And you Dems want this assclown reelected?

No way!
Inquiring Mind

Brighton, MI

#3 Oct 6, 2012
Nope wrote:
On a related subject, a friend of ours runs a home health care business, sending out nurses and caretakers to homes. Since most of her patients are on Medicare, the new health care law will severely cut back the amount of money she receives to pay her employees. She can't afford to offer a group plan, so everyone has their own insurance. Now, she will be fined/taxed for not offering healthcare. She is going to have to cut back her employee's hours just to make ends meet.
People don't realize how this new behemoth is affecting their healthcare providers. "Oh, it's great, I'm getting free health care." Well, someone has to pay for it...and it's the middle class business owner that will suffer. Then, watch as the unemployment rate skyrockets because they can't afford to keep some of their employees working because their overhead has substantially increased.
IM, I'm correct on this, right?
And you Dems want this assclown reelected?
No way!
Absolutely. Here's a good rundown:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/48000806/Small_Busines...
smiley

Sunbury, PA

#4 Oct 6, 2012
http://www.examiner.com/article/paul-ryan-req...

So which way is it with Ryan?
smiley

Sunbury, PA

#5 Oct 6, 2012
http://www.pcpcc.net/content/health-care-refo...

"Sec. 2703. State option to provide health homes for enrollees with chronic conditions. Provide States the option of enrolling Medicaid beneficiaries with chronic conditions into a health home. Health homes would be composed of a team of health professionals and would provide a comprehensive set of medical services, including care coordination."
Inquiring Mind

Brighton, MI

#6 Oct 6, 2012
smiley wrote:
http://www.examiner.com/articl e/paul-ryan-requested-obamacar e-funds-for-public-health-clin ic-wisconsin
So which way is it with Ryan?
I don't see a contradiction here. Ryan has a duty to represent the best interests of the people who elected him. He would be neglecting that duty if he refused or didn't seek financial assistance available to help them even if he didn't agree with the law providing the funds. As many Republicans have pointed out, healthcare reform is needed and there are PARTS of Obamacare that are worthwhile. It's the complete restructuring of the system, the enormous cost, bureauocracy, and hidden taxes that make it the target of repeal efforts.
Inquiring Mind

Brighton, MI

#7 Oct 6, 2012
smiley wrote:
http://www.pcpcc.net/content/h ealth-care-reform-and-patient- centered-medical-home
"Sec. 2703. State option to provide health homes for enrollees with chronic conditions. Provide States the option of enrolling Medicaid beneficiaries with chronic conditions into a health home. Health homes would be composed of a team of health professionals and would provide a comprehensive set of medical services, including care coordination."
So, the option of seeking long-term care for a chronically ill loved one can be taken from the family member and given to the State, which can then order them into a "health home" for "managed" Medicaid coverage. Sounds like Death Panels to me.
smiley

Sunbury, PA

#8 Oct 6, 2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_home

Heres what they have in store for ALL of us!

Good luck getting a second opinion when obamacare takes effect!

Personally I dont see any way around this.

Suppose your chronically ill, and your family would want you to see a specialist out of the confines of your medical home...

For instance a friend of mine was diagonsed with prostrate cancer.
He first was referd to a doc in lehigh hopst. by his family physician.
This cancer docs plan would have put him through all sorts of HELLLL...including unecessary CHEMO.
He instead sought treatment at John Hopkins.
Of course he had to face a surgery, but no CHEMO.
He is cancer free now for 5 yrs, and chances are according to the docs at Hopkins he will remain cancer free.

Suppose obamacare would have been around back then!
He probably wouldnt have been permited to approach the docs at hopkins.

I also question who the helll gave the UNIONS any say in these matters! Thanks to obama, pelosi, and reid we have brainless twits deciding the future of OUR HEALTHCARE!

"The Collaborative has grown to a coalition of more than 1,000 employers, consumer groups, patient quality organizations, health plans, labor unions, hospitals, physicians and others who have joined together to develop and advance primary care and the patient-centered medical home (PCMH)."

http://www.pcpcc.net/content/health-care-refo...

This is very disturbing. Other than staying away from a doctors office all together I cant see a way around it.
Control over your life will soon be in the hands of unions, employers, and "OTHERS"!

This is BS. Lately my doctor has got to be 'pushy'
If I dont schedule my appt for a yearly physical, within 6 months since my last one, I begin to recieve recorded messages reminding me to schedule!
I got peeved and called them, told them to take me off their call list. Reminded them that I am capable of taking care of scheduling my own appts. I dont need to be reminded every freakin month.
They never took an in your face approach until obamacare came about.
smiley

Sunbury, PA

#9 Oct 6, 2012
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't see a contradiction here. Ryan has a duty to represent the best interests of the people who elected him. He would be neglecting that duty if he refused or didn't seek financial assistance available to help them even if he didn't agree with the law providing the funds. As many Republicans have pointed out, healthcare reform is needed and there are PARTS of Obamacare that are worthwhile. It's the complete restructuring of the system, the enormous cost, bureauocracy, and hidden taxes that make it the target of repeal efforts.
Ryan has but one duty! To Uphold his Oath Of Office!
And NOWHERE in the Constitution does it provide for healthcare paid for with public funds.

See IQ, this is the sort of schitt that has me totally turned off from ever voting R or D!

You cant, u just cant have your freakin cake and eat it too!

So then over in the next state the farmers want increased subsidies. or some corp is crying for a tax break......
ok, so lets bring home the bacon for those guys too...
ahh...but where is all this money coming from????

When does it stop IQ?
smiley

Sunbury, PA

#10 Oct 6, 2012
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
So, the option of seeking long-term care for a chronically ill loved one can be taken from the family member and given to the State, which can then order them into a "health home" for "managed" Medicaid coverage. Sounds like Death Panels to me.
Well exactly!

Envision this...

suppose u have a young person who has been diagnosed with chronic depression...
really what chances will they have to make a full recovery.
They will become a "gravy train" for the doctors...and their entire life will be ruined

I know of a woman who was on medicaid. She had diabetes. She was a patient at Geisinger.
Geisinger toots their horn as being such a great hospt, when theyre actually rated a C rated hospt.
Well they sent this poor woman home to die..refused to refer her to a doctor at hopkins!
She suffered for months, passed away at an early age of 58!

The folks out there who are clamoring for FREE insurance have no idea what they got all of us into.

Wait till they are forced onto the rolls of medicaid...
Inquiring Mind

Emmaus, PA

#11 Oct 6, 2012
smiley wrote:
<quoted text>
Ryan has but one duty! To Uphold his Oath Of Office!
And NOWHERE in the Constitution does it provide for healthcare paid for with public funds.
See IQ, this is the sort of schitt that has me totally turned off from ever voting R or D!
You cant, u just cant have your freakin cake and eat it too!
So then over in the next state the farmers want increased subsidies. or some corp is crying for a tax break......
ok, so lets bring home the bacon for those guys too...
ahh...but where is all this money coming from????
When does it stop IQ?
I think there is a clear line between govt assistance for those truly in need and farm subsidies. We as a society can decide whether the Constitutional directives to promote the general welfare and ensure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness extend to the kind of healthcare options never dreamed of by the Founders. I don't see a conflict - if these programs are limited to those with nowhere else to turn. Like the saying goes, "there but for the grace of God go I." But billions are lost to fraud and waste - that's what must be stopped.
smiley

Sunbury, PA

#12 Oct 6, 2012
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
I think there is a clear line between govt assistance for those truly in need and farm subsidies. We as a society can decide whether the Constitutional directives to promote the general welfare and ensure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness extend to the kind of healthcare options never dreamed of by the Founders. I don't see a conflict - if these programs are limited to those with nowhere else to turn. Like the saying goes, "there but for the grace of God go I." But billions are lost to fraud and waste - that's what must be stopped.
Since when are we a Democracy?

General welfare did not mean providing "bennies" to the people.
The gov hasnt the power to "extend" anything to do with an individuals rights.

As sad as it is, a person without insurance his happieness will be affected by his overall personal well being.

However there nowhere in the constitution that provides the gov the power to "provide him with "anything" tangible, intangible or otherwise" at the expense of someone elses happieness!
For It does NOT make me very happy to see lazy baby breeders being provide the entire enchilada paid for off the backs of a hardworking 50 plus some person!!

U my dear sound like a democrat.

I will agree, that even i as a Libertarian feel that the people in our country shouldnt do without alot of things...
by people I mean the workers who are struggling or someone truly down on their luck, the disabled and of course the elderly.

But gov cant be the one to manage or provide for them.
Its best left to charitable agencies.
smiley

Sunbury, PA

#13 Oct 6, 2012
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
I think there is a clear line between govt assistance for those truly in need and farm subsidies.
Really! So one rep tells his constituents, hey screwww u folks "me no can bring home the bacon"...
Inquiring Mind

Brighton, MI

#14 Oct 6, 2012
smiley wrote:
<quoted text>
Since when are we a Democracy?
General welfare did not mean providing "bennies" to the people.
The gov hasnt the power to "extend" anything to do with an individuals rights.
As sad as it is, a person without insurance his happieness will be affected by his overall personal well being.
However there nowhere in the constitution that provides the gov the power to "provide him with "anything" tangible, intangible or otherwise" at the expense of someone elses happieness!
For It does NOT make me very happy to see lazy baby breeders being provide the entire enchilada paid for off the backs of a hardworking 50 plus some person!!
U my dear sound like a democrat.
I will agree, that even i as a Libertarian feel that the people in our country shouldnt do without alot of things...
by people I mean the workers who are struggling or someone truly down on their luck, the disabled and of course the elderly.
But gov cant be the one to manage or provide for them.
Its best left to charitable agencies.
We are a representative democracy and Ryan is sworn to represent his constituency.
"General welfare" means whatever the Supreme Court says it means at any particular time. The Constitution is an amazing document, but it was written by mortals in a completely foreign time and not engraved on stone tablets and given to Moses. No one living can know exactly what the limits on its interpretation might be other than speculation and the writings of Jefferson and others regarding the role of a central govt with a confederation of States compared to the monarchies of Europe.

Now I agree with you about drones and slackers, and the role of private charities, but I have no problem with the govt using tax dollars to provide a safety net for those truly in need through no fault of their own. This is what a civilized society does for its citizens and I believe that if the Founders saw the greatness and vast wealth their little start-up country would achieve in just a few hundred years, they would be very proud, in spite of our problems.
Inquiring Mind

Brighton, MI

#15 Oct 6, 2012
smiley wrote:
<quoted text>
Really! So one rep tells his constituents, hey screwww u folks "me no can bring home the bacon"...
Apples and oranges. Surely you know the difference between medical assistance and farm subsidies.
It's an easy line to draw. Grandma is hardly on the same level as the soybean crop.
smiley

Sunbury, PA

#16 Oct 7, 2012
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
We are a representative democracy and Ryan is sworn to represent his constituency.
"General welfare" means whatever the Supreme Court says it means at any particular time. The Constitution is an amazing document, but it was written by mortals in a completely foreign time and not engraved on stone tablets and given to Moses. No one living can know exactly what the limits on its interpretation might be other than speculation and the writings of Jefferson and others regarding the role of a central govt with a confederation of States compared to the monarchies of Europe.
Now I agree with you about drones and slackers, and the role of private charities, but I have no problem with the govt using tax dollars to provide a safety net for those truly in need through no fault of their own. This is what a civilized society does for its citizens and I believe that if the Founders saw the greatness and vast wealth their little start-up country would achieve in just a few hundred years, they would be very proud, in spite of our problems.
If our founding fathers were to come back they would wage war on us!
Proud of what IQ? Proud that we have people in office who should be removed and charged with Treason?

They cherished Freedom and saw the role of the gov as limited.

If you UNDERSTOOD and actually practiced the same principles those men lived by you would NEVER post such a post.

Back to Ryan...
He is sworn to uphold the Constitution of the USA.
Nowhere is it written that the gov is to provide monetary assistance to any of its citizens.
Its role is to PROTECT the freedom of ALL individuals, so they can provide for themselves without gov intervention or that of another individual.

His representation comes in the form of protecting the rights of his constituents. And thats where his "power" ends.

You might come across as a gentleman but most certainly you are not as principled as I assumed u were.

But that ok, its your right...
OH and BTW, Many of the Founding Fathers. They didnt view immortality in the same light as most christians.
smiley

Sunbury, PA

#17 Oct 7, 2012
Inquiring Mind wrote:
<quoted text>
Apples and oranges. Surely you know the difference between medical assistance and farm subsidies.
It's an easy line to draw. Grandma is hardly on the same level as the soybean crop.
Sope sorry dear, this is not about fruit.

Its about PRINCIPLES!

You dont have a problem with Ryan compromising " a principle of Freedom"(cant say his principles cuz I dont view him as being very principled)...to spend tax dollars of something u agree with.

Youre leaning so far to the left youre close to falling off that fence... you might as well just pull that big old D lever. For a vote for an R is a vote for a D!

YOu my dear have just proved my point:)!
Inquiring Mind

Brighton, MI

#18 Oct 7, 2012
smiley wrote:
<quoted text>
If our founding fathers were to come back they would wage war on us!
Proud of what IQ? Proud that we have people in office who should be removed and charged with Treason?
They cherished Freedom and saw the role of the gov as limited.
If you UNDERSTOOD and actually practiced the same principles those men lived by you would NEVER post such a post.
Back to Ryan...
He is sworn to uphold the Constitution of the USA.
Nowhere is it written that the gov is to provide monetary assistance to any of its citizens.
Its role is to PROTECT the freedom of ALL individuals, so they can provide for themselves without gov intervention or that of another individual.
His representation comes in the form of protecting the rights of his constituents. And thats where his "power" ends.
You might come across as a gentleman but most certainly you are not as principled as I assumed u
were.
But that ok, its your right...
OH and BTW, Many of the Founding Fathers. They didnt view immortality in the same light as most christians.
I was speaking of them being proud of our willingness as a society to use our wealth help the less fortunate, certainly not the integrity of our politicians! I do understand that they saw the role of the FEDERAL govt as limited. But it's NEVER going back to the world they lived in, so the best we can do is return as much of the power to the States as possible. They never could have foreseen the Industrial Revolution and the incredible advances in science and medicine. They were brilliant, but they were also primitive in many ways. I'm sure they never meant that govt shouldn't, under any circumstances, be involved with improving people's lives. They were farmers and plantation owners, not Gods sent down from Mount Olympus.

I have to wonder about YOUR principles, Smiley. You seem to be okay with certain types of hypocrisy as long as it suits you. For example, you would let someone starve to death rather than share your meal with them. I don't think that's anything anyone of principle would be proud of - certainly not our founding fathers.
Inquiring Mind

Brighton, MI

#19 Oct 7, 2012
smiley wrote:
<quoted text>
Sope sorry dear, this is not about fruit.
Its about PRINCIPLES!
You dont have a problem with Ryan compromising " a principle of Freedom"(cant say his principles cuz I dont view him as being very principled)...to spend tax dollars of something u agree with.
Youre leaning so far to the left youre close to falling off that fence... you might as well just pull that big old D lever. For a vote for an R is a vote for a D!
YOu my dear have just proved my point:)!
You are right, my dear. This isn't about fruit. It's about living, breathing people. As a society, we're not breaking any principles worth having by helping out our fellow man in times of need. Both Ds and Rs feel that way, they just disagree with how to go about it. If this view of yours accurately reflects the Libertarian's narrow perspective, then you can count me and most of America out. You will get nowhere.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Quakertown Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Elaine Powers Figure Salon... (Sep '12) 2 hr LOL 13
Trash 8 hr Gonz 3
Paul Stepanoff Needs to be Removed NOW! (Jul '14) 18 hr Curious 159
Poll What is the best pizza in Quakertown? (Mar '09) May 18 Daverr 65
News Quakertown amphitheater to offer Blood, Sweat &... May 18 Qtown Brown 4
Quakertown MILFS May 18 Qtown Brown 5
Election Day In Richland May 16 Trey Gowdy 1

Quakertown Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Quakertown Mortgages