WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
The concern is that the Republican Party is filled with so many morons who look up to her that they might nominate her for office again and she is still very much in the news. (Duh.)
The concern is that the Republican Party is filled with so many morons who look up to her that they might nominate her for office again and she is still very much in the news. (Duh.)
Patranus
Diamond Member
- Apr 15, 2007
- 9,280
- 0
- 0
Here is the thing. Maybe this is an over exaggeration and maybe not, but obviously the current legislation isn't clear and that is a problem.
IF we are going to do this, I want the policy written into the law. I do not want the policy made up on the spot by some bureaucrat.
IF we are going to do this, I want the policy written into the law. I do not want the policy made up on the spot by some bureaucrat.
Because, if you read the bill, you will see that doctors who are "Approved" to bill under the UHC plan will not be allowed to provide any service to the patients outside of the approved plans (after a 5 year grace period). Simply put, you will not be able to pay for treatment on your own in this country if it is denied you. How is that not un-American?? Then it will be true that only the uber rich will be able to fly to a foreign country and get alternate treatment.
- Nov 4, 1999
- 16,937
- 3,087
- 126
This liberal seems have a opinion on the subject....
Death Panels for all!
\Soylent Green and binky hand lites, end of the word type stuff...
\\on a side note, I just bought some death panels from Menards - going to look great in the guest room
\\\the guest room - OF DEATH!!!!!1!!
Andrew1990
Banned
- Mar 8, 2008
- 2,153
- 0
- 0
Now why would I trade one death panel from the Insurance company for a death panel from the government?
They both do the same job except one taxes and pushes more laws onto me.
They both do the same job except one taxes and pushes more laws onto me.
I saw that today. The only thing I could think is that sadly Gingrich must still see Palin as a player to even try to defend that. Plus how retarded his defense was considering how much we already trust government with.
- Nov 4, 1999
- 16,937
- 3,087
- 126
That stuck me as odd as well, as some people around the GOP seem to believe him to be their next great hope...
Where do I sign up?
I want to be on the Death Panel
How much is the pay?
Where's the application? It has to be somewhere, Republicans say so.
theeedude
Lifer
- Feb 5, 2006
- 35,787
- 6,198
- 126
So government will refuse to pay for SOME services for people in public plan who now have noone to pay for ANY services.
So if you are saying that the government is making life and death decisions by agreeing or disagreeing to pay for these services, then by not having government pay for these services under the current status quo is choosing death by default.
So if you are saying that the government is making life and death decisions by agreeing or disagreeing to pay for these services, then by not having government pay for these services under the current status quo is choosing death by default.
Pliablemoose
Lifer
- Oct 11, 1999
- 25,195
- 0
- 56
It's called an ethics committee, and you don't have enough education to belong.
Palin is a fool, these type of committees have existed for a couple of decades now, and they make life and death choices. IIRC, the first was when hemodialysis was started, they sorted through the candidates and decided who lived & who died. This kind of stuff happens every day all across the world.
Shouldn't the government be the only agent that can decide on whether some one lives or dies? Wait, didn't they give themselves that right already? And why wouldn't people trust the government, considering they put it in power?
Sounds like a lot of empty talk from the airheads on the GOP side.
Sounds like a lot of empty talk from the airheads on the GOP side.
Pulsar
Diamond Member
- Mar 3, 2003
- 5,224
- 306
- 126
Health care rationing occurs now. The rich can afford to pay for any treatment they need, no matter how risky, no matter how far-fetched. The poor cannot. This is rationing by economic status.
Under a government health care program, we would *LIKE* to believe that rationing will be a well thought-out process of applying the best treatment for any given issue, until the point at which the odds become to great to justify the money spent.
The issue with the government health care rationing is:
1. Who is determining the treatments that are beneficial
2. The cut-off point in terms of $'s where the money spent is determined to be greater than the potential benefit.
These are the simple truths of the modern world. If you cannot reconcile them with your morality and if you feel the need to argue that you cannot put a price against a life I suggest you bury your head in the sand and let more rational minds make the decisions.
I argue against a government health-care system because, like any other government function, I believe the people that will be in power to make decisions regarding #1 and #2 are unlikely to be the well-informed well-educated experts we would like them to be. I believe that they will be political appointees more worried about keeping and increasing their power, and making decisions regarding #1 and #2 will be more geared toward minimizing political cricism rather than deciding what is best.
In short, I do not trust our elected officials to make decisions for me. They have repeatedly proved they are not trustworthy to do so. You will not change my mind on this, however at this point I don't think people that take this viewpoint have much choice: a political party who has a bare majority in the house and senate has seen fit to push this legislation through regardless of whether they truly have a mandate or not.
Under a government health care program, we would *LIKE* to believe that rationing will be a well thought-out process of applying the best treatment for any given issue, until the point at which the odds become to great to justify the money spent.
The issue with the government health care rationing is:
1. Who is determining the treatments that are beneficial
2. The cut-off point in terms of $'s where the money spent is determined to be greater than the potential benefit.
These are the simple truths of the modern world. If you cannot reconcile them with your morality and if you feel the need to argue that you cannot put a price against a life I suggest you bury your head in the sand and let more rational minds make the decisions.
I argue against a government health-care system because, like any other government function, I believe the people that will be in power to make decisions regarding #1 and #2 are unlikely to be the well-informed well-educated experts we would like them to be. I believe that they will be political appointees more worried about keeping and increasing their power, and making decisions regarding #1 and #2 will be more geared toward minimizing political cricism rather than deciding what is best.
In short, I do not trust our elected officials to make decisions for me. They have repeatedly proved they are not trustworthy to do so. You will not change my mind on this, however at this point I don't think people that take this viewpoint have much choice: a political party who has a bare majority in the house and senate has seen fit to push this legislation through regardless of whether they truly have a mandate or not.
Whether or not you want this health care system, to describe the current situation in the House and Senate as a 'bare majority' is simply inaccurate. They outnumber the opposition by 20 points in both chambers, which is about as large a majority as any of us are likely to see in the foreseeable future. You have to go back more than 3 decades to see a larger majority in the Senate.
If there is such a thing as a mandate through legislative majorities in America, this is one of them.
Palin's one positive contribution:
Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck etc. don't sound quite so insane next to her.
...Well, OK...maybe I'm being too hasty.
Queue the tear machine, Glenda.
Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck etc. don't sound quite so insane next to her.
...Well, OK...maybe I'm being too hasty.
Queue the tear machine, Glenda.
Investors Business Daily weighs in on 'death panels!'
From the geniuses that said Obama's health care plan would outlaw private insurance, we have this gem.
My personal favorite quote:
A million gold stars for that... ahahahahhaa.
From the geniuses that said Obama's health care plan would outlaw private insurance, we have this gem.
My personal favorite quote:
A million gold stars for that... ahahahahhaa.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter