A Voice of Reason Relating to Health Care and Seniors

[NJ Stinks]

Common sense still lives!
________________________________________________

Health care's senior moments

ELLEN GOODMAN -- Boston Globe | Posted: Thursday, September 3, 2009 12:00 am

BOSTON ---- When exactly did the Republicans start operating one of those marketing scams that target the elderly?

It was bad enough when Sarah Palin told a bald Facebook lie that there were "death panels" in the plans to reform health care. It was worse to see Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley flunk the "pants on fire" test as he seconded this myth. Republicans planted the fear that President Obama wants to "kill Granny." Now they want Granny to kill health care reform.

I understand the marketing. Seniors were the only age group that Obama lost in last year's election. He was change they didn't believe in. Now polls suggest the folks covered by Medicare are the least likely to think health care reform will help them. In Gallup polls, almost 40 percent think it will worsen their care.

Then last week Republican Chairman Michael Steele began to sell a "Seniors' Health Care Bill of Rights" ---- a pitch that contained no rights but an awful lot of frights. He targeted folks like the white-haired South Carolina man who furiously insisted at a town hall meeting: "Keep your government hands off my Medicare." (Memo to the fact-checkers: Public Policy Polling reports that 62 percent of Republicans also think that government should keep out of that government-run program!)

Steele promised, among other things, to outlaw "any effort to ration health care based on age" and "prevent government from dictating the terms of end-of-life care." I would stipulate that neither of these things is in any version of the bill, but that would just reduce my chance of being invited on Fox News from zero to none.

More at the link below.

http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/columnists/goodman/article_29c2029e-a899-5f67-874a-348c4d7bbebd.html

[lsbets]

I would stipulate that neither of these things is in any version of the bill, but that would just reduce my chance of being invited on Fox News from zero to none.


Really? I saw Howard Dean say those things on TV today. The channel was (guess?) Fox News.

You guys are idiots.

[toetoe]

Not sure what this journalistic giant is trying to say, but aren't old folks the neediest health care customers, and therefore most affected by rationing, which you can't really be denying will happen ?

Please explain Auntie Ellen's position, and your own, NJS.

[boxcar]

Really? I saw Howard Dean say those things on TV today. The channel was (guess?) Fox News.

You guys are idiots.

I second that motion. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

You guys are idiots.

Let's see now. How to do I add some substance to this comment?

How about this. Thanks for the feedback, Isbets. Now I'm positive Ellen is right. :ThmbUp:

[boxcar]

Not sure what this journalistic giant is trying to say, but aren't old folks the neediest health care customers, and therefore most affected by rationing, which you can't really be denying will happen ?

Please explain Auntie Ellen's position, and your own, NJS.

The government in marketing this "public option" reminds me very much of a supermarket chain here in my area. All the chain sells is price, price, price and then some more price. (Very one-dimensional approach in a three-dimensional market.) But when you walk into one of their stores to buy an attractive looking advertise deal -- you know one of those really low balled items -- more than half time, the shelves are empty. Moreover, when you do shop there and actually have items in your cart to check out, it's advisable to take a novel, such as War and Peace, or perhaps a Rubik's cube with you while waiting in line to help pass the time. Customer Service is virtually non-existent. And you run into the same kind of problem when they're out of the goods you want and have to wait in another long line for rain checks. But let's not forget that despite these "little inconveniences" the chain offer great prices. :rolleyes: Why such poor service? Call it "rationing" of help in order to keep their payroll costs low, which is one of the big reasons they can offer those low prices.

So, it will be with any socialized medicine scheme. Again, all you hear the state saying is that prices, prices, prices, prices for health care are too high; therefore, we Dems have the answer for lowering those prices significantly -- i.e. the "public option" (even the term "option" is an outright lie coming right out the chute :bang: :bang: ) But there is only ONE way they can HOPE to even come close to achieving that kind of goal, and that is by emulating what the supermarket above is doing. Rationing + Rationing + Rationing = POSSIBLE lower prices. The state will have to severely CUT or REDUCE health services. There is no other way, just like there is no other way for this supermarket chain to offer good prices without the implementation of their "rationing" policies in other aspects of their business operation. This is an irrevocable Law of Economics.

But it even gets worse. Let's say that the ObamaCare drones have been lying to us all the time and all the promises of significantly reduced costs aren't worth the paper they're printed on (which is very likely to be the case. Then what? Now, the people will be stuck with higher taxes to make up for the shortfall and the taxes would still be buying inferior services to what we had under the free market system. You just know that the additional tax money will not buy better services. That's a given!

As I have repeatedly stated often and early on: There will be NO VALUE to buying into any universal health care scheme. None. Nothing. Nada. Zippo.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Let's see now. How to do I add some substance to this comment?

How about this. Thanks for the feedback, Isbets. Now I'm positive Ellen is right. :ThmbUp:

What would we expect coming out of you? Idiots have to stick together -- it's that collective mentality thing, if you catch my drift.

Boxcar

[lsbets]

Let's see now. How to do I add some substance to this comment?

How about this. Thanks for the feedback, Isbets. Now I'm positive Ellen is right. :ThmbUp:

So Howard Dean wasn't really on Fox News saying what she said you couldn't say on Fox News?

You're a bigger idiot than I previously thought.

[Tom]

Let's see now. How to do I add some substance to this comment?



Hire someone to write it for you? :rolleyes:
You have been a stranger to any semblance of substance for some time now.

[NJ Stinks]

Please explain Auntie Ellen's position, and your own, NJS.

Ellen explained hers in the article. Since I'm not tired yet, I'll explain mine.

I'll use two people I know to explain my position on Senior Health Care.

The first guy (we'll call him Bob) is 79 and goes to see his primary doctor because he's not feeling good. The doctor tells Bob he needs a stress test because the doc is concerned about Bob's heart. Bob tells his doc that he's almost 80 years old and doesn't need a stinking stress test! Later on Bob tells me what was said at his visit to his doctor. So I say 'Get the stress test.' Bob becomes upset and tells me he doesn't need a stress test to know something is wrong. But he'll be damned if he's going to get a bypass or whatever at his age. If he can't live like he is now, he'd rather not live at all. Bob died from a heart attack less than a month later.

The second guy (we'll call him Ray) is 86. He's had 2 heart attacks the last 2 years. Ray needs a hip replacement bad but his heart doctor is against it because it's just too risky because of his heart. Ray gets other opinions and eventually finds a heart doctor who gives the go ahead for the hip replacement. Of course, Ray has to sign a ton of documents first that say he can't hold any medical provider involved in the hip operation responsible if anything goes wrong. Two days after the hip replacement Ray has another heart attack. For 4 days he's kept alive by machines before he regains consciousness. (Ray has a living will that said no machines but the docs tell his family he had a good chance to survive.) So Ray then spends 6 weeks in ICU and almost dies again during that time. Finally, Ray is sent to a rehab facility for about 6 more weeks and eventually goes home when his Medicare and secondary private insurance finally ran out of coverage. The rehab facility said Ray was in no shape to go home but Ray was emphatic that he wasn't going to use his own money ($300 a day) to stay there even though Ray has plenty of money. Today Ray can barely get around and is a shade of his former self. Ray told me two weeks ago that he expects another heart attack to finish him soon.

So. Aside from the fact that Bob taught me something that I'll keep in mind when the time comes, Ray taught me something else. Should Medicare (that's us taxpayers) have to pay for 80% of Ray's medical expenses? We're talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars to save an 86 year old man who has now had 3 heart attacks in the last two years. I believe the answer is no. If Ray's private insurer pays, no problem.

Just to be clear, if a person in otherwise good health wants a hip replacement or a bypass, that's fine with me regardless of that person's age. Medicare should pay it's share of the cost. But I believe Ray is a good example of why Medicare is going broke. End of life costs are insane. Hard decisions have to be made by somebody in order to the 'right thing' -as Ellen said in her article.

You can say it shouldn't be about the money and I want to agree with you. But if we are not willing to pay the taxes necessary to adequately fund Medicare, we shouldn't expect Uncle Sam to pay 80% of the costs for Ray's (and his doctors) doubtful/questionable end of life heath care decisions.

We can't have it both ways. Although I do believe that Republicans magically think we can. (See Michael Steele's comments in Ellen's article.)

I'm tired now. But I look forward to being vilified tomorrow. :)