home

Jaw Dropping Stupid? Or Just Pretending?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 07:56:17 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
The Last Reasonable Conservative, James Joyner, was unreasonable yesterday:

The business about “death boards” is over-the-top nonsense and is indeed being presented in a dishonest, unhelpful manner. But nobody — not even Sarah Palin — is arguing that the Democrats actually put a measure into writing that requires offing granny when she gets too sick to be worth the cost of healing her.

From a NYTimes story on the Arlen Specter town hall yesterday:

Many seemed concerned about issues that are either not in the health care legislation or are peripheral to the debate in Washington — abortion, euthanasia, coverage of immigrants, privacy. “It says plainly right there they want to limit the type of care elderly can get,” said Laurel Tobias, an office manager from Lebanon, referring to a bill in the House. “They are talking about killing people.”

(Emphasis supplied.) Somebody is arguing it, Mr. Joyner.

Speaking for me only

< Tuesday Night Open Thread | Wednesday Morning Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Jaw Dropping Stupid? Or Just Pretending? | 65 comments (65 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    The right just hates that they lost the election (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by Saul on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 08:17:10 AM EST
    and will use any scare tactic to try to win some of the house and senate seats back in 2010.  Of course the eye on the prize is the White House.

    The right wing radio talk shows are 24/7 on using these scare tactics on the public in order to destroy Obama health care plan but the real reason for doing this is to win back some seats in 2010 in both houses.

    Obama needs to get on national TV on all major stations on prime time and explain how wrong these wild accusations are or he will lose the momentum when congress comes back.

    Larry Niven wrote about health rationing and (5.00 / 0) (#4)
    by JSN on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 08:21:37 AM EST
    death boards in several of his books and Joe Halderman used the concept of health rationing for the elderly in at least one of his books.

    I guess these folks can't tell the difference between science fiction and reality. I guess they must have skipped kindergarden.

    The question (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 08:29:14 AM EST
    I pose to them is that insurance companies do exactly what you are talking about and if you're so upset about these things then why aren't you complaining about them too?

    The answer (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 09:20:46 AM EST
    is that the public apparently has more confidence in the corporate sector than in the government.  Why would that be?  Perhaps because of all the media exposes of government misconduct, corruption, etc., while media have not done anywhere near as good a job (and admittedly often are dealing with private-domain records) on exposing the corporate misconduct, corruption, etc.  The recent bailout problems that led to corporates giving egregious bonuses from the public trough have not helped -- as although that made corporates look bad, it made government look worse.

    It just seems futile to try to get people to see that Medicare does run efficiently by comparison -- as media reports of misconduct in such programs so often lack a larger context.

    Parent

    A comment (none / 0) (#33)
    by ChiTownMike on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 10:09:28 AM EST
    on one erroneous part of your post:

    ...led to corporates giving egregious bonuses from the public trough...

    You are being mislead by the media and blogs, including this one. You make it sound like our tax dollars paid for those bonuses and that the money is not to be returned to us. That is simply not true. That money is in the form of interest bearing/dividend paying loans or in equity positions that will be bought out at prevailing stock prices in the future.

    Millions in dividends have been paid to us the taxpayer over the last few months with the balances still payable in full. Some of the companies that have issued said bonuses have subsequently fully paid back their loans.

    And for the money to be paid back that is invested in equity positions, given the rise of the stock market over the last couple of months we the taxpayer are in for a quite handsome return on our investment.

    I wish the uninformed media, or better put the media who wishes to 'color' a story for headline worthiness, would stop lying just to drive eyeballs. But more so I wish that seemingly intelligent Americans would quit falling for the charade and understand that our tax dollars, in the end, will have not paid for any of those bonuses. We will make money, not lose money.

    Parent

    It's your future-tense verbs (2.00 / 0) (#37)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 10:33:52 AM EST
    that are the problem.  Don't you see that?  And put it in the context of all the other promises from this administration that have been broken. . . .

    Parent
    Dividends already paid (none / 0) (#41)
    by ChiTownMike on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 10:50:16 AM EST
    are not future tense. Neither are loans that have already been paid in full. Don't you see that?

    Equity positions are not future tense. Don't you see that?

    And loans that pay dividends and bear continuing interest will not do much for stock prices of those companies in the future, which is why the trend is those companies paying off the loans as quickly as possible. Don't you see that?

    I didn't want to make this personal bur see how you did - your lack of understanding of how all this so called bailout works leads you to make the erroneous statements that you are making.

    But if you want to keep perpetuating a lie I guess that is what you will keep doing. To what intelligent end you would do so is a mystery.  Unless it is all about Raging Against The Machine in which case you are really Raging against the economy in general.

    Parent

    If you take your verb usage (none / 0) (#51)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 11:45:24 AM EST
    personally, then there's no point.

    But now you use past tense, which could be more comforting -- except that now it's a contradiction.

    So look at this way:  A large part of the public sees that.

    Parent

    Verbs Smerbs (none / 0) (#59)
    by ChiTownMike on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 01:09:48 PM EST
    What a way to spin reality.

    Contradiction! That's a laugh.

    Millions in dividends have been paid to us the taxpayer over the last few months with the balances still payable in full. Some of the companies that have issued said bonuses have subsequently fully paid back their loans.

    Where is the past tense in that part of my original response to you? What part of "dividends have been paid" don't you understand?  What part of "fully paid back their loans" don't you understand?

    You are one of the, normally, intelligent posters here. Now you are stooping to cherry picking, and the avoidance of reality. You are choosing to read what you want to read and ignore what you want to ignore. Same ole 'fingers in the ear' approach that you get from others here. I thought you were above that.

    So look at this way:  A large part of the public sees that.

    A large part of the pubic is uneducated in in the details of what has happened and what will happen and why it will happen. They chose to believe the erroneous broad brush MSM media reporting. If you choose to be in that "large part of the public" then that is a conscious choice on your part. But it isn't because you can't read the news and don't have the real facts at your disposal. It's simply because you chose to have your fingers in your ears and keep the blinders on consciously.

    You chose word games like verbs, instead of the main points I made. And you do that consciously. Sorry to see you shrink to that.

    Parent

    Capitalism is good! (none / 0) (#11)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 08:33:48 AM EST
    Any sacrifices made in the name of capitalism are absolutely necessary!
    </snark>

    Besides, the government will pick up the slack - right?

    (IOW - the government exists to prop up capitalist enterprises and clean up any messes they create.)

    Parent

    Head Slap Moronic ... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 08:31:39 AM EST
    is a phrase I favor.  And the rest of the 'graph you quote is equally "jaw dropping stupid" and "head slap moronic":

    Rather -- as Snow finally admits two minutes into the piece -- the argument is that a natural consequence of having government involved in these decisions while trying to keep costs low is rationing of care and encouraging people away from expensive, extraordinary measures.  The fact that the law, as written, puts the final decision in the hands of the patient doesn't dispose of that fear.

    Huh ... wait ... huh?

    Excellent catch! n/t (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 08:35:22 AM EST


    Parent
    The descriptions (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by lilburro on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 08:39:24 AM EST
    in that article are ludicrous.  These town hall protests are going to have to deflate some time, especially as its obvious that some of the loudest aren't even really there for healthcare, but just to push a conservative Christian paranoid agenda related primarily to other issues.

    Well said... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 08:44:23 AM EST
    I can dig giving my senators and rep a verbal smackdown as much as the next disgruntled American...but you may as well b*tch out a hole in the wall for all the good you're gonna do. Eventually they will get bored.

    The American people aren't mature enough to have this discussion...and neither are our representatives.

    Parent

    Well, I think (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by lilburro on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 08:51:57 AM EST
    there are plenty of Americans mature enough to have this discussion.  The televised Obama town hall yesterday wasn't bad.  Obviously TLers can have this conversation.  You just have to ignore people whose sole purpose in showing up at these meetings is to complain that they're afraid the US is going to turn into "Russia."  If they refuse to gather that this plan is practically designed to appease their concerns (it's not single-payer) what can you do for them.  Digby made a great point yesterday:

    They have worked themselves up into a complete frenzy over helping sick people. The right wing noise machine is awesome.

    Big picture is they are truly crazy.

    Parent

    I hear ya (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 09:08:29 AM EST
    but we've turned catering to the stupid into a cottage industry....and there you have it.

    I'm afraid things have to get much worse before enough of us wise up to take the debate back from the loons.

    Parent

    I agree that the "tea baggers" have an (none / 0) (#63)
    by hairspray on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 01:56:24 PM EST
    issue with which to try to desytroy Obama.  Never mind that our health care system is rationing already.  Two issues:  End of life care is EXPENSIVE and is driving the demise of medicare. Thats why Medicare needs to become more of an HMO (NO not like Blue Cross or Humana, but non profits Kaiser and the Cleveland Clinic types).  That is the only way to control costs and there will be some kinds of rationing because everybody that wants heart surgery cannot have it!! For profit health care must be driven out of the market and will be over time. We cannot afford to pay profits on health care. On the other hand, the American people are some of the most unhealthy people in the world because of self inflicted problems such as obesity, heart, smoking and the list goes on.  I for one want a reasonable plan for everyone, but I do not want to be held hostage to a society that brings misery upon themselves.

    Parent
    No, end of life care is not (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 02:25:52 PM EST
    expensive. Hospice care is relatively cheap.

    It is the treatments designed to avoid end of life care that is expensive.

    And telling people you are going to ration health care would be a sure way of getting a major blow back and revolt.

    And I don't want to be part of a society that rations health care of one group over another group.

    Parent

    See what Dark Avenger has to say. (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by hairspray on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 04:39:35 PM EST
    You are in denial my man.  Or else you have dough and realize that dough isn't going to be king in the next go round.!

    Parent
    In denial? (3.00 / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 08:05:18 PM EST
    I never said the insurances companies were wonderful... You just fell for one of DA's usual trick's, attacking a non-statement of someone.

    And did you read the last sentence?

    And I don't want to be part of a society that rations health care of one group over another group.


    Parent
    GOP Talk About "Death Panels" (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by john horse on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 08:56:14 AM EST
    and "euthanasia" in no way contributed to scaring people into believing that the government wants to kill their grandmother or their baby.  I'm glad that James Joyner cleared this up (sarcasm alert).

    I think the analogy that James Joyner is trying to make is that the Republicans didn't actually yell "fire" in a crowded theater.  What they did yell in that crowded theater was "if there is a fire then EVERYONE RUN FOR IT."

    The issue is not just (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 09:10:08 AM EST
    whether government employees will decide what procedures are and are not covered - they do that already, and they will continue to do it under whatever bill passes - but whether, as Sarah Palin claimed, the decisions will be made based upon each individual's "level of productivity in society."

    Medicare, just like private insurers, already decides which procedures are cost-effective to cover and which are not.  But private insurers are the only ones in the business of making individualized determinations.  Medicare has published guidelines and they are based upon the type of procedure, not upon any kind of judgment regarding an individual's "level of productivity in society."

    Joyner writes: "the argument is that a natural consequence of having government involved in these decisions while trying to keep costs low is rationing of care and encouraging people away from expensive, extraordinary measures."  Uh huh, that's a valid point, and the free market works the exact same way; insurance companies won't stay in business without rationing care and encouraging people away from expensive, extraordinary measures.  But Joyner simply ignores Palin's other claim, that the government will be looking at individual cases and saying "you're worth saving, you're not worth saving."  That's just a paranoid fantasy and Joyner cannot defend it.

    Yes and no (2.00 / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 09:29:52 AM EST
    You have to go back and read what Ezekiel Manuel wrote. And he is the President's health adviser. And Obama's comment about his Aunt needing pain medicine rather than surgery is in the mix.

    Those are scary comments. Arguing that something isn't in the plan now doesn't remove the fear that the government won't do it in the future.

    Parent

    You can fear what you want (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 09:46:23 AM EST
    but this effort to cherry-pick a couple sentences from one of the President's many health-care advisors and insist that it represents the government's hidden agenda does not hunt with me.  Medicare has operated for decades without making determinations based upon anybody's "level of productivity in society" and there is no reason to think that will change.

    This particular paranoid fantasy is of a piece with Michele Bachmann's argument that the Obama Administration is going to use the census data to put people in camps.  The average American does not spend his time worrying that the government will judge him insufficiently productive and send him off to the ovens.

    Parent

    The dog own't hunt (2.00 / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 10:15:18 AM EST
    because he is too old and has been denied a hip replacement...

    ;-)

    I am living the Medicare guidelines. To you they are something to discuss.

    Parent

    And, even those who we would think (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 06:32:23 PM EST
    wouldn't dare play with the system...

    When the frauds get caught, they've often stolen tens of millions.

    If every doctor in private practice were to cheat the system by $1000 a year, the hit would be huge.

    25% of Medicare cost goes to the last (2.00 / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 08:21:57 AM EST
    few years of a person's life.

    You can't take $400 billion out of the program with out reducing care.

    If you reduce care you will have to decide who gets what is available. Rationing is merely a word for that. How that will be done will require guide lines and people acting as a group. That is a "panel."

    Us Grannies and Grandpas have figured that out. You will be our age before you know it.

    Rationing already happens. (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 08:30:37 AM EST
    Under every system, every single one.

    The only difference is how it happens.  The "why" is always the same - not enough resources.

    Parent

    OH BS! (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 08:31:03 AM EST
    How about reducing waste, instead of reducing care. I haven't heard a conservative yet with a positive idea about anything in this regard. It's all negative. NO NO NO NO NO. Can't do it, can't happen here.

    Parent
    I'm all for reducing waste (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by MO Blue on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 09:04:39 AM EST
    How about we eliminate the $100 - 150 million a year healthy marriage program instead of reducing the Medicare budget. Here is an example of how taxpayer money was spent for this program:

    Sounds of man snoring, followed by female voice: "Hear that? That's my husband sleeping ... soundly. He may not always be charming, but he's always my prince."
    Narrator voiceover: "For tips on navigating the highs and lows of a healthy marriage, visit TwoOfUs.org. You'll find advice on managing money, disagreeing without fighting and ... [snoring sounds] keeping the spark of romance in your relationship."


    Parent
    Works for me (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 09:24:06 AM EST
    And I would guess twoofus.org is a non-profit getting government funding... Now. Do I get to pick a few??

    How about we eliminate all Medicaid and insurance for children and combine that into a single payer system that covers the poor and everyone else???
    Or is that already in the $1,000,000,000,000??

    See, no one talks about cost.

    Parent

    Not being a conservative and wanting (2.00 / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 08:39:32 AM EST
    a single payer system I can't answer for "conservatives."

    And I see no problem in reducing waste, fraud, etc.

    But you cannot recover $400 billion by doing that. It just isn't there.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 09:00:20 AM EST
    If there really is $400B in "fraud and waste" in Medicare, then the government is right.  We can't afford "Medicare for all".  Imagine the level of "fraud and waste" that would come if everyone had access to Medicare.

    Parent
    Let's see your figures (none / 0) (#36)
    by ChiTownMike on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 10:25:50 AM EST
    that there isn't 400 billion in waste and fraud.

    I'm sure there are published estimates of what waste and fraud are so go dig them up and subtract that number from the 400 billion and then come back with your foolish talk of rationing.

    You are just throwing negativity our there with no basis for fact.

    Parent

    One (none / 0) (#39)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 10:38:32 AM EST
    cannot prove a negative.

    Go prove that there IS $400B in waste and fraud in Medicare.

    Parent

    Who says it is (none / 0) (#44)
    by ChiTownMike on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 10:58:39 AM EST
    a negative? You?

    So you are saying there is zero waste and fraud in Medicare when the subject of waste and fraud in Medicare has been written about for years?

    I suggest you do your homework before posting such silliness Teresa. Of course there is waste and fraud in Medicare. Why are you unaware of that?

    Parent

    In addition (none / 0) (#45)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 11:00:08 AM EST
    if the government knows how much fraud and waste there is in Medicare, why aren't they going after the frauds already?

    That's the problem with fraud.  You have no idea if it exists or not -- because it's fraudulent.

    And waste.  Again, what is waste?  yes, there are clear-cut distinctions but a whole lot of gray area too.

    Again, going after medicare fraud and waste -- a BIG FAT LOSER.  It's a loser of such epic proportions you'd think that any moron (even a politician) would know what a loser it was...unless their goal to begin with was to kill healthcare reform.

    Parent

    What Is Waste? (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by daring grace on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 01:57:39 PM EST
    Here's one definition.

    snip:

    The Associated Press
    updated 9:07 p.m. ET, Tues., Sept . 23, 2008

    WASHINGTON - The government paid more than $1 billion in questionable Medicare claims for medical supplies that showed little relation to a patient's condition, including blood glucose strips for sexual impotence and special diabetic shoes for leg amputees, congressional investigators say.

    Billions more in taxpayer dollars may have been wasted over the last decade because the government-run health program for the elderly and disabled paid out claims with blank or invalid diagnosis codes, such as a "?" or "zzzzz." Medicare officials say even smiley-face icons could have been accepted.

    The report by Republicans on the Senate Homeland Security investigations subcommittee, obtained by The Associated Press, is the latest to detail lax oversight in the $400 billion program that has been cited by government auditors as a high-risk for fraud and waste for nearly 20 years.

    Or, here coupled with fraud and abuse issues in testimony by the Inspector General of HHS to the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Health on Health Care Reform: Opportunities to Address Waste, Fraud and Abuse.

    There are lots of other instances available when googled.

    I'm kind of puzzled by your apparent skepticism that a fair amount of waste and fraud and abuse of the system exists.

    Parent

    Once again (none / 0) (#66)
    by ChiTownMike on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 02:18:16 PM EST
    Do your homework.

    why aren't they going after the frauds already?

    Ha ha. They are!!!

    You really look silly given the links from DarkAvenger which anyone can google up hundreds of them in a millisecond.

    Seems like you'd rather spending your time talking about things you know nothing about rater than spending your time educating yourself before you make yourself look silly.

    Parent

    Or often to the last few weeks (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Spamlet on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 08:56:16 AM EST
    or days of a person's life, and only because people don't always take the care they should to spell out their wishes regarding extreme life-saving measures. Thus a 90-year-old suffering--truly--from terminal metastatic cancer is put on life support in a hospital, when a less torturous death might easily have occurred at home, with hospice and palliative care.

    Parent
    And you're saying (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 09:03:44 AM EST
    that should be up to the government to decide?

    Texas already has that provision.  It's called the futile care law.  Should the futile care law be nationalized under Medicare?

    Parent

    What? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Spamlet on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 10:25:38 AM EST
    I'm not saying anything of the kind.

    My comment was simply a response to a previous commenter, who claimed that most spending on health care takes place over the last few years of a person's life.

    I don't have an axe to grind here WRT the health care debate. But I do think people should take the steps necessary to avoid what you reference as "futile care," if avoiding that kind of care is their wish.

    Parent

    And avoid Catholic hospitals (none / 0) (#38)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 10:37:29 AM EST
    and hospices, if they want living wills to be honored.  I speak from sad experience re family and friends.  And I keep looking for a discussion of how the bills and plans proposed can override the prerogative of religious hospitals, which dominate in my region.

    Parent
    I had two surgeries in a Catholic (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 10:56:25 AM EST
    hospital, and both times was asked if I had a living will and if so, did I want to given them a copy of it.  Now, they didn't tell me they wouldn't honor it if I did, but in the absence of a living will, my husband, as my next of kin, would have had the say-so in such a situation in any event.

    Now, on the subject of end-of-life expense, I have a friend whose mother died of kidney cancer about 10 years ago; by the time they knew she had it, there wasn't a whole lot available in the way of curative treatment, but they still thought she had a year or more to live, and were committed to treating the various complications along the way, and making sure she was as comfortable as possible.  

    Where am I going with this?  She had a hip replacememt during this time, and before anyone declares that a ridiculous and needless expense, consider that they did it because she was in extreme pain from the bone-on-bone degeneration of the joint, it severerly restricted any mobility she had and compromised her quality of life - and it was the only way to relieve the pain.

    Should she not have had it?  Should she have spent the last year of her life just taking pain pills and being unable to move and unable to interact with her family?

    Nothing is ever as simple, or black-and-white as we would like it to be.

    Parent

    Glad you made these points (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Spamlet on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 01:11:08 PM EST
    My best friend was dying of lymphoma, and at a certain point her urinary tract became blocked.

    Can you imagine how that feels?

    A catheter alone could do nothing. So, less than a month before she died, she underwent surgery that implanted two tubes directly into her kidneys, tubes that drained into Foley-type receptacle bags.

    She also underwent several blood transfusions in the days before she died, to ease her discomfort.

    Now, these may sound like a drastic interventionist procedures, but in fact they were the very definition of palliative care, which simply means care that eases pain and suffering to the maximum possible extent as long as a person is alive, but whose intent is not to prolong life artificially, against the person's stated wishes and best interests.

    Parent

    Yup (none / 0) (#47)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 11:06:45 AM EST
    and the reality is that any person on earth can get an expensive medical procedure and then find out a week later that they are terminal with another illness.  What's the difference between that occasion and the one you're describing?  Both are uncertain -- A cure for the kidney cancer could come within that year's life expectancy.

    Corporate delaying of treatment for one illness because you might be dying of another is immoral.  In the end, we're all dying and our death could come soon.

    Parent

    Good to know it's not everywhere (none / 0) (#52)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 11:48:37 AM EST
    but our experience has been otherwise -- even with a physician and lawyers in the family who witnessed my father's living will and flew in to argue for it for months as he endured pain.  Friends have had similar experience here -- so it may be something about the archdiocese here?

    Parent
    And it still leaves me wondering (none / 0) (#53)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 11:51:22 AM EST
    whether all hospitals would comply with the plan for end-of-life counseling, and I still have not found a clear discussion of that -- of those hospitals' plans.  

    Whatever; we all now know to try to get to the few remaining non-Catholic hospitals here.

    Parent

    If Medicare is open to younger paying (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by hairspray on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 02:03:22 PM EST
    people those figures aren't valid.  There has to be a way to bring in new revenue from younger healthy people to pay for the older sicker ones.  That is why making medicare part of the public option is a great idea.  Keep those young healthy people joining and spread the risk.  And keep them out of the "cherry picking" hands of the private for profit insurance companies.

    Parent
    I'll take . . . (none / 0) (#1)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 08:16:25 AM EST
    Jaw dropping stupid for 100, Alex, because even if they are pretending, it's jaw dropping stupid. Imo, of course :)

    The Ministry of Truth speaks! (none / 0) (#3)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 08:21:37 AM EST
    The narrative is whatever they say it is!

    If their narrative is proved to be inaccurate, they almost never admit it but simply create a new narrative tomorrow.  When Joe Klein was called out by Glenn Greenwald (in 2008) and actually walked back his initial claims, it was almost a miracle.  

    Typical (none / 0) (#9)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 08:31:28 AM EST
    Whenever the right gets caught saying something totally extreme, they just pretend it never's been said at all.  They did the same when folks didn't take too kindly to Ari Fleischer telling people to "watch what they say."

    Maybe this will someday (none / 0) (#13)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 08:38:14 AM EST
    (maybe by tomorrow?) be known as the Summer of Stupid.  Perhaps to be followed by the Autumn of A$$holery, the Winter of Whackos and the Spring of Suckitude.  Before you know it, it will be time for more Stupid.  And just in time for the 2010 elections.  Oh, boy, I can hardly wait.

    I haven't read the entire NYT article cited, but I find the language of the paragraph cited here interesting.  Note that it says that "Many seemed concerned about issues that are either not in the health care legislation or are peripheral to the debate in Washington," but doesn't bother to clarify which of the ones listed - "abortion, euthanasia, coverage of immigrants, privacy" - are not in the legislation and which ones are peripheral.  But, I'm sure the NYT believes their readers are so smart they already know which are which.

    And Joyner - how does he not know that Palin did, in fact, accuse Democrats of "actually put(ting) a measure into writing that requires offing granny when she gets too sick to be worth the cost of healing her?"  If she was not accusing Democrats of doing that, who was she accusing?  Members of her own party?  Come to think of it, it does seem more in keeping with their general feeling that only the unborn deserve life, and anyone who can't pay their own way is a drain on the system and needs an ice floe.

    Honestly, what's taking place these days isn't just jaw-droppingly stupid, it's the stuff of satire and absurdist theatre.  And there's so much more to come!

    Fact checking (none / 0) (#56)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 12:50:52 PM EST
    Wouldn't it be easier to sell if someone got up there, and explained in plain English, what's going on?

    USAToday fact checks Obama's townhall yesterday:

     SOME OF OBAMA'S ASSERTIONS DEBATABLE

    Some of the assertions that President Obama made about his health plan at Tuesday's town-hall meeting are open to argument:

    * "Under the reform we're proposing, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."

    Not necessarily. In an analysis of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee bill, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that 10 million workers could lose employer-provided benefits and would have to find other insurance.

    * "Insurance companies basically get $177 billion of taxpayer money to provide services that Medicare already provides."

    About 10.2 million Medicare recipients are in Medicare Advantage. Under that program, the government pays insurers a set amount per Medicare beneficiary. Obama ridiculed it as costly and redundant, but the plan provides additional benefits, such as vision, dental and hearing, to seniors and helps coordinate health care for those with chronic conditions, says Robert Zirkelbach at the trade association, America's Health Insurance Plans.

    * "The rumor that's been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for 'death panels' that will basically pull the plug on Grandma. ... (T)he intention. .. was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they're ready, on their own terms. ... (O)ne of the chief sponsors of this bill originally was a Republican ... (Sen.) Johnny Isakson from Georgia."

    Isakson issued a press release saying Obama misused his name. A provision he attached to a Senate health care bill would allow seniors to obtain help in formulating a living will something Isakson said is different from House language. The House bill would require Medicare to pay for end-of-life counseling sessions, but it would not mandate that anyone use the benefit.

    * "AARP would not be endorsing a bill if it was undermining Medicare, OK?"

    The AARP issued a press release to make it clear that it has not endorsed any particular health care proposal. "Indications that we have endorsed any of the major health care reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate," AARP said.

    -- By Kathy Kiely

     



    Parent
    We are really hopleless sometimes.... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 08:39:28 AM EST
    Insurance companies don't "kill people", governments don't "kill people", disease and illness kill people.  Access to quality health care can save people and prolong life.

    Honestly talking about the most cost-effective, liberty-friendly, efficient way to prolong life is too much to ask I guess.

    We so deserve the sh*t we get served, we really do.

    You're right (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 08:45:49 AM EST
    And the question should be, why isn't Obama fighting for a single payer system that is well defined as to cost and services and clearly explained in words that everyone can understand?

    What we have here is bunch of words no one can understand with Obama saying, "Trust me."

    Parent

    Clarity... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 08:48:11 AM EST
    is not conducive to thievery is my best guess.

    Any system, be it single payer or otherwise, that is well defined and clearly explained doesn't leave enough fog to cloud the thievery.

    Parent

    You're hitting them out of the park (2.00 / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 09:00:52 AM EST
    this morning....

    I watched Specter's TH yesterday. It was very well done and no can complain about people getting shouted down... and one of the best comments I heard was a guy saying all laws should be written in words at the junior high level..

    On my BP medicine last winter I had to have my Doctor call to explain, and thus get approval for the drug to be paid for by the insurance company because it was PA (prior approval required) and ST (step therapy required)...which means the Doctor must say they have tried or know that a lower cost drug won't work. Had to do this 4 times and it is driven by Medicare guidelines.

    Now if they are doing this over blood pressure medication, what will they do when money gets tighter and I need a hip replacement so I can hobble to the game??

    Parent

    they'll probably do... (none / 0) (#40)
    by Dadler on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 10:43:16 AM EST
    ..."better" than a corporation, since the corporation has to not only worry about costs but about PROFITING from your illness however they can.

    I can't say the gov't will be perfect, but they will not have the profit motive in determining how to treat you.  That is, right now, if you don't make money for the company you are better off dead.  Arguing the government will simply pull the plug on you is based on nothing but fear, not on the PROVEN track record of corporate healthcare.  

    As for Emmanuel, he was writing a theoretical academic piece, designed for rhetorical purposes.  He was saying, this is what this suggests should be done, but, obviously, we can't do that and much more thought must go into services and how they are allocated.  Nowhere in that piece is there a real advocacy for anything, it is an entirely academic exercise.  But if you don't understand what freedom of speech and expression really mean beyond screaming irrationally at congresspeople (who certainly deserve screaming in some areas), then I suppose even utterly rational discourse is terrifying.  

    Parent

    Hmmmm (2.00 / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 11:07:34 AM EST
    So you believe that meeting mandated budgets will not drive government employees the same way it does private employees?? Don't see it that way. Both have job security and promotions and raises to consider. Remember we are speaking of individuals.

    And my argument isn't that black/white. The point being that we already have guidelines in place on medicine (see my BP comments) as well who can stay in a hospital. e.g. I had a friend who had CPOD. His O levels were hovering around 92 and the hospital sent him home based on guidelines that said they couldn't keep him. He did have a scripts for seriods and ant-biotics but they aren't as effective as a "drip." He was back in the hospital in four days, only this time in ICU. Terrible waste of money, almost killed him and all based on "guidelines." Could the Doctor gamed the system? Maybe but this one didn't.

    Are you telling me that lower payments to hospitals will push them towards better care?

    Try tipping poorly at your favorite eatery/bar and see how the service improves. ;-)

    As for Emanuel, he wrote what he wrote and he has not, to my knowledge, reputed it. He has to know it is out there. So that tells me that he believes that.

    And freedom of speech has nothing to do with this. Of course he has freedom of speech. He used it. Now others are reading what he wrote and exercising theirs. Sauce for the goose, etc., etc.

    Parent

    Maybe politicians need to (none / 0) (#54)
    by MO Blue on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 12:07:45 PM EST
    educate themselves on what is and what is not socialized medicine before they try to educate others.

    The VA system is socialized medicine.

    Medicare is a single payer system.

    Too often, Dem politicians use the term socialized medicine in connection with single payer. If they cannot or will not make the true distinction, they shouldn't blame the public for being confused.


    Parent

    She probably feels (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 01:04:35 PM EST
    that since she is paying premiums, deductibles and paid taxes specific to Medicare for all her working life that she has paid for insurance and wants some control over what it does.

    People are funny like that.

    Parent

    We can always hold a series... (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 10:55:09 AM EST
    of "Check-Raise PPJ a New Hip" charity poker tournaments...thats about all we can count on my man, the love and support of our friends and neighbors.

    Parent
    With the likes of Glenn Beck, It is Not surprising (none / 0) (#57)
    by kevsters on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 12:52:53 PM EST
    This is the video of Glenn Beck's show from last night (8-11-09) condensed into 10 minutes.

    I have never seen so many health care scare tactics and talk about eugenics in such a short period of time.

    You have to watch.

    http://progressnotcongress.org/?p=2505

    Beck (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 05:29:17 PM EST
    the James Joyce of heavy-handed dipsh*ts.

    As Zappa said, it's not getting any smarter out there.

    Parent

    Jaw Dropping Stupid? Or Just Pretending? | 65 comments (65 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment