Obama health care plan explained

Apparently it isn't - healthcare providers have to bill it as something else to get the consultation funded by Medicare. Or so another poster told me when I queried the sense of micromanaging the details to that extent.

Funny, entirely unrelated, there was a sequence on BBC TV news today about a woman suffering from terminal cancer. She wasn't anyplace close to Medicare age. The clip was about the end-of-life counselling she was getting, and how it was painful for all concerned, but it made her feel a lot more in control to know that she had her affairs in order.

We've had the NHS for over 60 years, and we ain't had a "death panel" yet. All we get are motor neurone disease sufferers going to court to try to gain the right to assisted suicide, and losing their cases.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
Apparently it isn't - healthcare providers have to bill it as something else to get the consultation funded by Medicare. Or so another poster told me when I queried the sense of micromanaging the details to that extent.

Funny, entirely unrelated, there was a sequence on BBC TV news today about a woman suffering from terminal cancer. She wasn't anyplace close to Medicare age. The clip was about the end-of-life counselling she was getting, and how it was painful for all concerned, but it made her feel a lot more in control to know that she had her affairs in order.

We've had the NHS for over 60 years, and we ain't had a "death panel" yet. All we get are motor neurone disease sufferers going to court to try to gain the right to assisted suicide, and losing their cases.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...


Right I mean overwhelmingly when given the choice between, "would you like to be given a series of painful surgeries to keep you alive and in a coma for a year, or would you rather we just manage your pain," most will pick the latter. I for one would say if the procedure can actually get em up and out of the bed and back home, then hell yes, do it. But if they're talking about bankrupting my family to keep me unconscious and on a respirator for another six months... why?

How they got from that to "government death panels," well, I guess you'd have to listen to Glenn Beck for a year to figure that thought process out.
 
Rolfe said:
Apparently it isn't - healthcare providers have to bill it as something else to get the consultation funded by Medicare. Or so another poster told me when I queried the sense of micromanaging the details to that extent.

Funny, entirely unrelated, there was a sequence on BBC TV news today about a woman suffering from terminal cancer. She wasn't anyplace close to Medicare age. The clip was about the end-of-life counselling she was getting, and how it was painful for all concerned, but it made her feel a lot more in control to know that she had her affairs in order.

We've had the NHS for over 60 years, and we ain't had a "death panel" yet. All we get are motor neurone disease sufferers going to court to try to gain the right to assisted suicide, and losing their cases.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...
Rolfe, did you read what Joe the Juggler pointed out? The program Obama is championing, the bill in question, isn't about health care, it is a health insurance reform initiative.

It's about money, not about health care. Now, if you understand what I just wrote, go back and read what Dr Imago wrote. It might make more sense to you this time. You seem at the moment to be confusing the two, though in other discussions on this topic you didn't seem to do so.

DR
 
David Wong said:
Right I mean overwhelmingly when given the choice between, "would you like to be given a series of painful surgeries to keep you alive and in a coma for a year, or would you rather we just manage your pain," most will pick the latter. I for one would say if the procedure can actually get em up and out of the bed and back home, then hell yes, do it. But if they're talking about bankrupting my family to keep me unconscious and on a respirator for another six months... why?

How they got from that to "government death panels," well, I guess you'd have to listen to Glenn Beck for a year to figure that thought process out.
Click to expand...

Nothing sparks fear like misinterpreted cherry picked half-truths. This anti-healthcare reform "movement" brought to you by the health insurance industry, is not that unlike the truth movement, the birthers, or any of the other fringe elements.

TAM:)
 
David Wong said:
Right I mean overwhelmingly when given the choice between, "would you like to be given a series of painful surgeries to keep you alive and in a coma for a year, or would you rather we just manage your pain," most will pick the latter. I for one would say if the procedure can actually get em up and out of the bed and back home, then hell yes, do it. But if they're talking about bankrupting my family to keep me unconscious and on a respirator for another six months... why?

How they got from that to "government death panels," well, I guess you'd have to listen to Glenn Beck for a year to figure that thought process out.
Click to expand...

Dr. Obama's recommended protocol for a heart arrhythmia is pain killer. I kid you not. And, to think Christiaan Barnard wasted an entire medical career performing heart transplants when a few Alleve would have been a fine alternative.
 
Did Tony Blair get his surgery for his heart arrythmia on the NHS? I don't actually know the answer to that. I do know that I have a milder form of the same condition, and if I wanted, I could have the same thing. On the NHS.

Rolfe.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Rolfe, did you read what Joe the Juggler pointed out? The program Obama is championing, the bill in question, isn't about health care, it is a health insurance reform initiative.

It's about money, not about health care. Now, if you understand what I just wrote, go back and read what Dr Imago wrote. It might make more sense to you this time. You seem at the moment to be confusing the two, though in other discussions on this topic you didn't seem to do so.

DR
Click to expand...


I don't understand your criticism. The proposed insurance reform has to define what core items of healthcare should be included in the proposed public insurance option. This is one of them. That's what I pointed out.

Rolfe.
 
Darat said:
That's easy - it's about what you want to happen to you when you aren't capable of deciding for yourself (at that moment of time). For example if you have a heart attack you may decide that you do not want to resuscitated. In other words it is about the medical profession respecting your wishes and you receiving the treatment that you want.
Click to expand...

Darat,

Thanks for your reply.

I have a follow up question:

I hear that the Senators and Representatives don't want this plan for themselves or that this plan will not pertain to them.

What is the story here.

These two items that I want to understand is what Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity keep harping on.

Yes! I do listen to them but it is only because I want to know what the enemy is thinking and saying!

Bob Guercio
 
So it's in committee now? How does it manage to survive and go forward for a vote then?

What are the chances of it surviving? (Did the Clinton bill die at this stage?)
 
Rolfe said:
Did Tony Blair get his surgery for his heart arrythmia on the NHS? I don't actually know the answer to that. I do know that I have a milder form of the same condition, and if I wanted, I could have the same thing. On the NHS.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

It would be madness for a Labour Prime Minister to go private. But Blair often lost his mind when it came to public image, so it wouldn't be all that surprising.
 
Marc39 said:
Dr. Obama's recommended protocol for a heart arrhythmia is pain killer. I kid you not.
Click to expand...

Hmmmmm that's an interesting claim. Do you have any source material to back it up...... or should you have taken a drop more water with it? :D
 
Bob Guercio said:
I hear that the Senators and Representatives don't want this plan for themselves or that this plan will not pertain to them.

What is the story here.
Click to expand...
Congress already gets several options of really good health insurance (mostly paid for by the their employer--us) as a job benefit. I don't know if any of the other reforms pertain to them (like a per year or lifetime benefits cap, exluding pre-existing conditions, etc.)

It is still possible that the reforms would benefit them as well, but they've already got about the sweetest deal anyone has in the current system.

It's safe to say that none of them will be opting to use the public insurance plan if it passes
 
Bob Guercio said:
Could somebody please address what is meant by "counseling sessions for the aged"? The extreme right has grabbed whatever this is and labeled it "death boards". I'm sure this is not what Obama has in mind but I'd like it clarified.
Click to expand...
The proposed change is that such counseling sessions (to discuss living will, end-of-life care, etc.) which are completely optional, would now be paid for.

Ooooh, those reformers are just like the Nazis! They actually want to pay for a counseling session you can choose (or not) to have!
_____
DavidJames said:
Your "I kid you not" would have been more effective if you had instead provided a source for your claim.
Click to expand...

It's just Marc and the scare-mongers grossly misrepresenting an exchange from a town-hall meeting. At no point does Obama hold himself out as a medical expert or offer any medical advice.

A questioner claimed that her mother was told by her GP that she needed a pacemaker, but the heart specialist at age 100 that she was too old to get a pacemaker. According to the woman, she got a second opinion, had the surgery and is now 105 years old. The questioner implied that the doctor who OK'd the surgery did so based on the elderly woman's "spirit" or "joy of life". Obama's replied included, "I don't think we can make judgments based on people's spirit." He also spoke of the importance of living wills. He also mentioned that such decisions are being made already (either medicaid or by private insurance).

He even went out on a limb and said that there are situations when treatment is not likely to do any good, and we should look to cut back on such waste.

Yup--he's a regular Mengele, isn't he?
 
Bob Guercio said:
I hear that the Senators and Representatives don't want this plan for themselves or that this plan will not pertain to them.

What is the story here.
Click to expand...
It's political theatre. Reform opponents set the stage by speaking out about members of Congress "exempting" themselves from participation in the public plan. This deliberately ignores the fact that anyone with existing coverage is automatically "exempt" -- and thereby reinforces one of the fears many people have about the proposed legislation: that they will be forced to participate. Then Fleming introduces a resolution that would do exactly that: force members of Congress to opt for the public plan. It's a win/win; they reject the resolution, they look like elitists; they accept it, and we get a public demonstration of Americans being forced onto the public plan.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
So it's in committee now? How does it manage to survive and go forward for a vote then?

What are the chances of it surviving? (Did the Clinton bill die at this stage?)
Click to expand...

My understanding is that several versions have passed through committees (or one version passed through several committees?)

All I could find in a quick search was this story about it being approved by the House Energy & Commerce Committee.

I'm pretty sure it's already made it further than the Clinton plan. Also I think it looks promising to get at least one floor vote in September, and a final compromised version to be passed by the end of the year.
 
Marc39 said:
Dr. Obama's recommended protocol for a heart arrhythmia is pain killer. I kid you not. And, to think Christiaan Barnard wasted an entire medical career performing heart transplants when a few Alleve would have been a fine alternative.
Click to expand...

1. Let us assume (A very big assumption) that your quote is accurate.
2. Obama is not a medical doctor, so what does his opinion on treatment for an arrythmia matter?
3. Given heart transpants are rarely if ever done for "arrhythmias" (most are for Cardiomyopathy and IHD), your comment shows your ignorance, and gives me little hope that #1 will turn out to be correct.

TAM:D
 
T.A.M. said:
1. Let us assume (A very big assumption) that your quote is accurate.
2. Obama is not a medical doctor, so what does his opinion on treatment for an arrythmia matter?
3. Given heart transpants are rarely if ever done for "arrhythmias" (most are for Cardiomyopathy and IHD), your comment shows your ignorance, and gives me little hope that #1 will turn out to be correct.

TAM:D
Click to expand...
See the link in my post #115 for the actual conversation.

The surgery in question was for a pacemaker--had nothing to do with a situation that might require a heart transplant. Marc is just grossly misrepresenting what was said. Big surprise.

ETA: Marc, you don't really think Obama is holding himself out as a medical expert, do you? And you don't really think he was saying that the preferred treatment for arrhythmia in all cases is pain medicine, do you?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom