Congratulations to my fellow Democrats

[Pardalis]

Well, hats off to Obama. Regardless if UHC is a good or bad thing, he accomplished something very little politicians ever do, he actually did what he set out to do, and possibly one of the most difficult things in american politics.

 

[Fishstick]

http://www.carenotkilling.org.uk/?show=435



Now what if one in ten deaths in the US were *encouraged* deaths? Given the very high cost of end of life care, wouldn't that substantially lower US health care costs? You still laughing?

The CNK site does not provide a source for these numbers - do you have one? A study is mentioned but not linked to or what it's title is, or even who wrote it.

these figures, which were set out in a detailed report in the New England Journal of Medicine by a group of Dutch doctors, including some of the country's leading advocates of euthanasia

 

[WildCat]

It's folly to pretend there hasn't been assisted suicide in the US for decades. You just give the cancer patient that OD of morphine to kill the pain, not to kill the patient. That's just a side effect...

 

[Thunder]

Well, hats off to Obama. Regardless if UHC is a good or bad thing, he accomplished something very little politicians ever do, he actually did what he set out to do, and possibly one of the most difficult things in american politics.

Hear hear!!!!

 

[joobz]

Now what if one in ten deaths in the US were *encouraged* deaths? Given the very high cost of end of life care, wouldn't that substantially lower US health care costs? You still laughing?

And in what way do you think this moral dilemma is solved through a private health care/insurance system?

 

[Arcade22]

What's next, Communism?

 

[BeAChooser]

The CNK site does not provide a source for these numbers - do you have one? A study is mentioned but not linked to or what it's title is, or even who wrote it.

http://www.australasianbioethics.org/Newsletters/249-2007-05-16.html

About every five years, statistics on Dutch euthanasia are released. Figures for 2005, four years after the practice was legalised in the Netherlands, show that the number of euthanasia cases fell "sharply": from 3,500 in 2001 to 2,325 in 2005. The number of assisted suicides also fell, from 300 to 100. Overall, the percentage of all death by euthanasia dropped from 2.6% to 1.7%. Good news about a successful law?

Deputy Health Minister Jet Bussemaker thought so, but for a different reason. "The most important finding of the research... is that 80% of euthanasia cases are now being reported," she said. It was a pleasing improvement from 2001, when only 54% of euthanasia cases were reported. The Dutch doctors' lobby group also welcomed the improvement in transparency. "Doctors have shown that they are open to scrutiny."

However, the figures, which are set out in a detailed report in the New England Journal of Medicine by a group of Dutch doctors, including some of the country's leading advocates of euthanasia, can be spun in quite a different way. These show that a small decrease in voluntary euthanasia has been more than offset by a hefty increase in what is called "terminal sedation". Patients are given drugs which sedate them "continuously and deeply" until death, in 8.2% of all deaths.

In 7.1% of all deaths, hydration and nutrition were withheld in 2005, compared to 5.6% in 2001. In other words, 7.1% of all people who died in the Netherlands in 2005 died in much the same way as Terri Schiavo, of starvation and thirst, in conjunction with the course of their own disease. To put it even more starkly, voluntary euthanasia (7.1%), non-voluntary euthanasia (0.4%) and terminal sedation accompanied by withdrawal of nutrition and sedation, accounted for nearly 1 in 10 Dutch deaths.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1724911,00.html

When Is Sedation Really Euthanasia?

Mar 21, 2008

… snip ...

A study published last week in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) indicates this may be the case in the Netherlands. Physician-assisted suicide has been legal there — though highly regulated — since 2001, but its use has dropped in recent years. At the same time, Dutch physicians have turned more often to terminal sedation to treat patients at the end of life — 8.2% of all deaths in 2005 involved terminal sedation, up from 5.6% of deaths in 2001. These findings suggest that "continuous deep sedation has possibly increasingly been used as a relevant alternative to euthanasia," the study's authors write. "We do not know whether such substitution is always in accordance with the patient's wishes and with legal and professional guidelines."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1724911,00.html#ixzz0j8beswfJ

http://euthanasia.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000151

11.3%, more than one in ten, of the total number of deaths in that country, every single year (14,691 according to the Dutch government...) are cases of involuntary euthanasia.

And let's not forget:

http://euthanasia.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000151

A 2000 report found that 10 percent of Belgian deaths appear to result from euthanasia ["End-of-Life Decisions in Medical Practice in Flanders, Belgium:*A Nationwide Survey," The Lancet, Nov. 25, 2000]. (BAC - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11117913 )

http://www.drugs.com/news/deep-sedation-becoming-more-common-dying-patients-holland-11440.html

An earlier study done in 2001 in six European countries found that deep sedation was used in 8.5 percent of all deaths in patients with cancer and other diseases. The technique was used both in and out of the hospital, researchers found.

http://www.tldm.org/News13/BritishDoctorsPractising'Slow'Euthanasia.htm

August 18, 2009

… snip ...

Research has shown that 16.5 percent of all deaths in the UK are associated with continuous deep sedation until death, a number twice that of Belgium and the Netherlands, both countries that already have legalised direct euthanasia.

 

[Thunder]

What's next, Communism?

didn't you hear? we accomplished that when we created Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

 

[Malerin]

I don't think we've killed many brown people overseas... we killed lots of whites, lots of Japanese... but we haven't been in any wars in sub-Saharan Africa or in India.

Even Belgium has killed more brown people than the US ever did.

Phillipines?

 

[WildCat]

Phillipines?

Hmmm, I suppose they can be brown-ish. But they declared war on us first.

 

[Malerin]

Hmmm, I suppose they can be brown-ish. But they declared war on us first.

Bastards!

How do the Dutch keep health care costs down?

 

[Arg9]

What we got was a bill that requires people to buy health insurance.

How is that a "complete government takeover"?

OK, maybe "complete government takeover" is a bit of a stretch...for now...but my worry is now the floodgates open for more control by the gov in our personal lives.

And I'll repeat a question from a previous post. Suppose a young, healthy, person makes a free market choice to not purchase health insurance, and is then in an accident that requires extremely expensive medical care to save his life. What does the free market dictate be done at that point?

Then he gets whopped with a nasty bill that he wouldn't have had under insurance. Then he learns a hard lesson that we all unfortunately face in one form or another. But, yes, this is taking into consideration that the health providers don't drop coverage. Which is just...freakin' evil. Issues like this could've been fixed without the government going as far as it did.

 

[240-185]

?Redo from start

 

[Meadmaker]

OK, maybe "complete government takeover" is a bit of a stretch...for now...but my worry is now the floodgates open for more control by the gov in our personal lives.

It could happen. The slippery slope is often derided as a fallacy, but it does happen.

Then he gets whopped with a nasty bill that he wouldn't have had under insurance.

No, I don't think so. (I had asked what the free market dictates be done if a person without insurance requires expensive medical care.) When I seek goods or services, the provider of those goods or services seeks payment, and if I can't provide that payment, or a reasonable assurance that it will be forthcoming, then I don't get the goods or services. The free market dictates that if I don't have the means to pay, I don't get the services. So, if I need chemotherapy, and have no means to pay, the free market dictates that I die.

Most people aren't willing to let that happen, which is why the free market simply cannot be applied logically to health care and insurance. The providers of medical services have an obligation to provide, dictated by law, custom, and our sense of morality. Given that that is the case, it seems illogical that those people who require the services be given the option to not pay for them.

 

[BeAChooser]

Yes, congratulations to the democrats.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704100604575146002445136066.html

It's been a banner week for Democrats: ObamaCare passed Congress in its final form on Thursday night, and the returns are already rolling in. Yesterday AT&T announced that it will be forced to make a $1 billion writedown due solely to the health bill, in what has become a wave of such corporate losses.

… snip ...

On top of AT&T's $1 billion, the writedown wave so far includes Deere & Co., $150 million; Caterpillar, $100 million; AK Steel, $31 million; 3M, $90 million; and Valero Energy, up to $20 million. Verizon has also warned its employees about its new higher health-care costs, and there will be many more in the coming days and weeks.

As Joe Biden might put it, this is a big, er, deal for shareholders and the economy. The consulting firm Towers Watson estimates that the total hit this year will reach nearly $14 billion, unless corporations cut retiree drug benefits when their labor contracts let them.

Welcome to the REAL Obamacare ... courtesy SOLELY of the democrats.

 

[BeAChooser]

Yes, congrats, democrats. Let's just hope this isn't the sort of *change* Obamacare (thanks to you) has in store for all of us:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7529454/Hospital-wards-to-shut-in-secret-NHS-cuts.html

Tens of thousands of NHS workers would be sacked, hospital units closed and patients denied treatments under secret plans for £20 billion of health cuts.

… snip ...

The proposals could lead to:

- 10 per cent of NHS staff being sacked in some areas.

- The loss of thousands of hospital beds.

- A reduction in the number of ambulance call-outs.

- Medical professionals being replaced by less qualified assistants.

The plans are contained in a series of internal NHS documents uncovered by The Daily Telegraph.

Welcome to ObamaCare, folks. It's going to be a bumpy, downhill ride.

 

[Peephole]

Obama is now responsible for every single health care system around the world.

 

[Meadmaker]

So I got to wondering about the announcements that the new health care law was costing companies hundreds of millions of dollars. It seemed fishy to me. The provisions just weren't very drastic, and the ones that were a big effing deal didn't kick in for quite some time, so why were companies announcing big losses right away?


It turns out those big losses announced by AT&T, John Deere, and others are due to a provision of the bill that has gotten very little attention. I didn't even know about it until I investigated the reason for the writedowns. The law ended a tax break for corporations who provided prescription drug benefits to retired workers. The companies are contractually obligated to provide the benefits, but the government will no longer pick up part of the tab.

In other words, under the old socialist scheme, government was subsidizing health care costs, but this bill is saying that the companies will have to rely on the free market to fulfill their contractual obligation.

ETA: After further review, it turns out that this was a George Bush program, and it isn't being completely eliminated. The socialist subsidy being provided to companies is not being eliminated, but it will now count as income. Here's how it works. Under the Medicare part D program, government gives money to companies that provide retiree health benefits. The money that government gives those companies does not count as income. The companies use that money to provide prescription drug benefits to retirees. Of course, all of that spending is a legitimate business expense, so it reduces their profit, and hence their tax. The colloquial term for this sort of practice is "double dipping". They are using money that isn't taxable to pay for an expense, and reducing their taxable income by the amount of the expense. The new law eliminates the loophole. Now, the money that they get from the government will be considered taxable income.

To reiterate, under the new law, if the company gets money from the government it counts as income, and when they spend it, it counts as an expense. Everything cancels out, and the company pays no tax. Under the old law, the government gave them money, but the company didn't call it income. It spent the money, and did call it expense. Therefore, they got a tax break for spending money that they received from the government. The writedowns you are seeing in the headlines are a consequence of the fact that they will no longer get a tax break for spending government money.

Also, the huge costs are not money that has to go out right now. The companies had used the existence of the tax break in their projections of future earnings, which now have to be adjusted.

Here's a link http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/26/health.care.subsidies/

I found that by typing "John Deere"+"health care" into google news search. Another link was from Fox Business. Curiously, Fox didn't explain where the big hits came from.