Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: puborectalis who wrote (15844)	7/21/2009 10:38:09 PM
From: GROUND ZERO™	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 103300

obama says people can keep their personal health care plans, but there is nothing in the Bill that says so... obama is a liar, he's a fraud, he's just another bernie madoff... Are you not one bit bothered by that Swedish woman's email regarding her mother? With such a mammoth thing like health care, you're going to let some amateur take it over? This is pure nuts... GZ

To: puborectalis who wrote (15844)	7/22/2009 10:40:22 AM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 103300

O'S BROKEN PROMISES By BETSY MCCAUGHEY July 17, 2009 -- PRESIDENT Obama promises that "if you like your health plan, you can keep it," even after he reforms our health-care system. That's untrue. The bills now before Congress would force you to switch to a managed-care plan with limits on your access to specialists and tests. Two main bills are being rushed through Congress with the goal of combining them into a finished product by August. Under either, a new government bureaucracy will select health plans that it considers in your best interest, and you will have to enroll in one of these "qualified plans." If you now get your plan through work, your employer has a five-year "grace period" to switch you into a qualified plan. If you buy your own insurance, you'll have less time. And as soon as anything changes in your contract -- such as a change in copays or deductibles, which many insurers change every year -- you'll have to move into a qualified plan instead (House bill, p. 16-17). When you file your taxes, if you can't prove to the IRS that you are in a qualified plan, you'll be fined thousands of dollars -- as much as the average cost of a health plan for your family size -- and then automatically enrolled in a randomly selected plan (House bill, p. 167-168). It's one thing to require that people getting government assistance tolerate managed care, but the legislation limits you to a managed-care plan even if you and your employer are footing the bill (Senate bill, p. 57-58). The goal is to reduce everyone's consumption of health care and to ensure that people have the same health-care experience, regardless of ability to pay. Nowhere does the legislation say how much health plans will cost, but a family of four is eligible for some government assistance until their household income reaches $88,000 (House bill, p. 137). If you earn more than that, you'll have to pay the cost no matter how high it goes. The price tag for this legislation is a whopping $1.04 trillion to $1.6 trillion (Congressional Budget Office estimates). Half of the tab comes from tax increases on individuals earning $280,000 or more, and these new taxes will double in 2012 unless savings exceed predicted costs (House bill, p. 199). The rest of the cost is paid for by cutting seniors' health benefits under Medicare. There's plenty of waste in Medicare, but the Congressional Budget Office estimates only 1 percent of the savings under the legislation will be from curbing waste, fraud and abuse. That means the rest will likely come from reducing what patients get. One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and "the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration." This mandate invites abuse, and seniors could easily be pushed to refuse care. Do we really want government involved in such deeply personal issues? Shockingly, only a portion of the money accumulated from slashing senior benefits and raising taxes goes to pay for covering the uninsured. The Senate bill allocates huge sums to "community transformation grants," home visits for expectant families, services for migrant workers -- and the creation of dozens of new government councils, programs and advisory boards slipped into the last 500 pages. The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll (June 21) finds that 83 percent of Americans are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their health care, and 81 percent are similarly satisfied with their health insurance. They have good reason to be. If you're diagnosed with cancer, you have a better chance of surviving it in the United States than anywhere else, according to the Concord Five Continent Study. And the World Health Organization ranked the United States No. 1 out of 191 countries for being responsive to patients' needs, including providing timely treatments and a choice of doctors. Congress should pursue less radical ways to cover the uninsured. We have too much to lose with this legislation. Betsy McCaughey is founder of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former lieutenant governor of New York. betsy@hospitalinfection.org nypost.com

To: puborectalis who wrote (15844)	7/22/2009 10:42:11 AM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 103300

"Why is our infant mortality so high " many reason, large minority population, we try to keep sick fetuses alive(do other countries do this), we count birth deaths different than other countries.

To: puborectalis who wrote (15844)	7/22/2009 11:08:20 AM
From: longnshort	2 Recommendations Respond to of 103300

Does Ted Kennedy deserve his extended cancer care? By James Lewis American Thinker Senator Ted Kennedy, who is now 76 years old and was diagnosed with brain cancer in May of last year, is telling the world that nationalized medical care is "the cause of his life." He wants to see it pass as soon as possible, before he departs this vale of tears. The prospect of Kennedy's passing is viewed by the liberal press with anticipatory tears and mourning. But they are not asking the proper question by their own lights: That question -- which will be asked for you and me when we reach his age and state in life --- is this: Is Senator Kennedy's life valuable enough to dedicate millions of dollars to extending it another month, another day, another year? Because Barack Obama and Ted Kennedy agree with each other that they of all people are entitled to make that decision. Your decision to live or die will now be in their hands. Ted Kennedy is now 76. Average life expectancy in the United States is 78.06. For a man who has already reached 76, life expectancy is somewhat longer than average (since people who die younger lower the national average); for a wealthy white man it may be somewhat longer statistically; but for a man with diagnosed brain cancer it is correspondingly less. As far as the actuarial tables of the Nanny State are concerned, Kennedy is due to leave this life some time soon. The socialist State is not sentimental, at least when it comes to the lives of ordinary people like you and me. The socialist question -- and yes, it is being asked very openly in socialist countries all around the world, like Britain and Sweden -- must be whether extending Senator Kennedy's life by another day, another month or year is socially valuable enough to pay for what is no doubt a gigantic and growing medical bill. Kennedy is a US Senator, and all that money has been coughed up without complaint by the US taxpayer. Kennedy is already entitled to Federal health care, and it is no doubt the best available to anyone in the world. Before he dies, Senator Kennedy wants to feel sure that you and I and our loved ones can put that personal decision about life or death safely in the hands of a Federal bureaucrat. It is "the cause of his life," we are told. Now there are many people in this country who believe that Ted Kennedy has not spent his life very constructively. Mary Jo Kopechne's family might still want to trade his life for hers, if she could be brought back. Senator Kennedy has exercised more power over our immigration chaos than any other person in the last half century. 9/11 was committed by illegal entrants who slipped through our deliberately full-of-holes borders, using all manner of Kennedy-authored loopholes and enforcement gaps. Others might point to the socialist habit of importing vast numbers of voters from Pakistan and Somalia into Western Europe, to make for cheap socialist votes in order to defeat and scapegoat native Europeans. Socialism by immigrant vote buying is happening in every single socialist country in Europe. It is what keeps socialist parties there in power. Kennedy has opened our borders for precisely that kind of takeover by masses of illegal immigrants. So there might be a rational debate over the social utility of Senator Kennedy's life. We could all have a great national debate about it. Maybe we should do exactly that, to face the consequences of what the Left sees as so humane, so obviously benevolent, and so enlightened. Consider what happens in the Netherlands to elderly people. The Netherlands legalized "assisted suicide" in 2002, no doubt in part for compassionate reasons. But also to save money. There is only one money kitty for medical care in the socialist Netherlands. When you get old, the question is asked, either explicitly or by implication: Do you deserve to live another year compared to young refugees from Somalia, who can use the same euros to have many years of life? There's only so much money available. The Netherlands radio service had a quiz show at one time, designed to "raise public awareness" about precisely that question. Who deserves to live, and who to die? But nobody debates any more about who has the power to make that decision. In socialist Europe the State does. It's a done deal. The Netherlands legally recognizes four categories of euthanasia. One of them is: <<< Passive euthanasia: A physician may choose not to treat an recurrent disease or event in a patient with a terminal progressive disease. >>> I don't know enough about Senator Kennedy's condition, but I would suppose that he has "a recurrent disease or ... a terminal progressive disease." That would be the case if his brain cancer is not curable. In the socialist Netherlands Kennedy would be a perfect candidate for passive euthanasia. Has anyone raised this question with Senator Kennedy? I know it seems to be in bad taste to even mention it. But if ObamaCare passes in the coming weeks, you can be sure that that question will be raised for you and me, and our loved ones. And no, we will not have a choice. americanthinker.com