Jump to content



Recent headlines from The Baltimore Sun

Photo
- - - - -

Obama's medical plan for the elderly....what next Soylent Green?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
19 replies to this topic

#1 Terry K

Terry K

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,534 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 07:52 AM

It seems the new President disregards the elderly as much as the unborn. Amazingly, in his proposed economic stimulus bill, there is a plan to reduce medical treatments for the elderly and establish a Federal data base of medical records for all health care recipients. What happened to privacy rights? Since when is it the Government's prerogative to do a cost benefit analysis and authorize or deny medical treatments based upon anticipated life expectancy? Isn't it ironic that the new Prez is so concerned with the human rights of terrorists held at Gitmo but cavalierly dismisses medical treatment for the elderly?



http://www.bloomberg...id=aLzfDxfbwhzs

"The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

Elderly Hardest Hit

Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).

The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis."

#2 kaitlyn99

kaitlyn99

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 627 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 08:23 AM

It seems the new President disregards the elderly as much as the unborn. Amazingly, in his proposed economic stimulus bill, there is a plan to reduce medical treatments for the elderly and establish a Federal data base of medical records for all health care recipients. What happened to privacy rights? Since when is it the Government's prerogative to do a cost benefit analysis and authorize or deny medical treatments based upon anticipated life expectancy? Isn't it ironic that the new Prez is so concerned with the human rights of terrorists held at Gitmo but cavalierly dismisses medical treatment for the elderly?



http://www.bloomberg...id=aLzfDxfbwhzs

"The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

Elderly Hardest Hit

Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).

The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis."


daschle was/is a sleeper for the health care industry. He would NEVER have helped any of the people.

#3 overtaxed

overtaxed

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,973 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 09:56 AM

I wonder if he put funding in there for the assisted suicide centers? Those will be needed if they refuse to treat you and leave you in agony.

#4 Gopher

Gopher

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,850 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 10:02 AM

I wonder if he put funding in there for the assisted suicide centers?


They will need a great deal of funding in the future. "Involuntary" assisted suicide center will become the norm when our children and grandchildren get a load of the bill that we, the "selfish" generation, left for them to pay. That will probably be the solution for the Social Security problem as well. And we deserve it.

#5 sophian6

sophian6

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 299 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 10:04 AM

I wonder if he put funding in there for the assisted suicide centers? Those will be needed if they refuse to treat you and leave you in agony.


You can bet on it. The insurance companies will jump on that with both feet. "we are not going to pay for your cancer treatment, sir because you have a less expensive option. Take this pill. "

#6 gonzoliberal

gonzoliberal

    Higher Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 15,537 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 10:06 AM

This is the for-profit insurance industries bill, courtesy of Daschle.

The insurance co's would just as soon have everyone die at 50...

#7 douger

douger

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 28,168 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 10:08 AM

Ya know, I'm all for assisted suicide, if it's an informed decision and there's no doubt about the wishes of the individual.

But if the government is going to take responsibility for our medical care, they need to give all people due consideration.

#8 karlydee

karlydee

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,473 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 10:16 AM

text from the bill:
(2) advise the President and Congress on--

(A) strategies with respect to the infrastructure needs of comparative effectiveness research within the Federal Government;

(B) appropriate organizational expenditures for comparative effectiveness research by relevant Federal departments and agencies; and


© opportunities to assure optimum coordination of comparative effectiveness and related health services research conducted or supported by relevant Federal departments and agencies, with the goal of reducing duplicative efforts and encouraging coordinated and complementary use of resources.

this only refers to federal research dollars

#9 karlydee

karlydee

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,473 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 10:18 AM

Comparative effectiveness research

http://www.cbo.gov/f...fectiveness.pdf

"Together, those findings suggest that generating better information
about the costs and benefits of different treatment options—through research on the comparative
effectiveness of those options—could help reduce health care spending without adversely
affecting health overall."

People will still be free to pay for experimental or radical treatments out of their own pocket, or through the purchase of private insurance.

#10 sophian6

sophian6

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 299 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 10:20 AM

This is the for-profit insurance industries bill, courtesy of Daschle.

The insurance co's would just as soon have everyone die at 50...


Very true. Five years ago my wife had a life threathing condition and only the excellence of the Hopkins doctors saved her. She is now well and healthy. I had to fight the insurance SOB's on a daily basis to get her treatment. There is no doubt in my mind that they wold have preferred she die rather than pay for the treatment

#11 Thongman

Thongman

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 10:20 AM

The American people are being fleeced by the Democrats (Reid & Pelosi). Do they care? Maybe but the majority of the people that voted for the Messiah are now watching Idol, Biggest Loser, etc and really don't care what is in the "spending bill."

#12 karlydee

karlydee

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,473 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 10:25 AM

"One recent trial found that older, relatively inexpensive drugs for treating high blood pressure (known as diuretics) were more effective in preventing cardiovascular
disease in patients age 55 or older than commonly used newer drugs known as angiotensinconverting enzyme inhibitors and calcium channel blockers."

http://www.cbo.gov/f...fectiveness.pdf

#13 karlydee

karlydee

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,473 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 10:26 AM

This is the for-profit insurance industries bill, courtesy of Daschle.

The insurance co's would just as soon have everyone die at 50...


BS -- the bill only applies to federal research $$ -- not private healthcare

#14 Dee Lightner

Dee Lightner

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,652 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 10:26 AM

I think anyone who does not want their medical records to be online, and immediately accessible to potential emergency caregivers at any location in the country, should be able to opt out of the plan.

For myself, I would be very happy to have all my records in a national database. Especially since I have had some bad problems that could happen again. I am worried that if I were to have another stroke, while on vacation, or after moving to some new home, that my medical records would NOT be accessible, and thus the emergency folks would not have that info to start treatment, and I might die.

Privacy be damned! If it comes to getting treatment commensurate with prior conditions, I want the treatment and I want to know that everyone who treats me is aware of prior conditions!
In Memory of my sister, Linda Wasserman.



Live your life in such a way that when your feet hit the floor in the
morning, satan shudders & says..."Oh no....she's awake!!"




My Blog:

http://gruntonce.blogspot.com/

#15 karlydee

karlydee

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,473 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 10:29 AM

I think anyone who does not want their medical records to be online, and immediately accessible to potential emergency caregivers at any location in the country, should be able to opt out of the plan.

For myself, I would be very happy to have all my records in a national database. Especially since I have had some bad problems that could happen again. I am worried that if I were to have another stroke, while on vacation, or after moving to some new home, that my medical records would NOT be accessible, and thus the emergency folks would not have that info to start treatment, and I might die.

Privacy be damned! If it comes to getting treatment commensurate with prior conditions, I want the treatment and I want to know that everyone who treats me is aware of prior conditions!


Exactly;

What if your wallet and medical alert bracelet is not found after an accident, and they give you PCN -- and you're allergic, or your allergic to morphine, or -- like a friend of mine you are allergic to sulfites -- even the minute amounts used to preserve common drug formulations -- that shot will actually kill him

#16 Justamused

Justamused

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,266 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 10:31 AM

You know as sad as this is to say, I don't care anymore the only good news is the first generation to get their plugs pulled will be the 60s hippies. I think we can have some fun with this so I want everyone to suggest names of 60s liberal hippies you most like to pull the plug on! Hey this could be bigger than Idol or the Running Man!
Witness to the Decline and Fall of the American Empire:(
From Delaware!

Pay no attention to the Kool-Aid around your ankles and just enjoy the music from the band!

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

Obama macht frei


[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Neda Agha-Soltan 1983 – 2009 Patriot and Freedom Fighter
She gave her life to the cause of Freedom.
R.I.P.

The Price of Freedom which is too high for the false god.

#17 photoman59

photoman59

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,481 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 10:36 AM

Exactly;

What if your wallet and medical alert bracelet is not found after an accident, and they give you PCN -- and you're allergic, or your allergic to morphine, or -- like a friend of mine you are allergic to sulfites -- even the minute amounts used to preserve common drug formulations -- that shot will actually kill him


Are you advocating that the government implant data chips in our bodies?

#18 Justamused

Justamused

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,266 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 10:36 AM

BS -- the bill only applies to federal research $$ -- not private healthcare


Maybe now but are you really this stupid or is this just an act? I give you one perfect, easy to follow, even for you, example, Seat Belt Laws.

Democrat, Drunk and Stupid is no way to go through life!
Witness to the Decline and Fall of the American Empire:(
From Delaware!

Pay no attention to the Kool-Aid around your ankles and just enjoy the music from the band!

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

Obama macht frei


[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Neda Agha-Soltan 1983 – 2009 Patriot and Freedom Fighter
She gave her life to the cause of Freedom.
R.I.P.

The Price of Freedom which is too high for the false god.

#19 raczakblueeyes

raczakblueeyes

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 16 February 2009 - 02:25 PM

Does the population of this country realize who and what they voted for? This is a man who was voted in simply because he is black. Do they realize what they have done. The black population is the main population for abortions and pregnancies and now they will be able to terminate the very people that could have brought a true change. Every life counts old young. How many generations were kill everytime an abortion is done. That child would have grown up and had children and they would have had children and so on. Who knows they could have been the very people to save our country from ourselves. Now he is targeting th elderly and the 102 year old woman who voted for him is healthy if she becomes really sick according to the stimulus package she is just going to have to realize the situation and just die. I can't believe we have come to this. America was the place to go to for freedom. Soon we will be just like every other country in this world. We will lose our freedoms and lose everything we have believed in for the people who come to this country and want to change it. It is a sad time we live in. Something should have sparked someone when the stock market went down 50 points the very day this president was signed into office. May God have mercy on all of us.

#20 Mr Shako

Mr Shako

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,867 posts

Posted 16 February 2009 - 08:01 PM

I nominate **** Lamm to be the new Health Czar. He had his finger on the pulse (pun intended) years ago when he said it was the duty of us old farts to die.