Hello There, Guest!

  •  Previous
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • ...
  • 7
  • Next 
  •  
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Paying the Health Care Tax
#21
ss3251 Wrote:
ibofightback Wrote:Smart man! Smile I read years ago that the ideal of form of government is a true Benevolent Dictatorship


Ideal for the dictator and his friends...
Probably not ideal for those he doesn't consider his friends...
I guess it is all in whose perspective you are looking at it.


You missed the "benevolent" part Smile
 Reply
#22
MichMan Wrote:Here is how a Benevolent Dictatorship works:

This is from Robert Reich, Cabinet Secretary to President Clinton and health care advisor to President Obama:


Why is it I can find no references anywhere to this guy being an Obama "health care advisor" other than on right-wing blogs? Rolleyes
 Reply
#23
Actually he is Obama's economic advisor and probably his most outspoken advisor on the health care issue.

Meet Obama's Economic Advisors
Published: 11/10/2008 03:03:24

Robert Reich, 63
Labor secretary under former President Bill Clinton from 1993 to 1997 and close friend of the the former First Family.

[Image: t10_econteam_2.jpg]

http://www.nydailynews.com/money/toplist...z0TuT4dQ8G

He also believes "meaningful national healthcare reform" is necessary for an economic revovery.

Anyway, nice attempt to dodge.

Now back to the substance of the post. The fact remains that this Obama advisor claims that if health care spending is reduced, the quality of and access to health care is reduced.

Charge healthy people more... you know the ones who are not a burden on the system. Limit the profits of companies responsible for delivering new products and new drugs (more bad news for West Michigan employees of Stryker and Upjohn/Pharmacia) and discourage new technology.

I agree with him. The quality of health care will be reduced and people will suffer as a result.
 Reply
#24
MichMan Wrote:Actually he is Obama's economic advisor and probably his most outspoken advisor on the health care issue.


Any evidence he's Obama's economic advisor?

Not mentioned on his Wikipedia bio. Not mentioned on his blog. Not mentioned on his website. Not metioned on whitehouse.gov

Oh, there you go, it says he was on Obama's transition advisory team. Good idea since he's been in the whitehouse before.

That's completely different to claiming he's a current health policy advisor, as you are!

Smacks of the same strategy used in the election with that bomber guy. Some person Obama knows in some way said something that can be interpreted in a certain way, so therefore that's obviously what Obama is planning on implementing! Rolleyes

Quote:He also believes "meaningful national healthcare reform" is necessary for an economic revovery.

Long term, I'd agree.

Quote:Now back to the substance of the post. The fact remains that this Obama advisor claims that if health care spending is reduced, the quality of and access to health care is reduced.

So? This past transition advisor is wrong. International experience proves that.

Quote:Charge healthy people more... you know the ones who are not a burden on the system. Limit the profits of companies responsible for delivering new products and new drugs (more bad news for West Michigan employees of Stryker and Upjohn/Pharmacia) and discourage new technology.

He's wrong. International experience proves that.

Quote:I agree with him. The quality of health care will be reduced and people will suffer as a result.

You're wrong. International experience proves that.
 Reply
#25
If you would have searched more effectively you would have seen that left wing blogs and campaign websites claimed he was an advisor.

You would have also found that David Axelrod has specifically called him an advisor.

But stop dodging. Name any other of Obama's economic advisors who are as much of a spokesman about health care as Robert Reich. (...crickets....)

Also, please explain how limiting the profits of health care companies (like those located in Michigan) encourage continued investment in the kind of quality pharmaceuticals and healthcare supplies that we have today.
 Reply
#26
MichMan Wrote:If you would have searched more effectively you would have seen that left wing blogs and campaign websites claimed he was an advisor.


Links please. Not that it matters. He could be Obama himself for all I care, his assertions are still wrong.

Quote:Also, please explain how limiting the profits of health care companies (like those located in Michigan) encourage continued investment in the kind of quality pharmaceuticals and healthcare supplies that we have today.

Gee, I don't know, how about asking Bayer, Hoffman-LaRoche, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi-Aventis, AstraZeneca - six of the 10 largest pharmaceutical companies in the world, all based in "socialist" Rolleyes European countries.

Heck, you know the world's first anti-cancer vaccine, Gardasil? Sold by US company Merck? It wasn't invented in the US. It was invented by a friend of mine in Australia, at an Australian Public University, primarily using government funds. Damn socialists, how'd they do that? Confusedcratch:

How about you explain to me how cutting profits from say $100 million to $90 million would make someone want to stop investing in something?

Interestingly, according to reported revenues in 2008, of the top 5 most profitable pharmaceutical companies, 3 are in "socialist" Rolleyes Europe!

How do those damn commies do it, huh? Confusedcratch:
 Reply
#27
The links are easy enough for you to find. BTW, you need to brush up on your googling skills. Smile


June 3, 2008
The List: Obama's Economists

http://www.democraticunderground.com/dis...89x4133216

******************************


While we are at it, here is more about his CURRENT health care advisor:

DEADLY DOCTORSO ADVISERS WANT TO RATION CARE
By BETSY MCCAUGHEY

Last Updated: 1:13 AM, July 24, 2009

THE health bills coming out of Congress would put the de cisions about your care in the hands of presidential appointees. They'd decide what plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have and what seniors get under Medicare.

Yet at least two of President Obama's top health advisers should never be trusted with that power.

Start with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.

He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).

Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy.

He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31).




OPINION AUGUST 27, 2009, 12:52 P.M. ET

Obama's Health Rationer-in-Chief

Dr. Emanuel said in an Aug. 16 Washington Post interview, "We had a big controversy in the United States when there was a limited number of dialysis machines. In Seattle, they appointed what they called a 'God committee' to choose who should get it, and that committee was eventually abandoned. Society ended up paying the whole bill for dialysis instead of having people make those decisions."

Dr. Emanuel argues, "Covering services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic, and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia." (Hastings Center Report, November-December, 1996)

Dr. Emanuel makes a clear choice: "When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get changes that are attenuated (see Dr. Emanuel's chart nearby).

Dr. Emanuel concedes that his plan appears to discriminate against older people, but he explains: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. . . . Treating 65 year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not."

Dr. Emanuel says the United States should erect a decision-making body similar to the United Kingdom's rationing body—the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)—to slow the adoption of new medications and set limits on how much will be paid to lengthen a life.


[Image: ED-AK071A_mccau_NS_20090826172955.jpg]
"Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions" The Lancet, January 31, 2009

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...98676.html


The bottom line is that is costs us more and gives us less.

Spreading the health around.

(BTW, I'm sure that if you take away $10 million in profits that Stryker and Uphohn/Pharmacia will spend more for research and development... especially when they know that the government is not going to pay for the new drugs or the new products. :blink: )
 Reply
#28
MichMan Wrote:The links are easy enough for you to find. BTW, you need to brush up on your googling skills. Smile


June 3, 2008The List: Obama's Economists


I'm curious - which particular part of June 3, 2008 occured after January 20, 2009, MichMan?

Quote:While we are at it, here is more about his CURRENT health care advisor:

You really think he has ONE health care advisor?

Quote:DEADLY DOCTORSO ADVISERS WANT TO RATION CARE

This was all comprehensively debunked at the time. I can't even be bothered googling it.

Apart from which - how exactly is health care NOT rationed now? Are you seriously claiming everyone gets the care they need through health insurers? No rationing occurs, they make no decisions where money and services go?

You're getting pretty desparate when you're argument is essentially "Obama advisor points out that without an unlimited supply of money you have to decide who gets what - just like happens now! Evil Obama people!" :thumbsup:
 Reply
#29
If you want to know why the American people are not behind the current health care plan, it's because we believe what they say.

It will cost more. It will ration. We will suffer for it.
 Reply
#30
Well this is surely a huge debated issue right now.

A misconception about the "vote" that passed the committee. Many are calling it a bill. It is not a bill...it is a concept. Our crazy system...which is a benefit in my opinion, in this case..still has to combine this concept with a Senate bill, same goes for the house...then they have to combine the two into one big bill to be voted on.

Potential hazards and problem as I see it.
1)Lots of stuff will be added to the "concept" from both sides. Things like a public option, abortion issues, pork, etc etc.
2)When the bills are combined they will be combined by one single person.
3)Washington's refusal to allow the public to view these bills, because "we wouldn't understand the legal jargon" (Dem. Kerry Mass)
4)Crazy penalties for businesses that want to continue to use private insurance. (4000 up to 20000 per year per employee)(Government option $400 per employee per year)

That is just a few I see.

The benefit of the crazy system, is that it will take some time for all of this to be put together. Hopefully putting pressure on the folks in D.C. to allow us to view the bill before they vote. So the people can actually have a say.
It is only through labor and painful effort, by grim energy and resolute courage, that we move on to better things. --Roosevelt
 Reply
  •  Previous
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • ...
  • 7
  • Next 
  •  

 
Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)