Obama(care) to Grandma who needs pacemaker: Drop Dead

[fossten]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo&feature

 

[Marcus]

Speaking of lousy sources, youtube tops the list, especially when it comes to quotes. Any Bozo with a video editor can use creative editing to make someone look like a monster or a saint. In this case, the creator of this video conveniently threw out a whole segment of Obama's answer he said BEFORE the part you see in the video.

You can view the full answer here:

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=7923425

Pull the slider to the -6:25 mark.

Here's a transcript of Obama's entire answer, with the part in your video in blue:

OBAMA: Look, the first thing for all of us to understand is that, we actually have some choices to make about how we want to deal with our own end-of-life care. And that's one of the things I think we can all promote, and this is not a big government program, this is something that each of us individually can do, is to draft and sign a living will, so that we're very clear with our doctors about how we want to approach the end of life. I don't think we can make judgements based on people's spirit. That'd be a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that say that, we are gonna provide good, quality care for all people...

GOODSON: But the money may not have been there for her pacemaker or your grandmother's hip replacement.

OBAMA: Well, and that's absolutely true and end-of-life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we're gonna have to make. I don't want bureaucracies making those decisions, but understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another. If they're not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they're being made by private insurers. We don't always make those decisions explicitly, we often make those decisions by just letting people run out of money of making the deductible so high, or the out of pocket expenses so onerous that they just can't afford the care.

And all we're suggesting... And we're not gonna solve every difficult problem in terms of end of life care. A lot of that is gonna have to be, we as a culture and a as society starting to make better decisions within our own families and for ourselves. But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system that's not making anybody's mom better, that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know, and your mom know, that you know what? Maybe this isn't gonna help. Maybe you're better off not having this surgery but taking the painkiller. And those kinds of decisions, between doctors and patients, and making sure that our incentives are not preventing those good decisions, and that the doctors and hospitals all are aligned for patient care, that's something we can acheieve. We're not going to solve every single one of these very difficult decisions at end-of-life, and ultimately that's gonna be between physicians and patients. But we can make real progress on this front if we work a little but harder.

Obama makes clear in his answer that any decisions about end-of-life care are to be made by the doctor, the patient, and the patient's family. But the creator of your video left out all of the context of his statement to make it appear that Obama is basically saying, "hey tough luck, take a pill".

You right-wingers keep pushing this "euthanasia for the elderly" bullsh!t, and it's really getting old (no pun intended). The health care legislation merely pays for counseling by a doctor if the patient and/or their family asks for it! It is NOT mandatory! It does NOT dictate what the doctor tells the patient! Which is pretty ridiculous to even have to point out, since what doctor is going to agree to a government script suggesting that the patient should just go home and die? I mean come on! Are you people really that paranoid? Do you really believe the American people (or for that matter anybody in congress) would accept such a requirement if it were real? The difference between the people protesting this and those who are not protesting it is that those who aren't understand that there is no "euthanasia for the elderly" in the legislation!

We're talking about living wills, health care proxies (assigning a family member to make medical decisions for you if you're unable), and so on. These are things Republicans have consistently supported in the past, at least until the Dark Age of Obama (pun intended). Now they're framing as a plot to start up a "Logan's Run" society where the old are killed off to make room for the young! It is NOT. What sane politician would support such a thing? Are you kidding me?



While I'm at it, I also want to address another thread of yours which I'm not going to promote by replying directly in it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGRUx2b0ArM&feature

Well, well, well.

I got something for ya, Nancy.

As usual, you people misrepresent what she was talking about. There have indeed been morons displaying Nazi symbols at these events, but it's the protesters who are accusing Democrats of being Nazis.

How about President Cokehead's healthcare symbol compared to Hitler's symbol?

The symbol is called a "caduceus", and it traces its origins to the ancient Greeks. How about trying Google instead of Limbaugh (and leeching from his site)?

I guess you've never seen a U.S. Army Medical Corp insignia either. Are you going to call them Nazi's too?

People have completely gone off the deep end over this. I read this forum every day with the hope that maybe someone will start a topic that can be reasonably discussed, but all I see day after day are endless right-wing BS that have no redeeming value other than to stir up anger and and to piss on "liberals". And while it's always been nearly impossible to have a decent discussion here, lately the rhetoric has gone clear off the charts.

I fear for this country more now than I ever did during Bush, and it's sure as hell not because I think Obama is to blame. I'm afraid because a lot of mal-informed people are being stirred into a frenzy by powerful interests who have an infinite supply of money and influence and will stop at nothing to retain that power.

And many of the people who are being stirred up are well-armed. Some even like to talk about civil war. Is that truly what you want for your country? Are (most likely) four years of Obama really going to destroy the fabric of this nation? If things go as badly as you all predict, isn't it reasonable to assume that the Democrats will be kicked out of office next election? Or would you just prefer Americans start shooting each other in the streets now and get it over with?

Look, I have no doubt that the people who go to these town hall meetings and scream and yell are genuinely pissed off. It's not them who I accuse of "astroturfing", it's the sources they get their information from who most definitely are. I'm talking about the Limbaughs, Hannitys and Becks, the insurance-sponsored think tanks and television ads, and the bought-and-paid-for Republican AND Democratic members of congress who are trying so hard to water this thing down or destroy it.

I don't know what else to say right now, other than to implore you to do your own research and quit taking the crap Limbaugh and his ilk say as gospel. They don't give a damn about you. Try to keep that in mind. Then again, I don't know if it's even possible to get any accurate information any more. I guarantee you this is also by design.

 

[Frogman]

I find it sad that most people aren't educated enough to know what the original meaning of the swastika (NAZI symbol as it's now called), is...

 

[Stack]

good luck and prosperity if IIRC... Buddist symbol

 

[Marcus]

By the way, I'm well aware of all the of Nazi references at anti-Bush rallies, so save yourself the trouble of posting eight years worth of photos. It's a given that both sides have idiots, but it doesn't take away from the fact that Pelosi was correct in saying that these things have been appearing, and that she never claimed that the people participating in these rallies are Nazis.

 

[fossten]

Hey Marcus, your 'This wouldn't happen in America' is tired, old, and absurd. Your statist friends are going to do anything they can get away with. For you to assert that 'they would be insane to do that' is ridiculous. Your Bitch of the House has already written an op ed calling protesters 'Un American.' She's the same person who called for citizens to 'hold government accountable.'

The way Obama's quote reads in context, Obamacare will refuse to pay for the elderly past a certain age. And Obama care will also not allow you to pay for it yourself. It won't be an issue of the doctor not refusing - the elderly simply will have to get in line.

As far as your silly, phony 'concern' for America - I will remind you that the only people who have resorted to violence so far are OBAMA'S THUGS. So you can stuff your faux outrage.

 

[luxuryrules]

Page 433 of the health care bill states that Medicare will include "Federal and State resources available to assist individuals and their families with advance care planning and advance directives, including (I) available State legal service organizations to assist individuals with advance care planning, including those organizations that receive funding pursuant to the Older Americans Act of 1965"

Interestingly enough, these are described repeatedly in that portion of the Bill as resources available and not directives or requirements. Actually, I can't even find any language saying that private insurers or the patient will not be allowed to pay out of pocket.

Quite simply, Medicare does not include any provisions with which to assist people in the creation of a living will. Obama wants this included with Medicare benefits. It is optional. For more, it makes sense. I know a lot of people, many of my family members included, who would choose rather not to go through the suffering of 'living' for two years on a hospital bed on artificial life support, and they have all paid out of pocket to have their living wills written to prevent that from happening. There's no reason why Medicare patients, who might not be able to afford such a legal service out of pocket, shouldn't have the same priviledge.

There's plenty to dislike about the health care bill, but trying to paint Obama as the guy who's trying to kill all the old people represents a fundamental misunderstanding by people who want to believe it because they want to use it as a weapon to further their own agendas. Unfortunately, misunderstanding about the health care bill is prevalent on both sides of the political fence, and for that, it is obvious more discussion is needed before anything gets pushed through. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

 

[foxpaws]

Luxury - it is why I asked Shag on another thread if he really knew what end-of-life meant - he was so insistent on underlining it and drawing attention to it -

It isn't about some sort of forced suicide, that is ridiculous - it is a complex group of issues about what should happen at the end of someone's life, and how to create documents, such as living wills, to make sure your wishes would be followed.

There are many end of life issues - they involve hospice care, living without pain and with dignity, choices of ventilation, hydration, nourishment. They also involve the family and loved ones of the dying patient.

End-of-life has been very misrepresented in this whole health care issue. It is one of many issues that have been actually lied about.

 

[foxpaws]

I don't know what else to say right now, other than to implore you to do your own research and quit taking the crap Limbaugh and his ilk say as gospel. They don't give a damn about you. Try to keep that in mind. Then again, I don't know if it's even possible to get any accurate information any more. I guarantee you this is also by design.

+1
Do your own research - it is the very best thing you can do - always click the 'about' section on any website, and do a quick search on the people/organization that it represents - it should give you a pretty good idea of who/what is behind it.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

The way Obama's quote reads in context, Obamacare will refuse to pay for the elderly past a certain age. And Obama care will also not allow you to pay for it yourself. It won't be an issue of the doctor not refusing - the elderly simply will have to get in line.

Hey dumb-a$$, did you even realize that it was a REPUBLICAN senator who introduced this idea?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/08/is_the_government_going_to_eut.html#more

Is the Government Going to Euthanize your Grandmother? An Interview With Sen. Johnny Isakson.

Sarah Palin's belief that the House health-care reform bill would create "death panels" might be particularly extreme, but she's hardly the only person to wildly misunderstand the section of the bill ordering Medicare to cover voluntary end-of-life counseling sessions between doctors and their patients.

One of the foremost advocates of expanding Medicare end-of-life planning coverage is Johnny Isakson, a Republican Senator from Georgia. He co-sponsored 2007's Medicare End-of-Life Planning Act and proposed an amendment similar to the House bill's Section 1233 during the Senate HELP Committee's mark-up of its health care bill. I reached Sen. Isakson at his office this afternoon. He was befuddled that this had become a question of euthanasia, termed Palin's interpretation "nuts," and emphasized that all 50 states currently have some legislation allowing end-of-life directives. A transcript of our conversation follows.

Is this bill going to euthanize my grandmother? What are we talking about here?

In the health-care debate mark-up, one of the things I talked about was that the most money spent on anyone is spent usually in the last 60 days of life and that's because an individual is not in a capacity to make decisions for themselves. So rather than getting into a situation where the government makes those decisions, if everyone had an end-of-life directive or what we call in Georgia "durable power of attorney," you could instruct at a time of sound mind and body what you want to happen in an event where you were in difficult circumstances where you're unable to make those decisions.

This has been an issue for 35 years. All 50 states now have either durable powers of attorney or end-of-life directives and it's to protect children or a spouse from being put into a situation where they have to make a terrible decision as well as physicians from being put into a position where they have to practice defensive medicine because of the trial lawyers. It's just better for an individual to be able to clearly delineate what they want done in various sets of circumstances at the end of their life.

How did this become a question of euthanasia?

I have no idea. I understand -- and you have to check this out -- I just had a phone call where someone said Sarah Palin's web site had talked about the House bill having death panels on it where people would be euthanized. How someone could take an end of life directive or a living will as that is nuts. You're putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don't know how that got so mixed up.

You're saying that this is not a question of government. It's for individuals.

It empowers you to be able to make decisions at a difficult time rather than having the government making them for you.

The policy here as I understand it is that Medicare would cover a counseling session with your doctor on end-of-life options.

Correct. And it's a voluntary deal.

It seems to me we're having trouble conducting an adult conversation about death. We pay a lot of money not to face these questions. We prefer to experience the health-care system as something that just saves you, and if it doesn't, something has gone wrong.

Over the last three-and-a-half decades, this legislation has been passed state-by-state, in part because of the tort issue and in part because of many other things. It's important for an individual to make those determinations while they're of sound mind and body rather than no one making those decisions at all. But this discussion has been going on for three decades.

And the only change we'd see is that individuals would have a counseling session with their doctor?

Uh-huh. When they become eligible for Medicare.

Are there other costs? Parts of it I'm missing?

No. The problem you got is that there's so much swirling around about health care and people are taking bits and pieces out of this. This was thoroughly debated in the Senate committee. It's voluntary. Every state in America has an end of life directive or durable power of attorney provision. For the peace of mind of your children and your spouse as well as the comfort of knowing the government won't make these decisions, it's a very popular thing. Just not everybody's aware of it.

What got you interested in this subject?

I've seen the pain and suffering in families with a loved one with a traumatic brain injury or a crippling degenerative disease become incapacitated and be kept alive under very difficult circumstances when if they'd have had the chance to make the decision themself they'd have given another directive and I've seen the damage financially that's been done to families and if there's a way to prevent that by you giving advance directives it's both for the sanity of the family and what savings the family has it's the right decision, certainly more than turning it to the government or a trial lawyer.

I know, how DARE the Obama administration actually use a republican idea! The AUDACITY!

*owned*

Face it, the radical right wing does NOT want individuals to have the freedom to dictate how they want to spend their last living days, they want to keep that control within the government so that they can exploit every opportunity to play "god" like they tried to do w/ Terry Schaivo.

 

[foxpaws]

I have no idea. I understand -- and you have to check this out -- I just had a phone call where someone said Sarah Palin's web site had talked about the House bill having death panels on it where people would be euthanized. How someone could take an end of life directive or a living will as that is nuts. You're putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don't know how that got so mixed up.

What Sarah said on Facebook - Maybe she should look up 'end-of-life' herself and not believe right wing pundits, like shag and so many others have... Perhaps she could have been avoided being called 'nuts' by her own party members...

"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care," Palin wrote. "Such a system is downright evil."​

 

[shagdrum]

By the way, I'm well aware of all the of Nazi references at anti-Bush rallies, so save yourself the trouble of posting eight years worth of photos. It's a given that both sides have idiots, but it doesn't take away from the fact that Pelosi was correct in saying that these things have been appearing, and that she never claimed that the people participating in these rallies are Nazis.

In the context of what she was saying, Pelosi was implying that the protestors are, in some way, Nazi. She made no indication of the fact that all the signs in question are actually calling the Dem's Nazi. There is nothing "correct" in that. It is a blatant attempt to smear.

It was also an attempt to avoid the original question she was being asked.

Not to surprising that you would defend it...

Anything to trash conservatives, eh?

 

[shagdrum]

Obama makes clear in his answer that any decisions about end-of-life care are to be made by the doctor, the patient, and the patient's family. But the creator of your video left out all of the context of his statement to make it appear that Obama is basically saying, "hey tough luck, take a pill".

Obama has asserted a lot of things as truth that are, at best deceptive on his part. It is abundantly clear that, when it comes to the healthcare bill, he will say anything to appease those with any concerns. The question is what can you believe. Obama is hardly a credible source concerning this legislation. If anything, he is one of the greatest sources of disinformation in this debate.

Prime example; his claim that you will be able to keep your current health insurance if you like it, which is contradicted by page 16 of the bill. He was asked about that provision by the press and claimed he wasn't familiar with it yet the very next day he goes on asserting that you will be able to keep your health insurance if you like it.

Obama is not a credible source as to what this plan entails. When he starts waffling, as he was in the clip fossten posted, that is more telling then any of the platitudes and lies he spouts concerning the bill.

 

[Marcus]

In the context of what she was saying, Pelosi was implying that the protestors are, in some way, Nazi. She made no indication of the fact that all the signs in question are actually calling the Dem's Nazi. There is nothing "correct" in that. It is a blatant attempt to smear.

It was also an attempt to avoid the original question she was being asked.

Not to surprising that you would defend it...

Anything to trash conservatives, eh?

What original question was that? The clip doesn't even include the question.

In light of the incontrovertible fact that at least a few protesters were indeed displaying Nazi symbols (associating them with Democrats), it is crystal clear that that's what she was referring to. I don't know of a single source, no matter how far left, that has accused any protesters of displaying PRO Nazi symbols. You're just blowing smoke.

Not too surprising that you would parrot it...

Anything to trash liberals, eh?

 

[fossten]

What original question was that? The clip doesn't even include the question.

In light of the incontrovertible fact that at least a few protesters were indeed displaying Nazi symbols (associating them with Democrats), it is crystal clear that that's what she was referring to. I don't know of a single source, no matter how far left, that has accused any protesters of displaying PRO Nazi symbols. You're just blowing smoke.

Not too surprising that you would parrot it...

Anything to trash liberals, eh?

INCORRECT. She said the protesters were displaying swastikas. That's a deliberate statement. That infers that the protesters are nazis. She never corrected the record. If she wanted to be specific, she could have said that the protesters were displaying anti-swastikas. Of course, the fact that the media was dutifully silent on the issue helped her.

 

[fossten]

People have completely gone off the deep end over this. I read this forum every day with the hope that maybe someone will start a topic that can be reasonably discussed, but all I see day after day are endless right-wing BS that have no redeeming value other than to stir up anger and and to piss on "liberals". And while it's always been nearly impossible to have a decent discussion here, lately the rhetoric has gone clear off the charts.

Since you're up on your self-righteous, arrogant soapbox at the moment, it's appropriate to point out your troll-like behavior.

It is inaccurate for you to say that you are some sort of thoughtful guy just looking for some discourse. You are a cherrypicker of the worst variety. You only post in threads where you think you can make some sort of dent in the argument.

You are conspicuously absent in the Ezekiel Emanuel thread, for example, which lends credibility to the Death Panel argument.

In fact, you've been conspicuously absent during this ENTIRE debate until now. I guess you were waiting for the 'response talking points' from your buds at Kos and DU, eh?

Your silly argument that it could never happen in this country is specious at best, and ridiculous at worst. That's an 'appeal to ridicule' argument anyway.

We never thought a full fledged Marxist would be elected to the Presidency either, and we never thought the government would take over the banking and the auto industry. We never thought the national debt would balloon to $12 trillion, and we never thought that Congress would attempt to take over 1/6 of the US economy. And yet it has happened. So you can shove that argument.

The fact that Obama, the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, would even CONTEMPLATE bumping off old people - errrrrrrrrrr - I mean deny care to the elderly, is so offensive and unprecedented that it's not hard to imagine the US becoming the next Soylent Green experiment.

As far as the wording in the bill - did you look at the cost of this bill? There is NO WAY care can be afforded for EVERYBODY under this legislation. There simply isn't enough money. Now I understand that you're being deliberately obtuse in refusing to connect the dots from Ezekiel Emanuel to Obama's OWN WORDS ON VIDEO to the wording in the bill to other countries already using this kind of healthcare to the REALITY that this plan will go broke paying for hip replacements, but that's YOUR detachment from reality, not mine.

Not to mention, in the video, Obama says, "WE" give grandma the painkiller. Who's "WE?"

And to borrow a phrase from Foxpaws, HAVE YOU READ THE BILL?

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Prime example; his claim that you will be able to keep your current health insurance if you like it, which is contradicted by page 16 of the bill. He was asked about that provision by the press and claimed he wasn't familiar with it yet the very next day he goes on asserting that you will be able to keep your health insurance if you like it.

I see that you too have been duped by the IBD article:

Private health insurance not banned on page 16 of the House bill

We got several e-mails from readers asking if new health care legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives bans private health insurance for individuals. We tracked the statement back to its source, an editorial from Investor's Business Daily.

"It didn't take long to run into an 'uh-oh' moment when reading the House's 'health care for all Americans' bill," the editorial says. "Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal."

The editorial continues, "Under the Orwellian header of 'Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage,' the 'Limitation On New Enrollment' section of the bill clearly states: 'Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day' of the year the legislation becomes law."

The editorial, published July 15, 2009, adds, "So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers."

Since then, the allegation about Page 16 has been repeated in many blogs and by at least one member of Congress.

We read the section of the bill to which Investor's Business Daily referred, as well as a summary of the legislation provided by the House Ways and Means committee. While the quotation is correct, it's taken out of context.

Individual private health insurance means coverage that someone buys on his or her own from a private company. In other words, it's for people who can't get coverage through work or some other group, and the rates tend to be much higher.

Under the House bill, companies that offer insurance to individuals will do it through an exchange, where the government sets minimum standards for coverage. The new regulations require insurance companies to accept people even if they have previously existing conditions and to provide a minimum level of benefits, among other things.

To be sure we were reading the bill correctly, we turned to an independent health care analyst at the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. The foundation has analyzed the major health care proposals, including those of the Republicans, providing point-by-point analysis .

Jennifer Tolbert, the foundation's principal policy analyst, told us that Page 16 doesn't outlaw private insurance. "There will be individual policies available, but people will buy those policies through the national health insurance exchange," she said.

The House bill allows for existing policies to be grandfathered in, so that people who currently have individual health insurance policies will not lose coverage. The line the editorial refers to is a clause that says the health insurance companies cannot enroll new people into the old plans.

The IDB editorial has caught the attention of some of the bill's most direct supporters. Rep. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat who is guiding the legislation through Congress, wrote a letter to the publication saying the editorial was "factually incorrect and highly misleading."

The conservative Heritage Foundation also said the editorial misread the legislation, writing on its Foundry blog, "So IDB is wrong: individual health insurance will not be outlawed." Heritage believes that the new regulations will be so onerous as to drive private insurance out of business "which is effectively the same thing." But that is a substantially different argument than what the editorial said.

President Barack Obama had the chance to personally quash the IDB editorial himself when asked about it in a conference call with left-leaning bloggers. He said he wasn't familiar with the provision, before reiterating his general commitment to not forcing people out of health insurance that they like. (Impress your friends at parties by referring to the proper section on page 16 of the bill: It's Section 102.)

In response to Waxman's letter, Investor's Business Daily says it's sticking to its guns. In a follow-up editorial, it said that private insurance offered on the exchange will be too regulated to be considered true private insurance, hence its original editorial is correct that the bill bans private insurance. This seems like a creative way of covering up a factual error, though. Many private companies are highly regulated but are still considered to be private.

The original editorial said, "Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal." That's not what the legislation says. When the error was pointed out, a subsequent editorial said it was still true. For perpetuating misinformation and then standing by it in the face of facts, we rate the Investor's Business Daily editorial Pants on Fire!

So, your apparent lack of research and actually READING the entire section of the bill in full context has mislead you into believing falsehoods which in turn exposes you inherent bias and lack of critical thought. Again.

 

[fossten]

Speaking of trolls...

 

[Marcus]

I had started to prepare this a few days ago and never got around to finishing it. Since I spent so much time formatting it properly, I'll paste the contents of the infamous "page 16".

SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT
COVERAGE.​

(a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COV-
ERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of
this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable cov-
erage under this division, the term "grandfathered health
insurance coverage" means individual health insurance
coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the
first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:​

(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—​

(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
this paragraph, the individual health insurance
issuer offering such coverage does not enroll
any individual in such coverage if the first ef-
fective date of coverage is on or after the first
day of Y1.​

(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PER-
MITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect
the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an
individual who is covered as of such first day.​

(2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR
CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except
as required by law, the issuer does not change any
of its terms or conditions, including benefits and
cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day be-
fore the first day of Y1.​

(3) RESTRICTIONS ON PREMIUM INCREASES.—
The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in
the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific
grandfathered health insurance coverage without
changing the premium for all enrollees in the same
risk group at the same rate, as specified by the
Commissioner.​

The section in question merely DEFINES of the term "grandfathered health insurance coverage" to be used later. It is not a statement saying individual insurance is to be outlawed.

The term is referenced in the section on page 19 laying out the parameters of the "Health Insurance Exchange", which conservative have touted in the past as a solution to "portable" health care. Of course now they have a problem with the fact that the public plan is part of the exchange but that's another argument. Nowhere does it say your insurance plan will be phased out.

And Foss, I guarantee I've read more of the bill than you have.

 

[toomanyfumes]

I find it sad that most people aren't educated enough to know what the original meaning of the swastika (NAZI symbol as it's now called), is...

My Sister-in-Law lived in an apartment building in Milwaukee built in the early 1900's that had swastika's layed out in tile in the lobby. I'm surprised no one made them take them out...

 

[Calabrio]

I can fully understand why people would oppose something that is unclear, poorly written, confusing, and has profound and arguably inevitable unintended consequences.

What I don't understand is why anyone would support such a thing that they don't fully understand. Especially if that endorsement is based solely on the recommendation of a career politician who doesn't necessarily understand the bill either.

There are simple, fundamental reasons to oppose this bill on principle.

What reason is there for supporting it?
It's too big and sweeping for a "just do something now" justification.
For something this big, you'd better have absolute confidence that it's the best bill or program that can be achieved.

Is anyone confident that this bill, passed through the House w/o being read, without any input from the Republicans, and at 1018 pages is the best that can be done? That we wouldn't benefit from a thoughtful and public discussion and debate on the programs associated with it? Or that something like health care wouldn't be better applied on a smaller scale FIRST, like at a state level, before being applied nationally?


Additional point- to support the plan, you really would need blind faith in Obama.
What has he done to earn that faith?

The changes and spending he's been pushing for (Cap/trade, stimulus, healthcare, ect.) are too big to just say "give it a chance."

 

[shagdrum]

What original question was that? The clip doesn't even include the question.

In light of the incontrovertible fact that at least a few protesters were indeed displaying Nazi symbols (associating them with Democrats), it is crystal clear that that's what she was referring to. I don't know of a single source, no matter how far left, that has accused any protesters of displaying PRO Nazi symbols. You're just blowing smoke.

Not too surprising that you would parrot it...

Anything to trash liberals, eh?

Blowing smoke...

when, in the context of what she says, she doesn't characterize it as signs calling democrats or anyone else Nazi, but simple as them carrying Nazi symbols. She is clearly implying they are Nazi. If she didn't mean to imply that, she has hasn't in any way clarified herself since even though she has had ample time, and this has caused a huge backlash.

I am simply calling a spade a spade. You are trying to defend the indefensible and you know it.

 

[fossten]

The section in question merely DEFINES of the term "grandfathered health insurance coverage" to be used later. It is not a statement saying individual insurance is to be outlawed.

Doesn't matter. It will effectively drive the private insurers out of business. Your argument means nothing. They can do whatever they want in the future when they are the only game in town.

Have you already forgotten about reading the fine print - or what ISN'T written or EXCLUDED, as in the bill we discussed a long time ago regarding the use of embryos...TommyB? If it's not there, they will assume they can do it.

These people are LAWYERS, TommyB/Marcus. You really trust these people? How naive of you. I expected better.

And Foss, I guarantee I've read more of the bill than you have.

Appeal to authority. How original.

 

[luxuryrules]

Prime example; his claim that you will be able to keep your current health insurance if you like it, which is contradicted by page 16 of the bill. He was asked about that provision by the press and claimed he wasn't familiar with it yet the very next day he goes on asserting that you will be able to keep your health insurance if you like it.

I'll keep the partisan insults out of it, but Marcus correctly pointed out that page 16 of the bill is simply making provisions to grandfather in existing coverage policies - it is exactly as being described, you can keep your current coverage if you like. The cool part is that they go on to limit the changes that private insurers can make to grandfathered policies, meaning that they will ensure that the policy you keep will be the policy you had before the bill takes effect.

I won't dispute that Obama very likely doesn't know all the details of his own plan (and I really think very few people actually do), but he got lucky in being correct about what he is presenting. This time

 

[shagdrum]

The section in question merely DEFINES of the term "grandfathered health insurance coverage" to be used later. It is not a statement saying individual insurance is to be outlawed.

Yes, it "merely defines" the term in a bill AIMED AT BECOMING LAW. It is not simply an academic debate that has no consequences. This passage is not as "innocent" as you make it out to be and you know it.

Also, the "definition" it gives is very narrow. It makes it abundantly clear that, except for very few specific exceptions (namely adding dependants), you CANNOT ENROLL IN ANY NEW COVERAGE, "if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year this bill becomes law.

So ALL it allows for is to keep the same coverage you have. You cannot get any new coverage after this bill becomes law. The bill even spells this out when it says, "the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day" of the year this bill becomes law. However, it does allow you to add dependents.

So, if taken at face value, it doesn't outlaw private insurance. However, there is a step that you are ignoring here and in this entire debate; reconciling the law with reality. As you would attempt to do with the Patriot Act, you have to read between the lines and see how this bill would work in the real world. Otherwise, you are simply treating the bill as an abstract, a hypothetical, a work of fiction. Basically, you would take it on blind faith that this bill would not have any "unforseen" or "unintended" negative consequences. That is entirely inappropriate to this debate.

When you reconcile this section with reality, as any objective analysis of this bill would do, you would see that this section would push out private insurance.

Remember, no NEW insurance plan can be issued after the first day of the year this bill becomes law (except ones that meet very strict, cost increasing standards by the government). That WOULD NOT allow the vast majority of Americans to keep their private insurance in the long run.

Most employer provided health insurance is renegotiated every year or two. The fact that, under this bill, private insurers are limited in the changes they can make would give businesses further incentive to off load their health insurance coverage because they cannot renegotiate that coverage to get the best deal, so their prices will go up at an even greater rate. Already, many large companies are looking to off load the financial burden of their employee health insurance burden. This bill would not only give them the excuse to do so but actually work to incentivize doing so.

Also, certain life changes may dictate a change in coverage (losing a job, a change in jobs, etc.). So, you would have to by a new insurance plan in a market where choices are VERY limited and PROHIBITIVELY expensive for most due to this bill. That leaves only the government option.

A Lewin Group study estimates that around 100 MILLION people would lose their insurance in the FIRST THREE YEARS THIS BILL IS LAW. Keep in mind, most any estimate on these kind of things tend to end up being rather low, with government estimates being the lowest (see the initial estimates for the costs of medicare and medicaid when they were first being debated, or the estimates concerning unemployment when porkulus was passed).

Combine this with the fact that the public option will have the economic effect of pushing out private insurance, and it becomes clear that, in the long run, you WILL NOT be able to keep your private insurance coverage.

So, when Obama says you will be able to keep your insurance if you like it, he is being dishonest. While this bill won't directly force you out of your coverage, it will set up the rules of the game so that you will eventually have to go onto the public option. As much as this is being sold as a means to keep and "increase" choice, it actually limits that choice. In the long run you will be able to choose whatever insurance coverage you want, as long as it's the government option.