Posted on 08/13/2009 6:53:58 PM PDT by Shermy
..THE PRESIDENT: So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right?
I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.
So how do you — how do we deal with it?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
He is talking about his Grandmother at first, more of interest at link.
All these issues simply go away when you spend your own money to provide your own health care.
I can spend as much as I like trying to keep myself alive and everyone will be happy to take my money.
You are absolutely wrong.
The House bill rations care, even if you pay out of your own pocket.
Doctors are FORBIDDEN to provide services if you do not meet the rationing standards!
Indeed, Doctors and nurses will become employees who will either follow orders or get into another line of work.
Indeed, Doctors and nurses will become employees who will either follow orders or get into another line of work.
Dude, I’m “not absolutely wrong”.
My point being the government should be out of the paying for everyones healthcare business. All the rationing and ethical problems arise from government paying the bills. Their interests aren’t your interests and visa versa. It is a conflict of interest for the government to pay for peoples healthcare.
People paying their own bills eliminates all these issues - which is the point and is absolutely correct.
Kansas58 is right. The only way you will be able to buy medical services is by going to another country. I think those that can afford it will do that.
>>”...more of interest at link.”
The following is from near the end:
“It is true that as tough an economic time as it is right now, we haven’t had 42 months of 20, 30 percent unemployment. And so the degree of desperation and the shock to the system may not be as great. And that means that there’s going to be more resistance to any of these steps: reforming the financial system or reforming our health care system or doing something about energy. On each of these things — you know, things aren’t so bad in the eyes of a lot of Americans that they say, We’re willing to completely try something new.
But part of my job I think is to bridge that gap...”
I think that he is saying that he fully INTENDS to keep harming the economy...until he gets his way.
DG
You didn’t understand what I was saying.
The point was get government out of healthcare and let people do their own thing directly between their doctor and themselves on their own dime. The point being that would eliminate all these rationing and ethical issues.
It is government that creates these problems and then demand more government to fix the problems they created.
This conversation is already taking place. It is a conversation that everyone has already when the time comes, but its between patient and doctor and, when appropriate, with the family.
O wants to insert himself into a conversation that is not his to join except where it pertains to himself and his own family.
These "difficult" conversations are private and must remain so.
It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels.
Thats because ultimately these aren't political decisions. Not everything in life is political. There are areas of life where politics is unwelcome and out of place.
that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance.
Maybe, but that guidance isn't government, it isn't O. People have been dealing with these issues since time immemorial, and turning to where ever they saw fit for guidance.
If you want to help, set the stage for catastrophic insurance for people that don't have it. But keep out of the decisions about treatments that belong to the patient and his doctor. He could solve this issue in a way that would require little or no government intervention, but he didn't become president just to let people work out their own will and destiny. He has a natural bias toward intervention and intrusion. Thats why he went into politics in the first place.
The problem with government mandated catastrophic health insurance is that politicians will slowly add this and that under the mandated coverage until eventually it will be all inclusive. It starts with cancer, a broken back, then a broken leg and ends with an ingrown toenail... They will not be able to resist buying votes with more and more “covered” stuff.
Otherwise I would support some sort of catastrophic health care coverage. Politicians make that impossible.
I hate how Obama equivocates anytime he is asked a question. It would be great to get a straight answer from him. It is, “Well, we have to ask this group and that group, and this group, and that group.” Obama is an empty suit.
“a very difficult democratic conversation”?????
“the country making those decisions”?????
“some independent group that can give you guidance”????
“ ...what I suspect you’ll see emerging...”
That is terrifying language. And the results he wants are very clear.
“No death panels”, huh?
“some independent group that can give you guidance”????”
Some independent, but not unbiased, group. Some independent group which is also responsible for cutting costs. Some independent group with huge conflicts of interest.
Freeper johncocktoasten posted a vanity on 8/12/09 titled “Social Security To Be Saved Through ObamaCare?” and writes, in part:
“What insurance company would be allowed to sell a Life Only Annuity and at the same time, run the HMO that the Annuitant depends on for life sustaining care? The answer is none. Because the insurable risk, the risk of outliving income, is borne by the insurance company. “
Complete thread here http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2314182/posts
I am honored and humbled that you would cite my posting. Thank you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.