posted September 29, 2009 11:27 PM         

quote:

---

One of the things I can refute in his article that we haven't touched upon before is this notion that doctor's plan on quitting the profession if reform is passed..acoustic

---

"The IBD/TIPP Poll was conducted by mail the past two weeks, with 1,376 practicing physicians chosen randomly throughout the country taking part."

"Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, a new IBD/TIPP Poll has found."

"It also differs with findings of a poll released Monday by National Public Radio that suggests a "majority of physicians want public and private insurance options," and clashes with media reports such as Tuesday's front-page story in the Los Angeles Times with the headline "Doctors Go For Obama's Reform."

"Four of nine doctors, or 45%, said they "would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement" if Congress passes the plan the Democratic majority and White House have in mind." http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=506199

The Rasmussen poll is a daily tracking poll of likely voters with a smoothing factor..3 day moving average which smooths out sharp ups and downs due to daily news on subjects being polled and also shows direction of movement on subjects being polled. Rasmussen is therefore the most accurate polling service.

posted September 30, 2009 11:36 AM         

and as i've said plenty of times, polls are easily slanted, both in sampling targets and in interpretation. the same poll could be taken up by someone else with a completely different result.

posted October 14, 2009 04:26 PM         

Come, get in line with O'BomberCare and let us kill you. Here's what an O'Bomber adviser has to say...in his own words..with his own voice.

So, now you know what the purpose is behind removing $564B from the Medicare budget...and it's exactly what I told you about O'BomberCare and his loony-tunes so called medical ethicist adviser Zeke Emanuel and it's exactly what Sarah Palin told everyone.

The question is...why the hell don't you get it?

October 14, 2009
Robert Reich's cold honesty
Jack Kemp

Robert Reich advocated in detail the cutting off of funds to elder patients and the lower funding of medical research, fully accepting that more people would die. Newsbusters quotes him:

"We're going to have to, if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive...so we're going to let you die."

Reich just claims he is "being honest" and that he is. "Let them eat cake" is now joined by "Let you die."

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/10/robert_reichs_cold_honesty.html

posted October 14, 2009 05:23 PM         

Robert Reich is an Obama advisor, that's true, but not a healthcare advisor, and these words aren't anything he's stated even since Obama took office. They're from 2007, and they're only his opinion.

posted October 14, 2009 07:20 PM         

in other words advisor does NOT equal BOSS.

and goes on to say that if the insurance companies are going to actually serve sick people they will have to put less money into developing new drugs, treatments etc.

what he doesn't say is that after 40 years and billions of dollars and scads of new drugs and treatments, cancer hasn't retreated one bit. nor have most other dread diseases. the current debacle over vaccinations is a case in point..

what he doesn't say is that from time of diagnosis to death MOST cancer patients will LIVE LONGER and suffer LESS PAIN if NO TREATMENT is taken!

what he doesn't say is we are WASTING time and money trying to zap bugs with chemicals instead of building healthy lives.

or that if we didn't spend so much on candy, alcohol, processed foods and drugs, we would be healthier and the actual sick would get better care.

posted October 14, 2009 07:20 PM         

He said...IF politicians were honest...when they were campaigning...They would say what he was saying there at Berkley. Of course, he was talking about Socialist political candidates who routinely lie through their teeth to get elected.

Strange, he said exactly what I said the O'Bomber plan happens to be. He also said exactly what O'Bomber health care adviser Zeke Emanuel said in his speeches and writings and he said exactly what the tax cheat Tom Daschle both said and wrote in one of his books.

It all amounts to the very same thing. Kill senior citizens using the medical murder method of denying treatment...to balance the Medicare, Social Security and Drug Prescription benefit programs.

Take $564B out of Medicare which will cause rationing of health care for mostly senior citizens and establish a death panel to refuse treatment for serious illnesses or diseases. Problems solved.

Stop medical research to find new and more effect drugs and treatment options to keep people alive. Problems solved.

Now acoustic, it's O'Bomber and his lying coven of Socialists who are lying and misstating what's in the various O'BomberCare so called health care bills. That's the reason they won't post the text of the consolidated Bill for public inspection. In fact, demoscats defeated amendments to do exactly that.

Enough bull crap about half a Trillion dollars of waste, fraud and abuse in the Medicare system. We've heard that song before and it's as much a lie now as when demoscats tried to sell it under HillaryCare.

If it exists now, O'Bomber, who has been in office since Jan 20, 2009 should be impeached as a total incompetent for not putting the Justice Dept on the con artists trails. He should be impeached in any event for what he's already done and is planning to do.

posted October 14, 2009 07:31 PM         

I get that you think healthcare reform means rationing. Maybe you have a point. Maybe you don't. We don't have the system in place to see if that's the case. The pulling money out of private Medicare insurance that is no better than the government offered Medicare doesn't amount to rationing. That's merely cutting waste as I've stated correctly.

posted October 16, 2009 12:14 PM         

The very first number mentioned in regard to cuts in the Medicare budget was $564 billion dollars and that number was reported on numerous times. Various numbers have been bandied about including the number...half a trillion dollars.

This number...half a trillion dollar cuts.... is from a demoscat source so I know you won't reject it.

Health care reform could cut Medicare, hurt Oregon
By Dee Lane, The Oregonian
July 20, 2009, 4:01AM

Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden says he will try to protect the state as health care reform plans are developed in the Senate Finance Committee.

"The health care bill written by House Democrats calls for $500 billion in Medicare cuts over 10 years to help offset the enormous cost of providing care to 45 million uninsured Americans. The Senate is also likely to slice deeply into Medicare to pay for its proposal.""

"Yet a devastating assessment Thursday by Congress' independent budget office concluded that those cuts aren't deep enough. Another $116 billion in Medicare reductions are needed to pay for expanded coverage, the Congressional Budget Office said."
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2009/07/health_care_reform_could_cut_m.ht ml

The rest of you post is nonsense acoustic.

Of course rationing will occur if half a trillion dollars are deleted from the Medicare budget. According to Zeke Emanuel, Tom Daschle and Robert Reich, that's the plan. That plan amounts to "Medical Murder" when patients will be denied treatments which are commonly used to treat diseases and illness. We're not talking about experimental drugs or experimental surgeries here acoustic. We're talking about common everyday treatments of drugs and/or surgery.

Now acoustic, please explain to us all...why drug companies...who spend more than a billion dollars in research and FDA clinical trial testing to bring a new drug to market...will continue to do so...when the federal government is going to deny the use of those expensive drugs to treat patients.

In fact, Tom Daschle has said and Robert Reich has said funding of medical research will need to be cut back. Why aren't you listening to the information that's right in front of your nose?

Robert Reich is an adviser to O'Bomber.

Robert Reich advocated in detail the cutting off of funds to elder patients and the lower funding of medical research, fully accepting that more people would die.

if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life...

Tom Daschle was slated to be the "Health Care Czar" HHS...until it was discovered he didn't pay his taxes....and Daschle wrote a book in which he extolled the virtues of cutting back on medical research....and also refusing to fund treatments drugs/surgery for the elderly...you know, to save money.

posted October 16, 2009 01:23 PM         

secondly, oregon already has public healthcare does it not? so what is going on with that?

thirdly, though i have asked you many times, jwhop you have never answered...do you partake of medicare? you are qualified. and you seem very worried it will be cut.

but what no one seems to notice is a) medicare is government healthcare and despite fraud and waste it works very well, so well NO ONE wants it cut!! especially the people who don't want government healthcare which is one of those oxymorons of political thinking...

and b) the cuts to medicare will be put to use in widening the net of benefits to the WHOLE population not just the elderly.

so no one loses but many win.

posted October 16, 2009 02:10 PM         

You say..."the cuts to medicare will be put to use in widening the net of benefits to the WHOLE population not just the elderly."

Then you say..."so no one loses but many win."

To hear you loud and clear katatonic, you believe rationing health care to the "elderly" is a WIN...for the elderly.

And katatonic, make no mistake. Taking half a trillion dollars out of the Medicare budget will mean rationing of health care...mostly to the elderly and WILL result in bureaucrats somewhere in government making decisions about who can be treated and for what they can be treated based on the cost of treatments....as under the cost to benefits ratios established by bureaucrats.

Where...and from whom I get my medical insurance or if I even have medical insurance is absolutely none of your business and I intend to keep it that way.

I realize leftists like you have been wetting themselves for most of a century about getting a single payer health care system in the United States. But over time, it's been well established that Socialist Health Care is an abject failure...no matter how you attempt to deflect and defend that Socialist system and indeed all Socialist systems and Socialists in general; as you have here constantly.

Socialists are on record as saying O'BomberCare is the portal to a single payer Socialist Health Care System. Barney Frank is on record saying that....AND O'Bomber himself is on record as saying he wants a single payer system..but it might take 15-20 years. 15-20 years before he can run all the insurance companies out of business by meddling in insurance markets with a government plan in which premiums don't cover the actual cost of the insurance and the federal government can simply write the checks..from taxpayer funds to prop up what would otherwise be a failing enterprise.

Beyond that katatonic; there is not one word in the Constitution giving the federal government jurisdiction over medicine or health care.

The 10th Amendment says:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Any of this cutting through the fog katatonic?

posted October 16, 2009 05:49 PM         

keep your privacy. you are obviously upset that money is going to be taken out of medicare, even though that money is going into the pockets of fraud-perps and waste.

so whether you use it or not you recognize the value of medicare to those who need it most and generally have less earning power than when they were younger. it's still government funded healthcare.

you can call me a leftist till the cows come home, but you can't make me a leftist by saying it's so. fortunately you have no control over that.

i am here arguing from a neutral standpoint and if i sound like i'm defending socialism it's because you so infallibly misrepresent reality and your slant is so objectionably rightist. there are plenty of conservatives who don't still live in the cold war...which, by the way, is over. or hadn't you heard?

posted October 16, 2009 05:57 PM         

This is the group most against turning the US health care system on it's head.

acoustic, the number came from HR 3200..or one of the other 2 House Bills from back when they were being debated and the quote I posted came from a democrat Senator who commented on the House Bill.

Just to put things in perspective; there are 5 current health care bills. There are 3 in the House and 2 in the Senate. Of the 5 active bills, 4 have a government run health care option; all three in the House and one in the Senate.

posted October 16, 2009 05:59 PM         

do you think most people can afford to pay to cover their ailing parents at the same time as they raise their children? what kind of care would they get without medicare? or some kind of subsidy or agreement which circumvents the "preexisting conditions" clause of most insurance policies?

posted October 16, 2009 06:03 PM         

and as even you now admit there still isn't a bill, but a lot of mini-bills none of which will make the cut.

posted October 16, 2009 07:38 PM         

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on
Taxation (JCT) have completed a preliminary analysis of H.R. 3200, the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, as introduced on July 14, 2009. This
analysis does not reflect any modifications or amendments made after that date.