|
|
Post by sdtosf on Feb 6, 2011 8:05:22 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 6, 2011 8:48:27 GMT -8
Did you read the comments? Under ObamaKare, care would be denied as too expensive.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdtosf on Feb 6, 2011 22:12:12 GMT -8
Liar. Please show the proof.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 7, 2011 12:16:04 GMT -8
Liar. Please show the proof. Are you trying to bait me into action that would get me banned?  I told you the claim was made in your link. Now please grow up! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2011 19:57:14 GMT -8
Substitute "terminal cancer" for "old" and this pretty much tells the story. It's all about rationing and as the system begins to atrophy due to lowered doctor reimbursements, decisions become less, not more "compassionate".
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Feb 8, 2011 10:14:54 GMT -8
Today's UT (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/feb/07/lawmakers-activists-weigh-browns-proposed-medi-cal/) carries a news item related to health care in California. It discusses a Jerry Brown-inspired cut in Medical, limiting the number of visits and prescription drugs one may have per year. That, my friends, is rationing. And, more to the point, it's GOVERNMENT rationing.
This is what ALWAYS happens when the government takes over health care. And when the government pays, it is a govt. takeover. This nonsense from the Left that this is not socialized medicine because the health care workers nominally remain independent is just that. . . nonsense. It is a smokescreen. Let's be realistic. If the govt. pays the bills and tells the health care industry what to do, it's socialized medicine. (This makes me think of an analogy from the auto industry. In the '80s, GM would take an Oldsmobile, make a few minor changes in the design, slap a new badge on the hood and call the car a Cadillac. Everyone knew it was still an Olds. In this case Obama wants to create a socialized health care model and then slap a badge saying "private" on the hood. No one will be fooled.)
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Feb 8, 2011 15:20:29 GMT -8
Today's UT (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/feb/07/lawmakers-activists-weigh-browns-proposed-medi-cal/) carries a news item related to health care in California. It discusses a Jerry Brown-inspired cut in Medical, limiting the number of visits and prescription drugs one may have per year. That, my friends, is rationing. And, more to the point, it's GOVERNMENT rationing. This is what ALWAYS happens when the government takes over health care. And when the government pays, it is a govt. takeover. This nonsense from the Left that this is not socialized medicine because the health care workers nominally remain independent is just that. . . nonsense. It is a smokescreen. Let's be realistic. If the govt. pays the bills and tells the health care industry what to do, it's socialized medicine. (This makes me think of an analogy from the auto industry. In the '80s, GM would take an Oldsmobile, make a few minor changes in the design, slap a new badge on the hood and call the car a Cadillac. Everyone knew it was still an Olds. In this case Obama wants to create a socialized health care model and then slap a badge saying "private" on the hood. No one will be fooled.) AzWm You must be kidding. You complain about the deficit in state spending and then when the Governor attempts to rein it in you complain about government rationing of healthcare.  So, let's implement the Conservative plan for healthcare and eliminate it in it's entirety for this class of people. You know, the ones without the resources to pay for it themselves.  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 8, 2011 17:00:54 GMT -8
Today's UT (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/feb/07/lawmakers-activists-weigh-browns-proposed-medi-cal/) carries a news item related to health care in California. It discusses a Jerry Brown-inspired cut in Medical, limiting the number of visits and prescription drugs one may have per year. That, my friends, is rationing. And, more to the point, it's GOVERNMENT rationing. This is what ALWAYS happens when the government takes over health care. And when the government pays, it is a govt. takeover. This nonsense from the Left that this is not socialized medicine because the health care workers nominally remain independent is just that. . . nonsense. It is a smokescreen. Let's be realistic. If the govt. pays the bills and tells the health care industry what to do, it's socialized medicine. (This makes me think of an analogy from the auto industry. In the '80s, GM would take an Oldsmobile, make a few minor changes in the design, slap a new badge on the hood and call the car a Cadillac. Everyone knew it was still an Olds. In this case Obama wants to create a socialized health care model and then slap a badge saying "private" on the hood. No one will be fooled.) AzWm You must be kidding. You complain about the deficit in state spending and then when the Governor attempts to rein it in you complain about government rationing of healthcare. So, let's implement the Conservative plan for healthcare and eliminate it in it's entirety for this class of people. You know, the ones without the resources to pay for it themselves. You and Gov Moonbeam both miss the point. Attack waste and eligibility first. Then look at efficiency. Your second bullet is just disingenuous. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Feb 9, 2011 9:29:35 GMT -8
You must be kidding. You complain about the deficit in state spending and then when the Governor attempts to rein it in you complain about government rationing of healthcare. So, let's implement the Conservative plan for healthcare and eliminate it in it's entirety for this class of people. You know, the ones without the resources to pay for it themselves. You and Gov Moonbeam both miss the point. Attack waste and eligibility first. Then look at efficiency. Your second bullet is just disingenuous. You should have read what I deleted before I hit the post button. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 9, 2011 13:52:27 GMT -8
You and Gov Moonbeam both miss the point. Attack waste and eligibility first. Then look at efficiency. Your second bullet is just disingenuous. You should have read what I deleted before I hit the post button. ;D I can only imagine.  |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Apr 5, 2011 19:33:53 GMT -8
Substitute "terminal cancer" for "old" and this pretty much tells the story. It's all about rationing and as the system begins to atrophy due to lowered doctor reimbursements, decisions become less, not more "compassionate". All health plans ration care. Case in point. Years ago between marriages in 1981, I had an intense relationship with a pretty young nurse who had a very healthy libido strong enough to compliment mine. She worked in an Oncology Center (Cancer Center). We were lying in bed one evening and she was telling me about all of the young men who were coming in with a simple red skin cancer that was always easy to treat in the past but was now killing them. I asked her, why she had pointed out that they were good looking, and she said that most of them were so handsome that the female nurses were astounded. To me that meant that they were probably homosexual, but I did not say that to her. She was telling me about a crisis and she expected me to be empathetic, SO I was. At any rate, a few weeks later I met and within a week married my present wife and settled down to raise a large family. It was about 1984 or 5 that the story broke about AIDS killing so many young men in the homosexual community. The pretty nurse that I had been aggressively active with had been working with those guys for years and now it comes out that Carposi's Sarcoma (that red skin cancer) had become a common cause of death for patients with AIDS. I well remembered the conversation I had with her that evening years earlier. I pulled out our telephone directory for North County and she was no longer listed, so I figured that either she married or she had died from what was killing all those gay guys. You know, a needle stick or a stratch or...... I went to my medical provider and asked if I could have a blood test for HIV, and they refused me. They would not provide it. I looked around and found that I could have the test done at the hospital if I wanted to pay $200 out of pocket. That seemed outrageous, after all, if I caught HIV from the nurse, by now, my wife probably had it, too. Still, I was curious because I knew that HIV can be dormant in a body and then flair up. It dawned on me that when you donate blood they were (just then) starting to screen the blood donors for HIV. If you tested positive, you would not be allowed to donate blood again, and they would inform you of that fact. Soooooo, when the BloodMobile came around to work one Friday, I was the first in line to donate blood. A week later I called them up to ask if my test was OK, and the told me I was fine and they encouraged me to donate more blood the next time they came around. |
|
I told you the claim was made in your link. Now please grow up!
