Response to rurallib (Reply #2)
Wed Mar 19, 2014, 02:34 PM
INdemo (3,274 posts)
17. The Republicans were on the Insurance companies payroll
and the fact is for most of this AHC act it was written by, for the most part ,former or current insurance lobbyists.
What we ended up was not even close to what Obama intended it to be. Insurance companies as you may recall spent millions,(remember all those commercials)So the way I see it,it gave President Obama bragging rights to say I got a health care bill passed. And oh yes it got coverage for preexisting
...When the Republican Teabagger Governors refused Federal funding to increase the Medicaid rolls this really hurt and I think it was unexpected by the Obama admin. The Rpukes message has sunk in and our counter messages has not.
If that were the case then why were Democrats stupid enough to vote for it? And why did the WH see fit to bribe and/or threaten Democrats who didn't want to vote for it? Seems to me YOUR party sold you down the river, if this is true because it means they were siding with the insurance lobbies. Republicans weren't even allowed in the room when the law was being debated. The Democrats had a veto proof majority, Republicans had absolutely no power.
Oh, and here are the people
Who Actually Wrote the Affordable Care Act. Food for thought: Liz Fowler, one of Baucus’ top aides and a key author of 0bamacare, worked for him, "...from 2001-2005 and left that job in 2006 to become an executive at WellPoint, the nation’s largest private insurer. She was vice president of public policy at WellPoint, helping develop public-policy positions for the company. In 2008, she rejoined Baucus to work on health reform legislation." No incestuous relationship there!
And then there's Ezekiel Emmanuel, you know the guy who "didn't say anything about death panels". Even though he didn't say the exact words, perhaps some of these quotes will illuminate his concern & contribution. Of course he never uses the words, but Sarah Palin tends to be so blunt she scares all you pussies. These quotes come from
this WSJ article:
"Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity—those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations—are to be socially guaranteed as basic. 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)
In other words, wee willy's wife cannot fully participate in society, given the progressive nature of her disease so should not be given the same priority as, say, a 20 year old with strep throat.
"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."
So, if your baby is sick, or you have a handicapped or Downs Syndrome child, sucks to be you and your kid. Your 60 year old mother who could conceivable live another 20 or 30 years? Sorry, it's the land of Soylent Green for them.
"Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. . . . As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues, 'It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old dies and worse still when an adolescent does,' this argument is supported by empirical surveys."
Your 7 year old develops Leukemia? Damn, we're sorry, there's an 18 year old who was texting while driving on the way home from a kegger and killed an entire family, but we can patch her up and she'll be on the road to being a good little worker for the collective, after she servers her time, of course.
"...the constant introduction of new medical technologies, including new drugs, devices, and procedures. . . . With very few exceptions, both public and private insurers in the United States cover and pay for any beneficial new technology without considering its cost. . . ." He writes that one drug "used to treat metastatic colon cancer, extends medial survival for an additional two to five months, at a cost of approximately $50,000 for an average course of therapy."
I mean, just because an experimental drug that can only extend life for a few months is being tested to help refine it and/or see how it works combined with other drugs is no reason to pay good money for the thing. We don't need no stinkin' medication to cure disease when we can just "send them home with a pill" and hope they die soon.
You selfish, bitchy bottom feeders got exactly what you asked for. You creamed your jeans when the law passed. This would be the second coming! Everyone would be covered for everything on the planet from a hangnail to cancer! You were promised! Your "benevolent" leaders may not call it a death panel, but you're finding out that's exactly what it is. But, all is not lost, you can still get "free" birth control and abortions so you don't have to wait until your baby is born only to find out it's going to have to stay in ICU for a couple of months. Oh, wait, under the above guidelines, an ICU for babies and children won't even be necessary.
Cindie
