Health Care Reform - A Modest Proposal
-
Rob Graham wrote:
The problem is that this is how you end up spending 80% of your medical dollars on the last 6 months of life.
Sure about that? http://www.chsrf.ca/mythbusters/html/myth10_e.php[^]
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Sure about that?
Absolutely. The page you refrred to doesn't address in any way, shape, manner or form, the issue at hand. I am delighted to hear that the cost of dying is decreasing thanks to whatever - but that doesn't amount to a bowl of beans when it comes to when do the great majority of us spend 80% of the total we spend on healthcare. You might as well have sent us to CSS's favorite porn site for all you added to the discussion. Here's a couple of other yhings I've learned: 80% of all healthcare costs in the US are incurred by 20% of the population. 70% of the healthcare costs in the U.S. are created by the treatment of chronic deseases and folks over 65 and ten time more likely to have a chronic disease than those under 45. Fact: Accoring to WHO, in the year 2005, 55 million people died, and chronic diseases were responsible for 35 million of these deaths. That number is twice the number of deaths due to infectious diseases (including HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria), maternal and perinatal conditions, and nutritional deficiencies combined. Fact: A 20 year-old smoker has less risk of developing cancer in the next 10 years than does a 80 year-old who never smoked in his life. And a 20-year old who eats a poor diet and rarely exercises has a greater chance of living another decade than does an 80 year-old who eats a good diet and exercises every day. The impact of smoking and inactivity pale in comparison to the impact a few extra decades of senescence has on a person's health prospects. For more enlightement, Google "biodemography. I've got to get back to designing starship hulls. ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
If we are going to have the government supply health care as some sort of human right, than I demand my right to it even if the last 30 seconds of my life cost society a trillion dollars. Don't force me to accept this kind of pathetically insane nonsense and then tell me I am not qualified. What that really says, just as with abortion, is that the government should have the power to determine who is and who is not a human being and to exterminate those who fail the test.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Your POTUS was elected with a certain manifesto. If he follows the manifesto promise with action to deliver that promise, then, presumably the majority of your electorate would approve. Yet, if you believe that his manifesto promises are outside of the scope that your Constitution addresses then surely you should do that which is necessary to legally redress the situation. Unless you are of the opinion that most of those who voted for him did so out of disenchantment with Republican politics, then you will need to demonstrate that the actioning of that manifesto is somehow flawed, and demonstrate it to those who matter.
-
Oakman wrote:
As Rob pointed out, we'd cut close to 80% of the cost of our healthcare, by eliminating the extremely ineffective but extremely lucrative treatments used to extend life for a few days during the last six months of living.
Both life and death has its price tag. If you are prepared to instruct, with regards to "do not resuscitate", as previously stated in other threads, that your wishes are to be complied with when you become so frail that you are not able to conduct your own affairs, then, that is all well and good. What of those who demand that every action be taken to prolong their lives or for those who have not made any instructions. But also, what of those who are not old and infirm, such as children or young adults, what of their rights and expectations (humanity). Cutting costs as much as you can but you have to guard against any charges of "playing the part of God" in a fascist manner.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
If you are prepared to instruct, with regards to "do not resuscitate", as previously stated in other threads, that your wishes are to be complied with when you become so frail that you are not able to conduct your own affairs, then, that is all well and good.
I already have - signed, and sealed.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
What of those who demand that every action be taken to prolong their lives or for those who have not made any instructions.
Fine - as long as they have the money to pay for it (including the new luxury tax) I am simply suggesting that the American taxpayer not have to chip in to the medical profession's and the insurance profession's retirement funds.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
But also, what of those who are not old and infirm, such as children or young adults, what of their rights and expectations (humanity).
They should discuss with God, Mother Nature, The Horned God, Bhuddha, Kali, The Great Spirit, the nearest biologist, or their mommy about the unfairness of life. We are talking about whether or not a treatment funded by the American taxpayers is going to do any real good.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Cutting costs as much as you can but you have to guard against any charges of "playing the part of God" in a fascist manner.
Bullshite. Refusing to pay at gunpoint for someone else's fond and foolish attempts to live a few more days at my expense is in the highest traditions of libertarianism and the American Republic. Pickking my pocket because the almighty state has decreed that everyone gets all the medicine possible is a perfect of example of tolitarianism be it called fascism, communisms, socialism, or Jeffersonianism.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
None of this will work, there are too many entrenched interests to eliminate or curb any of it - unless Obama continues on his quest to turn us into Venezuela. The correct solution, once we become Venezuela, is to: Nationalize the medical community Nationalize the drug companies Eliminate insurance companies, take the presumed savings to cover the 500k people no longer employed. Euthanize anyone over 62 who cannot jog a mile in at least 8 minutes or quit being a nanny state and see how self reliance, family and charity works
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
None of this will work
That's why I called it "A Modest Proposal."
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Euthanize anyone over 62 who cannot jog a mile in at least 8 minutes
Why limit it to those over 62 - make it a rule across the board. {evil grin icon missing}
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Your POTUS was elected with a certain manifesto. If he follows the manifesto promise with action to deliver that promise, then, presumably the majority of your electorate would approve. Yet, if you believe that his manifesto promises are outside of the scope that your Constitution addresses then surely you should do that which is necessary to legally redress the situation. Unless you are of the opinion that most of those who voted for him did so out of disenchantment with Republican politics, then you will need to demonstrate that the actioning of that manifesto is somehow flawed, and demonstrate it to those who matter.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Your POTUS was elected with a certain manifesto. If he follows the manifesto promise with action to deliver that promise, then, presumably the majority of your electorate would approve.
Actually, I agree with that. The people who voted for Obama should get exactly what they asked for. (Thats a curse,btw).
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Yet, if you believe that his manifesto promises are outside of the scope that your Constitution addresses then surely you should do that which is necessary to legally redress the situation.
The problem with that is that the US is no longer a constitutional republic, at least in the sense that the federal government is in any way restrained by any meaning inherent in the constitution. They have empowered themselves to interpret the constitution in an open and unrestricted fashion. So, what ever they say is constitutional, is constitutional. I no longer have rights which derive from my creator, the only rights I have are those I am granted by the state.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Unless you are of the opinion that most of those who voted for him did so out of disenchantment with Republican politics, then you will need to demonstrate that the actioning of that manifesto is somehow flawed, and demonstrate it to those who matter.
Any such manifesto is clearly flawed. One only need observe the incestuous relationship between virtually every major source of information in our society, from education to Hollywood, and the radical left which controls the democrat party, to appreciate the nature of the situation in the US. We the people keep trying to retake our nation, and the power held by a few keeps ripping it back out of our hands. The situation is entirely untenable.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
If you are prepared to instruct, with regards to "do not resuscitate", as previously stated in other threads, that your wishes are to be complied with when you become so frail that you are not able to conduct your own affairs, then, that is all well and good.
I already have - signed, and sealed.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
What of those who demand that every action be taken to prolong their lives or for those who have not made any instructions.
Fine - as long as they have the money to pay for it (including the new luxury tax) I am simply suggesting that the American taxpayer not have to chip in to the medical profession's and the insurance profession's retirement funds.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
But also, what of those who are not old and infirm, such as children or young adults, what of their rights and expectations (humanity).
They should discuss with God, Mother Nature, The Horned God, Bhuddha, Kali, The Great Spirit, the nearest biologist, or their mommy about the unfairness of life. We are talking about whether or not a treatment funded by the American taxpayers is going to do any real good.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Cutting costs as much as you can but you have to guard against any charges of "playing the part of God" in a fascist manner.
Bullshite. Refusing to pay at gunpoint for someone else's fond and foolish attempts to live a few more days at my expense is in the highest traditions of libertarianism and the American Republic. Pickking my pocket because the almighty state has decreed that everyone gets all the medicine possible is a perfect of example of tolitarianism be it called fascism, communisms, socialism, or Jeffersonianism.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
I already have - signed, and sealed.
A reasonable position that I fully endorse.
Oakman wrote:
They should discuss with God, Mother Nature, The Horned God, Bhuddha, Kali, The Great Spirit, the nearest biologist, or their mommy about the unfairness of life. We are talking about whether or not a treatment funded by the American taxpayers is going to do any real good.
This has the sound of callousness and an uncaring attitude. This is part why I said above about guarding against a charge of playing God.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
The problem is that this is how you end up spending 80% of your medical dollars on the last 6 months of life.
Sure about that? http://www.chsrf.ca/mythbusters/html/myth10_e.php[^]
John Carson
Point taken, although that still says a majority of the expense is in the final year (27-30% of PROGRAM spending in medicare is on that 5-6% of the population that is in their final year, from your link), or more than 5x annual expense of individuals not in their final year. That still seems excessively expensive, particularly when coupled with the statement that 46% of that 5-6% received NO medical care at all in their final year (doing the math, that means that 2.8% of the population accounted for 27-30% of the annual PROGRAM cost). Looks to me like your article actually ends up pretty much making my point, once you look past the artful presentation of statistics that don't really bear out the conclusion they claim to support.
-
None of this will work, there are too many entrenched interests to eliminate or curb any of it - unless Obama continues on his quest to turn us into Venezuela. The correct solution, once we become Venezuela, is to: Nationalize the medical community Nationalize the drug companies Eliminate insurance companies, take the presumed savings to cover the 500k people no longer employed. Euthanize anyone over 62 who cannot jog a mile in at least 8 minutes or quit being a nanny state and see how self reliance, family and charity works
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
As long as we continue to rely upon an insurance industry managed separatly from the health care industry, the arugment for government controlled health care will continue to grow. It simply is not possible to insure health in any kind of economically sustainable way. Any one trying to do it will face precisely the same difficulty government will. Someone without a medical degree ultimately has to decide who lives and who dies due to unavoidable bottom line economic realities.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Your POTUS was elected with a certain manifesto. If he follows the manifesto promise with action to deliver that promise, then, presumably the majority of your electorate would approve.
Actually, I agree with that. The people who voted for Obama should get exactly what they asked for. (Thats a curse,btw).
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Yet, if you believe that his manifesto promises are outside of the scope that your Constitution addresses then surely you should do that which is necessary to legally redress the situation.
The problem with that is that the US is no longer a constitutional republic, at least in the sense that the federal government is in any way restrained by any meaning inherent in the constitution. They have empowered themselves to interpret the constitution in an open and unrestricted fashion. So, what ever they say is constitutional, is constitutional. I no longer have rights which derive from my creator, the only rights I have are those I am granted by the state.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Unless you are of the opinion that most of those who voted for him did so out of disenchantment with Republican politics, then you will need to demonstrate that the actioning of that manifesto is somehow flawed, and demonstrate it to those who matter.
Any such manifesto is clearly flawed. One only need observe the incestuous relationship between virtually every major source of information in our society, from education to Hollywood, and the radical left which controls the democrat party, to appreciate the nature of the situation in the US. We the people keep trying to retake our nation, and the power held by a few keeps ripping it back out of our hands. The situation is entirely untenable.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Richard A. Abbott wrote: Yet, if you believe that his manifesto promises are outside of the scope that your Constitution addresses then surely you should do that which is necessary to legally redress the situation. The problem with that is that the US is no longer a constitutional republic, at least in the sense that the federal government is in any way restrained by any meaning inherent in the constitution. They have empowered themselves to interpret the constitution in an open and unrestricted fashion. So, what ever they say is constitutional, is constitutional. I no longer have rights which derive from my creator, the only rights I have are those I am granted by the state. Richard A. Abbott wrote: Unless you are of the opinion that most of those who voted for him did so out of disenchantment with Republican politics, then you will need to demonstrate that the actioning of that manifesto is somehow flawed, and demonstrate it to those who matter. Any such manifesto is clearly flawed. One only need observe the incestuous relationship between virtually every major source of information in our society, from education to Hollywood, and the radical left which controls the democrat party, to appreciate the nature of the situation in the US. We the people keep trying to retake our nation, and the power held by a few keeps ripping it back out of our hands. The situation is entirely untenable.
It appears that you might be caught between a rock and a hard place. Time perhaps to re-evaluate your own political future by grasping the bull by the horn and campaign for your beliefs.
-
Oakman wrote:
I already have - signed, and sealed.
A reasonable position that I fully endorse.
Oakman wrote:
They should discuss with God, Mother Nature, The Horned God, Bhuddha, Kali, The Great Spirit, the nearest biologist, or their mommy about the unfairness of life. We are talking about whether or not a treatment funded by the American taxpayers is going to do any real good.
This has the sound of callousness and an uncaring attitude. This is part why I said above about guarding against a charge of playing God.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
This is part why I said above about guarding against a charge of playing God.
There is a decision to be made: whether or not to be forced to fund treatments of extremely limited benefit for terminal patients or not. Saying "yes" is no less playing God than playing "No." Nothing in my proposal says that you, Richard, cannot devote whatever share of your income you see fit to helping the elderly have a few more days of life. It simply says that you will not be arrested and put in jail if you don't.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
This has the sound of callousness and an uncaring attitude
Why exactly should I care how it sounds to you??? You can infer that I am a heartless bastard if you wish, but I am not responsible for your attempts at reading my mind. For all you know I am weeping my eyes out as I suggest this. But either way, it doesn't matter. What matters is whether I make rational proposals based on verifiable facts.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Richard A. Abbott wrote: Yet, if you believe that his manifesto promises are outside of the scope that your Constitution addresses then surely you should do that which is necessary to legally redress the situation. The problem with that is that the US is no longer a constitutional republic, at least in the sense that the federal government is in any way restrained by any meaning inherent in the constitution. They have empowered themselves to interpret the constitution in an open and unrestricted fashion. So, what ever they say is constitutional, is constitutional. I no longer have rights which derive from my creator, the only rights I have are those I am granted by the state. Richard A. Abbott wrote: Unless you are of the opinion that most of those who voted for him did so out of disenchantment with Republican politics, then you will need to demonstrate that the actioning of that manifesto is somehow flawed, and demonstrate it to those who matter. Any such manifesto is clearly flawed. One only need observe the incestuous relationship between virtually every major source of information in our society, from education to Hollywood, and the radical left which controls the democrat party, to appreciate the nature of the situation in the US. We the people keep trying to retake our nation, and the power held by a few keeps ripping it back out of our hands. The situation is entirely untenable.
It appears that you might be caught between a rock and a hard place. Time perhaps to re-evaluate your own political future by grasping the bull by the horn and campaign for your beliefs.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
It appears that you might be caught between a rock and a hard place. Time perhaps to re-evaluate your own political future by grasping the bull by the horn and campaign for your beliefs.
Stan wants a republic - the sole criteria for having voting rights is whether or not you agree with him. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
It appears that you might be caught between a rock and a hard place. Time perhaps to re-evaluate your own political future by grasping the bull by the horn and campaign for your beliefs.
Stan wants a republic - the sole criteria for having voting rights is whether or not you agree with him. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
the sole criteria for having voting rights is whether or not you agree with him.
No, actually, I'm one of the few people that isn't true of.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Richard A. Abbott wrote: Yet, if you believe that his manifesto promises are outside of the scope that your Constitution addresses then surely you should do that which is necessary to legally redress the situation. The problem with that is that the US is no longer a constitutional republic, at least in the sense that the federal government is in any way restrained by any meaning inherent in the constitution. They have empowered themselves to interpret the constitution in an open and unrestricted fashion. So, what ever they say is constitutional, is constitutional. I no longer have rights which derive from my creator, the only rights I have are those I am granted by the state. Richard A. Abbott wrote: Unless you are of the opinion that most of those who voted for him did so out of disenchantment with Republican politics, then you will need to demonstrate that the actioning of that manifesto is somehow flawed, and demonstrate it to those who matter. Any such manifesto is clearly flawed. One only need observe the incestuous relationship between virtually every major source of information in our society, from education to Hollywood, and the radical left which controls the democrat party, to appreciate the nature of the situation in the US. We the people keep trying to retake our nation, and the power held by a few keeps ripping it back out of our hands. The situation is entirely untenable.
It appears that you might be caught between a rock and a hard place. Time perhaps to re-evaluate your own political future by grasping the bull by the horn and campaign for your beliefs.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
It appears that you might be caught between a rock and a hard place. Time perhaps to re-evaluate your own political future by grasping the bull by the horn and campaign for your beliefs.
I'm not the one caught anywhere. The one enormous advantage we true conservatives enjoy is that none of the things we disagree with have any hope of success. No matter how any of this is managed, it is all going to fail. But frankly, I think people are going to have to learn their lessons the hard way. The industry committed to promoting the propaganda behind all this is too powerful. If we are at the point of talking openly about allowing the elderly to die in order to have a viable health care system, which only a few decades ago would have been the plot of some kind of horror science fiction plot, the end cannot be far away. As Carson pointed out, the elderly are not the entire problem. If we can allow them to die, why not allow illegal immigrants to die? Black people often have more health problems than white people as they age, shouldn't we consider letting them die sooner? This will all become an issue as the health care system continues to malfunction. All I have to do is set and wait - and demand my health care, damnit!!!
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
This is part why I said above about guarding against a charge of playing God.
There is a decision to be made: whether or not to be forced to fund treatments of extremely limited benefit for terminal patients or not. Saying "yes" is no less playing God than playing "No." Nothing in my proposal says that you, Richard, cannot devote whatever share of your income you see fit to helping the elderly have a few more days of life. It simply says that you will not be arrested and put in jail if you don't.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
This has the sound of callousness and an uncaring attitude
Why exactly should I care how it sounds to you??? You can infer that I am a heartless bastard if you wish, but I am not responsible for your attempts at reading my mind. For all you know I am weeping my eyes out as I suggest this. But either way, it doesn't matter. What matters is whether I make rational proposals based on verifiable facts.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Yes Jon, a very emotive subject. And a subject where peoples will make their stand whichever side of the fence they happen to stand. A modest proposal - of course - but enshrining it, or a variation of it, into law might be a tad problematic - those pressure groups will not make it easy for you.
-
Yes Jon, a very emotive subject. And a subject where peoples will make their stand whichever side of the fence they happen to stand. A modest proposal - of course - but enshrining it, or a variation of it, into law might be a tad problematic - those pressure groups will not make it easy for you.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
those pressure groups will not make it easy for you
If it's easy, it's not worth doing. Or was that if she's easy, she's not worth doing? I forget. . . At any rate, I emailed my proposal off to Obama, now it's up to him to recognize brilliance.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Rob Graham wrote:
The problem is that this is how you end up spending 80% of your medical dollars on the last 6 months of life.
So, a 'right to health care' is entirely dependent upon one's status as a human being?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, a 'right to health care' is entirely dependent upon one's status as a human being?
Absolutely. I don't support taxpayer funded health care for pets or farm animals.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, a 'right to health care' is entirely dependent upon one's status as a human being?
Absolutely. I don't support taxpayer funded health care for pets or farm animals.
Rob Graham wrote:
I don't support taxpayer funded health care for pets or farm animals.
:thumbsup::thumbsup: Although I've known some dogs and horses I'd put in line in front of Stan. ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, a 'right to health care' is entirely dependent upon one's status as a human being?
Absolutely. I don't support taxpayer funded health care for pets or farm animals.
Rob Graham wrote:
Absolutely. I don't support taxpayer funded health care for pets or farm animals.
OK, so perhaps I didn't phrase that well. So allow me to try again. If we are predicating our arguments upon the notion of health care as a human right, than you simply cannot disallow any one from recieving it, regardless of age or any other consideration. The only thing you can do is to decide that some of us are not quite as human as the rest of us and therefore can be allowed to die. If you do not predicate it on a human right, than the entire rational for government empowering itself to be involved at all collapses completely unless you compltely disregard the constitution altogether.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Obama seems to be eying the Medicare and Medicaid programs as potential sources of funding for his new programs - there goes the senior citizen vote (I wonder if there are more Hispanics or retirees in Florida?) But he may be on to something. I suggest the following. 1. Cut out Medicare Part D. It is basically a scam that benefits insurance companies. Instead, increase the Social Security payment to each senior citizen by changing the payout from every month to every four weeks. 2. Cut out the alternative insurance plans offered by AARP, Humana and the rest and funded by Medicare. Their admin costs are about 4 times what Medicare paying directly is. 3. Eliminate Medicaid. It has nothing to do with Social Security or medicare but was deliberately misnamed to tie the two together. It is paying for a lot of healthcare that the new super-duper program is supposed to cover, and if it doesn't, then too bad. 4. Eliminate any Medicare payment for any treatment for any patient with a life expectancy of less than six months unless that treatment changes the prognosis to at least a year of life. 5. Tax any any treatment for any patient with a life expectancy of less than six months unless that treatment changes the prognosis to at least a year. i.e. double the cost of any non-Medicare treatment for these futile medical procedures with the government getting half. 4. Eliminate any Medicare payment for any treatment for any patient deemed to be brain-dead. 5. Tax any any treatment for any patient deemed to be brain dead i.e. double the cost of any non-Medicare treatment for these futile medical procedures with the government getting half. 6. Offer a buyout program for each senior citizen presently receiving payments equal to a lum of (81 - sr.'s present age) times hisher present yearly payment. 7. Offer a buyout program for each person who has been paying into Social Security for at least 15 years of a lump sum of 10 times what hisher present yearly payment would be if he retired at 62.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Eliminate any Medicare payment for any treatment for any patient deemed to be brain-dead.
Was it meant to be a joke that this item jumped back to #4 from #5 ? :P
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums.
-
None of this will work, there are too many entrenched interests to eliminate or curb any of it - unless Obama continues on his quest to turn us into Venezuela. The correct solution, once we become Venezuela, is to: Nationalize the medical community Nationalize the drug companies Eliminate insurance companies, take the presumed savings to cover the 500k people no longer employed. Euthanize anyone over 62 who cannot jog a mile in at least 8 minutes or quit being a nanny state and see how self reliance, family and charity works
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
quit being a nanny state and see how self reliance, family and charity works
That worked fine, when the cost of medicine was to go in the yard and find some leeches. It doesn't work now, unless you mean, just accept that only the rich can afford medical care.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums.