Who doesn't think American voters are stupid?

@Frank Apisa,

OK Frank. You win.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

OK Frank. You win.

I'm playing on-line poker while posting here...which is not a smart or easy thing to do. So I hope so.

0 Replies

@revelette2,

I agree; it's a personal matter that needs to be addressed by all seniors. Often, the parent is kept alive at the request of their children, and not the parent. Each person should have an advance directive (living will) on what they wish done when they are unable to speak for themselves.

Also, health insurance premiums are increasing, but not at the double-digit rates most experienced before ACA. Yes, ACA needs to be tweaked to correct the mistakes inherent in it current form, but repeal is not the answer.

Lives are now being saved under ACA; it could be a family member or a close friend. That's what I want for mine.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I agree with your post on all fronts.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

The whole death panel was just another gimmick Sara Palin came up with which was caught on by the usual suspects. I think by and large most people knew what it actually was, they just stubbornly used it to make a false point for political points.

What I am getting at, at some point in time, most everyone who has any relatives or legal spouses come to this at some point, usually with doctors and nurses there to talk about the patient's quality of life and what to expect and to discuss living wills. It was/is not unique to the ACA.

PolitiFact's Lie of the Year: 'Death panels'

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

I agree; it's a personal matter that needs to be addressed by all seniors. Often, the parent is kept alive at the request of their children, and not the parent. Each person should have an advance directive (living will) on what they wish done when they are unable to speak for themselves.

This thread is not about this topic. Should we start another thread about this? The issue is whether the majority voters who are all riled up on either side of the "death panels" yelling match have any idea about the real issue. The real question is how much, as a society, are willing to pay to keep people alive.

This is not a personal matter... it is a public policy issue. If it requires $10 million dollars to keep a terminal patient alive for an additional 6 months, do we as taxpayers/insurance customers pay for this (assuming the patient and their family request it)? What is the limit?

The fact is that we, as a society, can not possibly pay for the healthcare services that some people want. We have reached the point that we have life-extending technology that we, as a society, can not afford. Making public policy that sets limits on the amount of public funds we spend on this technology is an important part of any healthcare debate... and it isn't being discussed.

The real point is this. This key part of healthcare policy isn't understood by voters and it isn't being discussed. The reason that it isn't being discussed by politicians is that any politician who dared to talk about this honestly and openly would be punished by the voters. It isn't discussed by the media because voters are more interested in Kim Kardashian's butt.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

If you think it deserves another thread, why do you continue to bring up points which people might want to refute?

Quote:

This is not a personal matter... it is a public policy issue. If it requires $10 million dollars to keep a terminal patient alive for an additional 6 months, do we as taxpayers/insurance customers pay for this (assuming the patient and their family request it)? What is the limit?

The fact is that we, as a society, can not possibly pay for the healthcare services that some people want. We have reached the point that we have life-extending technology that we, as a society, can not afford. Making public policy that sets limits on the amount of public funds we spend on this technology is an important part of any healthcare debate... and it isn't being discussed.

If we do as you seem to imply, we would be doing the very horrible thing the likes of Sara Palin and others accused the ACA of doing. The government nor anyone else should be allowed to decide someone is not worth the money it would cost to keep them alive, nor should they be allowed to decide they have to live. And yes, tax payers should have to pay for it. I wouldn't want to live in place where a government makes that kind of decision and that is not what the ACA does.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

Quote:

he government nor anyone else should be allowed to decide someone is not worth the money it would cost to keep them alive, nor should they be allowed to decide they have to live. And yes, tax payers should have to pay for it.

Let's use the proper term-- healthcare rationing. Healthcare rationing is the determination, by either government (on behalf of taxpayers) or insurance companies, about whether a given life-extending medical procedure is worth the cost.

The point of this thread is that no politician is talking honestly about healthcare rationing and there is no media coverage. But let me talk about why this issue should be talked about.

Whether you like it or not, Revelette, healthcare rationing is a fact of life. It is simply economically impossible to extend everyone life as much as technology allows. We have the technology to extend people's lives a great deal... but we simply don't have the economic resources.

There are limits to the life-extending healthcare we can possibly provide. Whether these are being set by the government, or by the free-market, people who could be (technologically) kept alive are being refused this life-extending care. And this is an economic/mathematical fact of life. There is no way to keep this from happening.

The public policy question is how do we make very tough choices in a rational way. How do we use these limited resources? How do we decide whose life should be extended and under what circumstances? The provisions in Obamacare that Palin was referring to as "death panels" were setting up panels to discuss these very issues.

This very important discussion isn't taking place and most American voters are ignorant about it.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

The public policy question is how do we make very tough choices in a rational way. How do we use these limited resources? How do we decide whose life should be extended and under what circumstances? The provisions in Obamacare that Palin was referring to as "death panels" were setting up panels to discuss these very issues.

The government will make those decisions. The discussion is over.

0 Replies

The rabid GOP is at it again: Two presidents, both republicans, acted alone on immigration. They're now threatening Obama with 'non-cooperation' on future legislation. This is just too funny to contemplate.

Quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Two presidents have acted unilaterally on immigration — and both were Republican. Ronald Reagan and his successor George H.W. Bush extended amnesty to family members who were not covered by the last major overhaul of immigration law in 1986.

Related Stories
AP Sources: Obama to shield many from deportation Associated Press
[$$] Obama May Cut Deportations The Wall Street Journal
Obama to announce action on immigration: Fox News Reuters
Immigration Plan Tests President’s Reach The Wall Street Journal
AP Sources: Executive order to affect millions Associated Press
Neither faced the political uproar widely anticipated if and when President Barack Obama uses his executive authority to protect millions of immigrants from deportation.

Reagan's and Bush's actions were conducted in the wake of a sweeping, bipartisan immigration overhaul and at a time when "amnesty" was not a dirty word. Obama is acting as the country — and Washington — are bitterly divided over a broken immigration system and what to do about 11 million people living in the U.S. illegally.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

The difference being about 9 million illegal aliens. In 1986 Amnesty was granted to about 3 million people. Illegal immigration has tripled since that time. We have also learned a lesson since then. Granting amnesty doesn't solve the problem of illegal immigration, if anything it makes it worse. It is only a short term solution for those who are currently here illegally.

Quote:

http://kylewingfield.blog.ajc.com/2014/11/17/the-reagan-amnesty-gotcha-that-isnt/

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I know what you mean, what's new.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

You know what he means when he talks about apples vs oranges?

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

CLUE: It's not about apples and orange, but about 'nut' like you! LOL

Please explain this "apples and oranges" comparison about the article I posted.
Since you're a 'nut' that would be impossible. Mr. Green

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I already posted why the current issue is not like the old issue and why. You should look up on the screen and read what I posted. I even did it as a response to your post.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Why are you complaining about illegal immigration when the GOP had control of Washington DC during some of those years?

It seems the GOP is good at ignoring problems when they're in office, then cry bloody murder when a liberal president tries to do something about this long standing issue.

TNCFS

1 Reply

You all are really off topic here.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Immigration is directly tied to this topic. Voters are responsible for electing our representatives that handles immigration. Or, didn't you know that?

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

You were the one complaining, I just wanted you to have some facts before you complain too much. Nothing to say about the article and the facts in it? I'm not surprised.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

I already offered my opinion. Are you lost?

1 Reply

Who doesn't think American voters are stupid?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know