Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
WIll cover and VOLUNTARY.. and , btw , the bill SPECIFICALLY mentions health care proxy and living wills in other words the Patients END OF LIFE DIRECTIVE for their end of life care!!!!
because some point or another we are all going to reach the end of our life.. AND if you are unable to communicate your wishes when you reach that point.. then HOW YOU want your life to end, so to speak, is NOT going to carried through.. hence the LIVING WILL.. AGain.. ALL of which is SPECIFICALLY mentioned.
EVERY senior .. hell EVERY PERSON ALIVE should have a health care proxy AND a living will in case of some catastrophic event unforseen that may leave you unable to communicate your wishes.
COMMON SENSE
For some its fear of government control over their lives. If you were 80 years old and not in good health you might be worried too.
And "should" is a private matter up to each individual. Many people don't want the government deciding for them.
That's all I wanted to point out. If the government wants to subsidize health insurance, let them. But that's where they should stop.
Well..then I guess we should dismantle our public education system.. which, BTW was first introduced by Jefferson and supported by George Washington.
While we're at it we'll reverse Social Security, Medicare.... etc.
Then.. we can watch our country dissolve into a third world nation where there are people on the streets dying while we all build walls around our house for safety.
Give me a break.. It's in the constitution..you know.. the part where they talk about the general welfare.
The "it's not in the constitution " argument is weak at best.
Not to even mention that "health care" when the constitution didn't even exists beyond getting a swig of liquor and maybe a leech or two and people died of the common cold.
Give me a break.. It's in the constitution..you know.. the part where they talk about the general welfare.
The "it's not in the constitution " argument is weak at best. You don't understand the Constitution at all.
You have the freedoms you have, right now, because of the Constitution, so while you are so quick to just toss it off, you ought to be thinking about what kind of world you want for your children and theirs.
Right now, Medicaid can deny you care and treatment if you go over the limit of spenditure. So, if you have cancer, and you've "used up" all the money allocated to you, you're a cooked goose.
You think this new plan is going to be better, when they will have so many more people on it, and every illegal who crosses the border?
For some its fear of government control over their lives. If you were 80 years old and not in good health you might be worried too.
And "should" is a private matter up to each individual. Many people don't want the government deciding for them.
That's all I wanted to point out. If the government wants to subsidize health insurance, let them. But that's where they should stop.
Wow..
okay .. first of all.. do you understand what a living will and a health care proxy is..
HAVING ONE GUARANTEES THAT YOU HAVE CONTROL OVER YOURSELF EVEN WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE THE CAPACITY TO COMMUNICATE
Think of it this way.... if you are a "child" with no legal guardians YOU become a WARD OF THE STATE right?
Well if you are 80 and you become ill and unable to communicate in an effective manner YOUR wishes.. YOU THEN BECOME A WARD OF THE GOVERNMENT!!! YOU've already lost control of anything.. AND you NEVER dictated your wishes PRIOR to your inability to communicate.
A health care proxy/living will is all about having control over yourself!!!!
AND.. its VOLUNTARY in the bill.. the government is only offering to PAY FOR IT as a benefit should you choose to have a livign will and health care proxy.
Now.. if you all would stop being so paranoid and actually THINK for a minute.. you'd see the government is trying to give you the ABILITY to PIC SOMETHING FOR YOURSELF AND offer to PAY FOR IT!!
By should. I wasn't implying mandating it.. I was stating that it is a smart thing to do , especially if you are so worried about being in control of your own life.. or the end of it.
I trust government far more than I trust greedy corporate pigs who would sell their own mother for a buck!
Many of us have personal experiences that contradict your sentiments.
My dad's best friend Keith is 82, and like my dad he has the VA for primary medical care. As an "efficient medical provider" they stop doing PSA test for prostate cancer after age 70, because the assumption is the cancer won't kill you once you get to that age.
Keith doesn't trust the VA to always look out for his best interest, so he carries some private insurance too. In this case, it was a good thing that he did, because they continued to pay for the PSA test to be done annually, regardless of age.
Turns out the PSA test about 6 months ago detected an aggressive form of prostate cancer, and Keith never would have known if following the VA process. The VA said so what, he was too old for surgery anyway to resolve this problem. However, his private insurance paid for radiation treatments the VA wouldn't cover, and the test results from yesterday indicate Keith's prostate cancer has been largely eradicated.
Keith likely gained at least a couple of years due to the PSA testing, and he is one of the folks who will be leading the charge in Florida to stop the proposed plan.
You think you are going to get all you want free, like some kind of limitless buffet of healthcare. Think again.
Politicians are greedy corporate pigs who would sell their mother for a buck. They are the same ilk as CEOs.
So you're trading one hot frying pan for another.
Wow.. another empty argument.. the "You want a free lunch argument"..LOL . .. yeah..okay.. that has been argued ad nauseum AND I just put a new thread up on just that..
Try understanding the health care problem first before you start throwing out empty baseless arguments to reform.
Many of us have personal experiences that contradict your sentiments.
My dad's best friend Keith is 82, and like my dad he has the VA for primary medical care. As an "efficient medical provider" they stop doing PSA test for prostate cancer after age 70, because the assumption is the cancer won't kill you once you get to that age.
Keith doesn't trust the VA to always look out for his best interest, so he carries some private insurance too. In this case, it was a good thing that he did, because they continued to pay for the PSA test to be done annually, regardless of age.
Turns out the PSA test about 6 months ago detected an aggressive form of prostate cancer, and Keith never would have known if following the VA process. The VA said so what, he was too old for surgery anyway to resolve this problem. However, his private insurance paid for radiation treatments the VA wouldn't cover, and the test results from yesterday indicate Keith's prostate cancer has been largely eradicated.
Keith likely gained at least a couple of years due to the PSA testing, and he is one of the folks who will be leading the charge in Florida to stop the proposed plan.
You've actually posted about one of my points I made in a new thread I started and on my blog that I have . I'll post that section here for you below:
I think there is something that many miss or do not think about when they think of Universal Health Care. If you look at the Canadian system, which most American's will refer to and use as an argument against such a policy, you need to keep something into consideration. The Canadian system of health care is the government and only the government. But, if you look at the UK system of health care, which has a co-existing relationship between private insurance AND an underlying government run system you see a difference.
Let's just consider the NHS in the UK the "no frills" policy that every citizen gets ( and it's very extensive in it's coverage, by the way) It is the primary source of health care for most of the citizens of the UK. However, in that country you could buy a private policy to supplement the NHS, so that should something arise that the government would deem as "not covered" your private supplemental insurance (which is cheaper by far than American insurance because most of everyone's needs are already met by the NHS) would then kick in, so to speak. There are Dr's in the UK that take both the NHS and private insurance plans. What I see here is that at least everyone, regardless of financial status or standing, receives some form of health care while the rest that have the ability to purchase more, can always do so. If American's would just look at the Universal type plan as the bottom line entry level of health care, then purchase supplemental to pick up where they feel they may be left short by the government, then I do not see where the objection would lies. I just don't think that people think of it that way and feel it's this way (the government controlled plan) or nothing. As it is now the current legislation that is the subject of such heated debate, does not even propose such a thing. Being a part of the Government option is just that.. an option and is not the forced standard policy.
In the case of your friend.. he could afford more, but he got more. .. but for those that wouldn't get ANYTHING they'd be grateful to atleast get the minimu.. which in this case from your example is testing till the age of 72.
The government is not in existence to tell me to have an end of life conference with my health provider. "To promote the General Welfare" has seemed to have taken a whole new meaning under the current administration which many people are against.
The government is not in existence to tell me to have an end of life conference with my health provider. "To promote the General Welfare" has seemed to have taken a whole new meaning under the current administration which many people are against.
They are not telling you to have an end of life.. they are offereing to pay for it should you chose to have it.
ANd, BTW .. those that DONT have an end of life directive.. END UP costing much more ..because then the state/government is obligated to keep someone alive even if that someone may not want to be under certain circumstances..
My grandmother was 90 years old and diagnosed with lung cancer. Had I not been her health care proxy to make decisions for her, then they would have treated a 90 year old woman for lung cancer.. however, I told them not to that ti didn't make sense to, nor would she want it and to keep her comfortable and pain free. Palative care.
I'm not saying I made that decision to save the state/government money.. I'm just saying itw as common sense.. my point is though.. if smoeone doesn't have a designated person to carry out their wishes.. then stuff like the example above occurs.
this is the bill that Obama was trying to get passed before the August break. THIS is the bill that has been causing so much.. .
TM - when you say "this bill" - which bill are you referring to? There are 5 different pieces of Health Reform legislation, sponsored by various Democrats. Perhaps you could refer to the specific HR number - so we can all be on the same page.
It would help
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
