Why do the CONs want to withold Medical Care from those who need it?

[OldRegular]

I have a friend on disability. He improved somewhat and did some volunteer work for the Salvation Army. He was unpaid but the government deducted the amount of money he might have been paid from his disability. I realize this sounds incredible but I know it to be true. Now he tells me he simply cannot afford to live.

Given the evil of big government demonstrated in your example why do you favor an even more intrusive dictatorship of the Marxists?

As a Christian are you not obligated to help your friend?

 

[OldRegular]

But Jesus also said, "Inasmuch as you have lobbied the government to feed the least of these, you have done it unto Me". Or, at least that's what Obama says.

Obama also claims to be God's partner! How is that for ego?

 

[OldRegular]

HR3200 IMO is not about making medical help available to "more" people but less people in terms of actual life sustaining care while under the guise of covering all people.

Take the Bill in one hand and Dr. Immanuel's writings in the other.
Read them.

You will find that 20-40 is the optimum age range for prioritized health care. Pre-kindergarten children, special needs persons (Down's syndrome)and the elderly would be prioritized at the lowest end of the spectrum because of "limited social investment" value.

Help me here someone, anyone, with this abstract from HR3200 (it would help to first read pages 424-432 (SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION) of this convoluted bill in the section concerning "end of life" and "ESRD (End Stage Renal Disease").

"(I) ensures such orders are standardized and uniquely identifiable throughout the State;
(II) distributes or makes accessible such orders to physicians and other health professionals that (acting within the scope of the professional’s authority under State law) may sign orders for life sustaining treatment;
(III) provides training for health care professionals across the continuum of care about the goals and use of orders for life sustaining treatment"

The question I have is from reading these pages is why is it necessary for the signed order to be for "life sustaining treatment"? In other words the default treatment for ESRD will now be to let them die and "life sustaining treatment (such as kidney dialysis)" would necessitate a written order.

One might say that this is what is already required for ESRD. Right now the standard treatment prescribed by most doctors is dialysis (or you can find one who will prescribe dialysis), However after the bill passes, the government will be running the life-death prescription lottery. Prove that wrong from HR3200. This bill (IMO) is carefully word-smithed and grammar-crafted to avoid inflammatory terms such as "abortion", "euthanasia", "rationing", etc.

In another section it is stated that the Secretary of Health would draw up a document outlining standard treatments for diseases including ESRD.

That alone should be a blinking red light. This bill needs to be thrown out until the government in a multi-partisan way (I am an Independent) spells out exactly what they mean with no second-guessing required.

Yes everyone will be mandated for (not provided for) under 1 of 3 categories 1) abortion (already legalized), 2) prioritized and/or rationed healthcare or 3) "death with dignity" (already legalized in 2 states).


HankD

Section 1233 provides the very logical basis for Governor Sarah Palin's comments regarding "death boards". Rationing of medical care is the intent of this section otherwise the democrats would have accepted a Republican amendment specifically excluding rationing or death boards. Same thing goes for taxpayer funding of abortions.

Some on this Forum have taken issue with the Governor's use of the term "death boards' claiming that term does nor appear in the bill; even the democrats are not that stupid.

It still amazes me the number of people who think the democrat party is the party of compassion when they rabidly support the slaughter of the unborn and just born and now are proposing to ration health care to those in need. It is a historical fact that the Marxist mind cares nothing for the life of the masses.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Obama also claims to be God's partner! How is that for ego?

This clip explains how he can get away with that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSKH6Gw1TC8&feature=related

 

[Robert Snow]

NO WE ARE NOT!
We just believe it is NOT the governments job to do so. I am in favor of churches, and social agy's doing so - esp with a minimum of govt interference.

I believe this is the difference. I believe it is the government's job and not just the church. Because of this we will never be in agreement. We disagree on the scope of what the government should do.

 

[Robert Snow]

Crabtrollboy, could you please show us where Christ said that it's the responsibility of the state to take over health care?

Jesus did not address every situation a person could face. When it comes to health care, I trust the government more than I do the baptist churches I have been a member of by far!

 

[OldRegular]

I believe this is the difference. I believe it is the government's job and not just the church. Because of this we will never be in agreement. We disagree on the scope of what the government should do.

So that makes you a socialist at best and a fascist/communist at worst!

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Jesus did not address every situation a person could face. When it comes to health care, I trust the government more than I do the baptist churches I have been a member of by far!

I'm sure you do.

I believe this is the difference. I believe it is the government's job and not just the church.

Where is that in the Constitution?

If it's the government's job, then why did Jesus tell us to do it and not the government?

Because of this we will never be in agreement. We disagree on the scope of what the government should do.

...and on the authority of God's word.

 

[alatide]

Given the evil of big government demonstrated in your example why do you favor an even more intrusive dictatorship of the Marxists?

As a Christian are you not obligated to help your friend?

I have helped my friend. I'd say I've given him about $5,000 over the years. Have you ever helped an individual to that extent?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Let's say you had a heart attack and the ER doctor recommended that you be admitted to a hospital because your life was in danger due to a threat of a second heart attack.

Then they should admit you. (Was that a trick question or something?)

You're asking me why does it matter if you can be admitted?

Where did I ask you this? I don't recall asking anything about being admitted to the hospital. I think that, once again, you just made something up rather than address the actual facts.

 

[alatide]

Then they should admit you. (Was that a trick question or something?)

Where did I ask you this? I don't recall asking anything about being admitted to the hospital. I think that, once again, you just made something up rather than address the actual facts.

They "should" admit you? My question is will they admit you. Once again, have you ever tried to get admitted to a hospital without insurance?

 

[Pastor Larry]

They "should" admit you?

Of course. Was that confusing?

My question is will they admit you.

Probably. I can't imagine they want to expose themselves to multi-million dollar lawsuits by breaking federal law and refusing to follow a doctor's advice. Can you imagine the amount of money they would have to pay out to the family of someone they refused to admit based on doctor's orders?

Once again, have you ever tried to get admitted to a hospital without insurance?

No. You probably never have either, so you don't know.

I have done without a lot of things in life to pay for insurance. And I have only been admitted to the hospital three times: Once so that insurance would pay for a test when I was in high school, and twice for the same back incident (herniated disk). The truth is that I would have a lot more money if I wasn't buying insurance. But I do.

 

[saturneptune]

Jesus did not address every situation a person could face. When it comes to health care, I trust the government more than I do the baptist churches I have been a member of by far!

Lets see, you are a member of a Baptist church that you do not trust. To be a member implies giving tithe, time and talents. So you are investing all these resources in an institution that you do not trust. Yep, makes about as much sense as your explaination of history, government, and the Constitution.

Now, on the second point, I just wanted to be sure I understand. You trust the federal government which is run by self-indulgent, power hungry, thugs that steal from the American people more than a local Baptist New Testement church, which is headed by the Lord. Well, at least you are consistant. A lack of understanding and common sense unify both ideas.

Heres your sign.

 

[NiteShift]

I have a friend on disability. He improved somewhat and did some volunteer work for the Salvation Army. He was unpaid but the government deducted the amount of money he might have been paid from his disability. I realize this sounds incredible but I know it to be true. Now he tells me he simply cannot afford to live.

Well someone is fudging here.

Here is what the SSA says about working while disabled -

"Trial work period—The trial work period allows you to test your ability to work for at least nine months. During your trial work period, you will receive your full Social Security benefits regardless of how much you are earning...

"After your trial work period, you have 36 months during which you can work and still receive benefits for any month your earnings are not 'substantial.' In 2009, earnings of $980 or more ($1,640 if you are blind) are considered substantial." - SOURCE

So as long as your friend was earning, or theoretically earning, no more than $980 a month he should be in no danger of losing benefits.

 

[alatide]

Well someone is fudging here.

Here is what the SSA says about working while disabled -

"Trial work period—The trial work period allows you to test your ability to work for at least nine months. During your trial work period, you will receive your full Social Security benefits regardless of how much you are earning...

"After your trial work period, you have 36 months during which you can work and still receive benefits for any month your earnings are not 'substantial.' In 2009, earnings of $980 or more ($1,640 if you are blind) are considered substantial." - SOURCE

So as long as your friend was earning, or theoretically earning, no more than $980 a month he should be in no danger of losing benefits.

Sounds right but that wasn't what happened. His payments were reduced by the amount of money he "could have earned" if his voluntary work with the Salvation Army had been a paid position. If this has happened to you or a close friend you know as much as I do about this. otherwise you're wrong.

 

[OldRegular]

Sounds right but that wasn't what happened. His payments were reduced by the amount of money he "could have earned" if his voluntary work with the Salvation Army had been a paid position. If this has happened to you or a close friend you know as much as I do about this. otherwise you're wrong.

Strange! And you are a socialist. Doesn't say much for your power of reason!

 

[FlyForFun]

Sounds right but that wasn't what happened. His payments were reduced by the amount of money he "could have earned" if his voluntary work with the Salvation Army had been a paid position. If this has happened to you or a close friend you know as much as I do about this. otherwise you're wrong.

Well, wait a second...

If a person is so destitute he/she requires public assistance BUT then "donates" his/her "free time" to any volunteer service...he/she is therefore well enough to earn money through paid work.

That's how the system works, this side of heaven.

 

[alatide]

Strange! And you are a socialist. Doesn't say much for your power of reason!

I'm no more a socialist than you are an atheist.

 

[Spear]

Hi

Being french, i'm sure you can imagine how scaring the " american " system can be FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, we never really understood how it works (which doesn't help to be honest), and after i saw Michael Moore's Sicko movie, we were totally down imagining people over there.

These words were not a flame or a critic, but a way, as nobody knows me here, to know where i'm starting from, in my opinion.

Some time ago, i read an article from the International Herald Tribune, and the journalist was explaining how amazing the french system was, once he was being cured for cancer, and the fact it didn't cost him anything.

Here, everybody pays charges for the " health system ". Our grands live longer and cost more in health, technology improves but is expensive (scanner, irms, new treatments ....), and so on ...
To be honest, yes, it is expensive. I'm in good health, and the money withdrawn from what i'm paid for goes for the other, and yes it has a cost for me.
But, maybe, one day i'll need the other to care about my own health, because i'll need it, and that's just the way i'm thinking about that, and agree with that form of solidarity. If tomorrow the government says " we need to improve around 10 % the taxes to keep the health system ", then i'll say " do it, but keep it ".

About the american US system, two things really shocked me reading it, and i need you to say " yes it's possible " or " no, it's wrong ". I'm not judging american about their system, people vote and elect those who do, or have the power to change things.

- Is it possible to be ... let's say from the mid class ... become very sick (let's say cancer). And have to sell your house to pay the treatment ? Is there a limit where your insurance says " it costs too much, we're at the limit, we won't pay more for your treatment " ?

- Once i saw the Sicko movie, i wondered, seeing the guy who had 2 fingers cut, if it was true that the hospital gave him the price for getting both of his fingers back (tens of thousands of your us dollars for each finger), and that the guy had to choose, considering how much he had on his account, what finger he would get back from surgery (and finally lost one) ?

 

[Revmitchell]

Hi

Being french, i'm sure you can imagine how scaring the " american " system can be FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, we never really understood how it works (which doesn't help to be honest), and after i saw Michael Moore's Sicko movie, we were totally down imagining people over there.

These words were not a flame or a critic, but a way, as nobody knows me here, to know where i'm starting from, in my opinion.

Some time ago, i read an article from the International Herald Tribune, and the journalist was explaining how amazing the french system was, once he was being cured for cancer, and the fact it didn't cost him anything.

Here, everybody pays charges for the " health system ". Our grands live longer and cost more in health, technology improves but is expensive (scanner, irms, new treatments ....), and so on ...
To be honest, yes, it is expensive. I'm in good health, and the money withdrawn from what i'm paid for goes for the other, and yes it has a cost for me.
But, maybe, one day i'll need the other to care about my own health, because i'll need it, and that's just the way i'm thinking about that, and agree with that form of solidarity. If tomorrow the government says " we need to improve around 10 % the taxes to keep the health system ", then i'll say " do it, but keep it ".

About the american US system, two things really shocked me reading it, and i need you to say " yes it's possible " or " no, it's wrong ". I'm not judging american about their system, people vote and elect those who do, or have the power to change things.

- Is it possible to be ... let's say from the mid class ... become very sick (let's say cancer). And have to sell your house to pay the treatment ? Is there a limit where your insurance says " it costs too much, we're at the limit, we won't pay more for your treatment " ?

- Once i saw the Sicko movie, i wondered, seeing the guy who had 2 fingers cut, if it was true that the hospital gave him the price for getting both of his fingers back (tens of thousands of your us dollars for each finger), and that the guy had to choose, considering how much he had on his account, what finger he would get back from surgery (and finally lost one) ?

Take everything you saw in sicko and throw it out. Micheal Moore has been discredited and he is a socialist liar.