Obamacare Passes!!!

Icarus27k

Council Member
Apr 4, 2010
1,508
7
38
Of course, the full quote from that 2009 interview with Dr. Berwick, Obama's nominee for Director of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, is as follows:

"Q: Critics of CER have said that it will lead to the rationing of healthcare.

"A: We can make a sensible social decision and say, 'Well, at this point, to have access to a particular additional benefit [new drug or medical intervention] is so expensive that our taxpayers have better use for those funds.' We make those decisions all the time. The decision is not whether or not we will ration care -- the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. And right now, we are doing it blindly."






Berwick was saying that rationing is currently happening now in the US health care system, and that it isn't a matter of whether rationing will occur but whether we'll do it with our eyes open or whether we'll do it blindly. Right now, the US health system rations blindly.




Taking a quote out of such context, and offering a description of an interview that isn't supported by the interview itself, is perfectly keeping with the comically weak opposition to the US health care reform that's been taking place for over a year though.

Now, let's provide an example of the praise that Berwick receives and use this example to show people why he will make a great director of CMS.


Dr. Cecil B. Wilson, member of the American Medical Association's board of trustees:

"One of our efforts is our partnership with the Institute for Health Care Improvement (IHI) headed by Dr. Donald Berwick.

"The IHI has promoted the idea that six interventions, done routinely and completely in the hospital setting, could save as many as 100,000 lives in a single year. These interventions include:

"• Deploy Rapid Response Team at the first sign of patient decline;

"• Deliver Reliable, Evidence-Based Care for Acute Myocardial Infarction to prevent deaths from heart attack;

"• Prevent Adverse Drug Events by implementing medication reconciliation;

"• Prevent Surgical Site Infection by reliably delivering the correct preoperative care;

" • And Prevent Central Line Infections and Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia by implementing a series of interdependent, science-based steps for each. Some or all of these interventions have been adopted by 3000 hospitals across the United States."



Nancy Nielsen, former president of the AMA:

Berwick has the " ability to inspire doctors and hospital administrators to work together." "Don is so widely respected because he has worked in such a collaborative way."

AARP executive vice president for policy John Rother:

Berwick's "appointment is welcome news to Medicare beneficiaries, as it signals that quality and safety will be at the top of the agenda."


Chief executive officer of the American Hospital Association Rich Umbdenstock:

Berwick has "engage[d] hospitals, doctors, nurses and other health-care providers in the continuous quest to provide better, safer care."

Kaiser Health News biography of Berwick:

Berwck "for two decades has been both a bit of a nag and an inspirational leader encouraging front-line health workers and health care leaders to make changes to reduce hospital deaths and complications as well as making health systems more efficient. ... Berwick, 63, has been a big promoter of efforts to reduce hospital infections, revamp the Medicare payment system to produce better patient outcomes and make public information on hospitals and doctor performance."
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Sure a government entitlement can suddenly cost a lot more than what was originally sold to the public (anything's possible), but this current topic of discretionary spending in the health care reform law isn't an example of that. This discretionary spending has always been a part of HCR, and the way HCR was sold to the public.

If you're going to make the case that HCR is suddenly more expensive than what was planned, you're going to have to actually provide evidence of that.

Once this thing gets rolling evidence will be in abundance. Just like any government program or project.

"It will only cost us $500 million and costs will not go up."

SUUUUUUUURE.


Who knows? If Congress in the future does use this discretionary spending, it may offset it completely by cutting spending somewhere else.

Like I said... it is a good thing that liberal Democrats have you on their side. The government simply does not know how to run programs. There are always cost overruns and often corruption. Discretionary spending will be spent and not always on health care. It will be used as pork to obtain votes for this or that.

Just like the bailouts. They all were critical to the saving of the country, to save us from the 2nd Great Depression. However they were all loaded with pork and pet projects.

Somehow you think this will be different? Time for you to wake up son.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
Once this thing gets rolling evidence will be in abundance. Just like any government program or project.

"It will only cost us $500 million and costs will not go up."

SUUUUUUUURE.





Like I said... it is a good thing that liberal Democrats have you on their side. The government simply does not know how to run programs. There are always cost overruns and often corruption. Discretionary spending will be spent and not always on health care. It will be used as pork to obtain votes for this or that.

Just like the bailouts. They all were critical to the saving of the country, to save us from the 2nd Great Depression. However they were all loaded with pork and pet projects.

Somehow you think this will be different? Time for you to wake up son.


Rule of thumb- Virtually everything that is Gov't run is wasteful and inefficient. :lol::lol:
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
Sure a government entitlement can suddenly cost a lot more than what was originally sold to the public (anything's possible), but this current topic of discretionary spending in the health care reform law isn't an example of that. This discretionary spending has always been a part of HCR, and the way HCR was sold to the public.

If you're going to make the case that HCR is suddenly more expensive than what was planned, you're going to have to actually provide evidence of that.

Besides, even if this discretionary spending is used in the future (and that's a big if), it'll be the cost of an entirely new law. It'll be no more an extra hidden cost of the 2010 health care law than, say, a spending bill for the Afghan War is an extra hidden cost for the 2010 health care law.

Who knows? If Congress in the future does use this discretionary spending, it may offset it completely by cutting spending somewhere else.
Prove what you said by using past history of goverment spending. Do they even know the meaning of discretionary spending?
 

Icarus27k

Council Member
Apr 4, 2010
1,508
7
38
Once this thing gets rolling evidence will be in abundance. Just like any government program or project.

"It will only cost us $500 million and costs will not go up."

SUUUUUUUURE.




Like I said... it is a good thing that liberal Democrats have you on their side. The government simply does not know how to run programs. There are always cost overruns and often corruption. Discretionary spending will be spent and not always on health care. It will be used as pork to obtain votes for this or that.

Just like the bailouts. They all were critical to the saving of the country, to save us from the 2nd Great Depression. However they were all loaded with pork and pet projects.

Somehow you think this will be different? Time for you to wake up son.

When all of that happens, it'll be fact and not your unsupported opinion.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
When all of that happens, it'll be fact and not your unsupported opinion.

So basically your unsupported opinion and prediction is fact? :lol:

Since when has the government been responsible with our money? If there is any surplus or savings it is kept tucked away or used for pork.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
Just put us on the iceberg and float us out in the cold oily sea.

Let the old die!
Senate candidate Maurice Ferre advocates capping Medicare spending on end-of-life care for elderly


WEST PALM BEACH — Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Maurice Ferre says the U.S. spends an "absurd" amount on end-of-life care and should gradually move to a universal health system in which the government controls costs by setting prices for medical procedures and capping expenditures based on age and medical condition.

Senate candidate Maurice Ferre advocates capping Medicare spending on end-of-life care for elderly
 

Highball

Council Member
Jan 28, 2010
1,170
1
38
The Health Care law as written will be reviewed by the US Supreme Court some time this year. Until that review is completed it will be anyone's guess what will change. But, in my mind the Mandatory Insurance part of the law may be amended considerably. Only time and this review will tell us what is going to happen.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
The Health Care law as written will be reviewed by the US Supreme Court some time this year. Until that review is completed it will be anyone's guess what will change. But, in my mind the Mandatory Insurance part of the law may be amended considerably. Only time and this review will tell us what is going to happen.

If the Mandatory Insurance Law is amended... Obamacare is finished.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
66
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
''Healthcare Bill Could Cost Billions More Than Expected''


Surprise!
The thread makes a comeback.

Well, the cost does not include 45,000 dead Americans who die every year from lack of health care insurance. But then, the cost of human lives is of no consequence to certain people of the far right.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
''Healthcare Bill Could Cost Billions More Than Expected''


Surprise! The thread makes a comeback.

Well, the cost does not include 45,000 dead Americans who die every year from lack of health care insurance. But then, the cost of human lives is of no consequence to certain people of the far right.

How so? Does the hospital refuse to treat them?

Meh... don't bother answering. It's a ficticious number made up by liberals.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
''ficticious number made up by liberals''

Horsebleep. Johns Hopkins University is the most conservative school in the Northeast.

And the hospitals refused to treat them?

Ficticious. Same as the millions of poor Americans go hungry each night. Then you see on the news Firefighters taking the doorframes and walls off an apartment off so they can get another fat welfare mom to the hospital.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
66
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
'' the hospitals refused to treat them?''

Go ahead and ask the researchers at the school. I'm sure they can give you THOUSANDS of examples to prove their point.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
'' the hospitals refused to treat them?''

Go ahead and ask the researchers at the school. I'm sure they can give you THOUSANDS of examples to prove their point.

I did. They couldn't.

Sorry that you might not be able to make the uninsured people buy something they don't want.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
''ficticious number made up by liberals''

Horsebleep. Johns Hopkins University is the most conservative school in the Northeast.

Oh by the way... it was a study done by Harvard... the most liberal school in the US.

In other words... fail.

I'd like to see some proof of that assertion.

On their Death Certificates where they put "Cause of Death", did it say "Lack of Health Care Insurance"?

Can I say "PWNED" now or would you like to flounder a bit?