VERY DISTURBING! I am serious! Obama and healthcare! SCARY!

I was combing over the interview with the Reno Gazette trying to find out what Obama actually said with reguard to Reagan. Not only did I find out what a positive praises he gave the Republicans with having all the "good ideas" (check it out your self) But he also said and I quote “There is going to be responsibilities for citizens, that we got to make some difficult choices in terms of end of life care, and you know , you know, the the 20 % for the patients with 80% of the cost., you know. We got to figure out how we manage the chronically ill more effectively."


What the hell does that mean. As a long term care worker, just what the hell does that mean???????
I am serious. Does he plan on just killing them off. Asissted suidcide???? "manage the chronically ill more effectivelly"
What does that mean??????? I am very upset and appalled! What does this mean??????????????

About 14:00 into the interview he talks about this.
About 20:00 into the interview he talks about the Repubicans.

OMGOSH....this guy is??????

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/VIDEO/80115026

so that they'll die a little more quickly.

I've been "managed" by denial of insurance for 20 years. No thanks, Mr. Obama. You're not ready for prime time.

What does he mean "DIFFICULT CHOICES"? That sounds like alittle more than a decrease of services!

Doctors or health insurance companies?

cheney care?

That's why!

Why am I homeless?

Because "progressive" Dems have't made low-income housing a priority!

Why am I shunned by the party?

Because "liberals" think I'm not someone who should be heard, that's why!

link and check out what Obama has to say about managing care for the chronically ill. Finding out the truth is more tedious than making up scary stories, but that's life.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

Support disease management programs. Seventy five percent of total health care dollars are spent on patients with one or more chronic conditions, such as diabetes, heart disease and high blood pressure. Obama will require that providers that participate in the new public plan, Medicare or the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) utilize proven disease management programs. This will improve quality of care, give doctors better information and lower costs.

Coordinate and integrate care. Over 133 million Americans have at least one chronic disease and these chronic conditions cost a staggering $1.7 trillion yearly. Obama will support implementation of programs and encourage team care that will improve coordination and integration of care of those with chronic conditions.

Imagine that? ;)

The first part has more to do with prevention and disease management programs. It doesn't guarantee any particular care or treatment for a chronic or serious health problem. I would also be suspicious of any government program he proposes that tells doctors how to manage disease.

As always, with Obama's health care policies, they look good on the surface, but essential details are always lacking. Obama or whoever is writing these policies for him are very "artful" in how they word things, usually by making nice sounding half-promises, but giving no details.

"Coordinate and integrate care. Over 133 million Americans have at least one chronic disease and these chronic conditions cost a staggering $1.7 trillion yearly. Obama will support implementation of programs and encourage team care that will improve coordination and integration of care of those with chronic conditions."

It certainly is short on explanation of his true meaning and opens the door to any interpretation you want. It's gobblity-gook non explanation.

chronic illness, you know exactly what Obama is talking about.

Example 1: My son has severe chronic asthma. He can rely on an emergency inhaler and get admitted to the ER several times a year OR he can properly manage his disease with a daily medication that blocks leukotrienes and inhaled steroid/ long acting bronchiodilator as needed. It's a lot cheaper for everyone and healthier for him to manage his disease properly.

Example 2: My elderly mother has high blood pressure, COPD. diabetes, osteoporosis and arthritis. She's been sent by her doctor to many different specialists to treat these problems as individual diseases. Wouldn't you think it'd ber a good idea to have someone coordinating her care and making sure that the prescription for one ailment isn't aggravating another ailment?


I have to ask if you have a serious concern or are merely scraping the barrel trying to come up with something to criticize Obama on?

Basically about his statement, “There is going to be responsibilities for citizens, that we got to make some difficult choices in terms of end of life care, and you know , you know, the the 20 % for the patients with 80% of the cost

Tough choices scenerio: Say my mother breaks her hip, she is then admitted to ER, stablized and sent to a LTC for recovery. There she would be evauated and under medicare the facility would have 20 days to send in a report. Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Dietary, Nursing, and even activities will submit their reports and what they expect here recovery to be. That is how it is today. Say she develops a wound infection in recovery. She now goes to the wound clinic. Her wound won't heal properly, r/t poor dietary intake r/t to a reaction to anesthesia during orginal surgery for replacement.
While she is in recover, they diagnose her with CA, she has about 4 years to live. Do we let her die because it cost too much? Or do we let her live out the 4 years, give or take a few years? Who makes that decision? The cost of total recovery?

He has effectively chosen some diseases, which is pretty clear this is preventive care to lower the risks of stroke, heartattacks, basically the effects of disease left uncheck that can compound into a more serious condition.



This does not answer the statement he made about having difficult choices to make reguarding end of life care. Does Obama decide when to give up? What is chronic?

As far as



Anyone in healthcare knows the healthcare provided already works in a team effort Physical Therapy, Dietary, Occupational Therapy, Nursing, Activities all work in a coordinated effort. The above plan simple states he will improve on that plan.

Again, this does not answer the question about his statement "difficult choices" and what is meant by that!

to help educate a person about their disease (ie diabetes, asthma) and support them in making better choices. I work for a company that does this kind of work and it not only cuts patient costs, more importantly, it improves quality of life for the people who opt to participate in the programs.

That said, I don't like either Obama's or Clinton's health insurance plans. I don't think either one of them really what the current system does to people. Any plan that is going to continue to line the pockets of insurance executives is not a good plan. At least Edwards would bring in Medicare to compete with the private outfits which leads me to believe he kind of gets it.

I wonder if the 3 of them have seen "Sicko"?

I believe.

No wonder Obama likes Ronald Reagan.

Thats what Reagan did to the mentally ill in California.

actual plans.

I loved his Dem convention speech in 2004.

But how will he govern?

I remember all too well how everyone in my English Department in Montgomery County, MD, thought Bush was going to be respectful to both parties and take the best ideas from both. We all know how that turned out.

It's not like he is hiding his plans, or refusing to talk about them. Go to his site or to daily kos and look for detailed policy papers.

I read it very carefully.

I have a mother who is chronically ill with severe dementia and psychotic delusions. My dad wants to take care of her himself but is finding it increasingly difficult to handle her. There doesn't appear to be many options. It is very frustrating!

have to do with politics and universal health care?

she has severe Alzheimer's and knows very little of what's going on, which of course is thankful. If she knew she WOULD be horrified by all the things we need to do to care for her. She can no longer wear her teeth and we need to fix her food to feed her. She can't have new teeth made because she can't communicate, but does that mean we're supposed to drop something in her drink???

Hey, it's SUPER frustrating AND confining for us at times, but since she has NO money, and we promised his father we WOULDN'T put her in a Nursing Home, it's up to us. It WOULD be nice if we could afford to have some financial help, but we have an IRA which DISQUALIFIES us for even getting help on our tax return. She still owns a place which her Living Will says CAN NOT be sold until she passes, she's now 95. She takes no meds and has no real illness besides Alzheimer's!

She does have Tricare because her husband was in the military, but Medicare comes in BEFORE Tricare. Anyway, I don't know WHAT he meant by what he said, but it sure sounded off the wall to me, and a bit sinister too!

What's your reaction when Homeland Security bumps up the terror status -- panic?

The silly season is in full swing.

Since you are a supporter of his, tell me what he meant by saying we will have to make some difficult choices, we will have to manage the chronically ill more effectively? What does he mean???? Tell Me?

Every time the terror status gets bumped I immediately start looting. It is a great way to get into shape and my DVD collection is getting pretty nice.

Yes the silly season is in full swing. Peace, Kim

oooga booga... Scary stuff indeed.... :scared:

know is that the kind of cuts we have seen under *ss and co. will not be continued.

You must have found it disturbing as well as you did not respond to it.

“There is going to be responsibilities for citizens, that we got to make some difficult choices in terms of end of life care, and you know , you know, the the 20 % for the patients with 80% of the cost

The care for others could be downgraded or absent as well.

Thorough analyses: Barack Obama and Health Care

Obama on single payer health care counters Hillary's attempt to distort

:scared:

end of life care is the biggest factor in why hospital care is so expensive. Anyone who is a nurse or a doctor and deals with patients who are being treated for ailments they'll never recover from can tell you the same thing.

He couldn't possibly mean streamlining costs, limiting spending on unnecessary procedures, or providing incentives for cheaper-but-effective alternatives. No, he means he wants to kill them, quite possibly with his own hands.

Really eases concerns.

to a hysterical post that seems to assume what simply is not the case

I was shocked. I am still extremely concerned.

he is terribly short on SPECIFICS

Just wonderin

not impressed

limiting procedures I want my doctor to determine what is best for me and my daughter - not my politician or my insurance company.

that they believe will have no substantive effect on the patient. Patients constantly come in demanding certain treatments, and there's no incentive for doctors not to provide.

http://www.sciam.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=43419DFD-C644-2DEB-B5C22CEC06D5A5BC

Patients, who are insured, do not worry about cost, and tend to want unnecessary pills or procedures.
Doctors, fearing malpractice, practice defensive medicine, with little regard to cost.
Doctors and patients both prefer expensive brand-name drugs to generics, simply because of advertising.
Insurance companies worry about cost unethically; they oppose all costs, valid or not.
Suppliers (pharma, equip. manufacturers) encourage all costs, as that is their entire purpose.
Hospitals, seeing financial benefit, encourage most costs.

Even if we move towards single-payer, our health-care system is set up to encourage all spending on one side, and to discourage all spending on the other. Like it or not, there are many, many more factors at play than just your doctor's compassion for your daughter.

of 47. She did that by having good doctors who not only listened to the family but also were not afraid to go against the established idea that "those kind of people always have those kind of problems". Yes doctors are not perfect but let me tell you they are a hell of a lot better than some insurance employee who does not even know the patient. That is who is managing my daughters care now a days.

"doctors vs. insurance employees." Together they are only two points in a five-point system, also including suppliers, hospitals, and patients. Each two points share some goals, and each two points at times act with mutual distrust.

anyone?

but you said it more eloquently than I ever could :thumbsup:

They are lucky to have enough money to have somebody for about 8 to 10 hours a day, but it is incredibly expensive, and even there, what would happen if he was going to fall going to the bathroom in the middle of the night. How would she help him, or vice-versa when he cannot place a phone call.

Sorry, but these are real issues that we live with everyday. Yes, these have to be managed, and there needs to be choices to make. At this point, these choices do not exist for most people.

upon admission to most hospitals they ask if you have a living will. A living will is a form you fill out with many detailed questions about what you want if you were unable to speak for yourself. You sign it in front of a notary public. Give it to your local hospital or doctor. Yes we do have this choice today!

saying? I agree on what you've posted so far, but what does The Living Will have to do with it? And I'm not attacking or being rude, I just don't understand. We've been through "the system" a lot and The Living Will is just something they ask us about, in case she passes away.

Thank you.

about it is vague. I don't believe he thinks about those things but takes advice from the people he has surrounded himself with and they are not the most liberal in our tent. It scares me that he admits how disorganized he is and has to rely on his people to keep him straight.

What part of vague don't you get? He doesn't have a health plan, just something he might to here and there. Neither does Hillary IMHO.

here (lots of links there too).

now that is the health plan the candidates should be backing. It's H. R. 676. It's specific and not vague. Yet none of the candidates seem to be aware of it and aren't they part of the Washington beltway?

I have lost all respect for him and his opinions, endorsements, etc.

I recall not too long ago in a televised debate saying he would "bring down the cost of premiums" (which would be impossible in itself absent a new law regulating what insurers can charge, and even then such a law would be challenged as unconstitutional as an impairment of the obligations of contracts) and then went into some totally vague blather about healthcare in general, never once telling us exactly what he planned to do about anything.

NOW.

I do not see how it is difficult to understand.

a new medicine or continue to use an old one even. Every time we ask for equipment for her. New meds are questioned because they are experimental. Old ones are questioned because they are not generic even though we did try the generic ones which did not work to control her seizures. We were denied a new arm rest for her wheel chair because she did not have a wheelchair? She has an old (1990) one that we have updated to keep it usable but they did not have it in their records anymore. (I appealed and told them either the $22.00 arm rest of a NEW customized wheelchair. We finally got the arm rest.) Most of this managing is being done by the insurance companies that run our health care system today. Health insurance is part of all our candidates programs and what I want is my doctor back in control of our treatment. That is the only manager I want.

Did you hear what he said, “There is going to be responsibilities for citizens, that we got to make some difficult choices in terms of end of life care, and you know , you know, the the 20 % for the patients with 80% of the cost., you know. We got to figure out how we manage the chronically ill more effectively.”

Your kids? Please explain what he means and what you mean? Did I miss something?

he means the elderly who sit in hospital beds for months at a time waiting to die because their kids don't want to see them die at home. That sucks up a huge cost to the hospitals that gets passed on to other people who come in for treatment.

It is about offering choices, I hope. Because for many families, hospital is the only choice.

but my mom is a CCU nurse, and I've asked her what her thoughts on the whole healthcare situation are, and she said you'd save enough money to do whatever you wanted to do to improve healthcare if you fixed the end-of-life care mess. And she would know, she's been dealing with end-of-life patients for 35 years.

YOU CAN COME TO.

He really wants to kill off all baby boomers, he sees them as his obstacle to the White House.

You know the old folks who must get over themselves.

:rofl:

:rofl:

Easy to be flippant... till it's YOUR father or mother.

Is it because they want to make Obama look bad or whether they are really afraid. In both cases, it is a problem. I do not see anything asked that I have not asked myself in the last 2 years. Those are reasonable questions. You could hope that he had brought some elements of answer in this interview, but it is only an interview, and time is limited. But nothing there justify the hysteria in this thread.

and it's my mother, who's been the person caring for these people her entire career, which has spanned 35 years.

My mother knows more about this issue than anyone on this board, and she's echoed Obama's comments long before he ever said them.

You cost to much your time is up?

He has no track record to point to.

more of what is already happening. If you have had an elderly relative diagnosed with cancer lately, you know. You have to fight tooth and nail for treatment. There's a lot of "we don't really advise" this or that treatment "at this age". Once my father was diagnosed as inoperable, he had trouble even getting pain meds. And he was only 62.

Healthcare is the #1 reason I'm for Edwards.

*sigh*

Kidding...

What Obama and others have talked about is more hospice care for the elderly that otherwise rack up huge bills laying in hospital beds.

That's it in a nutshell.

biofuel, maybe

:rofl:

:yoiks:

Its the same idea as a do not recessitate order for the terminally ill.

Not the health insurance provider.

....slow down...center yourself and try to think rationally.

You sound like you're on crack.

First off, let's look at Obama's quote about the Republican ideas:

"I think it’s fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom."

Obama is not saying that he agrees with the Republican ideas of the last 10, 15 years. He's
saying that they had ideas.

It is HISTORICAL FACT that Reagan galvanized Republicans and some Democrats--based on their "ideas".

What is so wrong with this statement? I don't get it. Obama is not saying that he agrees with
supply-side economics or any Reagan policy. He's saying that the coalesced around common ground
or common "ideas" and that's how they took the White House and stayed in power.

Please. People. Calm down and think.

Again, Obama's comments about healthcare...you are reading things into what he's saying. His quote, "We've got
to figure out how to manage the chronically ill more effectively".

As a long-term care provider, do you not think that statement is true? Costs are through the roof. Many poor
people don't seek care until they are terminally ill. Wouldn't it be better if healthcare was focused more on
preventative measures, instead of treating catastrophic illnesses, which are very costly?

I hear nothing about assisted suicide, or "killing them off" as you said. NOTHING. His own
mother died of cancer. Do you actually think that he is insensitive toward the needs of people who
are dying and that he wants to "kill them off"? No doubt, he's seen the healthcare system up
close and personal. He had to personally fight the insurance company to get his mother adequate care.

It's obvious that our healthcare and insurance industries need reform. We DO need to "manage
the chronically ill more effectively .

Geez. Have people totally taken leave of their good sense and reasoning abilities?

http://www.yellow-springs.k12.oh.us/ys-mls/_borders/Kindergarten%20at%20Senior%20Citizen's%20Day1%2012-03.jpg







These are the people I TAKE CARE OF!

I am extremely concerned with his statement. Not only for our senior citizens, but the chronically ill children, middle aged? What the hell does he mean...."DIFFICULT CHOICES" What does that mean?

to just about anything.

If you had listened you would be concerned at least. You are blowing it off. As a healthcare provider for elderly, I am concerned about his statement. What is meant by "DIFFICULT CHOICES?" This is a legitimate question. Please, I am serious. I am an Edwards supporter, but I thought about a 2nd choice. With this statement.....I mean that is what I do, I take care of these people and I love them! I don't have kids and taking care of these guys is my life!

But doctors (and families and patients) have to do a better job at realizing that sometimes the benefits do not warrant the costs (and risks) of the treatment. There are limited resources and limited treatments. It sucks, but it's true.

That is what will be the choices for the people you pictured, unless they can be private pay which is no difference in care. We all know medicare and it's 30 days and out...managed care would allow people to go from a medicare bed to a medicaid bed with no paperwork fiasco. Have you ever filled out the medicaid forms? I did when my mom ran out of money the last year. It's a nightmare, what did you spend this on, where did that money go, and you had better have the proof. Nobody should have to go through that when their parent is in need right now. Some bitch looking down her nose at your parent who paid their way throughout life, until that moment. It has got to stop.

I take care of the developmentally disabled, so I can see your fears as we all get very attached to those we care for. But in this case I think they are groundless. The system needs fixed, the elderly and disabled need to be thought of as people, not a national burden. Rather than less choices I would look for more, and with dignity.

...them to do. And not based on what they *might* do and what we might otherwise have to face (i.e. death).

Right now in hospitals, doctors often throw the kitchen sink at patients because *you never know* and *just in case*. A lot of it has to do with fear of possible litigation brought on by (often unwarranted) claims of having "missed something". This approach DOES NOT benefit the patients themselves. It exposes patients to unwarranted risks, for one. Not every ache and pain requires a MRI, even if the patient's insurance will cover it.

Obama is saying that doctors need to be smarter about the decisions they make. No more throwing the kitchen sink at patients just to rake in insurance dollars and, possibly, avoid unfounded litigation.

He left the door wide ass open to go as far as euthanasia.

So that you can get a better idea of a candidate's position and less is left to interpretation.

The Neanderthals actually think its your fault for getting sick and a cancer diagnosis is a death sentence so why pay money to treat it.

Seriously, its true.

On a patient when medical experience and literature tells you that the treatments will not work? When the treatments diminish the quality of life the person has left?

When those hundreds of thousands of dollars could provide healthcare for hundreds of poor children?

How much of your paycheck are you willing to turn over so that there are unlimited resources in healthcare....50%, 75%, 90%?

Well, the medical and research community, the FDA, and millions of survivors like myself and Lance Armstrong will tell you that's wrong. As information, most Phase I, II and III cancer clinical trials begin with patients who are living with metastatic cancer. Its a high benchmark for clinical research that forces researchers to show a benefit in treatment for the sickest people in order to progress to the next level and eventually get FDA approval. Many therapies don't make the cut if they don't show benefit to patients.

Denying treatment to sick people like cancer patients would pretty much put an end to most cancer research and would certainly deny many the opportunity to live. Where do you get the idea people are getting treatments that don't work? Maybe you need to find a new doctor.

Unbiased, professional groups like the Institute of Medicine and others do a good job now of helping doctors make the hard choices about how much care to provide. They don't need any help from Obama or the insurance companies and they certainly don't need someone to tell them how to "ration" health care.

We're also currently spending $10 BILLION per month on a needless war in Iraq. If we can fund Bush's wars, we can afford to give cancer patients all the care they need when they need it.

Your comments are a perfect example of the irrational and primitive fears and prejudices people have about cancer. Let's hope someone with such a draconian view of treatment isn't in charge of deciding whether you get care when you're diagnosed.

Its my paycheck, my taxes and I'm mad as hell that they're being wasted on Iraq. I choose health care for all and right now I'm deciding on who we should hire to get that done. It doesn't look as though Obama is up to snuff. Sorry.

Don't lecture me about cancer and what treatments do and do not work. I've been to medical school. And yeah, sometimes there's nothing more you can do for a patient. You're not doing them any favors by not telling them that and helping them accept it.

That's my point. Should those decisions be made between doctor and patient or be controlled by some board or insurance company?

Thank you for sharing!

Obama health care plan life clock.


Citizens in Obama's health care plan attending carousel.

:wow:

"difficult choices" says it all to me, maybe you can clarify what this means!

Sorry, can't get there from here.

to this: Barack Obama and Health Care

Should you be more concerned that Obama has actually thought about this or that the other candidates haven't?

(Even though I'm sure they have, but just figure the truth might not be very popular)

Unless you're willing to dedicate 90% of your paycheck to health-care, you're going to have to accept that resources will be limited, irregardless of who is in the White House.

Your feelings on Obama's quote is right on target and he needs to clarify what it means. It also could be that Obama misspoke yet again but he's starting to sound more and more like a closeted repuke. My wife who has a weird sense of humor read your last part of the quote "We got to figure out how to manage the chronically ill more effectively" and she said, "sounds like soylent green to me".

We do have to figure out a way to treat people with chronic illnesses more effectively. Somehow you've morphed this into "Obama plans to euthanize sick people." Get a grip. If you "don't know what it means," research it instead of starting yet another Obama-bashing post.

I have e mailed all three Dems reporting the statement and asking what he meant. This is serious. This is what he said in full
“There is going to be responsibilities for citizens, that we got to make some difficult choices in terms of end of life care, and you know , you know, the the 20 % for the patients with 80% of the cost., you know. We got to figure out how we manage the chronically ill more effectively."

You took part of the quote. Did you listen to the interview? There needs clarification!

I am waiting for a reply. The woman who answered the phone was taken aback by his statement also....I will convey the answer when I recieve it.

Campaign staffers are trained to be empathetic and to come across as taking your concerns very seriously. She wouldn't say anything that could be construed as belittling or dismissive.

It was the long pause that said it all! It will get clarified, isn't that what you want too? I would be happy to be wrong...I am not afraid of that....What I am afraid of is that I am right!

I don't even need clarification, it's so patently outrageous on its face.

He doesn't like people who are older than him...he has knocked the Boomers in the past. And now he wants sick old people to die quicker???

I have never trusted him.

You know....some of you young ones out there just might get older some day as well...that is if you have some persistence.

I think Obama would like to see 'Soylent Green' become a reality!!! Great movie, btw.

he really comes across painful when listening to him in interviews and debates. His um ums, and repeats of the same phrase before moving on will make an electorate that is paying attention in August, look to the other candidate for comfortable and relaxed speaking - and John McCain does that pretty well. I really hope we don't get Obama now. I really have dropped him below Edwards, and even below Corporate-warsupporter Clinton. His comments praising the GOP in TONE with his "party of ideas", and Reagan, made the matters of the McClurkin/Caldwell smackdown to GLBT and friends too much to support him.

He can go sit at the table with the Repubs - they're irrelevant to the process if we push through hardcore Democrats in 08 and get a strong majority - America is ready for massive change, and I feel he only brings it in rhetoric prepared by a speech writer.

My second choice would now have to fall with Edwards, especially after this last debate.

HEALTHCARE is the issue I cannot get past. Combine this with his coziness with the "ex-gay" movement and the kissing up to republicans and Obama's been moved to the back of the line for me.

This statement by Obama seems to boil down to "how do we figure out how to let people die without costing the rest of us so much money". Color me liberal, I don't believe in putting the blame on the dying people instead of looking at why the whole system is charging them so much money for medical care in the first place.

policies based on one cherry-picked quote.

No one can deny that we have limited resources with regards to health-care. I would suggest that you read up on Clinton's and Edward's plans for addressing this fact.

They're pod people, I'm convinced.

It illustrates clearly to me what kind of a person you are, and your capabilities in general in regards to logic and debate.

I was looking for what he said about Reagan, which I also found disturbing, but not nearly as “There is going to be responsibilities for citizens, that we got to make some difficult choices in terms of end of life care, and you know , you know, the the 20 % for the patients with 80% of the cost., you know. We got to figure out how we manage the chronically ill more effectively.”

Especially the "difficult choices" part.

Maybe there is an explanation, I don't know. I will find out.

Those expensive treatments and diagnostic tests that probably won't work, decrease the patient's quality of life, but maybe, just maybe will do something....

We need to rethink those things if we're going cover everybody. He's not suggesting "pulling the plug" so to speak. The Supreme Court has ruled on that, the codes of medical ethics are in place, Obama has no control over that. The only thing he could affect is which procedures a government-funded healthcare plan will cover, as Medicare and Medicaid already do.

:crazy:

I guess.

The other day an Obama supporter posted a list of Obama's bills introduced in the Senate. A lot of them involved "emergency preparedness" for global pandemics and other disasters. It sounded like fascist quarantines, military control of the population, and other scary things to me.

Meanwhile, he doesn't even seem to know what "universal healthcare" is.

Treatments and diagnostics cost money. Running hospitals costs money. It doesn't matter if the government is paying for that or private companies. If you don't balance how much you are spending per result obtained, our healthcare system will go bankrupt regardless. Unless you're willing to turn 90% of your paycheck over to healthcare.

If you think that people in Canada get every treatment possible and quickly, you are deluding yourself.

I think you would be surprised about the cost.....I mean the PROFITS of the insurance and pharmaceutical corporations!

And that money needs to be turned around and translated into coverage for poor Americans.

But what you cannot deny is that this country can only spend so much money on healthcare before we start to overtax our residents. If you want to cover everybody, then we're all going to have to accept a little bit less in terms of care. Meaning that we're going to have to tighten up and be more diligent about how badly we need that MRI, etc.

You should look at the Canadian plan and see what the government covers for everybody, versus what's covered by optional supplemental insurance that most Canadians have via their jobs, etc.

than getting too much of it. The fact that Obama's plan spends more effort trying to give patients less care than it does on making sure the uninsured get it says a lot about him.

Prove where in his healthcare plan that he is focused on giving people less care. Provide a basis for what you're saying.

It is not there!
But he certainly states that in his interview. 20% of the population 80% of the cost. We will have to make some difficult choices when it comes to end of life care. Whos is determining end of life....Does a computer add up the cost and decide... You cost to much....there is nothing more we can do....CUT COST. WHERE IS KEVORKIAN?

Listen to what he says in Reno Gazette, at about 14 minutes into the interview: http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/VIDEO/80115026

You're under the impression that more care = better care. That's not necessarily true. You could run 10 different, costly blood tests to diagnose a disease -OR- you could interview the patient carefully and do a careful physical exam to hone in on that one test that actually NEEDS to be done.

As for end of life care specifically, when a patient is terminally ill and near death, you can throw every treatment at them to prolong their life just a *little* bit longer. Often times these treatments decrease the patient's quality of life. Or you can try to help prepare the patient for what's next and try to make them comfortable. Obviously you present all options to the patient and it's their decision, but almost always the patient wants their doctor's input. So doctors do influence these decisions. As a nation, we become fearful of death and doctors have become fearful of discussing death with their patients. This, IMO, is a disservice to the dying. But nobody is talking about pulling plugs. Please try to understand that.

I work with doctors every day, I am a nurse. When somebody is actually dying we check for a DNR and usually obtain an order for one, social services within the facility actually handles this and let us know to call the doctor. When that is obtained there are not loads of tests performed etc. Usually and care and comfort order are obtained from the doctor. That is what is currently being done. I do it everyday! Doctors do talk to the families and patients, at least the ones I work with, about death.

What you are saying is not true that heroic efforts are performed on the dying! Simply not true. What I am concerned about is Obamas statement. What does he mean we are going to have to make some tough choices about end of life treatment?
When is this decided, when it cost to much to for Chemo, or rehab from a stage 4 stroke?

I went to medical school did you not understand? Yes, I know about DNRs. I know about the decision making process. I have discussed them with patients.

If you're so concerned about that quote, despite dozens of people trying to explain it to you, perhaps you need to do more reading about Obama's positions regarding healthcare. It doesn't seem that anything we are saying it getting through to you.

You know, those "difficult choices" about old people who won't get out of the way.

....Just like the Eskimos did.

Thats progress??

As of yet the subject has been changed, I have been told to read his healthcare plan, which still does not explain what is meant by
“There is going to be responsibilities for citizens, that we got to make some difficult choices in terms of end of life care, and you know , you know, the the 20 % for the patients with 80% of the cost., you know. We got to figure out how we manage the chronically ill more effectively.”

What does that mean? Seems telling to me, but I have contacted his campaign, hope to hear back from them. I will keep pressing the issue until I get a full explanation for what he said.

by invoking the "80-20" rule in the context of health care expenses it sounds like he thinks that doctors should be able to ration medical treatment based on outcome probabilities.

Sometimes I wonder if Obama really understands the issues, because this quote of his sounds like he is repeating what he heard from someone in the insurance industry.

If you think for one moment that the candidate who says she endorses lobbying as a "voice of the people" will fly in the face of those HUGE industries to give you universal health care insurance, you are dead wrong.

We have a long, long struggle to get universal health care in this country, and it will be an uphill struggle for whoever is president. But, if you want to know who will get you closer, judge by their actions, not by their empty promises.

This has nothing to do with Hillary or Edwards. It does have to do with the statement made by Obama. Did you listen to the interview in the OP? About 14 minutes into it.

Edwards and Hillary supporters are teaming up against Obama? Just wondering, because that's how it's aligned from my view.

I am not teaming up with Hillary people or even my fellow Edwards supporter. I am serious, I truly am concerned about Obamas statement. It should be a concern for anyone in healthcare or anyone who has or has a family member with a chronic illness

Slay the weak and the old.


C'mon.

bottom-line outlook, not a human-needs outlook.

n/t

All I am asking for is clarification. See the OP. As a supporter can you tell me what he meant or can you call him, I still have not heard from his campaign yet.

I worked in several nursing homes through the years and I'll say resources are skimpy to take care of these folks already.
But hey, Obama doesn't like old folk anyway, they're all "past it."

That you are atributing to Obama? The one where he says that he "doesn't like old folk"?

The quote was to "manage the chronically ill more effectively" not more irrationally for God's sake! The Repub's in Florida are doing proving how NOT to treat our chronically ill on Medicaid! I salute Obama for taking issue on this matter!!!!!

:eyes:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

But don't get facts get in the way of assumptions, wild assertions, and faux outrage. I'm sure you're very concerned that a Democratic presidential candidate wants to kill people. Yes, real concerned. :puke: Frankly, I'm more concerned about you. It's OK to take a break now and then.

2 phone calls and 2 emails. I have yet to recieve a clarification. The woman I spoke to today at Obama Headquarters was much more understanding of my concerns than you. She also said she understands why I was asking for clarification. That is all I am asking for, nothing more, nothing less. I am sorry Obama said what he said. Maybe there is a reasonable explaination, I just want to know what it is. He left the door open for a euthanasia solution, not me!

and I'm sorry that you would think a Dem presidential candidate wants to kill people, and I'm very sorry that you posted this thread. And I'm disappointed. Nobody left the door open for euthanasia. I don't expect any candidate have to come out and condemn it, just like nobody has to condemn cannibalism. Sherlock you are not. You did NOT just uncover a secret plan of extermination and if you think you did, then I worry about you. I'm done. Have a good day.

cause if you weren't so smart then you wouldn't be here to inform us that Obama might be planing to kill off millions of people.