jump to last post 1-17 of 17 discussions (50 posts)

Oh Lovely, Palin Spouts Off on Health Care Bill

  1. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 7 years ago

    You know it's bad when even members of her own party tell her to "quit spreading lies." This is exactly the kind of misinformation that is causing people to knee-jerk react against the entire HC bill. And it's only one small part. And it's not even true AND is no longer being considered.
    And yet, how long will it take for people who look to Sarah Palin for political guidance accept what's real?

    See story at AP below.
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090813/ap_ … nd_of_life

  2. Treasured Pasts profile image85
    Treasured Pastsposted 7 years ago

    She is from the whale state after all.

    1. tksensei profile image60
      tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Meaning...?

  3. profile image0
    pgrundyposted 7 years ago

    The news tonight reprted a poll released today shows independent voters leaning two to one in favor of health care reform, and that many of them were on the fence until they saw the town hall ugliness of the past several days. In other words, it pushed them toward reform not away from it.

    That was encouraging.

    I think that shouting is reported so much people it distorts the numbers. Of course people have all sorts of concerns. I do too. But only a small group of people have fallen off the wingnut ledge. They're very noisy though.

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
      Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I'm not sure any of the proposed bills will help much, but I'm glad to see people rejecting the tactics of these thugs.

      1. profile image0
        pgrundyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I'm on that page. I'm not that crazy about the bill myself, but it's clear something has to be done so I'm glad at least there IS a bill...or several bills. They're trying. Sort of.

        It's depressing to see such ugliness over it. There's lots of real problems to address. All the shouting doesn't really help.

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
          Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          It seems to me that those on the left have more reason to be upset.  Every proposal I've heard discussed so far changes the status quo very little.  The same big companies will continue to make out like bandidts.

          1. profile image0
            pgrundyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Yeah, my worst fear is that there will be no public option at all, and I will be required to buy a policy from a private insurer whether I have the money or not. That IMO would just be a boon to the insurance companies. I don't think it would benefit me or most people like me.

    2. tksensei profile image60
      tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Lots of folks want to see reform. That doesn't mean they support THIS reform bill. (how many times do I have to repeat that?)

      Gallup poll:
      "More Americans disapprove (49%) than approve (43%) of Barack Obama’s handling of healthcare policy."

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
        Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        0

    3. tksensei profile image60
      tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this
  4. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 7 years ago

    Ron, are you calling Sarah Palin a thug?
    Are you some kind of RACIST?
    Better watch your mouth, sir. Or Obama will send the microbes to get YOU:-)! MM

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
      Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Noooooooooo..

      Not the microbes.  I'm having nightmares.

      I need a hug.

      1. profile image0
        pgrundyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Now there's a thought. Maybe a bunch of us could show up to these meetings and just start hugging everybody.

        Wow, that'd scare 'em! lol!

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
          Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          THAT is a great idea. You can personally hug the gun guy from New Hampshire.

          1. Davinagirl3 profile image60
            Davinagirl3posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I don't think anyone has ever hugged the "gun guy form New Hampshire".

  5. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 7 years ago

    Did you say you need a THUG or a HUG?
    (((Ron Montgomery)))
    No worries. I was just joshing.
    Those are highly trained microbes.
    They will only target white peole (sic) who also are anti-Obama.
    If you are a white peole (sic) who is pro-Obama you are immune.

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
      Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I'm undecided about Obama; will I end up sort of dead from the microbes?

  6. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 7 years ago

    People don't hug in New Hampshire. It's not allowed.
    Only two choices: Live free. Or die.
    And happiness is a warm gun. It does get pretty cold there, so a warm gun is as good as a warm body, ay-uh?

    1. tksensei profile image60
      tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      NH is a fine state, thank you.

  7. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 7 years ago

    Ok then. If we agree that lots of folks want reform but are not thrilled with this current bill (raise your hand if you have read all 1,017 pages), here's a group exercise:
    Let's write our OWN healthcare reform bill.
    What would you like to see changed?
    What would you like to see stay the same?
    Who should pay for healthcare?
    How should currently uninsured Americans be allowed access/coverage (or should they?).

    It seems to me that there are only a very, very few, very very small provisions that are being extracted out and tossed into the wind for people to react to.

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
      Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      How about a sliding scale so that everyone pays something out of pocket?

    2. profile image0
      pgrundyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      One option I've wanted to see for years is low cost clinics run by nurses and physician's assistants. 80% of what a GP does could be done more quickly and for less money at a walk in clinic run by RNs and PAs. Ear infections, chest colds, routine strep tests. If you walk in critical they pack you off to the ER.

      My GP requires a lead time of 2 to 3 weeks unless you're about to die, and then you pay him/her (it's a group) a minimum of $80 to look at your chart for 3 minutes and refer you to a specialist. It's crap.

      Also, how about a discount for cash, or a yearly membership between me and the provider, no insurance company? When I was a kid, you got in if you were sick and you paid until you were paid up. It didn't cost almost a hundred bucks to be told "we don't handle that."

      GPs don't handle ANYTHING anymore. And there's fewer and fewer of them. Why? No profit in it. Fee for service routed through an insurer encourages overtesting and overtreatment of some problems but dismisses routine care which helps the most but creates the least short term profit for insurance companies.

  8. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 7 years ago

    Well, ok, Ron! That sounds reasonable to me!
    Sliding scale.
    As long as everyone has access. That's my personal #1 beef with the current system. The people who are all up in arms about "change" obviously are not among the 47 million without healthcare coverage.
    It seems to me only reasonable that if insurance companies expand their risk pool wider -- to cover more people -- then they could actually charge LESS per covered person.
    Oh wait. That's probably against some very basis free market tenet. Forget I said that:-).

  9. profile image0
    pgrundyposted 7 years ago

    Also, I'd like to see more cheap, accessible preventative care. I would pay for that, even if it came with a large annual fee like a health club does. I think such places could save the whole system tons of money, and I do think people would use them.

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
      Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      What level of government involvement would there be? Do they just get the ball rolling or are there regulations and mandates?

      1. profile image0
        pgrundyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Don't know. I honestly don't understand why such places don't exist now, with or without the government. I assume it has something to do with litigation and regulations and so forth and so on but I don't know.

        The government could clear the way by making such clinics possible and easy to use insurance or no insurance.

        You know, health insurance profits have quintupled since 2000. That's a LOT of profit. I mean, they aren't suffering. I've wondered for awhile here why, instead of funding antireform lobby to the tune of $1.5 million per DAY, why don't they comp some places like this just for the PR? I mean seriously, they can afford it. Where's the legendary generosity of the private sector. I'm not seeing it lately.

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
          Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I think a lot of it has to do with the relatively short-term relationships patients have with their insurers.  Even if you stay at one job for 20 years (rare these days) your employer changes providers frequently.  The insurance company, which is profit driven, not care driven, has no long term interest in your health.  Preventive care does not equal short term profit.

          1. profile image0
            pgrundyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            That's true. I mean, that's the whole problem right there. It's kind of not about people and relationships anymore.

            Dr. Kildaire is dead. sad

    2. Plants and Oils profile image94
      Plants and Oilsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      A lot of GPs care is done by nurses or nurse-practitioners here in the UK, is that not the same? Things like ear infections, contraception, blood pressure checks, cervical smears, blood tests - all those are usually done by a nurse.

      1. profile image0
        pgrundyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, that's what I mean. Only here it's not done by nurses or PAs that often, and I can't see the sense in that. It seems a staff of direct care nurses and PAs could provide faster, cheaper care and spend more time with patients too.

  10. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 7 years ago

    Sounds like a "back to basics" approach. When doctors bring Western medicine to 3rd world countries, isn't what they do set up clinics? Very one-on-one.
    Anything that will relieve the strain on the ERs, where the reality is people without insurance get their primary care -- will be a help. There's gotta be a trickle up effect there. If the less severe illnesses/injuries are seen at the clinic level, that's less expensive HC delivery.

    I personally hesitate to even allow my brain to address medical ethics questions. The thing is, they are reality. They are being addressed now. Life and death and treatment vs. non-treatment decisions are made every day.And I don't mean by the front-line providers, either. I mean by the insurance cos.

    And Palin's afraid of "death panels"? Oh, I think i just figured out why. That provision is about health care EDUCATION. Teaching patients about Advanced HC Directives, hospice, etc.
    No WONDER she's against it. Education -- bad!

    1. profile image0
      pgrundyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I think we have to get the profit motive out. I know that statement will bring out the trolls but I do think this, and the reason why is that for profit care focused on disease and high tech intervention CREATES DISEASE so it can make more profit from intervention. It only makes sense. Curing people means no more high-profit services for them. So that can't ever work, and it isn't working. It's inhumane and driven in the wrong direction. 

      I think we have to find a way to make health care about whatever best creates health in the most people. That will in time also bring the cost down. But it won't be as profitable. More people will be well, it will be more humane, it could even be partially privately run, but you won't get the huge profits anymore.

      So it's a choice between two 'bad' things in my mind, and I'd choose less profit and more health.

      1. tksensei profile image60
        tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        So you want to get innovation, motivation, and the best people out of medicine? That doesn't sound too good to me.

  11. profile image0
    pgrundyposted 7 years ago

    Not out of veterinary medicine. You'll be OK poochy poochy.

    (So cute he is. Where's a biscuit for our good boy!) big_smile

    1. profile image0
      Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah, veterinary medicine is going gangbusters...and requires pre-payment.  Mr. TK should be happy about that when getting his, um, Seroquel treatments...

  12. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 7 years ago

    Dr Kildaire may be dead, but Nurse Jackie isn't!

    Yes, tksensei. New Hampshire is a fine state. My mother grew up there. We spent summers there. I dated a guy from Dartmouth throughout college and spent many weekends there.
    I'm not going to debate it with you. What I said was a joke.

    1. profile image0
      pgrundyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I LOVE Nurse Jackie.

      Hey MM, does like, every other woman you ever met who is friends with Bill turn out to be a nurse? I swear it is SOOOO like that here. I mean it's probably 50% or better of the women.

  13. Valerie F profile image60
    Valerie Fposted 7 years ago

    I think a lot of people are missing why Sarah Palin would lash out so vitriolically about "death panels." She had mentioned her son in the same statement.

    Will elective abortion be covered by this public option? Do you know what becomes of 90% of babies diagnosed with Down Syndrome? How comfortable are we with our tax dollars being spent to cover negative eugenics and the discrimination against the disabled? In light of legislation and referenda passed in Oregon and Washington, would end of life "counseling" covered under the public option include counseling people about lethal prescriptions?

    I'm not saying her reaction is correct or even rational. But if I'm correct that she's reacting out of fear of the government deciding her son's life- just because of an extra chromosome- is not as worthy of protection as any other child's, I might be able to understand where she's coming from.

    As for me, I do support health care reform. The current bills, however, effect too little real change and raise too many thorny questions.

  14. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 7 years ago

    Pam -- Sorry, I went to a play (written by Steve Martin and it was pretty funny. After awhile you could pretty much hear Steve delivering the lines of most of the characters -- Pablo Picasso, Albert Einstein especially).
    But I digress.
    In answer to your question: Yes. A LOT of nurses. A disproportionate number, in fact! Must have something to do with access.

    Valerie: I'm sorry, but I must still be missing the point as to why Sarah Palin would lash out so vitriolically. Education is the key to smart personal decisions. Is she against giving people information about options? Is she trying to say that because she chose to carry her Down Syndrome baby to term that everyone should? Even people in her own party are saying she's out of line on this one.

    1. profile image0
      Leta Sposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      No, she completely misunderstood or is deliberately obfuscating that section of the bill.  How either, 1) disingenuous of her, or 2) how stupid!  Imagine either one of those!

      And yes, the 'normal' Republicans are finally calling out the crazies, although I am now ashamed of Chuck Grassley, sad.

      How could I have missed this lovely post, MM?

    2. Valerie F profile image60
      Valerie Fposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I don't see why she wouldn't if she was honestly scared that the policy would be harmful to her son or to others with the same condition. With a lot of mothers, the gloves are much more likely to come off if they even so much as suspect that a policy doesn't stand to affect just someone else's hypothetical children, but their very own. It's not always rational, and it only sometimes is right, but as I myself had to once fight for the life of a child some insisted I should have aborted, it's a tendency I can completely understand.

      I still want some kind of public health care option, but I'm not satisfied with the bill that's on the table.

      1. Plants and Oils profile image94
        Plants and Oilsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        She's a politician. Rational would be good.

  15. tksensei profile image60
    tksenseiposted 7 years ago
  16. Knowledge isPower profile image60
    Knowledge isPowerposted 7 years ago

    Hi MM,
    I do have to disagree with you on this bill(HR3200). Its not about health care, it's about control. It's not about everybody getting coverage, there will this be 19M with it. It not about bringing down cost, it's about a single payer system run by the goverment. When has that EVER worked out for us?
    If you want REAL change you have to start where the biggest problem is and thats with insurance costs. Not just our insurance but dotors malpractice insurance too. That comes in the form of Tort reform. There is no reform of any kind in this bill. Because reform means you change what is there or the part that is broken. This bill will change everything, and in my humble opinion mess it all up. Now at the end of this back to your original post about Sarah. The people who you say are telling to shut up are the New(liberal)Republicains in D.C. they don't like it when someone upsets the apple cart when there is a "R" next to their name for fear they will not be invited the the next party. They care too much about their own standing in Washington than with what is happening to this country. And when someone sys "this is wrong" they get scared. You add the death panels to cutting costs and it not a leap to see rationed care. The Dem. have talked about reduced care for those that don't have the abillity to be a productive member of society. That would make me affriad and mad as h*ll if I heard that when I have a child with Downs. I should make you mad as well.

  17. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 7 years ago

    Hi KnowledgeisPower,
    I wholeheartedly agree with you. The insurance industry is the part of healthcare that needs to be "reformed." As it stands, it is the insurance companies that are rationing care. How? By denying coverage to American citizens who have even the slightest "preexisting condition." They ration care for covered patients as well, only paying for some things and not others.
    The cost of health care is astronomical. In years past, employers have provided health insurance to employees as a benefit. Nowadays businesses can no longer afford to do that employees have to chip in. From a business perspective, anything that lowers the cost of employee health coverage is good, isn't it?

    I also agree about tort reform. The TV ads by shark lawyers scaring people into thinking they "deserve" some settlement make me sick. Believe it or not, I do believe in personal responsibility. For example, just yesterday I heard about new findings of liver damage/failure in people who use Alli to lose weight. Alli is not FDA approved. I am sure the box is covered with warnings. And yet -- there is bound to be a huge class-action lawsuit.
    I don't believe, however, that the exorbitant cost of malpractice insurance is what is driving up the cost of healthcare in our country.
    The fact is, uninsured people ARE receiving care. Hospitals are required to treat them. The costs are just shifted to those who CAN pay.

    As to the death panels. Why do people continue to perpetuate this blatant lie? The provision was to have end=-of-life COUNSELING for patients re: Advanced Medical Directives. It was never to have a government bureaucrat make decisions about "pulling the plug on Grandma."
    The truth is care decisions ARE being made NOW. And not, as they should be, by the doctors and nurses. They are being made by the INSURANCE COMPANIES who determine what (if anything) they will pay for certain procedures, tests, etc.

    It is pretty obvious who is behind this frantic attack on Obama's HC bill. If you can't guess, let me help you. Who has the most to lose? Right! THE INSURANCE COMPANIES!!!

    As for Mrs. Palin. I seriously doubt the Republicans in Washington are shaking in their boots over her. There are many smart, honorable, even effective Republican Senators and Representatives there. They don't see Sarah Palin as "upsetting the applecart." They see her as a fringe nutjob who is desperately trying to hang onto her 15 minutes of fame. I can't think of anyone aside from Palin herself who doesn't think she is already flamed out.

    1. tksensei profile image60
      tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Putting anything like that into the bill was a mistake from the start and the dopes who wrote this mess should have foreseen how it would go over.

      Notice how seriously people take anything that has to do with taxes? Way back in 1819 John Marshall recognized that the power to tax involves the power to destroy. What does the power to 'counsel' end of life decisions involve, especially when the counselor represents the source of services that one might or might not recieve? If only as a matter of perception it was a loser from the get-go.

    2. tksensei profile image60
      tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Are you saying that everyone who is opposed to this bill is working for or being manipulated by insurance companies? All of them?

      1. nicomp profile image59
        nicompposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        They are saying that because they heard it on MSNBC.




        That felt good.

    3. tksensei profile image60
      tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      That particular person aside, it is a mistake to dismiss what she represents. Folks living in isolated enclaves in NY or LA (or much worse, DC) invite unpleasant surprise by assuming the entire nation thinks like and agrees with the swells drifting around cocktail parties or frequenting liberal-leaning media outlets.

 
working