You wonder why we are worried regarding the health care bill. If you can't look at how the govt. has handled medicare, etc. and be afraid of this I don't know what it would take. My premium raised to 624. monthly with higher deductibles and copays so I am quite aware of the fact that reform is needed. I would start with buying ins. across state lines and tort reform. I would not throw out the baby with the bath water. If you have an open mind, I dare you to read this. Remember, you, * and * will be seniors one day. Also, I don't think this can be paid for. But you probably won't listen just like you never want to hear the other side, only send me links regarding your side which I do listen to and read. Double dog dare you. Triple dog dare you, love momAs I watched it, I was immediately struck by how this old man talking "from the heart" about health care reform reminded me of Rep. John Shadegg's (R-AZ) use of a baby the other day during a floor speech. In both cases, the people have terrible arguments and try to compensate for that via emotional appeal.
Anyway, I started to compose a reply after watching the video but realized it would do nothing to persuade her of her folly. I tried when she sent me Christian Nation bull crap emails and she just flatly refused to acknowledge the facts. People like this don't let the facts get in the way of a strong belief. That's why they're religious too. So I decided instead to post my reply here:
Generally speaking it isn't very effective to call someone narrow-minded and then use "dares" to goad them into reading or watching something that represents a different point of view than their own.I could write more but I got tired. I think I'll teach my baby how to read from posterboards and talk into a camera so I can make my own propaganda videos.
I feel sorry for Bill Crawford. His rambling was incoherent.
Starting at the beginning...
He was taught to unquestioningly respect "leaders" like a dog rather than expect them to earn respect. That's definitely present in religious thinking. Yes Medicare has problems but I'm quite sure Bill doesn't bother to worry about those problems every time he uses his "government run" insurance. He also repeats a GOP talking point that the government is "taking over" health care and that a bureaucrat will "get between you and your doctor"...let's see Bill...when you use your Medicare do they call a government agent and ask them for permission to take care of you? Um, no. As it is right now, though, my private insurance requires "pre-authorization" for certain medical care. A private insurance agent gets "between me and my doctor" right now.
Bill is also confused about the name calling. The people likening health care reform to Nazism, death camps, etc., are *all* opponents of reform trying to scare old people like Bill. Glenn Beck loves to compare Obama to Hitler, Stalin, Lenin. It worked, obviously, and confused him. Who exactly called seniors names? I'd love it if he could point out one Democratic legislator calling opponents to reform Nazis. Perhaps he's referring to Speaker Pelosi's factually-accurate observation that some people are bringing "swastikis and symbols like that to town halls".
Bill is exactly right that people can "get health care" by going to the ER and that all of us have to foot the bill for it. One catch, though: the only guaranteed care is "life-threatening". Which is what an ER is for. Not getting antibiotics and preventative care and screenings...Which is a good reason to want to change the system. This means that those without insurance end up often having to wait until their problems become catastrophic before being able (or willing) to go to the ER.
Bill is full of shit about not getting heart transplants and cancer treatments. Period. Spin it however you want, but a lie is a lie. There is nothing, *nothing* in any bill that says that you will get "death counseling in lieu of treatment"...it's just complete hysterical nonsense from a frightened old man. Find a way to make sense of that lie. I'd love to hear it. The "death panels" BS that idiots pass around is just sad. The bill provides a reimbursement to doctors for *voluntary* counseling as a service. End of story.
If you want to read the language of the bill that just passed the House regarding this counseling, here it is (HR 3962 Section 1233):`(3) An individual may receive the voluntary advance care planning care planning consultation provided for under this subsection no more than once every 5 years unless there is a significant change in the health or health-related condition of the individual.But yet the myths continue because propaganda outlets that Bill trusts continue to promote falsehood under the pretense of "giving time to both sides of a 'debate'..."
`(4) For purposes of this section, the term `order regarding life sustaining treatment' means, with respect to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to the treatment of that individual that effectively communicates the individual's preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, is signed and dated by a practitioner, and is in a form that permits it to be followed by health care professionals across the continuum of care.'.
(b) Construction- The voluntary advance care planning consultation described in section 1861(hhh) of the Social Security Act, as added by subsection (a), shall be completely optional. Nothing in this section shall--
(1) require an individual to complete an advance directive, an order for life sustaining treatment, or other advance care planning document;
(2) require an individual to consent to restrictions on the amount, duration, or scope of medical benefits an individual is entitled to receive under this title; or
(3) encourage the promotion of suicide or assisted suicide.
Like many people, Bill is angry and confused and needs to be consoled. That doesn't mean that he makes any valid points.
The GOP alternative that was voted down just hours before the House bill passed was pretty funny. Did you read about it? No requirements to protect people from "pre-existing conditions" clauses. No protections from rescission. No real improvement for people who are uninsured.
As for your premises about why health care reform "can't be paid for"...think again. A lot of people use very poor logic in asking the question, "How can you spend money to save money?" That's like me arguing that if you want to save on energy costs in the long term the only solution is to cut down the thermostat. If this isn't possible, or a good option, you could invest in energy-efficient windows and a central air system. Although it requires up front investment, you save money over the long term. That's the case with health care...
We're already bankrupting the system because of the issue of how the system is right now. The government already pays 46% of all health care expenses in the US. The private insurers pay about 37%. The rest is out-of-pocket.
The entitlements problem will continue to grow with our top-heavy population chart (more old people than young). But if we can reign in health care costs by overhauling the system then we can possibly prevent total fiscal collapse. This is a problem that Republicans kicked down the road every single time they held office and could do something about it. Everyone knows our entitlements are literally headed for failure and something must be done about it. No Republican has had the courage to face the issue since Newt Gingrich's proposal for drastic cuts in Medicare in 1995.
Let's assume the House bill passes the Senate just like it is (it won't). Paying $1.2 trillion over 10 years works out to approximately two-thirds the cost of the Bush tax cuts, half of the long-term cost of the Iraq War (including long-term health care for vets, not just the annual supplementals to the budget), and about 15% of our defense budget. That's right, we pay about $1 trillion dollars or more *every year* in defense spending, a *huge* part of that right now for two wars, the rest of which largely ends up as pork and wasteful spending and research for technologies that are completely useless (think missile defense, "Star Wars"...). Meanwhile, over 45,000 people die annually in the US from lack of access to basic medical care, ten times the casualties on 9/11. A new Harvard study estimates even higher numbers, that every 12 minutes someone dies from lack of adequate care, meaning every three weeks more people die from lack of health care than from 9/11.
Yet I definitely don't remember hearing that we couldn't afford the Bush tax cuts, or the Iraq War, and we don't hesitate to throw billions and billions of dollars at a remote possibility that a few thousand people *might* die from a terrorist attack. And of course if you don't support every facet of a defense bill, including ordering planes that cost a billion dollars each to make and research on laser weapons then you're a cowardly liberal who hates their country. Or something.
