Seriously, GOP? Really?

[Dinner]

What part of "choose a plan from a list of guaranteed coverage options" and "the same kind of health-care program members of congress enjoy" makes it a voucher system?

Why would he be doing it if that was true. I'll tell you why he wants to push this plan because it means they can cap the amount they spend and not increase it even though medical costs increase around 15% per year which means in about 5 years that amount will be insufficient to actually provide full coverage care and he knows it. That's why he's trying to off load all future cost inflation on old people by revoking their guaranty of coverage. BTW old people vote and yes polls show lots of them are really pissed off at the Republicans attempting to **** with medicare's coverage guaranty.

That's true even if Republicans want to deny reality and pretend that's not what's happening. Just like women aren't fooled by Republican denials that Republicans have been attacking their rights the old folks won't be fooled either.

[DinoDoc]

Here's an analysis of quite why it was so stupid.

Politifact Has Decided That A Totally True Thing Is The "Lie Of The Year," For Some Reason

Is there an analysis from a site that isn't partisan? Also if the end of Medicare was an objective of the Right as you claim, given the exploding portions it takes from budgets (State and Federal) each year they wouldn't have to do anything other than wait before fiscal constraints force the end of many social programs.

[giblets]

Why would he be doing it if that was true. I'll tell you why he wants to push this plan because it means they can cap the amount they spend and not increase it even though medical costs increase around 15% per year which means in about 5 years that amount will be insufficient to actually provide full coverage care and he knows it. That's why he's trying to off load all future cost inflation on old people by revoking their guaranty of coverage. BTW old people vote and yes polls show lots of them are really pissed off at the Republicans attempting to **** with medicare's coverage guaranty.

That's true even if Republicans want to deny reality and pretend that's not what's happening. Just like women aren't fooled by Republican denials that Republicans have been attacking their rights the old folks won't be fooled either.

If medical costs were increasing at 15% per year then it would be impossible for the government to guarantee any level of medical care to any group of people in perpetuity. Unless you want 15%, 20%, 25%, hell why not 30% of the GDP going to health care for seniors?

[loinburger]

At present an excessive amount is spent on end of life care, at least in the US. If somebody has a terminal disease such as dementia then it doesn't make sense to aggressively treat their cancer or even their bronchitis, but logic doesn't enter the picture when the costs are covered and the family isn't ready to let go; this is why the government and private insurance needs to step in to limit coverage for the elderly. The problem is that no politician is going to say "either Grandma will die tomorrow, or else after spending $200,000 on her medical care Grandma will instead die after two months of pain and limited lucidity, so obviously Grandma needs to die tomorrow" because at a minimum he'll be accused of supporting "involuntary euthanasia" and more likely he'll be accused of being a proponent of murder (by people who won't consider how that $200,000 could do a helluva lot of good somewhere else). So, if a politician attempts a back-door approach to limiting health care costs, then while I may not approve of his duplicity then at the same time I can't blame him.

[Guynemer]

Precisely.

In fact, "an excessive amount" may be, if anything, an understatement.

Health care costs at the end of life show no signs of leveling off, according to new research from the United States and Canada published in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

But other trends over the past decade, including a sharp increase in use of hospice services, could point the way toward bringing these costs down while improving patient care, Dr. Jonathan Bergman of the University of California in Los Angeles, author of one of the studies, told Reuters Health.

"We end up spending about a third of our overall health care resources in the last year of life," Bergman said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/10/14/us-care-costs-idUSTRE69C3KY20101014

[Hauldren Collider]

Think of how many poor kids with diabetes we could treat with $200k, versus how many 90-year-olds can get another year of life. Just as an example.

Democrats may call it "killing grandma", but what the current system is doing is just shortchanging the young and poor and driving our country deeper into debt.

[MRT144]

Oh shut the **** up. The entire republican's campaign against health care rested on "death panels".

[giblets]

Think of how many poor kids with diabetes we could treat with $200k, versus how many 90-year-olds can get another year of life. Just as an example.

Democrats may call it "killing grandma", but what the current system is doing is just shortchanging the young and poor and driving our country deeper into debt.

That's exactly what Republicans call it.

[Tupac Shakur]

Oh shut the **** up. The entire republican's campaign against health care rested on "death panels".

[MRT144]

Should be double for my calling out and death panels.

[regexcellent]

Oh shut the **** up. The entire republican's campaign against health care rested on "death panels".

Not really true, no. The death panels thing was one of many attacks. Also, death panels referred to having a panel decide what treatments we're willing to provide versus not provide, not how much money.

[MRT144]

Not really true, no. The death panels thing was one of many attacks. Also, death panels referred to having a panel decide what treatments we're willing to provide versus not provide, not how much money.

Okay weasel.

[Hauldren Collider]

Oh shut the **** up. The entire republican's campaign against health care rested on "death panels".

The republican's campaign against obamacare rested on many things, the part you are referring to is the fact that obamacare utilizes government rationing when the republicans think that a better system would be market forces.

[DaShi]

HC is quickly taking Oerdin's place. The part of Obamacare that was claimed to be death panels was a predominantly republican supported idea. In fact, it had nothing to do with rationing of care at all. Finally, it was not included in the final bill. The whole "death panels" debacle came from Sarah Palin grossly misunderstanding the healthcare act in a fit of anti-Obama furor. That HC is one of the ignorants who believed (and sadly still does) is both sad and unsurprising.

[MRT144]

HC is quickly taking Oerdin's place. The part of Obamacare that was claimed to be death panels was a predominantly republican supported idea. In fact, it had nothing to do with rationing of care at all. Finally, it was not included in the final bill. The whole "death panels" debacle came from Sarah Palin grossly misunderstanding the healthcare act in a fit of anti-Obama furor. That HC is one of the ignorants who believed (and sadly still does) is both sad and unsurprising.

Sarah Palin misunderstanding something? NO WAY!