NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs

Refers to Daschle's book http://www.amazon.com/Critical-What-About-Health-Care-Crisis/dp/0312383010/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234118804&sr=8-1

The information collection stuffed into the stimulus bill (gee, I wonder how that's going to stimulate short term creation of jobs) aside, I am very intrigued by Daschle's take on health care for the elderly.

So, fuck the elderly. Maybe we should hand out cyanide capsules.

The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

Elderly Hardest Hit

Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).

The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.

In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.

Hey look it's a rollie trollie!

Why not just kill babies? The elderly at least have some skills and money invested in them.

And from the person that advocated forced sterilization and genocide of AN ENTIRE RACE, I should give a crap about your recent show of "caring about life" because...?

And from the person that advocated forced sterilization and genocide of AN ENTIRE RACE, I should give a crap about your recent show of "caring about life" because...?

One would think that a Democratic Party initiative would be at least more caring than I am... but I guess not...

Daschleis a bit of a fail. Also, if the Republicans had done this, I bet NSG'd be up in arms

And from the person that advocated forced sterilization and genocide of AN ENTIRE RACE

Wait, what?

And from the person that advocated forced sterilization and genocide of AN ENTIRE RACE

When was this?

When was this?

HotWife/DK has repeatedly called for Arabs or Muslims to be sterilized or suffer genocide.

One would think that a Democratic Party initiative would be at least more caring than I am... but I guess not...

It is. Not only you're misrepresenting Daschle's position, Daschle is not the Democratic Party.

HotWife/DK has repeatedly called for Arabs or Muslims to be sterilized or suffer genocide.

Not repeatedly, no.

You have to go back at least 1 year in postings.

Not a race, back as Deep Kimchi he advocated engineering a virus that would somehow only target Muslims and then sterilize them. Of course, for that to work Muslims would have to be a different species so from his point of view it was a race.

It is. Not only you're misrepresenting Daschle's position, Daschle is not the Democratic Party.

Hardly. It's in his book. Nothing to misrepresent. Old people are to be told fuck off and die.

Not repeatedly, no.

You have to go back at least 1 year in postings.

...

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ITakeOffenseToThatLastOne

Not repeatedly, no.

You have to go back at least 1 year in postings.

Yeah well I guess it's not advocating forced sterilization if you did it a whole year ago.

Hardly. It's in his book. Nothing to misrepresent. Old people are to be told fuck off and die.

Oh? If there's nothing to misrepresent, surely you'll point out the passage in which old people are to be told fuck off and die.

One of my former names.

Why not just kill babies? The elderly at least have some skills and money invested in them.

but when the elderly die they Pass on their estates to me and i can use them to make jobs. *stimulus bill* assigns all estates of those who die after 65 to me, my congressman slipped it in as pork as a personal favor.

I never thought DK would be the one to support higher taxes to support potentially unnecessary or ineffective expensive medicare/medicaid treatments...

Not repeatedly, no.

You have to go back at least 1 year in postings.

Was that a serious opinion or were you trolling? Do you still hold that opinion?

Oh? If there's nothing to misrepresent, surely you'll point out the passage in which old people are to be told fuck off and die.

If I'm telling old people that they'll be denied medical care that they have come to expect, on the basis of a new evaluation that will essentially strip most of their medical care from them, that's about as close to fuck off and die as you can get.

Yeah well I guess it's not advocating forced sterilization if you did it a whole year ago.

That's not what he said.

It seems like any change in the way the US rations healthcare should probably get more discussion than the stimulus bill has gotten so far, but the bill doesn't seem to do more than to create the office and lay a very basic foundation for an evidence-based care system. Considering how important reining in future healthcare costs is to US economic growth, the proposal seems in line with Obama's stated goals for the stimulus bill.

This whole genocide thing sounds much more interesting anyway.

On a side note, I've seen people write "reigning in" so many times I now do it myself. Am I alone in being made dumber by the internet?

Daschleis a bit of a fail. Also, if the Republicans had done this, I bet NSG'd be up in arms

It was presented by Hotwife. I'm waiting for the real story.

If I'm telling old people that they'll be denied medical care that they have come to expect, on the basis of a new evaluation that will essentially strip most of their medical care from them, that's about as close to fuck off and die as you can get.

Ah, so, yes, you ARE still reading it through your very particular lens - a lens, I repeat, of a man who called for GENOCIDE.

of a man who called for GENOCIDE.

It's not genocide, because Islam isn't a race, and anyway, when was the last time your average old person slammed a plane into a building, set off bombs on trains, killed gays, raped 14 year old girls, aborted said girl with razorblade etc etc?

Ah, so, yes, you ARE still reading it through your very particular lens - a lens, I repeat, of a man who called for GENOCIDE.

What do you call denying medical care to the elderly? Fun and roses?

So, instead of trying to find new ways of combating different ailments, he wants to allow for suffering. Mandatory stagnation. It's asinine things like this that make me hate the human species.

So, instead of trying to find new ways of combating different ailments, he wants to allow for suffering. Mandatory stagnation. It's asinine things like this that make me hate the human species.

And of course Daschle's stupidity according to Kimchi is More Concrete Evidence of Obama's Failure as President.

WHERE'S THE CHANGE, SAURON!?

It's not genocide, because Islam isn't a race

Genocide is "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

So yes. It would be genocide.

, and anyway, when was the last time your average old person slammed a plane into a building, set off bombs on trains, killed gays, raped 14 year old girls, aborted said girl with razorblade etc etc?

So your position is that it's OK to advocate genocide as long as you feel your victims deserve it?

What do you call denying medical care to the elderly? Fun and roses?

What do you call commiting genocide against an entire race and religion made up of about a billion people?

Then, no. YOU don't get to cast stones. I'll wait for a source that never advocated any Final Solutions.

Can there be one thread made by hotwife where the topic DOESN'T change to be all about him?

What do you call commiting genocide against an entire race and religion made up of about a billion people?

Then, no. YOU don't get to cast stones. I'll wait for a source that never advocated any Final Solutions.

The source I linked to... haha

It was presented by Hotwife. I'm waiting for the real story.
the real story is that there is no sense in extraordinary treatment for people who are going to die soon anyway.

its not a new idea. its not a democratic idea. its one of the key ways to reign in health care spending.

we spend huge amounts of money trying to keep dying people from dying when we know they are going to die anyway. stopping extraordinary treatments wouldnt harm the dying and would save us billions of health care dollars that could go to people who would benefit from treatment.

that doesnt mean that we will go with the total british plan that denies macular degeneration treatments to the elderly. i doubt that the public would put up with it.

when one compares this "draconian" idea of the democrats (which is not a democratic idea at all but a neutral health care idea) with the (radical) republican idea of eliminating social security and medicare i think we can judge which is the most humane.

So yes. It would be genocide.


Well you learn something new every day. I always thought it only applied to race.

So your position is that it's OK to advocate genocide as long as you feel your victims deserve it?

No, but I can see why some people would want to kill Muslims. I don't advocate it, but the world would be a better place without them. As it would without Christianity and Judaism, don't get me wrong.

It's not genocide, because Islam isn't a race, and anyway, when was the last time your average old person slammed a plane into a building, set off bombs on trains, killed gays, raped 14 year old girls, aborted said girl with razorblade etc etc?

19 hijackers/1,000,000,000 people = 0.00000019

Splendid number to call genocide on, innit?

I'll help you out. 1000 "cases of Muslims being asses" /1,000,000,000 people = 0.000001.

Get that gas chamber running, we have a reason to commit genocide, NOW, innit?

Please. Know who you're dealing with.

No, but I can see why some people would want to kill Muslims. I don't advocate it, but the world would be a better place without them. As it would without Christianity and Judaism, don't get me wrong.

Atheist, are you? Splendid!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag

Moeru! Moeru! Kill them all off! NOW! Small percentages of people being assholes justify genocides!

Know who you're dealing with!

If I'm telling old people that they'll be denied medical care that they have come to expect, on the basis of a new evaluation that will essentially strip most of their medical care from them, that's about as close to fuck off and die as you can get.

Resources are limited. They should be used where they cane be used best. Therefore some basic cost/benefit analysis is fairly reasonable. Really given a fixed amount of resources getting the most value for thee buck saves more lives. Also, I wonder how much spending on the old drives up prices so that the young can't afford basic healthcare, in a system where the old are subsidized but the nonelderly aren't, at least not to the same degree.

Also, Am I the only one who thinks that if a Republican put this forth and the Democrats opposed this Hotwife would have reported on how the Democrats want to waste taxpayer dollars on useless care?

Know who you're dealing with!

Is that your new slogan? :p

Well you learn something new every day. I always thought it only applied to race.


Mm. Well, no it doesn't, and it's an example of a word that doesn't strictly mean what its constituents would imply. Similarly with "homophobia," which doesn't strictly mean a psychologically abnormal fear of the same sex (or homosexuality).


No, but I can see why some people would want to kill Muslims. I don't advocate it, but the world would be a better place without them. As it would without Christianity and Judaism, don't get me wrong.

Getting rid of Christianity or Judaism is not comparable to killing Muslims and while it may be understandable... in the sense that any desire to commit horrific, violent and loathesome crimes can be understood... it is not to be condoned.

Or forgotten.

Also, Am I the only one who thinks that if a Republican put this forth and the Democrats opposed this Hotwife would have reported on how the Democrats want to waste taxpayer dollars on useless care?

That's not a guess. That's textbook Bushevik doublethink.

It's not genocide, because Islam isn't a race, and anyway, when was the last time your average old person slammed a plane into a building, set off bombs on trains, killed gays, raped 14 year old girls, aborted said girl with razorblade etc etc?

lmfao cause all Islamics do this on a regular basis . . .in fact isn't that what Islam is really all about?

I'll help you out. 1000 "cases of Muslims being asses" /1,000,000,000 people = 0.000001.

It's actually more like 12711.

Am I the only one who thinks that if a Republican put this forth and the Democrats opposed this Hotwife would have reported on how the Democrats want to waste taxpayer dollars on useless care?

You too? Good, I suspected I wasn't the only one, and now I know.

It's actually more like 12711.

Golly gee.

12711 / 1,000,000,000 = 0,000012711. For a point of reference, 0.01 is ONE PERCENT.

Got a point?

Resources are limited. They should be used where they cane be used best. Therefore some basic cost/benefit analysis is fairly reasonable. Really given a fixed amount of resources getting the most value for thee buck saves more lives. Also, I wonder how much spending on the old drives up prices so that the young can't afford basic healthcare, in a system where the old are subsidized but the nonelderly aren't, at least not to the same degree.

Also, Am I the only one who thinks that if a Republican put this forth and the Democrats opposed this Hotwife would have reported on how the Democrats want to waste taxpayer dollars on useless care?
you are not the only one.

Is that your new slogan? :p

Does it work?

you are not the only one.

I actually had pointed that out. So, that makes us at least about five-ish? :p

And of course Daschle's stupidity according to Kimchi is More Concrete Evidence of Obama's Failure as President.

WHERE'S THE CHANGE, SAURON!?

After reading through the posts, I've changed my stance a bit. It's sensible to save money by cutting back on treatments for people who are terminally ill and whose health won't be helped much if at all by constant care.

But that doesn't change my observation that the OP was yet another attempt at "WHERE'S THE CHANGE, SAURON!?" snipe at Obama and the Democratic Party.

Well I don't really understand what you're trying to convey with it. Is the 'who' referring to the Muslims, as in you need to know more about them before you generalise? Or is the who referring to you?

It'd refer to me, yes.

It'd refer to me, yes.

Then maybe it's a little cocky. :tongue:

I actually had pointed that out. So, that makes us at least about five-ish? :p
just supporting the notion.

anyone who reads hotwifes posts regularly would agree with us.

just supporting the notion.

anyone who reads hotwifes posts regularly would agree with us.
I agree with you.

just supporting the notion.

anyone who reads hotwifes posts regularly would agree with us.

Point, point. I have a thing for the "formality" of posting it. Sorry, it's a small flaw of my anime-ish traits.

Then maybe it's a little cocky. :tongue:

The good thing about being an arrogant bastard is I can back it up. ;)

the real story is that there is no sense in extraordinary treatment for people who are going to die soon anyway.

its not a new idea. its not a democratic idea. its one of the key ways to reign in health care spending.

we spend huge amounts of money trying to keep dying people from dying when we know they are going to die anyway. stopping extraordinary treatments wouldnt harm the dying and would save us billions of health care dollars that could go to people who would benefit from treatment.

that doesnt mean that we will go with the total british plan that denies macular degeneration treatments to the elderly. i doubt that the public would put up with it.

when one compares this "draconian" idea of the democrats (which is not a democratic idea at all but a neutral health care idea) with the (radical) republican idea of eliminating social security and medicare i think we can judge which is the most humane.
Hell, we didn't put up with it. My grandma is having treatment for macular degeneration as we speak, and is not blind in one eye.

Whether we like it or not, there must be elements of cost control and rationing in every health care system. It is an extremely expensive commodity that is becoming more expensive with time as new treatments and drugs are developed that can cure various diseases and ailments that people have come to expect to be treated for.

Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, it is impossible to grant everybody cutting edge medicine, as the money isn't there to do it. People in private heathcare systems like the USA don't want their premiums to go up. Voters in public systems like the UK and the USA (regarding medicaid/medicare) don't want to pay the taxes to support these expensive treatments.

As such, I don't think it unreasonable for public insurers to decide, as private insurers do, what treatments they will cover. Treatments that are too expensive for the taxpayer to affort, cosmetic in nature or unreliable may have to be excluded. Is it nice or fair for NICE (the body that decides these things in the UK) to deny funding for chaemotherapy on grounds of cost? No, but in the real world, things are not that simple.

I never thought DK would be the one to support higher taxes to support potentially unnecessary or ineffective expensive medicare/medicaid treatments...

If the Democrats are for it Kimchi is against it. If Obama announced tomorrow he had Bin Laden in a prison waiting to be executed DK would be outside picketing about the inhumanity of it all.

I wonder if DK knows Daschle isnt nominated for a cabinet position anymore.

How is this anything but trolling?

You know, as two people who've both been DEATed before for bad behavior, ya'll might want to tone it down just a smidge.

Did I call him anything or otherwise flamebait? No? Good. ^_^

If the Democrats are for it Kimchi is against it. If Obama announced tomorrow he had Bin Laden in a prison waiting to be executed DK would be outside picketing about the inhumanity of it all.

Yep. Look at Kimchi's convenient flip-flop on rendition here as one example:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4425135/Barack-Obama-to-allow-anti-terror-rendition-to-continue.html

Looks like Obama isn't a real American in your eyes then.



Can you tell me under what, if any, conditions you would approve of rendition?

When Dear Leader was in charge and all those dirty brown terrorists were being shipped off to black facilities for "enhanced interrogation" he didn't seem to mind. Since when did he become a human rights advocate? Oh that's right, when Sauron took over Middle America.

I wonder if DK knows Daschle isnt nominated for a cabinet position anymore.

How is this anything but trolling?

Oh, he likely does. But does he care?

Oh, he likely does. But does he care?

First rule of politics, Never let the facts get in the way.

For once a democrat says something I could support, its about time old people sucked it up. I'm all for reducing their benefits, if it surpasses the amount they paid in.

Hotwife...again....*Sigh*

Hardly. It's in his book. Nothing to misrepresent. Old people are to be told fuck off and die.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.+1:

There. That's a link to the actual proposal. Please find the part where it says that old people should be left to themselves.

Thanks.

I support the euthanization of our elderly.

Unrelated, but I also know how we can solve the hunger problem.

I support the euthanization of our elderly.

Unrelated, but I also know how we can solve the hunger problem.

I like you. :p

I support the euthanization of our elderly.

Unrelated, but I also know how we can solve the hunger problem.

Soylent Green... IS PEOPLE!

I like you. :p

Hotwife is like my bread and butter. He keeps posting these fearmongering threads in a forum where no one agrees with him. The situation is rife with opportunity.

I like you. :p

I like him, too - en brochette with some fava beans and a nice chianti.

I like him, too - en brochette with some fava beans and a nice chianti.

>.>

<.<

Elitist.

Hotwife...again....*Sigh*
Only 9 posts, and already so jaded. :D

It seems like any change in the way the US rations healthcare should probably get more discussion than the stimulus bill has gotten so far, but the bill doesn't seem to do more than to create the office and lay a very basic foundation for an evidence-based care system. Considering how important reining in future healthcare costs is to US economic growth, the proposal seems in line with Obama's stated goals for the stimulus bill.

This whole genocide thing sounds much more interesting anyway.

On a side note, I've seen people write "reigning in" so many times I now do it myself. Am I alone in being made dumber by the internet?
No, but just to help you hold onto sanity, I'll try to rein in the cyber-dumb with you.

Yeah well I guess it's not advocating forced sterilization if you did it a whole year ago.

Seriously, you think we can get Slavery reconsidered at this point too? I mean that was over a 100 years ago...

when one compares this "draconian" idea of the democrats (which is not a democratic idea at all but a neutral health care idea) with the (radical) republican idea of eliminating social security and medicare i think we can judge which is the most humane.
This ^^ definitely.

when one compares this "draconian" idea of the democrats (which is not a democratic idea at all but a neutral health care idea) with the (radical) republican idea of eliminating social security and medicare i think we can judge which is the most humane.

I like it when I have to respect an older woman's skills. It has that nice anime quality to it.

Excellent move. Holy shit that was good.