"Rep. John D. Dingell, a Democrat and a lead author of health care legislation in the House," was confronted by Mike Sola, whose 36-year-old son has cerebral palsy. Solo voiced angry opposition to Obamacare on the grounds that it would deny health care to his son due to his disability.
Now, pay careful attention:
In his confrontation with Mr. Sola, Mr. Dingell said an amendment to his House bill would provide care for the younger Mr. Sola's condition....
Did you see it? In case you missed it, look again:
In his confrontation with Mr. Sola, Mr. Dingell said an amendment to his House bill would provide care for the younger Mr. Sola's condition....
Obamacare, as originally drafted, would have denied care for this man. Somebody had to go in and amend it so that people like Mr. Sola, who have cerebral palsy, would be able to get care.
And it said that the bill would provide care for the younger Mr. Sola's condition. Specifically, cerebral palsy.
Which people with disabilities remain excluded?
Would you or somebody you love be excluded?
Our federal government can't be trusted with a used car. Do we really want our lives in their hands?
20 comments:
Hi!
You commented on one of my posts a while back and it just got some response. Just wanted to let you know in case you wanted to respond to it. :)
http://laurenjfa.blogspot.com/2009/06/bodily-autonomy-its-ok-to-kill-people.html?showComment=1249911797022#c1860003295007205961
Yeah I can see how great this is going to be.
My two sons are autistic and require 90 minutes of therapy a week, the older of the two will soon be doing equine therapy once a month. Our insurance covers this fairly well (praise God) but I can just imagine what the Washington bean counters would do. In no time at all their therapy would be cancelled and, once the wife and I grew too old to care for them, they'd be warehoused for life at some government snakepit.
That assumes the money is there and it doesn't become more expedient for a "quality of life" assessment to be made with the thought of ending their lives in the name of "compassion" and "expedience".
Good Lord, what the hell has happened to us as a people?
Probably wouldn't do anything as overt as acting to end lives-- things like not treating colds, flu, pneumonia are already a favorite trick to kill someone without actually *killing* them.
Or wait until their untreated condition degrades to the point where they might need help eating, then put in a feeding tube-- then withdraw food and water as "extraordinary care." (Have to take the step of having a feeding tube-- folks get more upset when you say you've stopped feeding someone than if you say they aren't getting food through a tube anymore.)
I don't even want to imagine gov't "treatment" for autism. Probably "find possible indicators and kill them before birth."
Subvet, I'm glad your sons are getting the help that they need now. I just wanted to ask what would happen if you or your husband lost the job that is providing the insurance? How would yo cope and would it be easy to get a new insurance which will pay for the treatment and not bar it because its an existing health concern?
In South Africa the insurance companies are barred from not accepting people but they will not cover pre existing medical conditions for at least the first year but sometimes never.
That's when you find a better insurance company, Lilliput. It's called "freedom of choice" and "free market economy". If customers don't like the way one insurance company handles things, they are free to choose a more reasonable company. This freedom of choice and free market economy (both basic concepts to our society) is exactly the type of stuff we DON'T want to lose, and we will, should the government take it all over. By taking everything over, the government is slowly chipping away at the freedoms we hold dear as Americans.
If, God forbid, Subvet's insurance no longer covered the kids' treatments-- they could still pay out of pocket. Single payer is a dang good way to make that utterly impossible-- pretty much have to, since it's the only way to force enough doctors into inefficient systems to fill the gaps.
With the system as it is now we've got doctors going to cash-only business styles, because they hate all the paperwork. Government never lowers the amount of paperwork.
In South Africa the insurance companies are barred from not accepting people but they will not cover pre existing medical conditions for at least the first year but sometimes never.
And given all of the ways this bill supposedly "cuts costs" - what's the guarantee that Subvet's boys would be given treatment under government health care? Because one of Obama's staffers - Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel has written some pretty scary stuff that excludes a lot of people with various maladies and illnesses:
Emanuel has written in medical journals of how health care should be rationed, with priority given to younger people over seniors and over those suffering from dementia, according to John Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA). Ezekiel also believes that very young children should be lower on the priority list than younger people who have received public educations.
Goodman cites an article Ezekiel co-authored with two other men that appeared in the January 31, 2009, edition of the British medical journal, The Lancet. Goodman also cites a 1996 article by Ezekiel that appeared in The Hastings Report. In the latter, which was titled "Where civic republicanism and deliberative democracy meet," Ezekiel argued for limiting health care for “individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens.” He cited "not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia” as an example.
"He cited "not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia” as an example."
I guess he was never much of a Columbo fan, so writing off Peter Falk just makes sense to him.
Peter Falk has dementia? I didn't know that. I'm sorry to hear it--he's one of my favorite actors.
On the other hand, Richard Burton had severe dementia while he was filming NINTEEN EIGHTY-FOUR (with John Hurt as Winston Smith), and the dementia gave him a sort of detached, used-up, not-quite-all-there air which was PERFECT for his charcter (O'Brian, the torturer).
It's kind of funny--Subvet's fears about what the government MIGHT do--drop him or his kids from coverage--is exactly like what the insurance companies are ACTUALLY doing to families now.
And Army_wife, if Subvet loses his coverage, he will NEVER be able to get another company to take him on. With two autistic kids??? The company employees will read his application and laugh themselves silly. NO ONE will cover a family like that unless they are forced to do so. Or, if they do cover him, they'll refuse to pay for the kids' treatments because their autisim is a pre-existing condition.
His argument AGAINST Obamacare is, in fact, an argument FOR Obamacare.
I just can't forthe life of me understand what is going on with American Healthcare? How can one so obviously believe it is currently in a good state while others believe its shite - and it really does seem to be a 50% of the population each way.
Lilliput,
It's also a matter of who is screaming the loudest. And the media gives the biggest megaphone to the people on the left, and they have done this for years. The people on the left want government in health care, just like they want government in everything else (claiming to be "for the good of the people" when in reality it's just a way to grab more power). So they take a few stories (as a percentage of the population) and make it sound like it's a majority or a significant minority who are suffering. Then there are a lot of people who are justifiably concerned about the situation -- as it *appears*, but not necessarily as it really *is* -- and go along with what they are told, because they think it is better. Others don't think so. But when you get a constant drumbeat of "this is horrible, this is awful, this is common," you tend to believe it. Kinda like brainwashing, I suppose.
So a lot of people are for ObamaCare not because they really think it will be better for themselves, but because they think it'll be better for the people they hear about "all the time" who are suffering. And the reason they hear about them all the time is because the people who have a vested interest in passing this bill make sure it's on the news, and the media are willing accomplices.
The media willingly go along with implying that (or allowing others to imply, unchallenged by anything resembling facts) people who oppose this reform are "astro-turf" (as opposed to "grass-roots") -- false protesters who are organized by the eeevil Republicans or conservatives. All this while ignoring the truth -- that the Democrats & liberals are actually recruiting and hiring people to work for this reform bill (and probably being paid to protest) [you can Google stories about Craigslist and healthcare reform to find many]; plus the fact that the people who are protesting tend to have home-made, hand-made signs, made by taking black marker to colored poster-boards, while those who are counter-protesting have machine-made political-type signs with a uniform message. Yet the media doesn't present this information, allowing unchallenged that the protesters with hand-made signs are artificial. Huh?? That doesn't even make sense. But people like you and many in this country don't see both sides of the story. So, of course, only seeing one side, you believe what you're told.
Are there problems with health-care? Yeah. But this bill is *not* going to fix them, and it will be taking away a *huge* portion of our liberties -- and our money -- to fix what is really a small problem. There are some people who are falling through the cracks; this bill merely moves the cracks -- people will still fall through, and I believe more will be affected and in a worse way than by the current system.
It also removes the bit of safety net we have right now-- if someone *can not* get insurance in any way, shape, or form-- they can still get *treatment.* There are private groups to help, including some doctors that waive or greatly reduce prices, and the insurance companies aren't exactly being evil.*
If the government gets into the medical business, who do you go to when they say "no, you can't be treated"?
Right now, Canadians come to the US when they run out of bed or treatment options-- as rather emotionally exemplified by premie babies, state-run medical doesn't have *reason* to make sure they have lots of room.
*(Would you sell insurance that would pay to repair a car that's already been damaged? The nature of insurance is that they're betting stuff _won't_ happen. That said, who is it that's offered to pay for suicide but not pain meds....?)
Maybe this will help:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/aug/12/nhs-us-healthcare-obama
Apparently its just cold hard data without anyone's opinion.
Survival rates. (bit of a different story, there....)
Apparently its just cold hard data without anyone's opinion.
Not exactly-- the data's from the WHO, whose measurements are calibrated to favor gov't control.
Where do people go when they're deathly ill? America.
Who spends their own money in an attempt to have every chance at saving their own lives? Americans. (and those who can make it over here)
What country has the widest range of cultures and genetic quirks on earth? America.
Why on EARTH would you compare a huge country that includes immigrants from places with horrible nutrition, let alone health care, to countries with smaller, homogeneous (relatively) populations?
Foxfire, are you kidding me - children with english as first language are now the minority in London schools.
That is inner city London primary schools.
They also tend to be very young, and their parents haven't had effect on the stats as of yet.
Native Brit birth rate is something like 1.4; the "East Asian Immigrant" birth rate is closer to 4.0, and they marry young. (and generally from out-of-country)
Thus, yes: it's still a relatively homogeneous population, even though the small-child-end is demographically distorted.
http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2009/08/14/uk-v-usa-the-basic-healthcare-facts/#comments
Lots of discussion taking part here in the uk about this. thought you may want to see.
http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2009/08/14/uk-v-usa-the-basic-healthcare-facts/#comments
Lots of discussion taking part here in the uk about this. thought you may want to see.
Lilliput,
On a previous thread, you said something like, "You may not like what is being suggested, but do any of you have any better ideas for health care reform?" A few of us threw out some ideas, but here is an op-ed piece written by the CEO of Whole Foods (a chain of grocery stores that stocks natural and/or organic foods, which tends to be frequented by lots of liberals; whether this CEO is liberal or conservative, I have no idea, but his stores certainly appeal to health-food nuts who tend to be liberal), in which he offers an 8-point alternative to ObamaCare, "without adding to the deficit." I think this is well-reasoned, and would save our country and most individuals lots of money, instead of taking more money, which is what the current proposal will do.
Thanx, Kathy. That's a great link!
Post a Comment