Equating the KKK to the new black panthers is like equating Kublai Khan to Geronimo. I think I need to vacate the D&D or risk serious second-hand brain damage.
Reading comprehension would help you with understanding my earlier post. This is a different issue being debated - simply pointing to some other organization from the other side and saying 'THEY DO IT TOO!' constitutes neither a valid argument for nor a justification for the current issues.
Then why getting apoplectic about "Socialism" when what the critics really want is a socialistic program that works. I agree that whether the government has the money or the ability to run a public health care program is a valid concern but this gets back to what I brought up earlier. All of the misinformed and hyperbolic rhetoric clouds what are legitimate concerns.
I'm not upset. I have tried to explain that, but I keep getting lumped back into the general pool because the combination of ridicule, provocation to anger and isolation is part of the liberal playbook to silence critics (agree with Glenn Beck on that). If you want to really look at our government, public schools are socialistic. Medicare is socialistic. There are other examples. However, the "socialistic" mantra exists as an easy way to express fear over government take-over of business (automotive in particular) and banking. As an example, liberals were just as fearful of the Patriot Act and its ramifications.
And of course the Right wing never does that.. I agree you should be upset about getting lumped in with the crazies but this is an area where you should take on your own then. For example I opposed the invasion or Iraq but at the sametime I get upset and argue against those who who spout who believe that 9/11 was organized by the government as an excuse to go into Iraq and get their oil. The cries of "No Socialism!" isn't something that the Left is making up. Its coming out of the mouths of the most vocal opponents toward health care. While you and others might have very valid concerns you are being drowned out by the rhetoric of those people yelling about Socialism and "Death Panels." Its not those on the other side making you look bad its those who are claim to be on your side.
What? Palin is definitely an idiot. All this stuff did was to allow doctors to be compensated for discussing the issues of end of life care. That money was to be paid for by the insurance companies. There was no death panel, no euthanasia involved. I've had my own mother and other relatives receive that counseling. Our familiy and my mother were grateful for it. But that has been removed from the bill now, because of idiots like Palin. So what basically happened was that Palin and other uninformed paranoid folks just saved the insurance companies millions of dollars, and they will now have to pay for that same counseling which they will all receive and be glad for. The stupid fear tactics by people like Palin cost the average senior money out of pocket and saved the insurance companies who are behind all this $$$. It's also hilarious that once again Dr. Emanuel's comments are brought into it again. That other stupid article about Dr. Emanuel has been so thoroughly debunked, that you haven't even bothered to show your head in utter a response to it, basso. It's hilarious that you would try and use it again with this article.
First Palin, now Grassley (or the entire Republican caucus) Oh, Those Death Panels You would think that if Republicans wanted to totally mischaracterize a health care provision and demagogue it like nobody's business, they would at least pick something that the vast majority of them hadn't already voted for just a few years earlier. Because that's not just shameless, it's stupid. Yes, that's right. Remember the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill, the one that passed with the votes of 204 GOP House members and 42 GOP Senators? Anyone want to guess what it provided funding for? Did you say counseling for end-of-life issues and care? Ding ding ding!! Let's go to the bill text, shall we? "The covered services are: evaluating the beneficiary's need for pain and symptom management, including the individual's need for hospice care; counseling the beneficiary with respect to end-of-life issues and care options, and advising the beneficiary regarding advanced care planning." The only difference between the 2003 provision and the infamous Section 1233 that threatens the very future and moral sanctity of the Republic is that the first applied only to terminally ill patients. Section 1233 would expand funding so that people could voluntarily receive counseling before they become terminally ill. So either Republicans were for death panels in 2003 before turning against them now--or they're lying about end-of-life counseling in order to frighten the bejeezus out of their fellow citizens and defeat health reform by any means necessary. Which is it, Mr. Grassley?
Not saying that's a justification but at Beck's assertion that somehow the Left does this while ignoring what his side does.
I'm glad thumbs decided to come out of hiding to once again feed us his standard line that the birthers, tea partiers, and now the screamers are really a moderate mix of the broad swath of american culture, simply fed up with washington bungling - all of them, conveniently during a democratic president. But don't worry - that's not highly suspicious or indicative of insanely obvious party-based fear mongering - nay, these are all honest citizens, many of them in agreement with the president, and democrats themselves to boot! Yes - the most irrational complainers are really just regular american folk, discontent with issues and/or agendas that don't really exist or that they ignored for eight years previously. Don't think them partisan! Truly, thumbs is always here to supply us with the most intellectually honest discourse possible.
welcome to the first circle. . [rquoter]ObamaCare: Why Avastin Matters The FDA is considering designating the drug Avastin "off-label" for stage four breast cancer patients in the next few weeks. That doesn't mean patients won't be able to take the drug, it will simply determine whether or not they can afford to take it. As Big Government recently pointed out on the same topic, cost considerations are an increasingly significant factor when it comes to the government approving various health care options for Americans. And the trend under ObamaCare is only going to get worse. Cost seems to be a particularly significant factor when it comes to Avastin and the breast cancer patients it may help. Who is better equipped to decide the value of either extending your life, or at the least, improving the quality of it until the end - you, in consultation with a qualified specialist who knows your case, or a room full of bureaucrats consulting manuals in Washington? That is the central question for me in this issue. If allowed to continue, this trend is only going to get worse. How would you feel is you were fighting for your life against stage four breast cancer and could read this in the New York Times while knowing it was an option for someone with serious money, but not for you - even with health insurance? Although only a handful of drugs tested in hundreds of individual trials have improved survival, patients who receive a diagnosis of advanced breast cancer today live on average about two or more years longer than 30 years ago. This is due in part to the availability of drugs that when used individually have modest effects, but when used sequentially produce incremental benefits. In fact, Avastin did improve survival at one year for about 5 percent, or about 1 in 20 of those treated, although this early benefit was not maintained because of other therapies given later. We desperately need more therapeutic options, not fewer, and the pharmaceutical companies need to price them responsibly. Joseph A. Sparano - director of Cancer Clinical Trials at the Montefiore-Einstein Cancer Center When a drug is taken "off label" by the FDA it essentially denies coverage both through Medicare and through private insurance. Coincidentally, that's the situation with Avastin for ovarian cancer in Colorado right now and neither patients, nor doctors, are thrilled. By taking Avastin "off-label" for ovarian cancer, Medicare is denying patients the opportunity for life. There is nothing like a genuine consensus where these various boards and lists come into play. Which experts do you want making your health care choices, some anonymous man, or woman, behind a desk in DC, or you and your doctor? I know which I'd choose. Medicare contractors consult lists of scientifically reviewed drugs, called compendia, to determine whether to cover drugs for off-label use. The Medicare contractor for Colorado, TrailBlazer Health Enterprises, "is more conservative than the others" and consults four compendia, Fierberg said. One of the four did not support using Avastin for ovarian cancer because a clinical trial was terminated due to adverse effects, including serious bleeding. Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., has urged the Colorado Medicare office in a letter to push its contractor to cover Avastin. A promising new drug to treat ovarian cancer is giving hope to women battling the ruthless disease, expected to kill 210 Coloradans and more than 14,000 other Americans this year. For women who live in California or New York, Medicare pays for the monthly injections of Avastin — which can cost $7,000 to $15,000 apiece. Women in Colorado, meanwhile, are digging into retirement accounts or going without the drug because Medicare refuses to cover it here. The disparity has outraged Coloradans, who have asked federal lawmakers to fix it. "I call that criminal," said Elaine Rueb, a Denver woman paying for her own Avastin injections. "It's just ridiculous. Medicare is a federal program, yet we have these regional rules that are different?" The reason Medicare rejects claims for Avastin in Colorado is that its contractor — the Dallas company that processes its claims — decided not to cover it. Absent a national coverage decision, and there isn't one regarding Avastin for ovarian cancer, local Medicare regions make their own coverage decision, said Mike Fierberg, spokesman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in Colorado. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved Avastin for other cancers, including colon cancer. In the past couple of years, oncologists across the country started prescribing it "off-label" for ovarian-cancer patients. Medicare contractors consult lists of scientifically reviewed drugs, called compendia, to determine whether to cover drugs for off-label use. The Medicare contractor for Colorado, TrailBlazer Health Enterprises, "is more conservative than the others" and consults four compendia, Fierberg said. One of the four did not support using Avastin for ovarian cancer because a clinical trial was terminated due to adverse effects, including serious bleeding. Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., has urged the Colorado Medicare office in a letter to push its contractor to cover Avastin. "It makes no sense that an ovarian- cancer patient can be denied access to this proven cancer drug just because she happens to live in Colorado," Bennet said. "All women should have access to these treatments, whether they live in Minnesota, California or Colorado." Annette McElhiney cashed in her savings to pay for four Avastin treatments in Colorado, spending close to $27,000. Then the retired Metropolitan State College of Denver professor had two Avastin treatments near her winter retreat in Palm Desert, Calif., and mailed a fat check to the infusion center. When the clinic returned the money and told her Medicare picked up the bill, McElhiney was shocked and then "enraged" by the inequity. Now she travels to California every three weeks, using her husband's frequent-flier miles, for 30-minute Avastin injections. She's been in remission for six months and believes the drug is helping. Dr. Susan Davidson, a gynecological oncologist at the University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine, has prescribed Avastin for several patients. A couple had private insurance that covered the drug, and a few got the drug manufacturer to subsidize the cost. But several patients on Medicare are going without it. "It feels like my patients are being discriminated against," Davidson said. "It's just unbelievably unfair. I can't understand why the policy for Medicare can't be uniform in this country." Avastin works by inhibiting the growth of new blood vessels, which carry nutrients to a tumor. Rueb, who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer nearly four years ago, has had little break from chemotherapy since then. She is spending her savings on Avastin treatments, but that "won't last forever." "You do run out of options after a while," the 59-year-old said. "It's pretty tough." The same thing is now happening for breast cancer victims. This is the future of the American health care system under ObamaCare. Do you feel better, now?[/rquoter]
There are already Death Panels operating in America. Someone decides who gets heart transplants or liver transplants and who doesn't. Why the demonizing terminology for the unavoidable truth? We couldn't ever give all the medical care needed to every citizen.
What a dumb article. The decision with Avastin has nothing to do with health care reform. It would occur - and decisions like it have occurred - regardless. Not every drug is approved by insurers. Doctors and patients have never made that decision. If you have private insurance, your insurance company makes the decision. If you have public insurance, the governing body makes it. That's how it was, that's how it will be. Sometimes I wonder if you can get any more ignorant about the topics you choose to discuss, and it never ceases to amaze me that the answer is always yes.
