Death Panels, we were right , so was Palin.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/health-care-reform-beyond-obamacare.html?ref=stevenrattner


Medicare needs to take a cue from Willie Sutton, who reportedly said he robbed banks because that’s where the money was. The big money in Medicare is not to be found in Mr. Ryan’s competition or Mr. Obama’s innovation, but in reducing the cost of treating people in the last year of life, which consumes more than a quarter of the program’s budget.

No one wants to lose an aging parent. And with price out of the equation, it’s natural for patients and their families to try every treatment, regardless of expense or efficacy. But that imposes an enormous societal cost that few other nations have been willing to bear. Many countries whose health care systems are regularly extolled — including Canada, Australia and New Zealand — have systems for rationing care.

Take Britain, which provides universal coverage with spending at proportionately almost half of American levels. Its National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence uses a complex quality-adjusted life year system to put an explicit value (up to about $48,000 per year) on a treatment’s ability to extend life.

At the least, the Independent Payment Advisory Board should be allowed to offer changes in services and costs. We may shrink from such stomach-wrenching choices, but they are inescapable. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now comes NYT article by obama friend and fellow azzhat Steven Rattner , prepping for the ideal of death panels just as Palin said. -Tyr

[fj1200]

^You don't want anyone messing with your entitlement do you?

[taft2012]

^You don't want anyone messing with your entitlement do you?

^^^ You'd let Obama pull the plug on your mother for a free cellphone, wouldn't you?

[Drummond]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/health-care-reform-beyond-obamacare.html?ref=stevenrattner


Medicare needs to take a cue from Willie Sutton, who reportedly said he robbed banks because that’s where the money was. The big money in Medicare is not to be found in Mr. Ryan’s competition or Mr. Obama’s innovation, but in reducing the cost of treating people in the last year of life, which consumes more than a quarter of the program’s budget.

No one wants to lose an aging parent. And with price out of the equation, it’s natural for patients and their families to try every treatment, regardless of expense or efficacy. But that imposes an enormous societal cost that few other nations have been willing to bear. Many countries whose health care systems are regularly extolled — including Canada, Australia and New Zealand — have systems for rationing care.

Take Britain, which provides universal coverage with spending at proportionately almost half of American levels. Its National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence uses a complex quality-adjusted life year system to put an explicit value (up to about $48,000 per year) on a treatment’s ability to extend life.

At the least, the Independent Payment Advisory Board should be allowed to offer changes in services and costs. We may shrink from such stomach-wrenching choices, but they are inescapable. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now comes NYT article by obama friend and fellow azzhat Steven Rattner , prepping for the ideal of death panels just as Palin said. -Tyr

... Just posting here to completely endorse Tyr's comments concerning the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence's rationing of health care on 'cost grounds'. We've seen story after story, here in the UK, of treatments being withheld, some of them life-saving, where NICE (.. yes, this is their accepted acronym !!) arrogantly take life and death decisions of that type.

A socialised healthcare system, such as that which I believe Obama wants to implement in the US given half a chance, can have, and in the UK, DOES HAVE, such powers .. powers run by the State, unilaterally and unaccountably decided by the State.

Do YOU want faceless bureaucrats to tell you how much longer you may be permitted to live ???

[Trigg]

As someone who has worked in healthcare my view on this is probably different from many on this site.


We see so many older people from nursing homes, brought into the hospital. People who are in pain and nothing that the hospital does is going to change the fact that they are dying.

Unfortunatally the children can't and won't let a dying parent go. So they ask that "everything" be done to "save" them. This means expensive tests and surguries to hopefully prolong a life for a matter of months.

On the flip side many parents will end care for terminally ill children because they don't want to see them suffer.


I don't see this as death panels, I see this as reasonable care and letting people die with dignity.

[Missileman]

As someone who has worked in healthcare my view on this is probably different from many on this site.


We see so many older people from nursing homes, brought into the hospital. People who are in pain and nothing that the hospital does is going to change the fact that they are dying.

Unfortunatally the children can't and won't let a dying parent go. So they ask that "everything" be done to "save" them. This means expensive tests and surguries to hopefully prolong a life for a matter of months.

On the flip side many parents will end care for terminally ill children because they don't want to see them suffer.


I don't see this as death panels, I see this as reasonable care and letting people die with dignity.

There has to be some consideration for cost/benefit. I would make absolutely no sense to spend several million dollars to extend someone's life for a few weeks for instance. No matter how it's approached though, there are goinig to be a few who scream bloody murder...pun intended.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

There has to be some consideration for cost/benefit. I would make absolutely no sense to spend several million dollars to extend someone's life for a few weeks for instance. No matter how it's approached though, there are goinig to be a few who scream bloody murder...pun intended.

Could be because we already know how its going to be approached . There are several other such crapcare systems operating around the world. People flee from them like the plague! Obama already said, give grandma an aspirin and just let her die. My mother is 84 years old , I take great exception to your cavelier attitude on how old people should be treated. It will not only be about a few weeks, it'll be about a few months , then that will extend into a couple years if the costs run too high for that couple years ,bearucrats will pull the plug years sooner. WE DONT WANT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS HAVING THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THE DECISION!!!!!! THAT SHOULD BE A DISCUSSION BETWEN THE DOCTOR , THE PATIENT AND/OR THE NEXT OF KIN! CUTTING OUT COMPLETELY OUT THE PATIENT AND NEXT OF KIN IS NOT GONNA CUT IT !
We already see how end of life counciling is a part of healtcrapbamboy care. And we know it will be used as a propaganda campaign to council older patients to sign a permission to end it all ,etc.

ALL ABOUT SAVING MONEY, MEANS SAVING LIFE BECOMES FAR LESS IMPORTANT..--Tyr

[Trigg]

Could be because we already know how its going to be approached . There are several other such crapcare systems operating around the world. People flee from them like the plague! Obama already said, give grandma an aspirin and just let her die. My mother is 84 years old , I take great exception to your cavelier attitude on how old people should be treated. It will not only be about a few weeks, it'll be about a few months , then that will extend into a couple years if the costs run too high for that couple years ,bearucrats will pull the plug years sooner. WE DONT WANT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS HAVING THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THE DECISION!!!!!! THAT SHOULD BE A DISCUSSION BETWEN THE DOCTOR , THE PATIENT AND/OR THE NEXT OF KIN! CUTTING OUT COMPLETELY OUT THE PATIENT AND NEXT OF KIN IS NOT GONNA CUT IT !
We already see how end of life counciling is a part of healtcrapbamboy care. And we know it will be used as a propaganda campaign to council older patients to sign a permission to end it all ,etc.

ALL ABOUT SAVING MONEY, MEANS SAVING LIFE BECOMES FAR LESS IMPORTANT..--Tyr

IT isn't a cavelier attitude, it's working in the system and seeing the pain older people are put through every day because their children can't and won't let go.

There is a difference between a healthy 84yr old and one who is riddled with cancer or who has had a lifetime of health issues. The people I am talking about are the older people living in a home, kyphotic and in major pain, who's children are dragging them from dr. to dr. trying to extend their life. Instead of letting them die in peace.

The problem with the next of kin and the doctor is that as soon as the kids say "do everything you can" the doctor has no choice but to run every test available. The doctor in most cases has already said. There is nothing we can do that is going to help.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

^^^ You'd let Obama pull the plug on your mother for a free cellphone, wouldn't you?

I believe some would and watch how many others here support obamacrapcare! Support it , compete with its already known death panels too. Anybody pull the plug on my mother without consulting me ,getting my permission, I will kill outright! THEY MURDER MY MOTHER I KILL THEM !! FACT NOT BIG TALK.. .. Plenty more like me out there that think the same way! Why do you think the government(not military) has bought so many hundreds of millions of rounds of ammo. Are they going rabbit hunting??!!!-Tyr

[Missileman]

Could be because we already know how its going to be approached . There are several other such crapcare systems operating around the world. People flee from them like the plague! Obama already said, give grandma an aspirin and just let her die. My mother is 84 years old , I take great exception to your cavelier attitude on how old people should be treated. It will not only be about a few weeks, it'll be about a few months , then that will extend into a couple years if the costs run too high for that couple years ,bearucrats will pull the plug years sooner. WE DONT WANT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS HAVING THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THE DECISION!!!!!! THAT SHOULD BE A DISCUSSION BETWEN THE DOCTOR , THE PATIENT AND/OR THE NEXT OF KIN! CUTTING OUT COMPLETELY OUT THE PATIENT AND NEXT OF KIN IS NOT GONNA CUT IT !
We already see how end of life counciling is a part of healtcrapbamboy care. And we know it will be used as a propaganda campaign to council older patients to sign a permission to end it all ,etc.

ALL ABOUT SAVING MONEY, MEANS SAVING LIFE BECOMES FAR LESS IMPORTANT..--Tyr

I take great exception to the extent of your idiocy. I didn't say anything cavalier about how old people should be treated. As a matter of fact, I didn't say anything at all about old people.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

IT isn't a cavelier attitude, it's working in the system and seeing the pain older people are put through every day because their children can't and won't let go.

There is a difference between a healthy 84yr old and one who is riddled with cancer or who has had a lifetime of health issues. The people I am talking about are the older people living in a home, kyphotic and in major pain, who's children are dragging them from dr. to dr. trying to extend their life. Instead of letting them die in peace.

The problem with the next of kin and the doctor is that as soon as the kids say "do everything you can" the doctor has no choice but to run every test available. The doctor in most cases has already said. There is nothing we can do that is going to help.

I have zero disagreement with what you propose . I am talking about how the government will use said power simply to save money, to save billions.
GREED WILL PREVAIL AS IT ALWAYS DOES!
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WILL NOT CARE ABOUT ANYTHING BUT THE MONEY!!--Tyr

[Nukeman]

Could be because we already know how its going to be approached . There are several other such crapcare systems operating around the world. People flee from them like the plague! Obama already said, give grandma an aspirin and just let her die. My mother is 84 years old , I take great exception to your cavelier attitude on how old people should be treated. It will not only be about a few weeks, it'll be about a few months , then that will extend into a couple years if the costs run too high for that couple years ,bearucrats will pull the plug years sooner. WE DONT WANT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS HAVING THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THE DECISION!!!!!! THAT SHOULD BE A DISCUSSION BETWEN THE DOCTOR , THE PATIENT AND/OR THE NEXT OF KIN! CUTTING OUT COMPLETELY OUT THE PATIENT AND NEXT OF KIN IS NOT GONNA CUT IT !
We already see how end of life counciling is a part of healtcrapbamboy care. And we know it will be used as a propaganda campaign to council older patients to sign a permission to end it all ,etc.

ALL ABOUT SAVING MONEY, MEANS SAVING LIFE BECOMES FAR LESS IMPORTANT..--Tyr
The bolded part here is the IMPORTANT part. Unfortunately when it come to the 'next of kin" they are many times distraught and too emotional to make a informed decisions. It isn't soo much about "saving" money as it is about not WASTING money in futile attempt to find something else wrong to keep getting every last dollar out of the patients insurance company.

I will say that this year alone I have made the statement "why doesn't the family let them pass with some dignity and comfort instead of performing test after test with NO CHANGE in treatment" at least 50 times, and I work in a smaller community hospital, I would hate to see how often this happens in a larger city/hospital...

Now I do not believe there should be politicle involvement in the decision, but I do believe the hospital ethics commities should be utilized more when the family just doesn't get it.

[Missileman]

The bolded part here is the IMPORTANT part. Unfortunately when it come to the 'next of kin" they are many times distraught and too emotional to make a informed decisions. It isn't soo much about "saving" money as it is about not WASTING money in futile attempt to find something else wrong to keep getting every last dollar out of the patients insurance company.

I will say that this year alone I have made the statement "why doesn't the family let them pass with some dignity and comfort instead of performing test after test with NO CHANGE in treatment" at least 50 times, and I work in a smaller community hospital, I would hate to see how often this happens in a larger city/hospital...

Now I do not believe there should be politicle involvement in the decision, but I do believe the hospital ethics commities should be utilized more when the family just doesn't get it.

Limited resources is a concept over some people's heads.

[Nukeman]

Limited resources is a concept over some people's heads.They wouldn't be limited if they wern't WASTED!!!:thumb:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The bolded part here is the IMPORTANT part. Unfortunately when it come to the 'next of kin" they are many times distraught and too emotional to make a informed decisions. It isn't soo much about "saving" money as it is about not WASTING money in futile attempt to find something else wrong to keep getting every last dollar out of the patients insurance company.

I will say that this year alone I have made the statement "why doesn't the family let them pass with some dignity and comfort instead of performing test after test with NO CHANGE in treatment" at least 50 times, and I work in a smaller community hospital, I would hate to see how often this happens in a larger city/hospital...

Now I do not believe there should be politicle involvement in the decision, but I do believe the hospital ethics commities should be utilized more when the family just doesn't get it.

^^^^ THAT I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH.
My problem is with the bean counter counting beans and how it will soon start to be more about the beans than it is the real care of the patient. The exceptions you guys are speaking of will be broaden and then broadened even more as the need to save money increases and that need will increase by leaps and bounds..-Tyr

[Missileman]

They wouldn't be limited if they wern't WASTED!!!:thumb:

They wouldn't be AS limited...:beer:

[Trigg]

I believe some would and watch how many others here support obamacrapcare! Support it , compete with its already known death panels too. Anybody pull the plug on my mother without consulting me ,getting my permission, I will kill outright! THEY MURDER MY MOTHER I KILL THEM !! FACT NOT BIG TALK.. .. Plenty more like me out there that think the same way! Why do you think the government(not military) has bought so many hundreds of millions of rounds of ammo. Are they going rabbit hunting??!!!-Tyr


I have zero disagreement with what you propose . I am talking about how the government will use said power simply to save money, to save billions.
GREED WILL PREVAIL AS IT ALWAYS DOES!
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WILL NOT CARE ABOUT ANYTHING BUT THE MONEY!!--Tyr

I've bolded a portion of both of your texts.

1. Chances are if your mother is on life support you have already had the discussion with the doctor about her continued care. He has probably mentioned quality of life and the fact that nothing they do is going to change her outcome. As a child you have probably already said "I don't care, do everything you can".

At this point if someone could step in and explain that she is in pain and letting her die is the most humane thing to do, I would support that.

2. We are talking about a lot of money. But more than that we are talking about letting people die with the dignity they deserve in stead of letting their care rest on the insecurity of their children and their inability to let go.

[Drummond]

I've just dug this link out (it should, hopefully, be viewable ..).

Considering how this debate is progressing, I think you'll find reviewing this report helpful ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2126379/Sentenced-death-old-The-NHS-denies-life-saving-treatment-elderly-mans-chilling-story-reveals.html


When Kenneth Warden was diagnosed with terminal bladder cancer, his hospital consultant sent him home to die, ruling that at 78 he was too old to treat.

Even the palliative surgery or chemotherapy that could have eased his distressing symptoms were declared off-limits because of his age.

His distraught daughter Michele Halligan accepted the sad prognosis but was determined her father would spend his last months in comfort. So she paid for him to seen privately by a second doctor to discover what could be done to ease his symptoms.

Thanks to her tenacity, Kenneth got the drugs and surgery he needed — and as a result his cancer was actually cured. Four years on, he is a sprightly 82-year-old who works out at the gym, drives a sports car and competes in a rowing team.

‘You could call his recovery amazing,’ says Michele, 51. ‘It is certainly a gift. But the fact is that he was written off because of his age. He was left to suffer so much, and so unnecessarily.’

Sadly, Kenneth’s story is symptomatic of a dreadful truth. According to shocking new research by Macmillan Cancer Support, every year many thousands of older people are routinely denied life-saving NHS treatments because their doctors write them off as too old to treat.

It is often left to close family members to fight for their rights. But although it is now British law that patients must never be discriminated against on the basis of age, such battles often prove futile.

Michele’s fight began in September 2008, when her father noticed blood in his urine. His GP sent him to a consultant urologist at a hospital in the north-west of England and a large tumour was found in his bladder.

An MRI scan showed that the tumour was advanced and went through his bladder wall and muscle.

A minor operation enabled Kenneth to pass urine, but left him needing to do so every 20 minutes, day and night.

‘He was exhausted by lack of sleep,’ says Michele. ‘It was making him more ill than the tumour was. The pain was like having permanent cystitis.

‘But when I asked for Dad to be given help for this, the consultant said there was no treatment available.’

Michele, who lives in Chester and is married with two children, was not satisfied. As a former midwife, she was more confident than most about attempting her own medical research on the internet.

She read on one site that radiotherapy could shrink the tumour and give her father relief from his terrible symptoms. Further surgery on the bladder might help even more.

‘I was not looking for a cure, just a way to give my father some quality of life for the time he had remaining,’ she says.

‘We went back to the urologist and asked about radiotherapy. I also wanted to know why my father could not have an operation to relieve his urinary symptoms.

‘The doctor said that as my father was 78, these treatments would not be appropriate because he was “too old”.

‘But my father was very fit and muscular. He regularly went running and worked out at the gym. He was also a lifelong rower who held competition records. But all the consultant would say was: “You have to accept that your father is dying.”

‘I had no issue with the hospital — it is a very good hospital — but I could not believe the surgeon.

‘We went back to our GP, but they believed the consultant. I got the impression that I was considered an “interfering woman”.’

In desperation, the family found nearly £3,000 to pay for private tests and a second opinion from a consultant in Birmingham.

‘The private consultant agreed with me that Dad should be given chemotherapy to shrink the tumour prior to a radical cystectomy.’

This operation involves removing the bladder, surrounding lymph nodes and the prostate gland. Though neither Michele nor her father had private medical insurance, the new consultant arranged for Kenneth to have the operation on the NHS at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham.

‘The treatment there was superb,’ says Michele. ‘Dad went for chemotherapy every week for nine weeks, followed by one month off. Then he went back in March 2009 and had the radical cystectomy.

‘The operation went well. We felt it would relieve so much of Dad’s anguish during the time he had left.’

But as it turned out, the chemotherapy and surgery did not just relieve his symptoms: they also banished his cancer. Now, four years after the operation, a total body scan shows Kenneth to be completely free of the disease.

Michele says: ‘He is back rowing and working out at the gym. He has enjoyed seven holidays abroad and bought himself a sports car.’

She feels strongly that her father’s case proves that elderly people are still discriminated against by the NHS, and she even reported the first consultant to the General Medical Council. ‘I said his actions constituted “pure ageism”. But they said he hadn’t acted wrongly as it was a “matter of professional opinion”.’

This kind of ‘professional opinion’ appears to be costing more than 14,000 lives each year, thanks to routine discrimination by doctors who assume older patients are too frail for surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy.

This is according to experts at Macmillan Cancer Support, who warned last week that every day up to 40 elderly cancer sufferers are dying needlessly because they are being denied the best treatments. This is particularly true, it says, for patients over the age of 70.

The charity estimates that if the treatment of older patients matched that on offer in the U.S., as many as 14,000 lives could be saved every year.

Ciaran Devane, chief executive of Macmillan, points out that despite major advances in diagnosis and treatment, the survival chances for patients over the age of 75 have grown only by a fraction.

Mr Devane says: ‘Writing people off as too old for treatment is utterly shameful. We have a moral duty to treat people as individuals and give them the best chance of beating cancer, regardless of their age.’

Discrimination against the elderly affects not only cancer treatment but goes right across the board, according to another new report.

I don't think I need to comment.

[Trigg]

^^^^ THAT I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH.
My problem is with the bean counter counting beans and how it will soon start to be more about the beans than it is the real care of the patient. The exceptions you guys are speaking of will be broaden and then broadened even more as the need to save money increases and that need will increase by leaps and bounds..-Tyr

hospitals are not filled with heartless people. End of life discussions are all about the patient. I disagree with your bean counter analogy, because Nuke and I are not talking about EXCEPTIONS. We are talking about something we see almost everyday.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Limited resources is a concept over some people's heads.

So is apparently the knowledge that greed will prevail and giving authority like that to bean counters that will only think to save money will end badly--badly for those that will be terminated simply because some guy decides it saves money without taking any consideration of the patient. Apparently you have this amazing faith in government beaurocrats and their amazing tender hearts and great concern for people they have never met! I am not that gullible..
IT WILL BE ABUSED AND IT WILL BE ABUSED VERY BADLY!-Tyr

[Trigg]

I don't think I need to comment.

it's never a bad idea to get a second oppinion, especially with such a prognosis and the age of the patient mentioned.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

hospitals are not filled with heartless people. End of life discussions are all about the patient. I disagree with your bean counter analogy, because nuke and i are not talking about exceptions. We are talking about something we see almost everyday.

the guy that gets authority to order the termination will eventually be a bean counter not even at the hospital. Thats my point..-tyr

[Trigg]

the guy that gets authority to order the termination will eventually be a bean counter not even at the hospital. Thats my point..-tyr


I don't think ORDERING a termination would ever happen.

what might happen is no other tests or surgeries are ordered for an older person already on life support.

[Missileman]

I've just dug this link out (it should, hopefully, be viewable ..).

Considering how this debate is progressing, I think you'll find reviewing this report helpful ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2126379/Sentenced-death-old-The-NHS-denies-life-saving-treatment-elderly-mans-chilling-story-reveals.html



I don't think I need to comment.

No one has access to a crystal ball to see how these things will turn out. There are probably as many stories of people dropping dead soon after huge amounts of money have been spent on their treatment.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I've bolded a portion of both of your texts.

1. Chances are if your mother is on life support you have already had the discussion with the doctor about her continued care. He has probably mentioned quality of life and the fact that nothing they do is going to change her outcome. As a child you have probably already said "I don't care, do everything you can".

At this point if someone could step in and explain that she is in pain and letting her die is the most humane thing to do, I would support that.

2. We are talking about a lot of money. But more than that we are talking about letting people die with the dignity they deserve in stead of letting their care rest on the insecurity of their children and their inability to let go.

You do not get it. Apparently you believe that the bean counter with that FINAL AUTHORITY will think like you(commendable) while I maintain he will have the authority and will not give damn about anything but the bottomline.
Drummunds just posted information of what happens and how many times has that same thing happened that the family just obeyed the doctors letting somebody die that could have been saved?-Tyr

[Missileman]

So is apparently the knowledge that greed will prevail and giving authority like that to bean counters that will only think to save money will end badly--badly for those that will be terminated simply because some guy decides it saves money without taking any consideration of the patient. Apparently you have this amazing faith in government beaurocrats and their amazing tender hearts and great concern for people they have never met! I am not that gullible..
IT WILL BE ABUSED AND IT WILL BE ABUSED VERY BADLY!-Tyr

I waiting to see what they come up with as guidelines rather than run around in a Chicken Little tizzy.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I've bolded a portion of both of your texts.

1. Chances are if your mother is on life support you have already had the discussion with the doctor about her continued care. He has probably mentioned quality of life and the fact that nothing they do is going to change her outcome. As a child you have probably already said "I don't care, do everything you can".

At this point if someone could step in and explain that she is in pain and letting her die is the most humane thing to do, I would support that.

2. We are talking about a lot of money. But more than that we are talking about letting people die with the dignity they deserve in stead of letting their care rest on the insecurity of their children and their inability to let go.


No one has access to a crystal ball to see how these things will turn out. There are probably as many stories of people dropping dead soon after huge amounts of money have been spent on their treatment.

He gave a true case--reality ,now Missileman you give supposition and what if guesswork. Your comment to me indicates that you place a higher value on money than human life. What does it matter if money was spent then the guy dies ,isnt that always a possibility? To government in charge it will always matter and wil be the primary concern!
ARE YOU BY ANY CHANCE A HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATOR ?-Tyr

[Nukeman]

No one has access to a crystal ball to see how these things will turn out. There are probably as many stories of people dropping dead soon after huge amounts of money have been spent on their treatment.Happens all the time. a number of patients I see have literaly tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars of test and procedures done all in the last 2-4 weeks of their life. meanwhile they are shitting on themselves, can't eat, are in severe pain. Than after all night of this severe pain and major complications the "family" comes in and just don't want to let go..

in my family we have had a number of these type of issues of late. My grandmother started my feeling on this 17 years ago. This brave woman knew she was dying and her Dr. said he could extend her life by 6 months to a year with chemo and radiation treatment. the first question she asked was "do I have to go back in the hospital", to which he answered yes. Her responce was "to hell with that I'm going home and having my family around". I received a phone call a couple of weeks later to come home quickly, my wife who was on strict bed rest for a pregnancy made a bed in our SUV and we made the 2 hour trip to say goodby. She had the biggest smile on her face when she saw all fo us and peacefully went to sleep. I would NEVER have my family go throught he humiliating battery of test and dehumanizing treatment at the end of life.. ...

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I waiting to see what they come up with as guidelines rather than run around in a Chicken Little tizzy.

^^^^^^^^Not bright enough to figure out THAT --SAVING MONEY WILL BE THE GUIDELINE!

[Trigg]

You do not get it. Apparently you believe that the bean counter with that FINAL AUTHORITY will think like you(commendable) while I maintain he will have the authority and will not give damn about anything but the bottomline.
Drummunds just posted information of what happens and how many times has that same thing happened that the family just obeyed the doctors letting somebody die that could have been saved?-Tyr


I don't GET IT????

Because I disagree with your FEAR does not mean that I DON'T GET IT. It means we see things differently. I see these people on a daily basis, this is not a knee jerk reaction on my part. People are in pain and instead of letting them die in peace and dignity their family members drag them from appointment to appointment because they are unable to let go.

The doctors have already told them that the patient is dying. If someone else can step in and again explain the situation to distraut family members I agree with that.

Drummund posted a story that highlights why people should get second oppinions when discussing a terminal illness. In fact with any major surgery people should get second oppinions.

[Missileman]

Your comment to me indicates that you place a higher value on money than human life. -Tyr

I'm not responsible for your imbecilic interpretations of my posts.

[Missileman]

^^^^^^^^Not bright enough to figure out THAT --SAVING MONEY WILL BE THE GUIDELINE!

Hey Einstein...you have $100,000 left in the account. Do you spend it to keep an elderly stage 4 cancer patient alive for a couple months or do you spend it on an operation that allows a 5-year-old to walk without braces, assuming both cost $100,000? Are you going to be willing to live in the street and fork over your entire paycheck to the government so they can do every imaginable procedure on every patient. Or maybe we can just force doctors and hospitals to do everything for free at gunpoint.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I don't GET IT????

Because I disagree with your FEAR does not mean that I DON'T GET IT. It means we see things differently. I see these people on a daily basis, this is not a knee jerk reaction on my part. People are in pain and instead of letting them die in peace and dignity their family members drag them from appointment to appointment because they are unable to let go.

The doctors have already told them that the patient is dying. If someone else can step in and again explain the situation to distraut family members I agree with that.

Drummund posted a story that highlights why people should get second oppinions when discussing a terminal illness. In fact with any major surgery people should get second oppinions.

I think that perhaps we are arguing about two totally different scenarios. You are giving example in which I tend to agree with you while I am saying that it will go far past that. And the person with theauthority wil not give a damn abot anything but the money that is to be saved. As that was the case in the linked example that Drummonds gave.How many times has that happened over there? And the guys daughter in that case care enough to try to get him some comfort in his last days and by doing so they found out the error. Where in bamcare does it provide for COSTLY second opinions and that all previous medical tests etc will be given to another doctor-or even another doctor that is not part of the bamcare system. Obviously that will not be funded by bamcare, they will not pay billions to be challenged in their costs savings.-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Hey Einstein...you have $100,000 left in the account. Do you spend it to keep an elderly stage 4 cancer patient alive for a couple months or do you spend it on an operation that allows a 5-year-old to walk without braces, assuming both cost $100,000? Are you going to be willing to live in the street and fork over your entire paycheck to the government so they can do every imaginable procedure on every patient. Or maybe we can just force doctors and hospitals to do everything for free at gunpoint.

Hey Einstein, you just gave a major reason that the government should not be in charge of healthcare and all this socialst bullshit care and obama's power grab for bigger government should have never been passed into law.
Obviously only because the system is encased into one entity(bamcare) controlled by one entity(government) does one patient's costs affect another patient's abilty to get costly care. In that system the older guys care may be cut to pay for the 5 year olds care. Now before obamacare those two patients and thier healthcare bear no relationship to each other . Welcome to the damn collective amigo!! Borg thinking and borg cheering doesnt make one enlightened or savvy.-Tyr

[DragonStryk72]

As someone who has worked in healthcare my view on this is probably different from many on this site.


We see so many older people from nursing homes, brought into the hospital. People who are in pain and nothing that the hospital does is going to change the fact that they are dying.

Unfortunatally the children can't and won't let a dying parent go. So they ask that "everything" be done to "save" them. This means expensive tests and surguries to hopefully prolong a life for a matter of months.

On the flip side many parents will end care for terminally ill children because they don't want to see them suffer.


I don't see this as death panels, I see this as reasonable care and letting people die with dignity.

I gotta go with Trigg here. My mom was a home health aid and hospice worker, and I've seen the end of the line. There are people, well meaning as they might be, who just refuse to realize that the collection of tubes and such isn't really their loved one anymore. That they are just incapable of making the choice to let the suffering end, because they don't understand that there's nothing more past it.

However, I'm still hesitant to give the government power in this arena, and the reason is pretty simple. I've also been a regular at the VA hospital, and I've seen the sorts of shenanigans that the government can get up to.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I gotta go with Trigg here. My mom was a home health aid and hospice worker, and I've seen the end of the line. There are people, well meaning as they might be, who just refuse to realize that the collection of tubes and such isn't really their loved one anymore. That they are just incapable of making the choice to let the suffering end, because they don't understand that there's nothing more past it.

However, I'm still hesitant to give the government power in this arena, and the reason is pretty simple. I've also been a regular at the VA hospital, and I've seen the sorts of shenanigans that the government can get up to.

Thanks, exactly my point. I have three Vet friends that have given me plenty of firsthand info on exactly that !
obamacare will dwarf VA CARE IN COSTS! There will be those shenanigans multiplied by hundreds of thousands of times yearly. The sytem wil be as corrupt as is our government and will only get worse because it will involve the spending of trillions of dollars ! Which is a large part of my point. Life and death decisions in medical care should never be given to a bean counting beaurocrat. The person given that final authority wil be very high up within the system! There will not be any unbiased or tenderhearted conclusions made, the guideline will be -SAVING AS MUCH MONEY AS POSSIBLE BY CUTTING CARE! Those making the decision who gets care to live longer and who gets dropped out to die will be told to place far greater imprtance of cost cutting than hmancare/life and they wil pick people that have no probllem obeying that guideline. There are many valid reasons the other crapcare systems are hated and so often people flee from them if at all able to do so!-Tyr

[gabosaurus]

And here I thought some of you want less government interference in the lives of individual citizens. And now you want to regulate how and when senior citizens will die?

I sense a future Soylent Green business in the planning stages. :rolleyes:

[fj1200]

^^^ You'd let Obama pull the plug on your mother for a free cellphone, wouldn't you?

I'll put you in the loves-big-government camp too then.


WE DONT WANT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS HAVING THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THE DECISION!!!!!! THAT SHOULD BE A DISCUSSION BETWEN THE DOCTOR , THE PATIENT AND/OR THE NEXT OF KIN! CUTTING OUT COMPLETELY OUT THE PATIENT AND NEXT OF KIN IS NOT GONNA CUT IT !

He who has the money makes the decision.


Anybody pull the plug on my mother without consulting me ,getting my permission, I will kill outright! THEY MURDER MY MOTHER I KILL THEM !! FACT NOT BIG TALK..

Then get out your checkbook. And honestly, you should have almost zero say in the matter, it's not your life and not your decision to make unless you've been given some sort of authority and even then it shouldn't be based on your feelings.

[fj1200]

So is apparently the knowledge that greed will prevail and giving authority like that to bean counters that will only think to save money will end badly--badly for those that will be terminated simply because some guy decides it saves money without taking any consideration of the patient. Apparently you have this amazing faith in government beaurocrats and their amazing tender hearts and great concern for people they have never met! I am not that gullible..

A. You are an incredibly bad judge of character.
B. Please explain who is personally benefiting from that "greed"?

[Trigg]

And here I thought some of you want less government interference in the lives of individual citizens. And now you want to regulate how and when senior citizens will die?

I sense a future Soylent Green business in the planning stages. :rolleyes:


If that's what you got out of this than I might call your reading comprehension skills into question.

I think the gov. has no place in healthcare, and I'm totally against obama care.

End of life counseling and reasonable care for terminally ill patients, I am in agreement with. Because I see it every day.

[Trigg]

However, I'm still hesitant to give the government power in this arena, and the reason is pretty simple. I've also been a regular at the VA hospital, and I've seen the sorts of shenanigans that the government can get up to.


I'm sure you have, some of the practices are VA hospitals are scary. Including the little known fact that foreign doctors at VA's don't have to pass the American Boards.

I'd love to see all VA's out of business. It would be cheaper for the gov. to close them down and give every veteran a card that they can use at any local hospital and get the care they need. The gov. gets rid of the HUGE overhead that is involved in running and maintaining a hospital and the veteran gets the same care at a local hospital of their choice.

Obama care needs to be repealed. The gov. should have nothing to do with healthcare.

[aboutime]

And here I thought some of you want less government interference in the lives of individual citizens. And now you want to regulate how and when senior citizens will die?

I sense a future Soylent Green business in the planning stages. :rolleyes:

GABBY.......You are incapable of thought on this topic.

That is what OBAMACARE and his panel of 15 NON-MEDICAL individuals will decide if Obamacare is not Reversed.

Think of it this way. Should you live long enough to become a Senior citizen. Someone you, and your family DO NOT KNOW, will step in and decide HOW LONG "THEY THINK" You should be permitted to Live, or be treated for some disease.

Is that what you really want from Obamacare?

On second thought.

Never mind. Don't think about it at all.

Vote for Obama and just SUCK IT UP.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm sure you have, some of the practices are VA hospitals are scary. Including the little known fact that foreign doctors at VA's don't have to pass the American Boards.

I'd love to see all VA's out of business. It would be cheaper for the gov. to close them down and give every veteran a card that they can use at any local hospital and get the care they need. The gov. gets rid of the HUGE overhead that is involved in running and maintaining a hospital and the veteran gets the same care at a local hospital of their choice.

Obama care needs to be repealed. The gov. should have nothing to do with healthcare.

:clap:------:beer:--Tyr

[Drummond]

GABBY.......You are incapable of thought on this topic.

That is what OBAMACARE and his panel of 15 NON-MEDICAL individuals will decide if Obamacare is not Reversed.

Think of it this way. Should you live long enough to become a Senior citizen. Someone you, and your family DO NOT KNOW, will step in and decide HOW LONG "THEY THINK" You should be permitted to Live, or be treated for some disease.

Is that what you really want from Obamacare?

On second thought.

Never mind. Don't think about it at all.

Vote for Obama and just SUCK IT UP.
:clap::clap:

Exactly.

I'm totally sure in my own mind that Obama is determined to move America in the direction taken in the UK decades ago. The result is exactly that level of control.

There is no area of a person's life that the Left doesn't want to control. To them, citizens are the property of the State, and just raw material .. not even real human beings with real rights, at all.

[fj1200]

I'm totally sure in my own mind that Obama is determined to move America in the direction taken in the UK decades ago.

Didn't really need a crystal ball to figure that one out did you?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Didn't really need a crystal ball to figure that one out did you?

From reading your posts here it damn sure looks like you need a crystal ball , maybe even a couple of them.
You pretend taking one stand while you ridicule it every chance you get when others that you dislike promote the same thing. Duplicity isnt a virtue pedro nor is it great enlightenment.. ..-Tyr

[fj1200]

From reading your posts here it damn sure looks like you need a crystal ball , maybe even a couple of them.
You pretend taking one stand while you ridicule it every chance you get when others that you dislike promote the same thing. Duplicity isnt a virtue pedro nor is it great enlightenment.. ..-Tyr

Example please. Or are you still decrying our socialist Medicare while at the same demanding government action for your (family) benefit?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Example please. Or are you still decrying our socialist Medicare while at the same demanding government action for your (family) benefit?

You lying SOB, SHOW WHERE I EVER DEMANDED GOVERNMENT ACTION FOR MY FAMILY.
You are real slow arent ya. I am demanding that the god damn government not be in charge of healthcare you ignorant , silly , goofyass fukker.-- Back on ignore you go.. I gave it a try and you are a useless fucvk.-Tyr

[fj1200]

You lying SOB, SHOW WHERE I EVER DEMANDED GOVERNMENT ACTION FOR MY FAMILY.
You are real slow arent ya. I am demanding that the god damn government not be in charge of healthcare you ignorant , silly , goofyass fukker.-- Back on ignore you go.. I gave it a try and you are a useless fucvk.-Tyr

OK.


Anybody pull the plug on my mother without consulting me ,getting my permission, I will kill outright! THEY MURDER MY MOTHER I KILL THEM !! FACT NOT BIG TALK.. Tyr

Who do you think pays the socialist Medicare bills.


And good idea to leave me on ignore. You won't have to read me pointing out your grandiose ridiculousness.

[gabosaurus]

http://trollcats.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/noob_pwning_trollcat.jpg


You lying SOB, SHOW WHERE I EVER DEMANDED GOVERNMENT ACTION FOR MY FAMILY.
You are real slow arent ya. I am demanding that the god damn government not be in charge of healthcare you ignorant , silly , goofyass fukker.-- Back on ignore you go.. I gave it a try and you are a useless fucvk.-Tyr


OK


Originally Posted by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
Anybody pull the plug on my mother without consulting me ,getting my permission, I will kill outright! THEY MURDER MY MOTHER I KILL THEM !! FACT NOT BIG TALK.. Tyr



Who do you think pays the socialist Medicare bills

bows in reverence :laugh:

[taft2012]

There has to be some consideration for cost/benefit. I would make absolutely no sense to spend several million dollars to extend someone's life for a few weeks for instance. No matter how it's approached though, there are goinig to be a few who scream bloody murder...pun intended.

The problem is (as always it seems lately), that somebody else is paying for it.

If a person was making these decisions based on their own costs we'd seem a lot more practicality in these decisions. For instance; do I mortgage everything I own in a gamble this procedure will work, or do I just let it go and leave an inheritance to my family?

But Obamacare will negate even that scenario, as private treatments outside the realm of the coverage provided by the individual mandate will be banned.

In which case patients will have to travel to another country to pursue a procedure they're willing to finance themselves.... which of course, like death panels, is yet another scenario liberals swore would never occur.

[fj1200]

The problem is (as always it seems lately), that somebody else is paying for it.

If a person was making these decisions based on their own costs we'd seem a lot more practicality in these decisions. For instance; do I mortgage everything I own in a gamble this procedure will work, or do I just let it go and leave an inheritance to my family?

Troof.

[DragonStryk72]

My problem is that our government just flatly sucks at providing proper health care. Look at Welfare, Medicare, and Medicaid. All three systems are horribly broken, and rampant abuses occur. Say you're kid gets killed in Boston. You may get a call shortly thereafter from the government telling you that the ambulance won't be covered.

Hell, the whole reason we're considering Universal Health Care is because these other systems are failing.... but why do people think that this is going to go any better? It's still the same government running it. The same government we've been unable to trust in almost any arena will be in charge of one of the main areas we don't trust them in.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

My problem is that our government just flatly sucks at providing proper health care. Look at Welfare, Medicare, and Medicaid. All three systems are horribly broken, and rampant abuses occur. Say you're kid gets killed in Boston. You may get a call shortly thereafter from the government telling you that the ambulance won't be covered.

Hell, the whole reason we're considering Universal Health Care is because these other systems are failing.... but why do people think that this is going to go any better? It's still the same government running it. The same government we've been unable to trust in almost any arena will be in charge of one of the main areas we don't trust them in.

Already known by people in the know that obamacare will be the costliest government boondoggle in human history and that it will end up with "real" death panels which are not the same as -current end of care actions. Also known that people also die from poor care due to a demand that vastly outstrips the ability to service. Lack of good doctors , nurses and support people. Will become , like most government causes, a great failure on an EPIC scale. And the great need to save money will be a driving force in its apathy and sloppy care. Not even implemented yet and its future projected costs have been revised to already more than doubled!--Tyr

[DragonStryk72]

Already known by people in the know that obamacare will be the costliest government boondoggle in human history and that it will end up with "real" death panels which are not the same as -current end of care actions. Also known that people also die from poor care due to a demand that vastly outstrips the ability to service. Lack of good doctors , nurses and support people. Will become , like most government causes, a great failure on an EPIC scale. And the great need to save money will be a driving force in its apathy and sloppy care. Not even implemented yet and its future projected costs have been revised to already more than doubled!--Tyr

The difference is how we view the source. You tend to attribute it to malevolence, but I attribute to an inability to learn the basic lesson that government can't be the answer to most things. That's what our Founders understood. Were there no poor people back then? Of course there were. Did out leaders want to help them? Of course they did. So why did they not put forth government programs to do so? Because they knew that any government program was only going to make the problem worse in the long term.

Nowadays, Liberals seem to tout the failing of every social program under the sun, even in states that are severe liberal states, but at the same time, they're like "We need more social programs!" It's like alcoholism for government, you admit the problem is there, but you just can't stop yourself.

[Dilloduck]

Ah the good old days when people helped each other but it requires personal sacrifice so it's much easier to expect the government to take care of them with someone else's money.

[Missileman]

The problem is (as always it seems lately), that somebody else is paying for it.

If a person was making these decisions based on their own costs we'd seem a lot more practicality in these decisions. For instance; do I mortgage everything I own in a gamble this procedure will work, or do I just let it go and leave an inheritance to my family?

But Obamacare will negate even that scenario, as private treatments outside the realm of the coverage provided by the individual mandate will be banned.

In which case patients will have to travel to another country to pursue a procedure they're willing to finance themselves.... which of course, like death panels, is yet another scenario liberals swore would never occur.

The belief held by some that insurance companies or goverment are a source of infinite benefit contribute to it also. Our current government spending habits do nothing to curtail the belief either.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The difference is how we view the source. You tend to attribute it to malevolence, but I attribute to an inability to learn the basic lesson that government can't be the answer to most things. That's what our Founders understood. Were there no poor people back then? Of course there were. Did out leaders want to help them? Of course they did. So why did they not put forth government programs to do so? Because they knew that any government program was only going to make the problem worse in the long term.

Nowadays, Liberals seem to tout the failing of every social program under the sun, even in states that are severe liberal states, but at the same time, they're like "We need more social programs!" It's like alcoholism for government, you admit the problem is there, but you just can't stop yourself.

I choose not to stop myself from telling the cold , hard and often brutal truth. That you find fault with that speaks volumes about you not me. That you think yourself clever with your insults speaks even more loudly and blasts forth the fact that your massive ego rules you. -Tyr

[Missileman]

I choose not to stop myself from telling the cold , hard and often brutal truth. That you find fault with that speaks volumes about you not me. That you think yourself clever with your insults speaks even more loudly and blasts forth the fact that your massive ego rules you. -Tyr

You truly are a spork in a world full of knives. And just in case you happen to think sporks are cool, it IS intended as an insult.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You truly are a spork in a world full of knives. And just in case you happen to think sporks are cool, it IS intended as an insult.

The very ideal that you think your insults are some great enlightenment that impresses anybody but you and your asshat friends makes me laugh big time. Carry on hoss, its the internet you are safe to be a fooooooool. Real life is where its dangerous.-:laugh:
"spork" , what are you a child?..-:laugh2:-Tyr

[Missileman]

The very ideal that you think your insults are some great enlightenment that impresses anybody but you and your asshat friends makes me laugh big time. Carry on hoss, its the internet you are safe to be a fooooooool. Real life is where its dangerous.-:laugh:
"spork" , what are you a child?..-:laugh2:-Tyr

No, but once again, you prove you're an imbecile.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

No, but once again, you prove you're an imbecile.

Such brilliant replies break my heart... proving more about you.. Alas, the wit puckers deeply to spit..-:laugh2:-Tyr

[Drummond]

Such brilliant replies break my heart... proving more about you.. Alas, the wit puckers deeply to spit..-:laugh2:-Tyr

Insults, more insults ... and not a sign of debating points to counter you, Tyr.

'Impressive' ... not .....

[Missileman]

Such brilliant replies -Tyr

While I appreciate endorsements, you are by far the most unfit person on the board to judge brilliance.

[Missileman]

Insults, more insults ... and not a sign of debating points to counter you, Tyr.

'Impressive' ... not .....

Hey Curly...what thread have you been reading? Sure as hell isn't this one.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Insults, more insults ... and not a sign of debating points to counter you, Tyr.

'Impressive' ... not .....

True, its all they have. Now missileman just started another juvenile trick, that of altering anothers member's quote to try to look brilliant. Posting a shortened quote , my how clever. --:laugh:
Too much evidence on socialised healthcare and its disasterious consequences , so they quickly went into insult mode. I truly pity such arrogance and childishness.-Tyr

[Missileman]

True, its all they have. Now missileman just started another juvenile trick, that of altering anothers member's quote to try to look brilliant. Posting a shortened quote , my how clever. --:laugh:
Too much evidence on socialised healthcare and its disasterious consequences , so they quickly went into insult mode. I truly pity such arrogance and childishness.-Tyr

You're too fucking stupid to even recognize which side of an argument people are on. Please quote a post of mine in this thread (or any other thread for that matter) where I endorsed socialized healthcare, just one.

[Drummond]

Hey Curly...what thread have you been reading? Sure as hell isn't this one.

.... 'Truthful', too .... :laugh::laugh::coffee:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You're too fucking stupid to even recognize which side of an argument people are on. Please quote a post of mine in this thread (or any other thread for that matter) where I endorsed socialized healthcare, just one.

Always fun until its your turn in the barrel..--:laugh2:
Then you bitch , like a real biatch!!;)--Tyr

[Missileman]

Always fun until its your turn in the barrel..--:laugh2:
Then you bitch , like a real biatch!!;)--Tyr

I wager you'll punk out on this challenge the same way you punked out on the EOs.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I wager you'll punk out on this challenge the same way you punked out on the EOs.

I do not make bets with people that I am sure are dishonorable. Never punked out on anything in my life and I have the scars to prove it. Your criticisms are irrelevant to me because I have just cause to have no respect for you sparky. Dont worry sparky ,this is the net and you can be as big a fooooooooooool as you like . I find it quite entertaining myself. -Tyr

[gabosaurus]

I do not make bets with people that I am sure are dishonorable.

You are the last person on this board who should be accusing someone of being dishonorable. You are the biggest lying coward on this board. You avoid all proof of your lies (and there have been many). You don't have enough integrity to join an OWS group. Your ideals are more in line with the radical Muslims that you dislike so much than with normal Americans.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You are the last person on this board who should be accusing someone of being dishonorable. You are the biggest lying coward on this board. You avoid all proof of your lies (and there have been many). You don't have enough integrity to join an OWS group. Your ideals are more in line with the radical Muslims that you dislike so much than with normal Americans.

Thanks for the compliment. The day that you start agreeing with me is the day that I'll know without any doubt I've went down the wrong road. You should be one of the lasts ones here speaking about integrity of any kind or level.:laugh2:-Tyr

[Missileman]

I do not make bets with people that I am sure are dishonorable. Never punked out on anything in my life and I have the scars to prove it. Your criticisms are irrelevant to me because I have just cause to have no respect for you sparky. Dont worry sparky ,this is the net and you can be as big a fooooooooooool as you like . I find it quite entertaining myself. -Tyr

IOW, you're going to be a punk for the first time ever and not back up your accusation with a quoted post of mine. I expected no less. It really doesn't matter though. Anyone who has a reading comprehension ability superior to yours, AKA everyone but the other two stooges, already knows your accusation was baseless. You've just pegged yourself as a dishonest POS for refusing to admit it.

[fj1200]

^Careful, them's ignoring words. :laugh:

[DragonStryk72]

I choose not to stop myself from telling the cold , hard and often brutal truth. That you find fault with that speaks volumes about you not me. That you think yourself clever with your insults speaks even more loudly and blasts forth the fact that your massive ego rules you. -Tyr

...and thank you for proving my point. It never mattered to you for a moment that I was technically agreeing with you, or that I was simply observing, not insulting you. If I insult you, it will be clear, as in "You are a coward" or "You are without honor", and I have observed neither behavior in you. I don't do backhands. You seem something happen that you don't like, and it immediately gets chalked up as malevolence. You come at people openly, you don't avoid confrontation, or start a topic then run off. You aren't even bullying, but you do take things far too personally. Whether this is the reality for you or not, you are too free with lumping people into the enemy camp, and you go immediately on the attack, assuming that they are wronging you on purpose.

I subscribe to the point put forth by Captain Malcom Reynolds, "If I shoot you, you will be awake, you will be facing me, and you will be armed."

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

...and thank you for proving my point. It never mattered to you for a moment that I was technically agreeing with you, or that I was simply observing, not insulting you. If I insult you, it will be clear, as in "You are a coward" or "You are without honor", and I have observed neither behavior in you. I don't do backhands. You seem something happen that you don't like, and it immediately gets chalked up as malevolence. You come at people openly, you don't avoid confrontation, or start a topic then run off. You aren't even bullying, but you do take things far too personally. Whether this is the reality for you or not, you are too free with lumping people into the enemy camp, and you go immediately on the attack, assuming that they are wronging you on purpose.

I subscribe to the point put forth by Captain Malcom Reynolds, "If I shoot you, you will be awake, you will be facing me, and you will be armed."

I have no problem admitting to being quick to draw my blade. What man is perfect? Your post will be considered for its honesty and naked truth . I admit it had both.. I strive for truth and you did deliver some.. A cold slap does wonders for an honest man, the dishonorable it merely sends fleeing away in haste...-Tyr

[taft2012]

Example please. Or are you still decrying our socialist Medicare while at the same demanding government action for your (family) benefit?

Here's the difference...

I've been paying into the Medicare system for 35 years. During that same period my employers were required by law to match my payments in my name.

If you want to refund those monies to me, including the employer co-pays, and put in place a medical savings IRA-type plan I can contribute to, to have funds in place for medical treatment when I retire, that's fine.

In fact, if something like that I had been in place when I started working at age 16, between my contributions, employer co-contributions, investments, interest, etc., I would be approaching retirement with a better plan in place than the socialist one foist upon me by the socialist overlords.

However, the current plan is simply to write off my lifetime of contributions and employer co-pays, pretend they never were made, and have the government spread out the coverage I paid for to people who never paid for diddly.

Now explain why I should be kicking my heels in delight....

[fj1200]

Here's the difference...

I've been paying into the Medicare system for 35 years. During that same period my employers were required by law to match my payments in my name.

If you want to refund those monies to me, including the employer co-pays, and put in place a medical savings IRA-type plan I can contribute to, to have funds in place for medical treatment when I retire, that's fine.

In fact, if something like that I had been in place when I started working at age 16, between my contributions, employer co-contributions, investments, interest, etc., I would be approaching retirement with a better plan in place than the socialist one foist upon me by the socialist overlords.

However, the current plan is simply to write off my lifetime of contributions and employer co-pays, pretend they never were made, and have the government spread out the coverage I paid for to people who never paid for diddly.

Now explain why I should be kicking my heels in delight....

No, there's really no difference. It appears you've basically bought into the argument we've all heard about FDR's and LBJ's intention when creating an entitlement, along with an entitlement mentality, that you've "paid in to the system" all your life and you'll be damned if anyone is going to take away what is yours. Congratulations.

To play the what-if game is a pointless exercise because there is no realistic scenario where it will ever come about. We've been stuck with a S' system for so long that it has completely distorted what responsible people would do if SS and Medicare had not been in place, not to mention the massive unfunded liabilities that are coming down the pipe. Creating a changed system that can actually work, and not bankrupt us, will require people let go of what they "paid into" and accept necessary changes and personal responsibility.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Here's the difference...

I've been paying into the Medicare system for 35 years. During that same period my employers were required by law to match my payments in my name.

If you want to refund those monies to me, including the employer co-pays, and put in place a medical savings IRA-type plan I can contribute to, to have funds in place for medical treatment when I retire, that's fine.

In fact, if something like that I had been in place when I started working at age 16, between my contributions, employer co-contributions, investments, interest, etc., I would be approaching retirement with a better plan in place than the socialist one foist upon me by the socialist overlords.

However, the current plan is simply to write off my lifetime of contributions and employer co-pays, pretend they never were made, and have the government spread out the coverage I paid for to people who never paid for diddly.

Now explain why I should be kicking my heels in delight....

^^^ He can not do that IMHO. He can spit out some obama talking (lying)points about obamacare but we all know those are damn lies..-;Tyr

[fj1200]

^^^ He can not do that IMHO. He can spit out some obama talking (lying)points about obamacare but we all know those are damn lies..-;Tyr

You are insanely stupid you ignorant fool. If you didn't spend so much time ignoring people then perhaps you wouldn't be so ignorant.

[taft2012]

No, there's really no difference. It appears you've basically bought into the argument we've all heard about FDR's and LBJ's intention when creating an entitlement, along with an entitlement mentality, that you've "paid in to the system" all your life and you'll be damned if anyone is going to take away what is yours. Congratulations.

To play the what-if game is a pointless exercise because there is no realistic scenario where it will ever come about. We've been stuck with a S' system for so long that it has completely distorted what responsible people would do if SS and Medicare had not been in place, not to mention the massive unfunded liabilities that are coming down the pipe. Creating a changed system that can actually work, and not bankrupt us, will require people let go of what they "paid into" and accept necessary changes and personal responsibility.

I think your perspective is flawed.

I haven't "bought into" anything. I was compelled to "pay into" something, and so were my employers in my name.

If the contract is not to be honored I should be refunded all payments and permitted to pursue another avenue.

This isn't Medicaid. I'm not asking for something I haven't paid for. I paid for this.

Meanwhile, people planning for their retirements can not do so responsibly with this huge question mark hovering over us.

I have no problem with a phase out, however, taking payments on something for 35 years and then saying "sayonora" is Bernie Madoff-level fraud.

[fj1200]

I think your perspective is flawed.

I haven't "bought into" anything. I was compelled to "pay into" something, and so were my employers in my name.

If the contract is not to be honored I should be refunded all payments and permitted to pursue another avenue.

This isn't Medicaid. I'm not asking for something I haven't paid for. I paid for this.

Contract? There is no contract. The government has over-promised and can't meet it's obligations long term without massive changes either on what you think you paid for or by massive tax increases on those who will still be working. You paid for the HC of people who have long stopped working and your words say that you have bought into the argument despite your protests. Your perspective is clear.


Meanwhile, people planning for their retirements can not do so responsibly with this huge question mark hovering over us.

I have no problem with a phase out, however, taking payments on something for 35 years and then saying "sayonora" is Bernie Madoff-level fraud.

No, that's government. Our combined elected Representatives and Senators have kicked the can down the street and at some point the system will break. The question is will the people accept necessary changes or will they kick and scream crying for their entitlement?

Also, who here has advocated eliminating Medicare?

[taft2012]

Contract? There is no contract. The government has over-promised and can't meet it's obligations long term without massive changes either on what you think you paid for or by massive tax increases on those who will still be working. You paid for the HC of people who have long stopped working and your words say that you have bought into the argument despite your protests. Your perspective is clear.



No, that's government. Our combined elected Representatives and Senators have kicked the can down the street and at some point the system will break. The question is will the people accept necessary changes or will they kick and scream crying for their entitlement?

Also, who here has advocated eliminating Medicare?

What private entity would be allowed to collect premiums for 35 years and then say "See ya. You're out of luck" when it is time to deliver?

None.

What "necessary changes" do you envision? "Means testing"? As in people who save all their lives for retirement will be penalized so people who retire with nothing can be rewarded for recklessly spending their incomes their entire lives? Is that what you mean by a "necessary change"? Reward people who succumb to government dependancy at the expense of those who live lives of personal respsonsibility?

I don't "THINK" I've paid for anything. I "KNOW" I've been paying for 35 years, and so have my employers. That's not a "thought" or a "fanciful notion." That's a "fact."

As I near retirement, doing everything the gov't directed me to do, now they're going to pull the rug out from under me?

And you think *I* am the one being unreasonably demanding? All the damned money they bled from me my entire life... what has it brought back to me? I get my U.S. Mail everyday, but that's about it.

"Scream crying for their entitlement".... an "entitlement" is not a form of welfare. In this case it is something people have been paying for.

I'm willing to walk away from it.... just give me my money back.

[fj1200]

What private entity would be allowed to collect premiums for 35 years and then say "See ya. You're out of luck" when it is time to deliver?

None.

A bankrupt one. The US is going to have serious revenue vs. expenses issues based on entitlements. Get the picture? You sound like a Democrat who is denying the fiscal realities that we're going to be facing.


What "necessary changes" do you envision? "Means testing"? As in people who save all their lives for retirement will be penalized so people who retire with nothing can be rewarded for recklessly spending their incomes their entire lives? Is that what you mean by a "necessary change"? Reward people who succumb to government dependancy at the expense of those who live lives of personal respsonsibility?

I don't "THINK" I've paid for anything. I "KNOW" I've been paying for 35 years, and so have my employers. That's not a "thought" or a "fanciful notion." That's a "fact."

As I near retirement, doing everything the gov't directed me to do, now they're going to pull the rug out from under me?

That last part is the sad thing, do you always rely on government for financial planning advice? They have quite the track record of fiscal responsibility... oh wait. BTW, you do know that SS is already progressive in its payouts don't you? Those who paid/made double do not receive double the SS so in essence there is already means testing in that regard.

And I "know" you paid but I know that your promise can be taken away with a simple rewrite of the law.


And you think *I* am the one being unreasonably demanding? All the damned money they bled from me my entire life... what has it brought back to me? I get my U.S. Mail everyday, but that's about it.

"Scream crying for their entitlement".... an "entitlement" is not a form of welfare. In this case it is something people have been paying for.

I'm willing to walk away from it.... just give me my money back.

Money back? You paid taxes, they don't refund those.

[taft2012]

A bankrupt one. The US is going to have serious revenue vs. expenses issues based on entitlements. Get the picture? You sound like a Democrat who is denying the fiscal realities that we're going to be facing.



That last part is the sad thing, do you always rely on government for financial planning advice? They have quite the track record of fiscal responsibility... oh wait. BTW, you do know that SS is already progressive in its payouts don't you? Those who paid/made double do not receive double the SS so in essence there is already means testing in that regard.

And I "know" you paid but I know that your promise can be taken away with a simple rewrite of the law.

Money back? You paid taxes, they don't refund those.

Taxes? Really? Were the Medicare and Social Security payments withheld during the course of the year deductable as taxes at the end of the year when I prepared my tax returns?

No.

As such, I'm entitled to money returned if the coverage is not going to be there.

And no, I do not rely on the gov't for financial planning. I do rely on something I'm paying for for the past 35 years being there when its supposed to be.

If your 401K disappeared overnight because of fraud and mismanagment, who would you go running to? The government of course, in which case, using your skewed perspective, that would make you as reliant on the government for financial planning as you say I am.

So you embrace "means testing." That explains a lot. You're obviously one of those "new car every year," "reburbish the bathroom and kitchen every five years" type of person. Pissing away money as fast as you earn it. You don't want to pay your Social Security and Medicare deductions so you can run up more car payments. You plan to hit retirement with nothing in your pocket and come after my life savings to support yourself.

Your logic is starting to become clear now.

[fj1200]

Taxes? Really? Were the Medicare and Social Security payments withheld during the course of the year deductable as taxes at the end of the year when I prepared my tax returns?

No.

As such, I'm entitled to money returned if the coverage is not going to be there.

No. You are wrong.


The fact that workers contribute to the Social Security program's funding through a dedicated payroll tax establishes a unique connection between those tax payments and future benefits. More so than general federal income taxes can be said to establish "rights" to certain government services. This is often expressed in the idea that Social Security benefits are "an earned right." This is true enough in a moral and political sense. But like all federal entitlement programs, Congress can change the rules regarding eligibility--and it has done so many times over the years. The rules can be made more generous, or they can be made more restrictive. Benefits which are granted at one time can be withdrawn, as for example with student benefits, which were substantially scaled-back in the 1983 Amendments.

There has been a temptation throughout the program's history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense. That is to say, if a person makes FICA contributions over a number of years, Congress cannot, according to this reasoning, change the rules in such a way that deprives a contributor of a promised future benefit. Under this reasoning, benefits under Social Security could probably only be increased, never decreased, if the Act could be amended at all. Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting the law. Section 1104 of the 1935 Act, entitled "RESERVATION OF POWER," specifically said: "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress." Even so, some have thought that this reservation was in some way unconstitutional. This is the issue finally settled by Flemming v. Nestor.

In this 1960 Supreme Court decision Nestor's denial of benefits was upheld even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits. Under a 1954 law, Social Security benefits were denied to persons deported for, among other things, having been a member of the Communist party. Accordingly, Mr. Nestor's benefits were terminated. He appealed the termination arguing, among other claims, that promised Social Security benefits were a contract and that Congress could not renege on that contract. In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html


In the 1937 U.S. Supreme Court case of Helvering v. Davis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvering_v._Davis),[113] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)#cite_note-112) the Court examined the constitutionality of Social Security when George Davis of the Edison Electric Illuminating Company of Boston sued in connection with the Social Security tax. The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts first upheld the tax. The District Court judgment was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. Commissioner Guy Helvering of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (now the Internal Revenue Service) took the case to the Supreme Court, and the Court upheld the validity of the tax.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)#Constitutionality


And no, I do not rely on the gov't for financial planning. I do rely on something I'm paying for for the past 35 years being there when its supposed to be.

If your 401K disappeared overnight because of fraud and mismanagment, who would you go running to? The government of course, in which case, using your skewed perspective, that would make you as reliant on the government for financial planning as you say I am.

Do you know how many young people these days are NOT planning on receiving SS when they get to retire? They are the ones who will actually be paying your monthly check. You don't believe in Al Gore's Lockbox do you?

And my 401k isn't going anywhere due to fraud and mismanagement; I don't rely on government like some.


So you embrace "means testing." That explains a lot. You're obviously one of those "new car every year," "reburbish the bathroom and kitchen every five years" type of person. Pissing away money as fast as you earn it. You don't want to pay your Social Security and Medicare deductions so you can run up more car payments. You plan to hit retirement with nothing in your pocket and come after my life savings to support yourself.

Your logic is starting to become clear now.

that last part shows the same foolishness that t-zs shows. Making completely unfounded assumptions.

Do you want to know why we should have means testing? Because the government has no place in creating entitlements for largely middle class citizens that are completely capable of making their own financial decisions. Average citizens should not be programmed to rely on the government for retirement income and old-age health care. Those who do not have enough means to live should be assisted as being on welfare.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Taxes? Really? Were the Medicare and Social Security payments withheld during the course of the year deductable as taxes at the end of the year when I prepared my tax returns?

No.

As such, I'm entitled to money returned if the coverage is not going to be there.

And no, I do not rely on the gov't for financial planning. I do rely on something I'm paying for for the past 35 years being there when its supposed to be.

If your 401K disappeared overnight because of fraud and mismanagment, who would you go running to? The government of course, in which case, using your skewed perspective, that would make you as reliant on the government for financial planning as you say I am.

So you embrace "means testing." That explains a lot. You're obviously one of those "new car every year," "reburbish the bathroom and kitchen every five years" type of person. Pissing away money as fast as you earn it. You don't want to pay your Social Security and Medicare deductions so you can run up more car payments. You plan to hit retirement with nothing in your pocket and come after my life savings to support yourself.

Your logic is starting to become clear now.

Taft , his logic is that you are not as brilliant as is he. And that makes you automaticly wrong everytime you disagree with his brilliance. Besides his retirement depends on them stealing part of yours!!:laugh:
And he sees only true justice in that.. and supports obama's healthcare crap scamming.-Tyr

[taft2012]

No. You are wrong.

No, I am not. There's nothing in that case that explains why Social Security and Medicare can be considered alongside normal tax withholdings. Federal and state taxes withheld are deductible when completing the 1040. SS and Medicare are not. I don't understand how you think changing the eligibility for SS alters that fact.... it's a non-sequitur.


Do you know how many young people these days are NOT planning on receiving SS when they get to retire?

That's fine. If after paying into the system for 35 years like I have, if they still want to change it, at that point I will have no problem.


They are the ones who will actually be paying your monthly check.

I've been paying other peoples' monthly checks for 35 years without squealing like a little bitch.


You don't believe in Al Gore's Lockbox do you?

No, but I supported it. I also supported President Bush's proposed SS reforms as well.


And my 401k isn't going anywhere due to fraud and mismanagement; I don't rely on government like some.

Nor do I sonny. I can retire at this moment, at age 50, with a 6 figure annual pension. I have a 401K set up that when I hit age 65 the interest alone will be generating an additional $50K annually (based on a conservative 4% rate) .... yet I continue to work and further build up my reserves.

The additional $1000 from SS is not going to break me one way or the other.

Warren Buffet paid into SS, he should get it. I paid into it, I should get it. And poor people who really really need, and paid into, should also get it.

And don't be so sure about the security of your 401K. You're relying on the gov't to protect you from mismanagement and fraud. Like you've said over and over, relying on the gov't is not a wise course of action.


[Do you want to know why we should have means testing? Because the government has no place in creating entitlements for largely middle class citizens that are completely capable of making their own financial decisions.

And the Son of Sam had no business going around killing people ... but he did. What's the point? What's done is done.

We should have yet another welfare program in place, this one for the elderly? Your plan to reduce dependance on the gov't is to create yet another program that only benefits those who live their entire lives in a state of complete reliance on government? That's like handing out free cigarettes as part of an anti-smoking campaign.


Average citizens should not be programmed to rely on the government for retirement income and old-age health care.

Average citizens do like I do, and have other resources in place as they enter retirement. You blather that's what you want, but all you offer is to punish those who do act responsibly and reward those who rely on the government.

Clearly, you haven't thought this one through yet.


Those who do not have enough means to live should be assisted as being on welfare.

And there it is, the new welfare program. Lovely. So for the past 35 years not only have I been paying for everybody else's welfare, Section 8 Housing, Medicaid, Food Stamps, WIC, SSI, ad infinitum, I'm supposed to also suck up 35 years of payments that were supposedly going to benefit my retirement and write them off as more welfare contributions, even though they went to people like Nelson Rockefeller?

No, here's the deal; *YOU* pay into the system for 35 years, and have your employers make matching contributions in your name for 35 years, and then you come back and and tell us what you think should be done.

You're like those knuckleheads who stand on the sidewalk watching marathon runners going by and saying "Ehhh, that's easy to do." Put your sneakers on sonny, get a job, and join the race. You'll see the answers aren't so easy once you start putting one foot in front of the other.

[logroller]

No, I am not. There's nothing in that case that explains why Social Security and Medicare can be considered alongside normal tax withholdings. Federal and state taxes withheld are deductible when completing the 1040. SS and Medicare are not. I don't understand how you think changing the eligibility for SS alters that fact.... it's a non-sequitur.


That statement is, indeed, a non-sequitur-- bordering on gibberish. The monies withheld from your paycheck have nothing to do with your actual tax liability-- it's merely an estimate that your employer and government do as a favor... IMHO, fostering financial complacency.

All Federal and state taxes are deductible; as well they should be! They're taxes. You're not taxed on your taxes-- 'Twould be double taxation otherwise. In fact, you can deduct sales taxes paid , property tax, garbage, sewer, car registration...even the upcoming no-insurance tax thats not a tax I would imagine. Like all deductions, it reduces your tax liability. That doesn't establish a right to a return on those taxes for services not rendered; only those withholdings in excess of tax liability. its not as though you get a refund for a half-filled trash can-- whereas were you to send the city $500 for trash and the trash-tax was $250-- you'd get a refund. Careful though, if you deducted $500 from your state/fed return, you'd need to file an amendment. ;)

Fwiw, A Family friend, who is also a CPA, told me if I'm more than +/- $1000 on my tax liability less withholdings with a 1040 filing I'm planning my taxes poorly. Either giving Uncle Sam a free loan or setting myself up for an audit one day. I didn't heed his warning and was audited in '09-- cleared-- but still, not worth the hassle.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Back on topic...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/20/the-return-of-the-death-panels/


Death panels also are back. At an appearance in Florida over the weekend, Mr. Ryan criticized the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) established under Obamacare to “contain” Medicare costs. The law “puts a board of 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in charge of Medicare who are required to cut Medicare in ways that will lead to denied care for current seniors,” he said. “We will make sure that this board of bureaucrats will not mess with my mom’s health care or your mom’s health care.”

Obamacare defenders scoff at the idea that the IPAB’s decisions would have fatal consequences for seniors, but the panel has been given an extraordinary and perhaps unconstitutional degree of power. Its proposals automatically become law unless Congress counters it with another plan. Overriding the IPAB requires a three-fifths supermajority in the Senate. The Obamacare law dictates that Congress may not even propose doing away with the IPAB until 2017 and may not actually get rid of it until 2020. This dubious provision undercuts the argument that the IPAB is a harmless advocate for government efficiency.

The president is carrying a “signature legislative achievement” he cannot discuss while being forced to defend implementing hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicare cuts by death panel. By November, Mr. Obama may find his campaign on life support.

Read more: EDITORIAL: The return of the death panels - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/20/the-return-of-the-death-panels/#ixzz28F7LEiMs
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just more proof that obamacare is an anchor around the neck of this nation..-Tyr

[fj1200]

No, I am not. There's nothing in that case that explains why Social Security and Medicare can be considered alongside normal tax withholdings. Federal and state taxes withheld are deductible when completing the 1040. SS and Medicare are not. I don't understand how you think changing the eligibility for SS alters that fact.... it's a non-sequitur.

Then you can show me a link that says otherwise.


That's fine. If after paying into the system for 35 years like I have, if they still want to change it, at that point I will have no problem.

So in 7 more years I'll have the same right as you to whine about "getting mine"?


I've been paying other peoples' monthly checks for 35 years without squealing like a little bitch.

Who's squealing here? The one who demands their entitlement or the one who recognizes the problems?


No, but I supported it. I also supported President Bush's proposed SS reforms as well.

You supported a mirage floated as a vote getting strategy?


Nor do I sonny. I can retire at this moment, at age 50, with a 6 figure annual pension. I have a 401K set up that when I hit age 65 the interest alone will be generating an additional $50K annually (based on a conservative 4% rate) .... yet I continue to work and further build up my reserves.

The additional $1000 from SS is not going to break me one way or the other.

Warren Buffet paid into SS, he should get it. I paid into it, I should get it. And poor people who really really need, and paid into, should also get it.

Congratulations. Now please explain to the class why you, who will be making approximately 4 times the median wage in the country at retirement, should be entitled to a wealthy transfer from the relatively poor (who are paying your monthly check) to the relatively wealthy (who is receiving a monthly check) at a time when the country CAN NO LONGER AFFORD an entitlement program.


And don't be so sure about the security of your 401K. You're relying on the gov't to protect you from mismanagement and fraud. Like you've said over and over, relying on the gov't is not a wise course of action.

Please point out where government is protecting me from mismanagement and fraud?


And the Son of Sam had no business going around killing people ... but he did. What's the point? What's done is done.

"What's done is done"? That's your rationale as to why a poorly designed and unsupportable program should be continued? Are you one of those who complains about Congress creating unconstitutional laws?


We should have yet another welfare program in place, this one for the elderly? Your plan to reduce dependance on the gov't is to create yet another program that only benefits those who live their entire lives in a state of complete reliance on government? That's like handing out free cigarettes as part of an anti-smoking campaign.

Please indicate where I have advocated "another" welfare program. My plan is to eliminate the idea of everyone relying on government as the means by which to maintain a certain lifestyle when retiring. You have indicated only support for an unsustainable program.


Average citizens do like I do, and have other resources in place as they enter retirement. You blather that's what you want, but all you offer is to punish those who do act responsibly and reward those who rely on the government.

Clearly, you haven't thought this one through yet.

Have you seen the unfunded liability numbers for SS and Medicare?



Medicare: $24.8 trillion
Social Security: $21.4 trillion
Federal debt: $9.4 trillion
Military retirement/disability benefits: $3.6 trillion
Federal employee retirement benefits: $2 trillion
State, local government obligations: $5.2 trillion


http://blog.heritage.org/2011/06/07/governments-unfunded-obligations-now-total-534000-per-household/

Have you thought that one through?


And there it is, the new welfare program. Lovely. So for the past 35 years not only have I been paying for everybody else's welfare, Section 8 Housing, Medicaid, Food Stamps, WIC, SSI, ad infinitum, I'm supposed to also suck up 35 years of payments that were supposedly going to benefit my retirement and write them off as more welfare contributions, even though they went to people like Nelson Rockefeller?

No, here's the deal; *YOU* pay into the system for 35 years, and have your employers make matching contributions in your name for 35 years, and then you come back and and tell us what you think should be done.

You're like those knuckleheads who stand on the sidewalk watching marathon runners going by and saying "Ehhh, that's easy to do." Put your sneakers on sonny, get a job, and join the race. You'll see the answers aren't so easy once you start putting one foot in front of the other.

Here's where you go off the rails. You ignore reality and start bitching about what's yours while at the same time creating straw men, which you couldn't burn down anyway, so why don't you buck up and indicate how SS and Medicare can remain viable. You can start by indicating where I advocated eliminating SS and Medicare entirely.

[fj1200]

Taft , his logic is that you are not as brilliant as is he. And that makes you automaticly wrong everytime you disagree with his brilliance. Besides his retirement depends on them stealing part of yours!!:laugh:
And he sees only true justice in that.. and supports obama's healthcare crap scamming.-Tyr

Talking out your A' again I see. I imagine if you bothered responding you would only succeed in condemning unconstitutional programs while at the same time demanding your entitlements. You've already been shown that is your hypocritical position. You're right, it's best for you to remain ignorant, "ignore" buttons are great for that.

[taft2012]

Then you can show me a link that says otherwise.

Normally I would say "Ask your accountant" Since you appear to be part of the 47%, you'll have to take my word for it that SS and Medicare contributions do not count towards your final federal tax burden.



So in 7 more years I'll have the same right as you to whine about "getting mine"?

I think your plan is to whine "He doesn't need his. Give me his!"


Who's squealing here? The one who demands their entitlement or the one who recognizes the problems?

You. Your "do as I say not as I do" mentality is duly noted. You want me to pay for an entire lifetime and not collect, so you don't have to pay for an entire lifetime and not collect. Not a convincing position at all.


You supported a mirage floated as a vote getting strategy?

Not a mirage. Taking SS and Medicare contributions out of the general fund is something that was once practiced.


Congratulations. Now please explain to the class why you, who will be making approximately 4 times the median wage in the country at retirement, should be entitled to a wealthy transfer from the relatively poor (who are paying your monthly check) to the relatively wealthy (who is receiving a monthly check) at a time when the country CAN NO LONGER AFFORD an entitlement program.

Now explain to the class why we should have another welfare program, this one for the elderly?



Please point out where government is protecting me from mismanagement and fraud?

Off the top of my head, the Federal Trade Commission and FDIC. Need more?


"What's done is done"? That's your rationale as to why a poorly designed and unsupportable program should be continued?

Cancel if you like. Just return my money. If it's just "paying taxes" like you say, then continue to pay taxes for me like I "just paid taxes" for others.


Please indicate where I have advocated "another" welfare program. My plan is to eliminate the idea of everyone relying on government as the means by which to maintain a certain lifestyle when retiring. You have indicated only support for an unsustainable program.

I have no problem eliminating it. But if people have paid a lifetime into a pension system you can't just say "Sorry, it's gone." Refund the money, or propose a phase out of some kind.


Have you seen the unfunded liability numbers for SS and Medicare?

Yep, you got your work cut out for you paying for that. How about eliminating some of the free money given to people who contribute nothing?

How about the Earned Income Tax Credit, the "tax cut" for people, like yourself, who pay no taxes, and then bloviate about how they're "not relying on the government"?


Here's where you go off the rails. You ignore reality and start bitching about what's yours while at the same time creating straw men, which you couldn't burn down anyway, so why don't you buck up and indicate how SS and Medicare can remain viable. You can start by indicating where I advocated eliminating SS and Medicare entirely.

You just want to eliminate it for people who contribute to it apparently, and keep it for people who did nothing ever to support it, and then at the same time swear up and down it's not a new welfare program.

Old crap I've heard all my life.

[fj1200]

Normally...

Whatever dude. I prove that SS "contributions" are taxes and you still don't believe. I no longer have interest in arguing against your strawman army and unsubstantiated claims on my position. I could go through that BS that you posted but would it matter? Unlikely.

I would never have pegged you for a big government entitlement mentality sort of guy but your words are your words. So you can either own up to it or disprove your own words; your choice. It would be pretty interesting for you to argue against your own posts. For that I would buy popcorn.

[taft2012]

Whatever dude. I prove that SS "contributions" are taxes and you still don't believe. I no longer have interest in arguing against your strawman army and unsubstantiated claims on my position. I could go through that BS that you posted but would it matter? Unlikely.

I would never have pegged you for a big government entitlement mentality sort of guy but your words are your words. So you can either own up to it or disprove your own words; your choice. It would be pretty interesting for you to argue against your own posts. For that I would buy popcorn.

Since you're a non taxpayer, let me enlighten you.

When it comes around to 1040 time (1040 is the form federal taxpayers have to prepare), you get to add up local, state, and federal taxes paid, and use that figure to adjust downward the balance you have due to the federal government.

Social Security and Medicare are federal taxes of a sort, but not the kind of taxes you can use to adjust what is due to the federal government. The payments do not count towards your total federal tax burden. They are not deductible from that amount.

I am not a *big* gov't guy. I am a "fair treatment for the taxpayer" guy, which is something you are not. And why should you be? You don't pay taxes.

[fj1200]

Since you're a non taxpayer...

Are you an idiot or just ignorant?


, let me enlighten you.

When it comes around to 1040 time (1040 is the form federal taxpayers have to prepare), you get to add up local, state, and federal taxes paid, and use that figure to adjust downward the balance you have due to the federal government.

Social Security and Medicare are federal taxes of a sort, but not the kind of taxes you can use to adjust what is due to the federal government. The payments do not count towards your total federal tax burden. They are not deductible from that amount.

Nothing "of a sort" about it. SCOTUS says so.


I am not a *big* gov't guy. I am a "fair treatment for the taxpayer" guy, which is something you are not. And why should you be? You don't pay taxes.

Your words say otherwise.

You have to suggest your plan for saving SS and Medicare.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Talking out your A' again I see. I imagine if you bothered responding you would only succeed in condemning unconstitutional programs while at the same time demanding your entitlements. You've already been shown that is your hypocritical position. You're right, it's best for you to remain ignorant, "ignore" buttons are great for that.

^^ This from the chump that cried like a biatch about an obama joke thread and finally ran away after I kept posting them!-:laugh2:--Tyr

[fj1200]

^^ This from the chump that cried like a biatch about an obama joke thread and finally ran away after I kept posting them!-:laugh2:--Tyr

You do hold many delusions, I'll just add that one to the list. BTW, still have me on ignore?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You do hold many delusions, I'll just add that one to the list. BTW, still have me on ignore?

Rather dense arent ya, obviously not as I read and replied to your silly post.
I can dig up the thread by granny if you like , you cried like baby about jokes being made about your boy obama. -:laugh2: Tried to act like a mod.. it was funny as hell.-Tyr

[fj1200]

Rather dense arent ya, obviously not as I read and replied to your silly post.
I can dig up the thread by granny if you like , you cried like baby about jokes being made about your boy obama. -:laugh2: Tried to act like a mod.. it was funny as hell.-Tyr

You should never have dropped all that acid back in the '70s. It did you no favors.

What do you think the over/under should be on you putting me back on ignore?

EDIT:

You did get one thing right though, Granny was a joke.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You should never have dropped all that acid back in the '70s. It did you no favors.

What do you think the over/under should be on you putting me back on ignore?

I figure as dumb as you are it's about a 50/50 deal.. My tolerance for having to read your ignorant blatherings has its limits and you stay right on the borderline..-Tyr

[fj1200]

I figure as dumb as you are it's about a 50/50 deal.. My tolerance for having to read your ignorant blatherings has its limits and you stay right on the borderline..-Tyr



I see you still have all the class of a Democrat demanding his entitlement. I'm still waiting for you to post my support of BO and all my liberal positions.

BTW, over/under isn't called as 50-50. It's how many days until you put me back on ignore. I'd say it'll be the next time I expose your hypocrisies and you run away unable to prove your ridiculous rantings; Say tomorrow at 3:30?

[aboutime]

I figure as dumb as you are it's about a 50/50 deal.. My tolerance for having to read your ignorant blatherings has its limits and you stay right on the borderline..-Tyr


Tyr. I love it when we get to see how the typical characters react when confronted with TRUTH, and HONEST facts.

That line about the 70's, coming from a representative, or example of a failed abortion here, is priceless.

[fj1200]

Tyr. I love it when we get to see how the typical characters react when confronted with TRUTH, and HONEST facts.

That line about the 70's, coming from a representative, or example of a failed abortion here, is priceless.


WTF are you even talking about? Did you hit the acid back then too?

[Missileman]

WTF are you even talking about? Did you hit the acid back then too?

He's flying high on circle-jerk juice! :laugh2:

[taft2012]

Are you an idiot or just ignorant?

I stand corrected. Homeless guys always remind me they're taxpayers too. Everytime they buy a 40 ouncer they're paying a tax, which technically makes them tax payers as well. I meant you're obviously not a taxpayer who has ever completed an IRS form.



Nothing "of a sort" about it. SCOTUS says so.

Did the SCOTUS say SS and Medicare contributions are deductible from one's total federal tax burden? No.... which is the point I've been making since the beginning. Duhhhh, are you an idiot or just dense as a brick?


Your words say otherwise.

Your words say "Do as I say, not as I do." They ring hollow.


You have to suggest your plan for saving SS and Medicare.

I have a plan, it's quite simple. It's called, "Do as I do, do as I did, don't just do as you say."

That translates to "I paid all my life for others, now it's your turn to do the same. Now pay up and stop whimpering like a little bitch."

And frankly, I think you and the rest of the 47% should also be paying something. All Americans should have a stake in this country as bona fide taxpayers, not just 40 ounce taxpayers. A huge step towards saving the system would be to end the Earned Income Tax Credit, and bring the 47% freeloaders on board the USS Taxpayer.

[taft2012]

I see you still have all the class of a Democrat demanding his entitlement.

Lawdahmighty, you talk about entitlements like they're some sort of government freebies. Let me put it into terms you can understand: Imagine you go into the store and give the man behind the counter $3 for a 40 ouncer. He takes your $3, says "thank you," and doesn't give you your 40 ouncer. You point that out to him and he replies, "You're not entitled to a 40 ouncer."

That's the sum and substance of your plan.

How about eliminating the bullshyte SSI disability pensions? Social Security was designed for the elderly. You got people rolling into the United States, sticking bubble gum in their hair saying they have Attention Deficit Disorder, and getting government pensions.

But since your plan to save the system is means testing, and not wiping out fraud and payments the system was never intended for, we can only assume you're just another wild-eyed liberal looking to create another welfare program for the 53% to pay for, and redistribute wealth to your 47% freeloading buddies.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I see you still have all the class of a Democrat demanding his entitlement. I'm still waiting for you to post my support of BO and all my liberal positions.

BTW, over/under isn't called as 50-50. It's how many days until you put me back on ignore. I'd say it'll be the next time I expose your hypocrisies and you run away unable to prove your ridiculous rantings; Say tomorrow at 3:30?

Still trying to tell others how they should reply. Not only are you a bit dense but you are also a bit of a control freak as well. Maybe I should post again on that obama joke thread just to see if you'l dare return after running away, return to cry about it.-

[taft2012]

Still trying to tell others how they should reply. Not only are you a bit dense but you are also a bit of a control freak as well. Maybe I should post again on that obama joke thread just to see if you'l dare return after running away, return to cry about it.-

Tyr, he *WANTS* you to put him on "ignore", because he obviously is ill-equipped to carry his bird-brained notions beyond a single post. They simply can not stand up to the scrutiny of more than one response, after which they fall apart and blow away....:laugh:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tyr, he *WANTS* you to put him on "ignore", because he obviously is ill-equipped to carry his bird-brained notions beyond a single post. They simply can not stand up to the scrutiny of more than one response, after which they fall apart and blow away....:laugh:

Yep, he isnt liberal, doesnt support obama yet he cried like a baby because Granny started and I continued a joke thread that concentrated on the scum obama! He was just angry and cried like a biatch about it. I think I'll revive it to post a new obama joke. Yes sir , jokes are fun!
He is even too simpleminded to understand your point about getting ripped off!! He defends obamacare and dearly wants to rip you off to further the obama cause. Just remember , he isnt one bit liberal.-:laugh::laugh::laugh: -Tyr

[fj1200]

Ignorant blather...

'Nuff said.


Did the SCOTUS say SS and Medicare contributions are deductible from one's total federal tax burden? No.... which is the point I've been making since the beginning. Duhhhh, are you an idiot or just dense as a brick?

So the point you were making from the beginning has exactly zero to do with the issue? The issue you haven't grasped is that whatever you think you deserve is solely up to Congress and their ability to change it.


Your words say "Do as I say, not as I do." They ring hollow.

Those aren't my words, you just create my words to make yourself feel better. I'm fully prepared to accept SS and Medicare changes that will make the system viable and not just a wealth transfer from the working (relatively) poor to the non-working (relatively) wealthy.


I have a plan, it's quite simple. It's called, "Do as I do, do as I did, don't just do as you say."

That translates to "I paid all my life for others, now it's your turn to do the same. Now pay up and stop whimpering like a little bitch."

So your plan is an effective bankruptcy of the United States? Good plan. :rolleyes:


And frankly, I think you and the rest of the 47% should also be paying something. All Americans should have a stake in this country as bona fide taxpayers, not just 40 ounce taxpayers. A huge step towards saving the system would be to end the Earned Income Tax Credit, and bring the 47% freeloaders on board the USS Taxpayer.

You do realize that the 47% number for the purposes of this discussion is incorrect and indicative of your ignorance?


Even if the discussion is restricted to federal taxes (for which the statistics are better), a vast majority of households end up paying federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/congressional_budget_office/index.html?inline=nyt-org) data suggests (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/who-doesnt-pay-taxes/) that, at most, about 10 percent of all households pay no net federal taxes. The number 10 is obviously a lot smaller than 47.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html?_r=0

But yes, the EITC could use some overhaul.

[fj1200]

Lawdahmighty, you talk about entitlements like they're some sort of government freebies. Let me put it into terms you can understand: Imagine you go into the store and give the man behind the counter $3 for a 40 ouncer. He takes your $3, says "thank you," and doesn't give you your 40 ouncer. You point that out to him and he replies, "You're not entitled to a 40 ouncer."

That's the sum and substance of your plan.

You can't even repeat the substance of my plan, you're too busy projecting your latest bender.


How about eliminating the bullshyte SSI disability pensions? Social Security was designed for the elderly. You got people rolling into the United States, sticking bubble gum in their hair saying they have Attention Deficit Disorder, and getting government pensions.

I agree, fraud should be eliminated. It was poorly designed from the beginning and additions to the original act haven't made it any better.


But since your plan to save the system is means testing, and not wiping out fraud and payments the system was never intended for, we can only assume you're just another wild-eyed liberal looking to create another welfare program for the 53% to pay for, and redistribute wealth to your 47% freeloading buddies.

Did you forget already that SS is already essentially means tested? Or are you still ignoring what isn't convenient?

[fj1200]

Still trying to tell others how they should reply. Not only are you a bit dense but you are also a bit of a control freak as well. Maybe I should post again on that obama joke thread just to see if you'l dare return after running away, return to cry about it.-

Nope, just pointing out another of your inaccuracies. You should re-up that "joke" thread, everyone could see how I corrected your behavior in muffing the quote function. Actually now that I think about it, some script was added to the site to recognize the scenario. I guess whether you are smart enough to learn is still up for debate.


Yep, he isnt liberal, doesnt support obama yet he cried like a baby because Granny started and I continued a joke thread that concentrated on the scum obama! He was just angry and cried like a biatch about it. I think I'll revive it to post a new obama joke. Yes sir , jokes are fun!
He is even too simpleminded to understand your point about getting ripped off!! He defends obamacare and dearly wants to rip you off to further the obama cause. Just remember , he isnt one bit liberal.-:laugh::laugh::laugh: -Tyr

You might want to reread that thread, the only one crying was you. Oh yeah, please point out my liberal positions.

[fj1200]

Tyr, he *WANTS* you to put him on "ignore", because he obviously is ill-equipped to carry his bird-brained notions beyond a single post. They simply can not stand up to the scrutiny of more than one response, after which they fall apart and blow away....:laugh:

Considering that I've been kicking you guys around for about 8 pages now...

I'll wait for your next ignorant "40oz" joke. That's about the extent of your abilities.

[taft2012]

Considering that I've been kicking you guys around for about 8 pages now...
.

And yet during this all of this alleged "kicking" you haven't been able to answer my simple question about why SS and Medicare contributions are not deductible from one's federal tax burden, as are federal withholdings, and state and local taxes. 'Splain plz.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Nope, just pointing out another of your inaccuracies. You should re-up that "joke" thread, everyone could see how I corrected your behavior in muffing the quote function. Actually now that I think about it, some script was added to the site to recognize the scenario. I guess whether you are smart enough to learn is still up for debate.



You might want to reread that thread, the only one crying was you. Oh yeah, please point out my liberal positions.

Already did post on the joke thread.
Bullshit, you were defending obama with your crybaby cimplaints there, anybody not as shallow and stupid as you can see that when reading your posts there . Was actually quite funny, the jokes and your lame defense of bamboy. :laugh2:-Tyr

[fj1200]

And yet during this all of this alleged "kicking" you haven't been able to answer my simple question about why SS and Medicare contributions are not deductible from one's federal tax burden, as are federal withholdings, and state and local taxes. 'Splain plz.

1. It's completely irrelevant to what we were discussing, but nevertheless
2. Federal taxable wages, Box 1, w-2, have already had SS and Medicare taxes taken out.

[fj1200]

Already did post on the joke thread.

Good for you, the humor added however was extremely slight.


Bullshit, you were defending obama with your crybaby cimplaints there, anybody not as shallow and stupid as you can see that when reading your posts there . Was actually quite funny, the jokes and your lame defense of bamboy. :laugh2:-Tyr

You'll have no problem pointing out my defense of "bamboy" as well as all my liberal positions then.

[aboutime]

And yet during this all of this alleged "kicking" you haven't been able to answer my simple question about why SS and Medicare contributions are not deductible from one's federal tax burden, as are federal withholdings, and state and local taxes. 'Splain plz.



taft. Gotta love it when they come here to brag about "Kicking", when we all know. It takes very little Liberal effort to kick BS around. Hoping nobody will notice the BS on their boots. Formulated by liberal talking points they actually think...deserve a 'Splain'.

[fj1200]

taft. Gotta love it when they come here to brag about "Kicking", when we all know. It takes very little Liberal effort to kick BS around. Hoping nobody will notice the BS on their boots. Formulated by liberal talking points they actually think...deserve a 'Splain'.

Oh geez. Why don't you point out the liberal BS and talking points that have been kicked around. I suggest that you will fail at that as well.

Are you also for bankrupting the country by continuing a poorly thought out government program that was the brain child of everyone's favorite socialist president, FDR (take a breath, that was sarcasm)?

[aboutime]

Oh geez. Why don't you point out the liberal BS and talking points that have been kicked around. I suggest that you will fail at that as well.

Are you also for bankrupting the country by continuing a poorly thought out government program that was the brain child of everyone's favorite socialist president, FDR (take a breath, that was sarcasm)?


fj. Turn up your volume. I can't hear you. I have no need to point out Liberal BS. It's everywhere, and the talking points seemed to FALL FLAT last night during the Obama Fiasco when confronted with a foreign word like....TRUTH.

[fj1200]

fj. Turn up your volume. I can't hear you. I have no need to point out Liberal BS. It's everywhere, and the talking points seemed to FALL FLAT last night during the Obama Fiasco when confronted with a foreign word like....TRUTH.

Well that's certainly true, please let me know when you get it from me.

[gabosaurus]

Hmmm.. if Palin were sent to a "death panel," what would happen to her? Would she end up as Soylent Green? :rolleyes:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Hmmm.. if Palin were sent to a "death panel," what would happen to her? Would she end up as Soylent Green? :rolleyes:

Wishful thinking will get you nowhere. I know you will not let that stop you from fantasizing. Palin being fairly young and beautiful just eats you up right? Just think Gabby, your husband probably lusts after her!:laugh:

[aboutime]

Hmmm.. if Palin were sent to a "death panel," what would happen to her? Would she end up as Soylent Green? :rolleyes:


Gabby. If what you asked above was possible. Sarah Palin would probably be standing in line...RIGHT BEHIND YOU.

[red states rule]

http://scottystarnes.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/death-panel-obamacare.jpg

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/328949/car-czar-argues-death-czars-daniel-foster

Car Czar Argues for Death Czars (http://www.debatepolicy.com/corner/328949/car-czar-argues-death-czars-daniel-foster)
By Daniel Foster (http://www.debatepolicy.com/author/384)

October 1, 2012 12:53 P.M. (http://www.debatepolicy.com/corner/328949/car-czar-argues-death-czars-daniel-foster)
Comments (http://www.debatepolicy.com/corner/328949/car-czar-argues-death-czars-daniel-foster#comments) 1




Steve Rattner, who honchoed the auto bailout for the Obama administration, has a full-throated defense (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/health-care-reform-beyond-obamacare.html?_r=1&&wpisrc=nl_wonk) of death panels — rationing — in the Times today, which is sort of refreshing, in its call-a-spade-a-spade way. Rattner says the greatest third rail in American politics is “overtly acknowledging that elderly Americans are not entitled to every conceivable medical procedure or pharmaceutical.” He goes on to argue, more or less, that Medicare needs to follow Britain’s NHS in assigning a cash-money value to the last year of life:

Medicare needs to take a cue from Willie Sutton, who reportedly said he robbed banks because that’s where the money was. The big money in Medicare is not to be found in Mr. Ryan’s competition or Mr. Obama’s innovation, but in reducing the cost of treating people in the last year of life, which consumes more than a quarter of the program’s budget.

[red states rule]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_EBs6Hg6MnNQ/SnRFHVZNelI/AAAAAAAAAVw/95wW2gupkl4/s400/government.jpg