Thread: Do you support Obama Care ?

Obama Care. Just wait to see what happen in 2013 & 2014!

Age 76 : Today, I went to the Dr. for my monthly B12 shot that I have been getting for a number of years. The nurse came and got me, got out the needle filled and ready to go then looked at the computer and got very quiet and asked if I was prepared to pay for it. ...I said no that my insurance takes care of it.

She said, that Medicare had turned it down and went to talk to my Dr. about it. 15 minutes later she came back and said, she was sorry but they had tried every-thing they could but Medicare is beginning to turn many things away for seniors because of the projected Obama Care coming in. She was brushing at tears and said, "Some day they too will get old", I am so very sorry!!

Please for the sake of many good people. . . ..be informed please .

YOU ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS...

At age 76 when you most need it, you are not eligible for cancer treatment

* see page 272

What Nancy Pelosi didn't want us to know until after the healthcare bill was passed. Remember she said, "We have to pass the Bill so that we can see what's in it." Well, here it is.

Obama Care Highlighted by Page Number

THE CARE BILL HB 3200

JUDGE KITHIL IS THE 2ND OFFICIAL WHO HAS OUTLINED THESE PARTS OF THE CARE BILL.

Judge Kithil of Marble Falls, TX - highlighted the most egregious pages of HB3200

Please read this....... especially the reference to pages 58 & 59

JUDGE KITHIL wrote:

Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.

**

Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts.

**
Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN).


**

Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?)

**

Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees.

**

Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age.

**

Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.

**

Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. (Death counseling..)

**

Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.

HAD ENOUGH???? Judge Kithil then goes on to identify:

"Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to members of Congress.

Honorable David Kithil of Marble Falls , Texas

All of the above should give you the ammo you need to oppose Obamacare. Please send this information on to all of your email contacts.

Originally Posted by boopster

snopes says it's false........

Snopes is run by a couple that is very liberal and they often do not address items that reflect badly on the Liberal Agenda.

Snopes lists the entire document as "FALSE" - but at the very least ""Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to members of Congress." is most certainly true as Obamacare specifically excluded Congress and the Administration and everyone on their Staffs.

...but i thought i had read that the gang of 8 regarding immigration was going to give those on the pathway to citizenship medical insurance, or am I wrong?

You are correct - part of the "package"

A Glimpse at the Death Panels

I once wrote about how happy one of my mother’s friends should have been when Medicare decided to no longer pay for her B-12 shots, as the private sector would figure out a way to make sure there were no shortages of B-12 injections. Ever. Central planners, on the other hand, those in medicine in particular, who assign pricing to products and services always get it wrong. This is the fatal conceit, about which Hayek warned us. A bureaucrat can never discover a market clearing price (that price at which there are neither surpluses or shortages) because this price must emerge from market interactions, not be imposed on an economy.

Thousands of Medicare patients with cancer are getting their first glimpse of what the death panels will look like. In this article by Sarah Kliff of the Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...the-sequester/ thousands of Medicare patients are reported to have been turned away from their usual cancer treatment centers because the government has decided on a different price these centers are to be paid. If you guessed that they got it wrong on the low side, you go to the head of the class.

The real story actually has a sinister side. Kliff touches on it but doesn’t know and probably can’t even imagine the mercenary tactics at work here by the big hospitals and Uncle Sam. Remember that hospital-employed physicians are paid 40% more by Medicare for the very same service as physicians that are in private practice. Likewise, hospitals are paid more by Medicare for the administration of chemotherapy than private clinics. Keep this in mind when you hear some government apparatchik moaning about the impending bankruptcy of Medicare. These Medicare cuts, affecting only the private clinics, will not only put them out of business, but that is the intent, the goal, the very purpose.

Remember the lesson from Jim Epstein of Reason Magazine: “industry consolidation is the smoking gun of government corruption.” Or apply Murray Rothbard’s penetrating question: “cui bono?”…who benefits? If you said the big hospitals, you get a gold star.

The short term solution, of course, to save Medicare money on chemotherapy, is to insure that no Medicare patients are treated in a hospital! This is far too logical, though, and the private clinics don’t have the money to throw at lobbyists that the corporate hospitals do.

This is a great example of Jane Orient’s quote that “coverage doesn’t mean care.” These thousands of Medicare patients are getting a feel for what this president means by a “right” to health care, aren’t they? What they really have is a right to hope for chemotherapy. The current regime doesn’t care if you have “coverage.” They don’t care if you get care. What they want is control of your healthcare. Collecting premiums from the taxpayers while simultaneously denying care is a recipe for a profitable “insurance” enterprise, no?

Welcome to Obamacare. We haven’t begun to see the worst. I remain hopeful, however, that this tyranny will usher in a market economy in medical care. I remain hopeful that rather than be corralled into health camps and clinics, the American people will take matters into their own hands and seek alternative sources of “coverage” and “care.” These patients with cancer really haven’t been given much choice though, have they?

G. Keith Smith, M.D.


http://surgerycenterofoklahoma.tumbl...e-death-panels

Media Encourage Elderly to Commit Suicide, Call it “Rational”
by Wesley J. Smith | Washington, DC | 4/3/13 12:08 PM

The media have become pro suicide. You see this all the time, now. When elderly, disabled, or ill people kill themselves, reports depict the deed as empowering or laudable exercises in personal autonomy.

Latest example: The Australia media has played up an elderly woman–who announced ahead of time she was going to kill herself–and then did the deed. From The Age’s story, ”Rational suicide: Why Beverley Broadbent Chose to Die": http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/ra...401-2h348.html

Beverley Broadbent was not dying of a terminal illness, nor was she depressed or unhappy. But at 83, she wanted to die. After living a rich and satisfying life, the Brighton East woman said the ageing process had come to feel like a disease that was robbing her of her physical and mental fitness. In February, she said she had had enough. ’’I look well and I walk well so people think I’m fine. But I have so many things wrong with me,’’ she said. ‘’The balance is gone. It’s taking so much time for me to keep fit to enjoy myself that there’s not enough time to enjoy myself.’’

In several interviews with Fairfax Media, Ms Broadbent said she planned to take her own life so she could have a peaceful, dignified death. She said she did not want her health to deteriorate to the point where she had dementia or found herself in a nursing home with no way out. The environmental activist chose to tell her story because she believed many elderly people wanted to die when they felt their life was complete, but lacked the means to go gently. ’’I can’t understand why people who really want to can’t have the means to go with the help of a doctor in a dignified manner at the time that they choose,’’ she said.

This is really shameful, and reminds me of the Belgian joint euthanasia of an elderly couple that their neighbors knew was being planned, yet did nothing. The media knew ahead of time that Broadbent was planning suicide, and saw it merely as a great story–and one that could further the cause of legalizing assisted suicide, which the media tend to support–and not a cause to find her help. And what kind of message does it send to other elderly people who may be experiencing difficulty continuing on?

Then, almost as an insult, after describing Broadbent’s suicide as “rational,” they offer a suicide prevention hotline number!

Not only that, but The Age’s story–and so many others like it–violate the Word Health Organization media guidelines on not touting suicide because it leads to copycat deaths. http://www.nationalreview.com/human-...eporting-guide

As I said, the media have become pro suicide–at least for some. This story is just one example.

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/04/03/m...l-it-rational/