One of Rush's callers asked a great question today

[Terry Busch]

One of Rush's callers asked a great question today. "If the current healthcare is so broken, and wrong, and evil, and must be fixed now, then why does the Prez say if we like our current healthcare, we can keep it?

Rush also drilled the Prez about all the assurances he is giving about what "his" healthcare plan does or does not have. "He doesn't have a healthcare plan. Which plan is he talking about?" ... he's lying!


From: April
Date: August 10, 2009 3:19:12 PM PDT

Hello H,

I consider myself a moderate conservative and like healthy debate. I am 100% with you re:reading America's Affordable Health Choices Act and searching for the truth without depending on tv and radio commentators to formulate your positions for you. It has taken me quite some time but I have completed reading the bill.

This particular provision re: counseling to seniors on it's face has very benign language (as is most of the reform bill)- I agree with you. It sounds reasonable and quite frankly who would object to elderly individuals receiving this type of proactive counseling. I also am not an attorney but I am married to one and so I am comfortable with legalese and can refer to my husband when there is a question. We have read this bill together and quite frankly, we are scared. No fear mongers got to us. I have no intention of schooling you or telling you what to think re: this issue or the bill as a whole. In it's entirety, it is my opinion that this bill will sink health care as we know it and this particular section is a perfect example of why I am against this reform bill.

(1) TROUBLE DOWN THE ROAD The language in this provision is arcane and vague. Do you know what that means in the legal and political world? It means that it can be interpreted to mean more than it does on face value. It can be morphed. Ask any attorney liberal or conservative and they will tell you that arcane language is their best friend.

(2) CONFLICT OF INTEREST ALL, let me repeat, ALL these services are currently available to seniors. There are MANY skilled private sector professionals who handle this for people of all ages. Attorney's can counsel and draft the documents and physicians and hospitals already have services that counsel patients on this subject. All these professionals have a vested interest to protect and educate you, you are their client and they open themselves up for malpractice if they are less than thorough. Why does our government want to intrude on this very personal matter? Does it alarm you that the provision leaves open a position for "another health professional" that is trained to provide such counseling on behalf of the state or is employed by the state health care insurance who is heavily biased against end of life care because it increases costs. After all, isn't that a huge CONFLICT OF INTEREST?? Someone might be persuaded to act in the "best interest of their family" and in "society's best interest" to make sure they don't receive care. Who is this "another health professional" and will they abide by the same ideals of the hypocratic oath that physicians take. Is this going to be some beaurocratic slug that doesn't care who you are but is more concerned with when their next break is or to be first out the door when the bells ring. (trust me this is how government offices operate...I know firsthand) Seniors who are not strong minded or educated could easily be intimidated to make a choice that is not their own. This would heavily affect the disabled and the poor. This is a huge overreach of government into our lives. Seems minor but it is not!!!!

(3) ASSISTED SUICIDE (See vague language in my point # 1) Here is the thing about legal writing of laws...unless you have express language excluding or including something...it can be there...assisted suicide counseling is not expressley excluded from this provision. It is not omitted...it can be brought in, especially in the state we live in since assisted suicide is legal. What does this mean for assisted suicide counseling? IN addition, once ill your allowance for this type of counseling gets put on steroids. Why? "Don't feel well? Think you can't make it through another week of chemo/radiation?...Here is a "provider" in your community that will put together a quick document saying you want to cease treatment. It's your right, afterall, to make this life or death decision in the middle of your treatment protocol." Technically it is not suicide but what would a thoughtful person conclude? Jim Dau of AARP said this provision is crucial in order to "make sure people (seniors) are making the right decision". Shouldn't he have worded that differently like this provision is neccesary in order for "people to make a decision - one way or the other"? What is the "right" decision? Scary!

(4) BEAUROCRACY - Let the government get involved and it is as sure as the sun rises that a huge inefficient, ineffective, corrupt beaurocracy will be created to manage this. They even leave that open in the provision. They will refer you to "providers"...people on the gov's good list...liberal sympathetic lawyers, etc. A whole host of public service organizations will get money (acorn) to seek out seniors in poor communitues to "counsel" them as to how they should end their life. Who shall we make accountable for mistakes like we could a professional in this field...they will blow away with the wind and another org will move in to take their place.

(4) RATIONING - Seniors health care will be first to suffer once our health care is socialized and rationed (which is inevitably where this bill will lead us in my opinion). Why treat an 80 year old for breast cancer when she is towards the end of her life span anyway (even though their chances of survival are greater than someone in their 30's and she may have another 15 years left)? Get them in here for counseling...QUICK!


(5) SPEED The speed at which they are trying to accomplish this is more than a red flag...it is a house burning down. Slow down give us time to understand what is happening and have input. Let's work out the details...this has nothing to do with our economic recovery. What is the real rush?

I like your solutions you put forth for health care...unfortunately none of those exist in the Americans Affordable Health Choices Act. At the core of my rational mind I truly believe this is an attempt to socialize medicine, Haley. If they want to reduce costs in health care they need to start by deregulating it at the state level and let insurers compete in the market. Thet system is a mess, but having read the bill itself, you must know that this reform bill is not the answer we need. Keep on seeking answers that match up and I will be right along with you.

Regards,
April




--- On Mon, 8/10/09,
From:
Another shot at clarity and understanding...
To: xxxxxxx
Date: Monday, August 10, 2009, 1:31 PM


Hello again,

I am not an Obama supporter but a real thinker and evaluator of ideas and their implications for reality. Real conversations about these issues would take many hours to listen and understand each other along with a real willingness to bare our biases. I hope there are others in this group who can and do think for themselves and don't just make assumptions and accusations based on a few sentences in an email.

As to the last email...

The point is to make a plan while you are still able to make good decisions....if you make a decision and then change it because you are depressed which decision is honored and who gets to decide if your mental condition is adequate to make your own decisions?

I am not sure what the implications are regarding cost efficiency. Some illnesses are more expensive to treat. Do you mean that you believe that if a treatment is not cost efficient it will not be paid for? If so, I'd like to read that portion of the bill as well to see what I think it means..

Can you show me the part of the bill where going to a civilian doctor would be made illegal? I really am interested in seeing it for myself because as I said, I only trust my own eyes at this point..

By the way, regard Obama-I do not know what to believe. I have no idea what his words mean to him or how to interpret them as he too is putting everything into the frame that he thinks sounds best at any particular time to specific audiences. I think many on both sides are selecting words, phrases, contexts, etc to support the results they want supported and results not necessarily for our benefit.

I think that health care costs resources and one way or another it has to be paid for. No system can support every treatment for every body. How about a completely capitalistic system where you earn what you use and pay for it with insurance ONLY for major problems. That would mean insurance companies would have to manage for profit and to stay in business would differentiate. Some would focus on healthy people and others would charge higher rates for people with costly health issues. Maybe others would have a health check yearly and if your numbers were good you'd get a reduced rate like auto insurance for good drivers. Any way you look at it some illnesses cost more and someone has to pay if these illnesses are to be treated. Insurance or not healthy working people will pay for sick, disabled and non-working people. Triage is not a bad idea. and at least it's honest.

H





On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 12:22 PM, H
I will probably not be appreciated but here goes. I have looked at the White House Site clearing up myths and it makes some sense if one reads it objectively, just like our side makes sense if looked at objectively. It actually could be seen as an attempt to clarify myths and misinformation which I know first hand is out there.



EXAMPLE : I have downloaded the heath care bill and read some specific sections of it. The one in particular was just about care givers give information about end of life concerns. It talks about discuss end of life decisions etc. and signing the living will and how the Drs. are supposed to discuss this with you. What is the problem? It doesn't say how one ought to decide merely to think about it and make your decisions. This has been interpreted by some of my radio guys as getting grandma to agree to die earlier...



My Experience ...my mother, father and I were given these documents years ago, discussed them in detail together before deciding how each would sign and what it actually meant should any of us not able to give our opinion any longer about weather to give food, to give water, to give pain medication, to allow us to die without extraordinary measures - etc... There was a lot too the document and a lot of scenarios to consider, some pretty complicated. It took us a long time to talk it through and make our decisions.



When my mom actually ended up in a coma due to a fall in the bathroom it was so easy to do what she wanted because we had discussed it in such detail. When 5 Drs. came into the room to talk with me about our options I knew right away that this was it. This was the time to put into action what mom wanted and to disconnect the tubes. I was able to stay with her for the 5 days that it took her body to shut down knowing it was the right thing to do. It was not about saving money it was about doing what she wanted.



I think at least this piece of the actual bill does NOT do what some of our radio guys are making it out to be. I don't believe either side now, and reading the bill helps but yes it is VERY legal sounding so not being a lawyer this does not help much either.



I would like to fight for clarity, understanding, and listening. It is so easy to make negative interpretations from either side, but much tougher to actually listen for what is really being said and seeking to understand and then to be understood rather than adding to the muddyness of it all.



Is anyone in this meet up committed to this type of clarity?



H


----- Original Message -----
From: ".G
Sent: Sunday, August 9, 2009 12:36:44 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: RE: Healthcare: Turn in your friends and neighbors at [e-mail]



We have another advantage over their side; the Truth. We expect it from our side, and get rather upset with our leadership when they fall short of that expectation. Their side works through subterfuge, deceit and obfuscation. Like cockroaches, they go scuttling for the shadows as soon as the light shines on them.

We hear all the time from the media about any of our shortcomings, and the repeated lies about our movement. Let them keep it up. The mounting anger they are spawning will sweep over them. We know the truth. We were at the town hall meeting with Adam Smith and saw some of the raw emotion from the people there on both sides of the issue. Rep. Smith at least got it right when he called us "constituents speaking their minds." But the News Tribune, while more balanced than most newspapers, is sticking with their talking points about our movement being "anti-government".

Our main weapon is our own contacts and acquaintances. Stay reasonable and rational when talking to someone with a different viewpoint. They may be one of those marginally informed people who believe that we're all a bunch of wackos who hate their president. Remember the vitriol we saw from the Bush-haters and try not to emulate their intellectually vacuous emotions. Just speak the truth, and it may even set them free - - - eventually. It took decades of us sleeping at the switch to get where we are, and it will take an equally concerted, long-term effort on our part to undo it.

-------Original Message-------

From: R
Date: 8/8/2009 9:12:46 PM
Subject: RE: Healthcare: Turn in your friends and neighbors at [e-mail]

We have one advantage. We are the real grass roots of this country. We have no head; we are coming from every family and community who has the common sense to see the dangers being fostered in Washington DC., from the Cap and trade bill and Universal health care to the anti gun bill HR 45. Their plan is to overwhelm the system and frustrate us.



The Moveon.org e-mails prove they have a head called Obama and they are a top down organization. We need to find the weak link and break it or interrupt it. They will wither on the vine if the leaders or the chain of command is severed.



Is there someone out there who can do this the way our founders used unheard of tactics to defeat the British who were like the Obama down pyramid. Without e-mails to command them the Moveon.org robots would sit at home in a daze!



Can this be done?

R