Right Wing's "Kill Granny" anti-UHC agitprop

[Mayabird]

In the States, euthanasia is defined as actively killing a patient, which only Oregon allows.

No. We do not have euthanasia; we have doctor-assisted suicide. The physician does not actually kill the patient; he merely gives the patient the means to do it with a prescription for a fatal dose of drugs. It's then up to the patient to use it.

Also, Washington state now has it too. It's basically Oregon's law with "Oregon" scratched out and "Washington" written in. Didn't stop the scaremongering campaigns about how poor people diagnosed with cancer would be hunted down and put to sleep by stormtroopers from Olympia (slightly exaggerated) but it still passed with a large margin by referendum.

[Invictus ChiKen]

Not all of these folks are authorized to carry weapons, though many are. The advantage is that private security allows you to hire the level of security people you need - unarmed just to keep an eye on things, and call the cops if needed, to actual armed guards. The disadvantage, of course, is that they aren't police officers and if they overstep their bounds there are potentially serious liability issues.

Just a note on the private security thing as a rent-a-cop myself here in S.C. we have all the authority of a Sheriff's deputy while on duty and on the grounds of our assigned areas. Not sure if this is so in other states.

[Darth Wong]

Has anyone thought to ask these assholes why they want to destroy Medicare? After all, it's the logical conclusion of their argument. They're saying that a single-payer government insurance program is a horrible idea for elderly people, yet that is precisely what exists now, and it's called Medicare. If they are sincere in their rhetoric, then they must want to destroy Medicare, and allow the free market to take care of the medical needs of the elderly.

It would be interesting to see a Republican politician cornered on why he says Medicare is horrible for elderly people yet still supports it. Clearly, one or the other must be wrong. Either he actually does think a government single-insurer system works for the elderly, despite his rhetoric to the contrary, or he does not, and he must logically want to destroy the Medicare system.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Here you go, what the far right thinks of Obamas health care!


The disgusting thing? Its WORKING.

In the past month public opinion of health care reform has plummeted, the amount of people who think that Republicans would do a better job of healthcare then the democrats has gone up sharply, and many outright lies, such as the new healthcare reform leading to euthanasia, have started to be beloved among many.

Because what it comes down to our health corporations and lobbyists wanting things to remain EXACTLY as they are now, that is why they want this dead and gone, its about ForProfit healthcare companies maintaining a stranglehold on the business specifically, for profits. Go figure.

So ladies and gentlemen, hats off to the GOP! they have, more then likely, Killed any meaningful heatlhcare reform, naturally, with no plans of their own. But that doesnt matter ight? Because those democrats are so evil and horrible, I guess ANYthing the Republicans do is ok!

[Darth Wong]

Has anyone thought to ask these assholes why they want to destroy Medicare?

Yes, numerous Democrats have. One, representive Anthony Weiner from NYC (a single payer proponent), proposed an amendment to kill Medicare to the health care bill in the House. "Put up or shut up" he said to the Republicans.

Not a single one of them voted for it. A "farce" they called it.

It doesn't matter how many times the President or Congress brings up Medicare to these people. They just ignore reality.

(sigh) Unfortunately, there's one thing that not even the greatest debater can do, and that's to overcome an opponent who is simply stupid. Stupid people are like a Bop'Em doll: you can knock them down and they come right back up with that same stupid smile on their faces, because there's no brain in there.

[Thanas]

I don't think that many of them are stupid. I think a lot of them are really callous towards ordinary people and do everything in their power to ensure their crooked friends stay in power. So I think they are using the old stonewall debate tactic.

[Darth Wong]

I don't think that many of them are stupid. I think a lot of them are really callous towards ordinary people and do everything in their power to ensure their crooked friends stay in power. So I think they are using the old stonewall debate tactic.

I would say that's true of the Republican politicians. But the ordinary people who completely buy into their arguments are a different breed entirely: they seem to be genuinely stupid. After all, they're the ones who are routinely victimized by the existing system, they're the ones who are being fed these incredible lies about single-payer systems (to the point that they honestly don't even realize Medicare is one, because it's not killing people), and they're too stupid to see it.

[Thanas]

^That's true - or they are ideological fanatics who have spent a lifetime being exposed to fox news and other propaganda.

I have met very smart people who were so indoctrinated that arguing with them was a waste of Time.

[ray245]

The disgusting thing? Its WORKING.

In the past month public opinion of health care reform has plummeted, the amount of people who think that Republicans would do a better job of healthcare then the democrats has gone up sharply, and many outright lies, such as the new healthcare reform leading to euthanasia, have started to be beloved among many.

Because what it comes down to our health corporations and lobbyists wanting things to remain EXACTLY as they are now, that is why they want this dead and gone, its about ForProfit healthcare companies maintaining a stranglehold on the business specifically, for profits. Go figure.

So ladies and gentlemen, hats off to the GOP! they have, more then likely, Killed any meaningful heatlhcare reform, naturally, with no plans of their own. But that doesnt matter ight? Because those democrats are so evil and horrible, I guess ANYthing the Republicans do is ok!

If the power elite within a democratic nation is fucked up, it doesn't matter if people voted for a president who ran his campaign based on health care reforms.

Although I have to wonder, how many people in the US is even aware of how screwed up their health care system is? It almost seems like a lot of people simply accepted the view that falling heavily sick is something that would never happen to them, hence there is no need for any reform.

That's true - or they are ideological fanatics who have spent a lifetime being exposed to fox news and other propaganda.

I have met very smart people who were so indoctrinated that arguing with them was a waste of Time.

I guess the education system really needs to drill the idea that whatever things they heard from others could be wrong, unless it is proven otherwise into their head at a young age.

There are way too many people who refuses to accept the possibility that they can be wrong in regards to political issues.

[Broomstick]

Although I have to wonder, how many people in the US is even aware of how screwed up their health care system is? It almost seems like a lot of people simply accepted the view that falling heavily sick is something that would never happen to them, hence there is no need for any reform.

*ding*ding*ding*

^ We have a winner!

Yes, indeed, a lot of folks are convinced it can't happen to them because.... um... because they're healthy and they eat right (unlikely) and exercise (though they probably don't) and they're responsible people and.... and... and.. JUST BECAUSE!!!!

{{{{hides head under pillow}}}}

And, in fact, MANY people in the US are convinced that ours really is the best system (don't confuse 'em with the facts) and anything else would be even worse.

[ray245]

Although I have to wonder, how many people in the US is even aware of how screwed up their health care system is? It almost seems like a lot of people simply accepted the view that falling heavily sick is something that would never happen to them, hence there is no need for any reform.

*ding*ding*ding*

^ We have a winner!

Yes, indeed, a lot of folks are convinced it can't happen to them because.... um... because they're healthy and they eat right (unlikely) and exercise (though they probably don't) and they're responsible people and.... and... and.. JUST BECAUSE!!!!

{{{{hides head under pillow}}}}

And, in fact, MANY people in the US are convinced that ours really is the best system (don't confuse 'em with the facts) and anything else would be even worse.

I think in order to push for a healthcare reform in the US, you essentially need to blast tons of informericals on TV on a daily basis, to remind people just how screwed up the US healthcare system is.

Essentially, you have to fearmonger the general public into accepting a healthcare reform. I highly doubt that the democrats who are pushing for such a reform has the balls to do such a thing.

Trying to ask the people into accepting a health care reform based on logic alone cannot work, due to the sheer amount of people who are not capable of logical thoughts. Hence, the only way to get any political message across is to be a better fearmonger than your political opponent.

Acting tough against your political opponents is not working for Obama right now, hence the only way to pass such a reform is to scare the general public into accepting such an act is necessarily for them.

[Gil Hamilton]

While some people are doubtless lying, many, including those in high places, have bought the argument hook, line, and sinker.

A hallmark of Republican political theory is that government, by definition, cannot more efficiently provide services than the private sector. They also fear that public medicine will become a new "culture wars" battleground as the Democratic president and a Democratic Congress infuse the new program with their values.

These beliefs are sustained by an enormous library of often-contradictory mythologies. Thus, some conservatives complain on the one hand that the cost of medicine will be grossly inflated by bureaucracy - and on the other that reckless cost-cutting will lead predictably to rationalizations that lower the overall quality of care and inspire programs designed to identify groups whom it is no longer "worthwhile" to support.

I've always wondered about this. I've got a fair amount of experience dealing with the corporate monster known in Western Pennsylvania as the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC, now its own corporate entity that exists next to the university rather than as part of it). UPMC runs alot of the hospitals in Pittsburgh and has LEGENDARY mismanagement, to the point that the hospitals are overworked, understaffed, and losing money rapidly (incidentally, the nursing staff of UPMC took a round of layoffs, leaving the remaining nursing staff stretched massively thin... the same month UPMC treated itself to a new corporate jet).

An example: Now, UPMC runs Western Psychiatric, which is the major mental hospital and service in Western PA. There is an interesting fact that people with mental health issues are also people who don't tend to be rolling in money or have great insurance. UPMC has a bureacratic process for wringing these people, but do you know what the employees of Western Psych actually do? For people who clearly can't afford treatment, they deliberately and creatively fill out the paperwork such that anyone who honestly needs treatment qualifies for the Allegheny County Mental Health Act, one of those Evil Socialist Programs conservatives talk about dooming us all. Immediately, the wait and amount of bureaucracy disappears on the patient end, they go upstairs to be evaluated (note: actually seeing a psychiatrist might take a while, but it does that no matter what your financial situation at Western Psych, remember those staff cuts I mentioned?), and the process go on its way.

This is because the Allegheny County Mental Health Act VASTLY simplifies the rules which normally would be a tangle of bureaucratic nonsense and fees if UPMC ran EVERYTHING except for MOST things. Somehow, it manages to be more efficient than the private sector, because the private sector is full of people like who run UPMC. Interestingly, it is designed as a measure for the lower middle class rather than strictly the poor. It kicks in specifically for people who are just wealthy ENOUGH that they don't qualify for Medicaid, but still aren't wealthy enough to actually afford treatment.

This is why I don't understand all the resistance to government health care and the notion that the government is inherently less efficient than the private sector. Do people honestly think that the government can do WORSE than companies like UPMC, which can lose money in a quarter, cull their doctors and nurses, reduce treatment to patients and still manage to pad their own wallets at the executive level?

[Broomstick]

No, Ray, the only way to get real healthcare reform in the US is for the whole system to collapse to the point where 80% of Americans can't get real insurance. THEN the peasants will demand real reform, and finally the reformists will outnumber the conservatards and special interests sufficiently to make real change happen.

[Darth Wong]

I think in order to push for a healthcare reform in the US, you essentially need to blast tons of informericals on TV on a daily basis, to remind people just how screwed up the US healthcare system is.

It's impossible to outspend the health extortion industry. This is an industry which pulls in hundreds of billions of dollars of revenue every year, and they are perfectly willing and able to spend billions of dollars in advertising and lobbying alone. Who can compete with that? If the government spent that much money on a public-relations campaign, it would be assailed from all sides as a massive waste.

[Duckie]

It seems like after a brief spurt of optimistic news that the proper way to win the health care reform fight is to cross your fingers and consider if you can emigrate.

[Patrick Degan]

Now, UPMC runs Western Psychiatric, which is the major mental hospital and service in Western PA. There is an interesting fact that people with mental health issues are also people who don't tend to be rolling in money or have great insurance. UPMC has a bureacratic process for wringing these people, but do you know what the employees of Western Psych actually do? For people who clearly can't afford treatment, they deliberately and creatively fill out the paperwork such that anyone who honestly needs treatment qualifies for the Allegheny County Mental Health Act, one of those Evil Socialist Programs conservatives talk about dooming us all. Immediately, the wait and amount of bureaucracy disappears on the patient end, they go upstairs to be evaluated (note: actually seeing a psychiatrist might take a while, but it does that no matter what your financial situation at Western Psych, remember those staff cuts I mentioned?), and the process go on its way.

This is because the Allegheny County Mental Health Act VASTLY simplifies the rules which normally would be a tangle of bureaucratic nonsense and fees if UPMC ran EVERYTHING except for MOST things. Somehow, it manages to be more efficient than the private sector, because the private sector is full of people like who run UPMC. Interestingly, it is designed as a measure for the lower middle class rather than strictly the poor. It kicks in specifically for people who are just wealthy ENOUGH that they don't qualify for Medicaid, but still aren't wealthy enough to actually afford treatment.

This is why I don't understand all the resistance to government health care and the notion that the government is inherently less efficient than the private sector. Do people honestly think that the government can do WORSE than companies like UPMC, which can lose money in a quarter, cull their doctors and nurses, reduce treatment to patients and still manage to pad their own wallets at the executive level?

This is because the argument is a lie. The entire object of the exercise is to prevent any and all alternatives to the corporate sector controlling all aspects of the economy in general and health care in particular. So the "inefficient government bureaucracy" canard is constantly trotted out to frighten people and dupe them into constantly voting against their own interests by waving the shiny object called "FREEDOM" in front of their eyes while telling scare stories of "TEH EEEVULZ GUVABINT SOCIALIZMZ" coming to get them if they even let themselves think for one nanosecond of any alternative to letting the insurance companies keep putting it up their asses as the price for the shiny "FREEDOM" object. And since most people have been conditioned to not make an actual comparison between the American system and any other system in the developed world towards healthcare, in many cases being completely unaware of any alternative other than the TEH EEEVULZ GUVABINT SOCIALIZMZ cartoon, the lie works and hence you have the resistance against their own best financial and social interests.

[Axis Kast]

This is because the argument is a lie.

You act as if the rest of the world should be quick to agree with you because your argument is manifestly sound.

Sadly, it is not. People can and do hold contrary beliefs without one iota of malice entering the picture. People in this country cling fiercely both to a mistrust of politicians no less useful than your own seeming suspicion that all opposition to healthcare reform is a money-making scheme, and to faith in free markets. "Government-run" anything is seen to smack of bureaucracy and pork that people associated strictly with the public trust. while the "free market" is understood as the greatest insurance of efficiency on Earth. They get a little bit of watered-down Adam Smith - a few snippets about supply and demand - and they figure that corporations don't have to fuss with the red tape of government, and life is supposed to be dandy. It's no wonder they shout loudly and ignorantly when asked to check that thinking.

You also touch upon another problem having to do with universal health care. Whether or not people are doing what is objective in their best interests, they resent being told by somebody else that they've missed the boat, missed the point, or missed whatever. Another fairly common refrain in the face of universal health care is, "Why should the government know better?" Again, there are hints of the myth of the uninformed, therefore useless, bureaucrat.

Finally, American exceptionalism drives many in this country to doubt the benefits of any system applicable in Canada and/or Europe, which are regarded as sissified countries which have given up pursuit of international significance (though not the desire for, or memory of, it) to drink the nectar of high standards of living made possible only through gut-wrenching tax and abdication of an ethic of self-reliance (which does not actually exist much here either).

[Axis Kast]

Excuse me. That should read "no more useful than..."

To be certain, I am expressing an appreciation of some opinions about politics and economics that I don't necessarily agree with, but think need to be understood for what they are. These are views that people - including some very important ones - often hold without reason, but not with ill intent, even if the outcomes may be bad ones, once these sentiments need to be ground in the policy mill.

[Wing Commander MAD]

While some people are doubtless lying, many, including those in high places, have bought the argument hook, line, and sinker.

A hallmark of Republican political theory is that government, by definition, cannot more efficiently provide services than the private sector. They also fear that public medicine will become a new "culture wars" battleground as the Democratic president and a Democratic Congress infuse the new program with their values.

These beliefs are sustained by an enormous library of often-contradictory mythologies. Thus, some conservatives complain on the one hand that the cost of medicine will be grossly inflated by bureaucracy - and on the other that reckless cost-cutting will lead predictably to rationalizations that lower the overall quality of care and inspire programs designed to identify groups whom it is no longer "worthwhile" to support.

I've always wondered about this. I've got a fair amount of experience dealing with the corporate monster known in Western Pennsylvania as the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC, now its own corporate entity that exists next to the university rather than as part of it). UPMC runs alot of the hospitals in Pittsburgh and has LEGENDARY mismanagement, to the point that the hospitals are overworked, understaffed, and losing money rapidly (incidentally, the nursing staff of UPMC took a round of layoffs, leaving the remaining nursing staff stretched massively thin... the same month UPMC treated itself to a new corporate jet).

An example: Now, UPMC runs Western Psychiatric, which is the major mental hospital and service in Western PA. There is an interesting fact that people with mental health issues are also people who don't tend to be rolling in money or have great insurance. UPMC has a bureacratic process for wringing these people, but do you know what the employees of Western Psych actually do? For people who clearly can't afford treatment, they deliberately and creatively fill out the paperwork such that anyone who honestly needs treatment qualifies for the Allegheny County Mental Health Act, one of those Evil Socialist Programs conservatives talk about dooming us all. Immediately, the wait and amount of bureaucracy disappears on the patient end, they go upstairs to be evaluated (note: actually seeing a psychiatrist might take a while, but it does that no matter what your financial situation at Western Psych, remember those staff cuts I mentioned?), and the process go on its way.

This is because the Allegheny County Mental Health Act VASTLY simplifies the rules which normally would be a tangle of bureaucratic nonsense and fees if UPMC ran EVERYTHING except for MOST things. Somehow, it manages to be more efficient than the private sector, because the private sector is full of people like who run UPMC. Interestingly, it is designed as a measure for the lower middle class rather than strictly the poor. It kicks in specifically for people who are just wealthy ENOUGH that they don't qualify for Medicaid, but still aren't wealthy enough to actually afford treatment.

This is why I don't understand all the resistance to government health care and the notion that the government is inherently less efficient than the private sector. Do people honestly think that the government can do WORSE than companies like UPMC, which can lose money in a quarter, cull their doctors and nurses, reduce treatment to patients and still manage to pad their own wallets at the executive level?

Heh, here in New Castle we view the Pittsburgh hospitals as a godsend from the local Jameson Health System. Heck they even have carpets (trap bacteria/dirt) in the patients rooms. The level of care is somewhat questionable compared to what you'd recieve in Pittsburgh at say Presbyterian.

Note: I am perhaps a little biased against the Jameson system as my grandfather died of a blood infection (fungal I think) after successfully undergoing an operation to remove a a tumor (I don't really remember if it was cancerous or not, as it was when I was still in elementary school). Of course I don't know how it is elsewhere, but there seem to be a fair amount of people who die around here from infections that they contract in the hospital of all places (this is of course anecdotal and based on word of mouth and not statistics).

The problem with healthcare reform in the U.S. is that the people who have the power to enact reform and who should be looking out for the best interests of the public are almost all universally bought out by the private sector and special interest groups (I can't comment on other countries). Really the country isn't all that much better now then when it was under the Robber Barons during the Gilded Age, when compared to europe, which has had similar cultural and political atmosphere to the U.S. than anywhere else. The standard of living has risen sure, but I'd attribute that largely to technological advance and the following ease of production of goods than I would to any kind of social progress. We may not have child labor, and have equallity for all irregardless of race, gender or religion (at least on paper) in the eyes of the law, but the business practices though are largely the same. Indeed, the only real thing keeping us from reverting to that situation is restrictions and laws passed in the first half of the 20th century that the conservatives love to demonize. If the Republicans had their way, we would almost certainly would be back to the good old days of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle. It really is sad and pathetic when you think about it. The greatest advances that are usually tauted as the achievments of the "American Century" are really driven by greed and/or political dick waving than any real improvement of society.

[Duckie]

Ironically, the only health care system I know of with the similar and bizarre employee health insurance racket thing going was 1883 Prussia, where employees paid 66% of their health care and the rest was made up by employers, and any countries who adopted a 'prevent workers revolutions' health insurance system at that time in Prussia's wake.

We're seriously still trapped in the 19th century levels of "conservativism", which makes sense for an unabashedly laissez faire neoliberalist country. I'd be astonished if we advanced to the 20th or 21st century systems of health care considering how we've been so obstinately clinging to a health care model whose only relation I know of was a bandaid meant to make communists and socialists thing the state was doing something about health care without actually having the state do anything.

[Gil Hamilton]

Pittsburgh hospitals aren't BAD, but virtually anything run by UPMC is going to be severely mismanaged, because anyone in middle management or up is a Pointy Haired Boss. There are PLENTY of excellent doctors and medical staff in the city.

Its just UPMC is a bureaucratic nightmare that would ram Mandatory Ubiquitous Treatment Tentacles into everyone's asses, which dispense morphine and thorazine and extract money if they could get away with it.

The irony is that a conservative reader might read my descriptions of UPMC and say "Hey, sounds like what Government Run Healthcare would be like." The problem with this is that isn't true. Pittsburgh's city government is pretty ridiculously mismanaged itself, but alot of its healthcare initatives are there are responses to the twisted mess that private healthcare makes, in order to smooth out the massive cracks that large amounts of people can fall into.

Thing is, I'd like to see conservatives stop the BS on the issue and argue honestly. I've seen like one conservative actually come forward honestly and say that he'd prefer healthcare to be rationed by cost because he's wealthy enough that in such a system, he will get any service he wants because it eliminates less wealthy people from competing with him for treatment. You know what? I don't agree with him or his politics, but at least he's being forthright about it rather than screaming any bullshit that might frighten people, like most conservatives do. Honest discussion. No deathcamps for the elderly or bureaucrats deciding how you should be treated* or any of that. Get to the crux of it.

*I wonder how they think it works in the private sector where bureaucrats can and do that for the sake of their own profit margin.

[Thanas]

Ironically, the only health care system I know of with the similar and bizarre employee health insurance racket thing going was 1883 Prussia, where employees paid 66% of their health care and the rest was made up by employers, and any countries who adopted a 'prevent workers revolutions' health insurance system at that time in Prussia's wake.

Eh..what?

The prussian system was an enormous advantage over others and AFAIK there was no racket thing going on. Heck, the modern german structure of the health insurance thing is still organized pretty much the same way.

Also, considering that at the time the employees paid 100% in other countries. Furthermore, you didn't pay 66% of your health care in toto, you pay 66% of monthly rates to an insurer who then paid you out of a huge pot in which everybody paid their rates in.

[Duckie]

Ironically, the only health care system I know of with the similar and bizarre employee health insurance racket thing going was 1883 Prussia, where employees paid 66% of their health care and the rest was made up by employers, and any countries who adopted a 'prevent workers revolutions' health insurance system at that time in Prussia's wake.

Eh..what?

The prussian system was an enormous advantage over others and AFAIK there was no racket thing going on. Heck, the modern german structure of the health insurance thing is still organized pretty much the same way.

Also, considering that at the time the employees paid 100% in other countries. Furthermore, you didn't pay 66% of your health care in toto, you pay 66% of monthly rates to an insurer who then paid you out of a huge pot in which everybody paid their rates in.

Ah, I see. I must be misremembering how it worked from however long ago it was I read about it. That just makes it even worse for comparing it to America:

Our health care system in 21st century America is worse than one of the first health care systems in 1883. That's pretty pitiful shit.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Isn't it though, being stuck here in the boonies, with a "Union Cadilac Plan" which is pretty shitty compared to most of the rest of the 1st world, and miles ahead of what most of the US has still scares me when they talk about taxing my union benefits.

[18-Till-I-Die]

So has anyone come upon the latest GOP conspiracy theory...other than Sarah Palin's "death squad" quip, I mean. You know that political cartoon posted in this thread...it's actually relevent! No seriously, it's based on a "true story".

Supposedly, and I wish I was making this up, all the young people voted for Obama because he's going to have their parents and grandparents killed so he can give all the youngsters who voted for him their money and insurance payouts.

How?

Because of the living will part of the bill, which will force them to sign over their worldly possessions to their offspring, who naturally voted for Obama apparently, and who will recieve everything when they are executed by Obama's death squads.

I'm not sure what's more terrifying--the fact I've herad that several times this week from adults, or the fact that it's actually a pretty good plot for a political thriller novel and I may steal it for a story.

Email chain letters. Something Awful was right, truly the internet does make us stupid.