Move Aside, Geezers...

Well, as Barack Obama's health care (not insurance) brainiac has said, we'll gonna need to clear out the deadwood to get real health care reform. And by deadwood, he means old folks. Democratic Congresswoman Betsy Markey couldn't agree more:

Some people, including Medicare recipients, will have to give up some current benefits to truly reform the nation's health-care system, Rep. Betsy Markey told a gathering of constituents in Fort Collins on Wednesday.

Markey has repeatedly said during the August congressional recess that Medicare spending needs to be reined in to help pay for reforming the broader health-care system.

"There's going to be some people who are going to have to give up some things, honestly, for all of this to work," Markey said at a Congress on Your Corner event at CSU. "But we have to do this because we're Americans."

Bullshit.

Barack Obama gave up between $40 billion and $80 billion in drug cost rebates for Medicare in his sellout to PhRMA. Remember that? He sold out every senior in the country for $150 million in lobbying money.

Fucking lobbying money. 

If Barack Obama was half the man he claims to be, that $40 to $80 billion could have been used to help finance whatever the fuck Obamacare is this week. But no, he'd rather put that on the back of America's senior citizens.

So what is Betsy Markey really saying? Try this on for size:

When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get changes that are attenuated.

Comments

[JeffS]

...the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance...

Unless you are in Congress, the White House, or have your lips locked to the oligarchy's collective ass.

[Jim Ryan]

Next: Private insurance companies muscled out. Now you're on government health care willy-nilly.

After that: It will be made illegal to pay a doctor out-of-pocket to save one's life, as it is in Canada.

At last, your only option if sick, old and either attenuated or at the back of a 6-month waiting list will be to fly to India for treatment.

Democrats, you have an assortment of kleptocrats, fascists, narcissists and communists at the helm of your party. What are you going to do about it?

[PeterUK]

"individuals aged roughly 15 and 40 "

Since this is the age group that requires the least health care,this would appea to be a reduction in health care.

If it looks like you are to be "attenuated with extreme prejudice",get a gun!

[David]

"But we have to do this because we're Americans."

Offensive on many levels. First, because patriotism has -- once again -- proved to be the last refuge of the scoundrel. Second, because euphemism is employed to gloss over a politically unpalatable idea, and finally, because Markey expects people to believe this crap.

If Boy O'Bama manages to alienate seniors in his first year, it'll be a landspeed record to political suicide.

Does anyone else get the feeling that, while O'Bama wanted the job, he's not terribly good at doing it?

[Jane2 McMahon]

Jim, you keep insisting that it is illegal to pay a doctor out of pocket in Canada. That is not true.

[Jim Ryan]

Hmm. When I lived there 1997-2003, I was under the distinct impression that it was illegal. I've also read that it was recently. Perhaps I'm very badly mistaken. I'll have to take a look into it. Thanks for the heads up.

[Jim Ryan]

These guys make a business out of it:

Is it legal to go outside the Canadian health care system in this manner?

Yes. It is illegal in Canada to "jump the queue," but perfectly legal to leave the queue and receive treatment outside the public system.

It seems that these services are illegal, however:

Private waiting list illegal, health critic says. A private health waiting-list insurance scheme that allows well-heeled patients to jump the queue for medical services in private clinics is illegal and should be shut down, the New Democrats say.

But anyways. Happy Friday, Dennis: link.

[Jim Ryan]

There are links for those quotes in all that bolded stuff.

[Jane2 McMahon]

Nope...some doctors charge the government a fee-for-service, some receive a population capture grant, some charge up front and the patient recovers from the government...all sorts of arrangements. The vast majority are on direct bill, however, and the government prefers that. Doctors are legally prohibited from charging user fees or extra billing; perhaps that is what you are thinking of.

At my clinic, the doctors receive an annual grant based on the population they are expected to serve. I can visit 0 or 200 times...they don't get any more or less cash. As a member of their clinic, if I go to another general practitioner outside the clinic (my choice), that doc will bill the government, but the government will recover the fee from my clinic.

[Jim Ryan]

It seems it's a matter of some controversy: link.

By a one-vote majority, the court ruled that:

the appellants have established that in the face of delays in treatment that cause psychological and physical suffering, the prohibition on private insurance jeopardizes the right to life, liberty and security of the person of Canadians in an arbitrary manner.

In effect, the court said that private insurance payments can be used to cover treatment when the public system is unable to deliver it promptly.

The controversial ruling applies only to Quebec.

But, Jane, you say that, for example, if you don't want to wait the 6 months for an MRI, you can go get one in Canada by using your own money? Perhaps it's like marijuana in many places: "illegal" but not enforced.

[Jane2 McMahon]

It's controversial, but the Canadian government is not enforcing (or forcing) any single-tier health system. For example, check out Copeland Health Clinics...proudly part of a two tier-system in several Canadian cities.

[Jim Ryan]

More: Link:

Physicians are forbidden to accept private payments above the fees billed to the government.

[Uncle Fester]

Interesting. The Canadians I work with out of New Brunswick have an interesting attitude towards the central government and it's laws - they mostly ignore it. A good example is their attitude toward the gun registration law; several have guns but few registered any but the junkers. Is this attitude common in the rest of Canada?

[Guesst]

My 80 employees (2/3 are black) are looking forward to dermatology, podiatry, and orthopedic coverage that they don't currently have.

They are completely in favor of letting "the government" take care of their medical needs. As one of my former employees remarked to me several months ago: "Now that we have a black President, you don't get to tell me what to do anymore. Barack will take care of us."

Uh-huh. Only if you're between 15-40!

[Jane2 McMahon]

Uncle Fester, outside the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal triangle, I believe that attitude is pretty common...gun registration is an example of a complete federal fail, with several provinces intervening in the courts against the registration law. And no one around here is about to register grandpa's rifle stored in the basement.

[richard mcenroe]

Dennis, the virtues of government health care are so obvious it's a wonder we all haven't fallen in line:

Government Health Care in Action Here... and here.

[Uncle Fester]

Jane, that's kind of what I figured - it's pretty refreshing, actually. I suspect the same will happen here; the Feds will pass all sorts of inane laws and they'll be mostly ignored locally while the local politicos find ways to circumvent or defang them in order to keep their jobs (or avoid a lynching).

[Mike C.]

What to say, what to say ?

First, no surprise here. Secondly, anybody have any questions why virtually every popular caliber of ammunition has become damned-near impossible to find (and has doubled in price), even with factories running 24/7/365 ?

[Uncle Fester]

Well, Mike, my buddies and I are doing our share to the ammo scarce.

1000 rounds at a pop.