O.T.: Will We Ever Have Health Police?

Dream Stalker said:

DreamStalker wrote:Allowing the health insurance industry to continue to profit by keeping us sick is obviously NOT working.

Scaring people into keeping the status quo by fabricating future health policies that clearly do not exist does not help either.

Right now our prospects for improved Health Care and what we have - seems to be the difference between the hard place and the rock. If the citizens yell and scream this August, will it make any difference?

Jan

I hope this remains a CPAP forum and we don't have daily off-topic anti-Obama posts based on false newspaper articles. We had one the other day about putting surveillance cameras in homes. This one is based on an altered quotation. It's easy to check. The original story is on the internet at

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07282009/ne ... 181738.htm

Here is how SaltLakeJean quotes it:

SaltLakeJan wrote: The President statement regarding obesity:"IT'S NOT WORTH THE WEIGHT: OBESITY'S TOLL ON US BUDGET"

-- As President Obama moves to overhaul the health-care system, he reveals reveals that fat Americans are taking a super-sized bite out of the nation's budget. A crisis in obesity is placing a heavy burden on the nation's health costs, with annual medical spending on an obese person $1,400 higher than on someone of normal weight, according to a new study published in Health Affairs. "Unless you address obesity, you're never going to address rising health-care...N.Y. Post 8-29-2009"Jan

Now of course the real Post story isn't dated August 29, which is in the future, it's from July 28. It has the same headline, except with not reference to the President, and most of the same words. Here are the actual words corresponding to that quotation. I've taken out paragraph breaks:

--As President Obama moves to overhaul the health-care system, a new study reveals that fat Americans are taking a super-sized bite out of the nation's budget. A crisis in obesity is placing a heavy burden on the nation's health costs, with annual medical spending on an obese person $1,400 higher than on someone of normal weight, according to a new study published in Health Affairs. "Unless you address obesity, you're never going to address rising health-care costs," said Eric Finkelstein of RTI International, a nonprofit research group that participated in the study.

The newspaper story is about a study that appeared in an academic journal, Health Affairs. President Obama has nothing to do with it, except that the Post has slapped on the words, "As President Obama moves to overhaul the health-care system" to make it topical. The quotation has been changed from "a new study reveals" to "he reveals" in order to falsely make it quote the President. Then the attribution of the second quotation is omitted, leaving the impression that the President has something to do with that statement too.

What is Health Affairs, where the study appeared? Do you remember those old television commercials for the SS Hope, a big, white hospital ship that brought medical care to poor countries? Health Affairs is a publication of Project Hope, a private charity, not the U.S. Government.

So, from a newspaper story reporting the unsurprising news that obesity raises health costs, a few words are switched, and we get a claim about Obama Health Police. The rest of the post is pretty obviously nonsense, too. Anyone who's ever worried about weight knows that the BMI range quoted has been around for decades. It is not some new Senate committee finding. It particularly irks me that the decision of the expert CDC panel on prioritizing who should get the new H1N1 flu vaccination is painted as intended to slight those 65 and older. Every story reporting this has noted the reason: people over 65 seem to already have immunity. Here is the Washington Post version, but it can be found all over.

Unlike nearly every previous effort to get people to use flu vaccine, the promotion of the pandemic vaccine won't first try to reach the elderly. That's because people 65 and older have contracted the new strain at the lowest rate of any age group and appear to be largely protected because of exposure to other distantly related flu strains that circulated decades ago.

The CDC strongly urged those over 65 to get the normal, seasonal flu vaccination, which protects against multiple strains, so no one is leaving them out.

Thanks, PST for bringing some reality to this thread.

And I agree about the Obama-bashing threads.

Find an anti-Obama board and quote the tabloids there. Rupert Murdoch must have one somewhere.

What?

You mean there are right wing fundamentalists spinning news articles into anit-Obama fear mongering?

What will they think of next?

Actually it is quite predictable ... when they are unable to logically support their ideology, they take to partial quotes to spin new facts and fear of the future.

[quote="Slinky As A Guest"]And just as an aside, since when did we become historic Russian and developed a need for "czars"??? Who the heck came up w/that term for an American government position?? The first American "czar" was the "drug czar" wasn't it? Snort.Amen,


Slinky, I recently heard in a news broadcast that President Obama has appointed 20 Czars to report back to him the status of their different assignments. I can't recall the commentator, but he said that the Czars were not under the direction of Congress, only the President.

Jan

I happen to be a very, VERY conservative individual. Don't consider myself Republican, but DO consider myself anti-Democratic Party. Didn't used to be that way, but I am now, and it has nothing to do with being afraid, panicky, or thinking the sky is falling. I don't think Martian's in some undercover government alien protection program are living next door. Geesh.

There are plenty of intelligent conservatives (some of 'em even right-wing fundamentalists---gasp!), just like--and I hate to admit it--there may be some intelligent liberals somewhere. There are also plenty of stupid conservatives and stupid liberals.

Everybody wants tolerance and acceptance of opinions, except when it's someone or group that disagrees with them! LOL Why is it because one chooses not to keep his/her head in the sand, those that disagree with them choose to say they're fabricating, misrepresenting, fear-mongering, etc., with no facts to prove it other than they just disagree?

This is a CPAP board, but it does say "OT" in the subject. And as someone said a while back when some posters started complaining about OT topics, if it says "OT," just don't read the thread. Any subject with "Health Police" in it will be political to some extent.

bobkat13 wrote:Well, I agree with the one who requested that we keep politics off this board. But since several have already aired their political views, I see no harm in speaking my mind, too! I am NOT a "right wing fundamentalist", I'm just one of the majority of all Americans who describe themselves as somewhat right of center. Putting the government in charge of health care frightens me to no end. If we put the government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years we'd be out of sand. My husband WORKS for the federal government, and he says that the most frightening sentence ever uttered is "I'm with the government and I'm here to help."

Love the line I highlighted above, although it might be less than five years.

What program has our government run that works correctly? Those who think the government can run a national healthcare plan well, why do you think that? It's not a, "Well, it stinks now, we gotta do something." That's not the answer. Me? I don't know what the answer is, only that putting our government in charge of it will, in the long run--maybe even the short run--only make things worse. This isn't fear or stupidity talking, but common sense based on our government's past and current performance. Anyone who has worked for any government agency (federal, state, etc.) should be well aware of what a fiasco this will end up being.

WearyOne wrote:Why is it because one chooses not to keep his/her head in the sand, those that disagree with them choose to say they're fabricating, misrepresenting, fear-mongering, etc.?

Well, in this case I chose to say it because words were changed. You can see for yourself that the quotation was altered. It put words in the President's mouth that the actual story attibuted to others. I wouldn't have said it was fabricated if it hadn't been fabricated.

PST wrote:

WearyOne wrote:Why is it because one chooses not to keep his/her head in the sand, those that disagree with them choose to say they're fabricating, misrepresenting, fear-mongering, etc.?

Well, in this case I chose to say it because words were changed. You can see for yourself that the quotation was altered. It put words in the President's mouth that the actual story attibuted to others. I wouldn't have said it was fabricated if it hadn't been fabricated.

PST, I wasn't referring to you (actually hadn't read your posts). I was referring to some other posts I had read on this thread and others. I realize that many times people do fabricate things to try to make their point, or use fear to sway, which I don't agree with. I also don't agree when statements are made insinuating that certain groups of people do this as a habit in order to make their point. (I have now reworded the sentence above in my original post.)

I do apologize if I offended you.

DreamStalker wrote:What?

You mean there are right wing fundamentalists spinning news articles into anit-Obama fear mongering?

What will they think of next?

Actually it is quite predictable ... when they are unable to logically support their ideology, they take to partial quotes to spin new facts and fear of the future.

Unfortunately there are far too many "spinners" on BOTH sides of the political spectrum. AND, in the meantime, they're picking our pockets and mortgaging the future of the country.

There's been an incremental "creep" of government intrusion into our lives and liberties for decades......and I'm sure every generation going back to the founding of this country could give examples of it from their perspectives. However, somewhere in the recent past (maybe 30 - 50 years) it's been a snowball rolling downhill, picking up speed and mass. I think at this time, the majority of folks are peering over the edge of the precipice we're at and don't like what they see.


Den

SaltLakeJan wrote:

Slinky As A Guest wrote:And just as an aside, since when did we become historic Russian and developed a need for "czars"??? Who the heck came up w/that term for an American government position?? The first American "czar" was the "drug czar" wasn't it? Snort.Amen,

Slinky, I recently heard in a news broadcast that President Obama has appointed 20 Czars to report back to him the status of their different assignments. I can't recall the commentator, but he said that the Czars were not under the direction of Congress, only the President.

There is no American government position called czar. Time magazine called William Simon the energy czar when Nixon appointed him to head the new Federal Energy Administration, and the name has stuck as a slang term used often in newspaper stories for whatever official is in charge of a particular area. There is no such real office, though.

Cornell Law School generously keeps a copy of the United States Code posted on its web site that anyone can use to search the law. It is at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/. If you search for the word "czar", you will find that it doesn't appear anywhere. Neither does "tsar".

As for the "czars" reporting to the President, not Congress, that's true generally of executive branch offices. It's what the Bush administration referred to the "unitary executive," and properly so.

Woops PST
I didn't read the article as closely as I should before I quoted it. Am glad to have an Obama Supporter critique, another view keeps the record straight.

I would like to add I feel venerable because I began Medicare and what I believe are Obama's view on those he considers elderly. I don't feel elderly. I exercise 3 times a week for 1 1/2 hours at the Spa. I would hope that under any new plan that I would be evaluated for medical intervention based on my physical & mental condition. I would add, I can't imagine wanting surgery at 90.

" Sophistry: Obama, Painkillers and Pained Words Posted by Steve Schippert Published: July 21, 2009 - 7:20

"Question: "Outside the medical criteria for prolonging the life of someone who is elderly, is there any consideration that can be given for a certain spirit, a certain joy of living, or quality of life; or is it just a medical cut off at a certain age?"
President Obama: "Yeah, we're not gonna solve every difficult problem in terms of end of life care. A lot of that is going to have to be we as a culture and a society making better decisions within our own families and for ourselves. But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system that is not making anybody's mom better that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what, maybe this isn't gonna help. Maybe you're better off not taking the surgery, but taking the painkiller."

This is an extreme example because the woman had the surgery when she was 99 after the surgeon saw her and her love of life. The President did not answer her question if there was any consideration that can be given for a cerrtain spirit, a certain joy of living, or quality of life, or is it just a medical cut off.[color]

PST I have included another quote regarding the same situation and a rebuttal. Hope I have included everything this time.


Dr. Helen Comentary on Popular Culture and Society

Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the pain killer.."
He didn't really say that, did he? I must say I was appalled when watching this ABC news clip of Obama making this ludicrous statement to the daughter of a now 105-year-old woman who needed a pacemaker (she needed the surgery at 99). The daughter in question, Jane Sturm, was asking the President if he thought medical criteria such as age should be used or should quality of life and joy be important in making the decision to provide care. From his answer, which basically boils down to "Mom can take a pain pill," Obama shows himself not only to have no understanding of medicine, life, or the science of improving people's lives, but no empathy for those of us who have life threatening illnesses that require immediate medical intervention

And a rebuttal comment from Richard:

Richard said...
I don't like BHO or his health care "reform" any more than you do, but I think his answer is being taken out of context. Listen again. He is referring to other patients in other situation, who may not benefit from aggressive intervention, and may be candidates for comfort care instead. As an interventional cardiologist, I've implanted pacemakers in 95 year olds, and opted not to in others. Each case is different, and depends on multiple factors such as physiological age, quality of life, and patient/family expectations.
I'm no fan of the president, but let's be fair here.
2:09 PM, July 21, 2009

PST
I accept the correction, but reject your statement

PST wrote:The rest of the post is pretty obviously nonsense, too.

Jan

WearyOne wrote:PST, I wasn't referring to you (actually hadn't read your posts). I was referring to some other posts I had read on this thread and others. I realize that many times people do fabricate things to try to make their point, or use fear to sway, which I don't agree with. I also don't agree when statements are made insinuating that certain groups of people do this as a habit in order to make their point. (I have now reworded the sentence above in my original post.)

WearyOne, thanks for your note. I took it a little personally when I shouldn't have. I should also add that I need to be more careful about words like fabricate. I don't for one second think that SaltLakeJean fabricated anything. Someone did, though, and then these things circulate widely from one person to another, often starting with fundraising letters. It took the Wall Street Journal's retraction to convince my father that the stimulus bill didn't contain a provision for a high-speed rail line from Disneyland to Las Vegas.

SaltLakeJan,

I'm sorry about the "nonsense" comment. That's both impolite and lazy. I should have explained what I disagreed with or let it pass. Also I think I called you SaltLakeJean, but that's a lesser offense.