<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Will we ever hear the message instead of ‘shooting the messenger?’</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thesystemmd.com/?feed=rss2&#038;p=790" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thesystemmd.com/?p=790</link>
	<description>Join the discussion on how we can fix healthcare.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Sep 2010 18:25:56 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Nerdse</title>
		<link>http://thesystemmd.com/?p=790&#038;cpage=1#comment-5067</link>
		<dc:creator>Nerdse</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Nov 2009 11:30:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thesystemmd.com/?p=790#comment-5067</guid>
		<description>Remember that part about universal access to wellness care? No deductibles? I read a good bit of the thing. Wellness care = annual physical, mammograms &amp; pap smears for women, DRE for men, vaccines as advised by CDC. There&#039;s no mention of chronic illness care, yet on many chronic illness boards, they were convinced Obamacare was going to help them with their illnesses. 

Yet, on the first page, there is &quot;cost sharing&quot; mentioned. Annually, an individual has to ante up $5K &amp; a family, $10K, towards healthcare costs for anything not covered under wellness care. The chronic illness sufferers on the board ignored my pointing that out &amp; providing the link to the bill. But it means what it says: a $5K deductible for one person, $10K for a family, before you get any &quot;free&quot; healthcare. That&#039;s the same deductible - oops, cost sharing - that was in the so-called health insurance offered to managers of MacDonald&#039;s restaurants - a deductible for which politicians raised h-e-double hockey sticks when whipping up a frenzy aimed at trying to get socialized medicine in the US. 

So, why again is this high level deductible - oops, cost sharing - OK for Obamacare but a travesty for MacDonald&#039;s to do? 

Thankfully, by now that particular bill is gone - but in its place is a kluge of 4 sucky Senate bills - a mess that has so many pages it stands about 10 inches tall lying on a table. Makes &quot;War &amp; Peace&quot; look like a brochure. 

And people, including our elected representatives, are more likely to read &quot;War &amp; Peace&quot; than they are to wade through a massive amount of political doublespeak that looks like a paper version of a Joe Biden filibuster. It&#039;ll be so internally inconsistent that no one will be able to figure it out.

In other words, it makes the tax code look simple to understand. 

They&#039;ll vote it in if we don&#039;t fight it, because their constituents want &quot;something done about healthcare.&quot; It&#039;ll cost so much they&#039;ll have to ration no matter what version gets passed; the bureaucratic doublespeak alone will require Special High Intensity Training (read the acronym, please). 

There are all these undesirables out there who can&#039;t seem to get thin, quit smoking, stop drinking, or quit drugging. We can start with them, moving on to the 53% of the population with chronic illnesses. From there, you have a choice of knocking off people with incurable illnesses &amp; people who need care (intellectually challenged, psychologically unstable), perhaps even prisoners - where it&#039;ll also reduce prison overcrowding. Decimate the population, omit anyone with diseases, until you have just a few healthy people left. Cuts costs, really quickly. No more medical supply places, gimps on mobility aids or in wheelchairs (manual or power), &quot;retards&quot; or fat people to look at, just beautiful people. 

It may be tongue in cheek now, but I wonder if it will end up being prophecy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Remember that part about universal access to wellness care? No deductibles? I read a good bit of the thing. Wellness care = annual physical, mammograms &amp; pap smears for women, DRE for men, vaccines as advised by CDC. There&#8217;s no mention of chronic illness care, yet on many chronic illness boards, they were convinced Obamacare was going to help them with their illnesses. </p>
<p>Yet, on the first page, there is &#8220;cost sharing&#8221; mentioned. Annually, an individual has to ante up $5K &amp; a family, $10K, towards healthcare costs for anything not covered under wellness care. The chronic illness sufferers on the board ignored my pointing that out &amp; providing the link to the bill. But it means what it says: a $5K deductible for one person, $10K for a family, before you get any &#8220;free&#8221; healthcare. That&#8217;s the same deductible &#8211; oops, cost sharing &#8211; that was in the so-called health insurance offered to managers of MacDonald&#8217;s restaurants &#8211; a deductible for which politicians raised h-e-double hockey sticks when whipping up a frenzy aimed at trying to get socialized medicine in the US. </p>
<p>So, why again is this high level deductible &#8211; oops, cost sharing &#8211; OK for Obamacare but a travesty for MacDonald&#8217;s to do? </p>
<p>Thankfully, by now that particular bill is gone &#8211; but in its place is a kluge of 4 sucky Senate bills &#8211; a mess that has so many pages it stands about 10 inches tall lying on a table. Makes &#8220;War &amp; Peace&#8221; look like a brochure. </p>
<p>And people, including our elected representatives, are more likely to read &#8220;War &amp; Peace&#8221; than they are to wade through a massive amount of political doublespeak that looks like a paper version of a Joe Biden filibuster. It&#8217;ll be so internally inconsistent that no one will be able to figure it out.</p>
<p>In other words, it makes the tax code look simple to understand. </p>
<p>They&#8217;ll vote it in if we don&#8217;t fight it, because their constituents want &#8220;something done about healthcare.&#8221; It&#8217;ll cost so much they&#8217;ll have to ration no matter what version gets passed; the bureaucratic doublespeak alone will require Special High Intensity Training (read the acronym, please). </p>
<p>There are all these undesirables out there who can&#8217;t seem to get thin, quit smoking, stop drinking, or quit drugging. We can start with them, moving on to the 53% of the population with chronic illnesses. From there, you have a choice of knocking off people with incurable illnesses &amp; people who need care (intellectually challenged, psychologically unstable), perhaps even prisoners &#8211; where it&#8217;ll also reduce prison overcrowding. Decimate the population, omit anyone with diseases, until you have just a few healthy people left. Cuts costs, really quickly. No more medical supply places, gimps on mobility aids or in wheelchairs (manual or power), &#8220;retards&#8221; or fat people to look at, just beautiful people. </p>
<p>It may be tongue in cheek now, but I wonder if it will end up being prophecy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
