The paperwork is about the patient's history of illness, jobs, age and other personal information, and she has to send in paperwork for every patient she has seen that day regarding their illness and what was used to treat them. (This is going on now)When Obamacare takes place, she would see the patient, then send in paperwork requesting treatment and why they need it, before she gets an answer to wether or not she can treat them. The patients would have to wait until the paperwork went through to the Government requesting treatment. This could take weeks, even months. If it came back saying they were denied treatment, they're left to die like I said.
Man, what?
First of all, if somebody's going to die, they can go to the emergency room and get treatment,
period. You ever heard people say that illegal immigrants are a drain on our economy because they don't pay taxes and get free medical care? Well, the don't pay taxes bit is only somewhat true, but illegal immigrants
do get treated at the emergency room, whether or not they can pay or provide proof of citizenship. They can't even
ask if you can pay.
That's all due to a law Congress passed in 1986, which requires all hospitals which are part of the Medicare program (which is most hospitals in the US) to provide emergency room service to
anybody who needs it. If you're curious, here's my
source. So no, unless Obamacare actually repeals that law, then patients will not die while doctors wait to receive federal approval. But emergency care treatment is extremely expensive and it's generally better to get treatment earlier, for both health and financial reasons. So with that in mind, let's look at some of the other claims you made.
You say that she has to submit paperwork before she can administer treatment, and then will not be able to administer treatment if her request is denied. What you are talking about is
death panels. They are a myth. (
Source 1,
Source 2,
Source 3) What's actually going to be created under Obamacare is panels to examine the effectiveness of various treatments, and make changes so that Medicare is more cost efficient. Not insurance, because that's privately controlled. Just Medicare. Medicare doesn't cover everything currently, and it still won't under Obamacare. But you know what's in the mandate of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), the board that's being set up to reduce the cost of Medicare to the government?
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (AKA Obamacare) said:
The proposal shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums under section 1818, 1818A, or 1839, increase Medicare beneficiary cost sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and co-payments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria.
That quote is directly from the bill that
established Obamacare. And you know what it says? That the IPAB will not "ration health care", "restrict benefits" or "modify eligibility criteria". In other words, it's
not allowed to deny treatments that are currently covered under Medicare. (
Source, page 428 (or page 409, according to the page numbers in the bill itself))
We saw a glimpse of this last year when my grandmother died.
I'm sorry. My grandmother died a little over a year ago.
She had several strokes, but was still fighting to live. She was doing great, but the doctors decided to cut her treatment and therapy, and instead put her on Morphine without food and water until she died because "she wasn't worth it"
Who is this quote from? The doctors? Did they say that? If so, they are horrible doctors.
But unless Obama or one of the lawmakers who supported his health care plan said that your grandmother "wasn't worth it", I'm not sure how that quote has anything to do with Obamacare.
They also convinced my grandfather to go along with it because "it's for her own good" even though my grandmother had said she wasn't ready to die, and was determined to live.
If they pressured your grandfather, then that's wrong, and that's not what's supposed to happen under either the current system or Obamacare. But again, that's an issue with the doctors, not with the laws. And obviously, when your grandmother was saying that she said she wasn't ready to die, she was still able to express her own wishes. When your grandfather was making the decisions, she wasn't. Something had changed with regards to her health. I have no idea what the right decision for your grandmother, but the circumstances clearly changed.
In any case, whether under Obamacare or under current law, if your grandmother did not have a living will, it would be up to your grandfather to make the ultimate decision. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
One of her nurses said she had good days, and bad days. She believed she would be able to fully recover, and said "You better be glad Obamacare isn't already in place because they would've most likely denied treatment months ago."
As I've said before, this is patently false. No coverage is being cut from Medicare. No coverage is being cut from private insurance providers, because they're private. No paperwork needs to be submitted to the government. Who would have denied your grandmother treatment?
One more thing, my Aunt is a dentist, and has basically said the same things our friend said. Need braces? The government will decide wether you need them badly enough. Want your teeth whitened? Good luck, it's not necessary.
Again, the government doesn't control what private insurers cover, and still won't under Obamacare. Medicare is a program for seniors, and what it covers won't be changed anyway. I doubt seniors often need braces, and if they do, they'd be just as able to get them under the current law or Obamacare.
Oh boy.
I read this whole article. First of all, it says nothing that supports
anything you've been saying. Second, I don't even like the Huffington Post because it's too biased
towards the left. The Huffington Post is super liberal, and rather sensationalist.
So your source is
supporting Obamacare, making the opposite of the point you're making, and it's a bad source anyway.
The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank. Think tanks are simply not trustworthy, ever.
Your sources are a forum post, a news site founded by Tucker Carlson (a conservative commentator) and Neil Patel (former adviser to **** Cheney), a conservative media watchdog group, and a conservative online newspaper. These are not unbiased sources. These are not even necessarily reliable sources.
And moreover, alright, Obama was friends or at least acquaintances with a communist. Frank Davis was not violent. He did not advocate violence. Being friends with somebody with fringe views on certain subjects, who tries to promote those views through peaceful means... alright. Not a problem for me. As long as Davis isn't violent or a bigot, I don't see why I should bothered.
