Actually, my ideal would be Medicare for all.

I’m happy paying taxes for their health care. However, I am aware of the legitimacy of arguments that the costs of end-of-life-care within the last 6 months of people’s lives is continuing to expand at a rate which may well make Medicare unsustainable over the long term no matter WHAT we do with the rest of our healthcare costs.

What I don’t want is some govt bureaucrat to decide what the cost should be to someone who wants to live an extra year so they should or should not get a certain procedure.

So to turn this argument around – are you in favor of government providing platinum-plated coverage to every Medicare recipient in order to keep them alive, no matter what? Because that is the direct logical conclusion of pressing the argument you just made.

I may actually swallow paying more in taxes to keep Medicare sustainable since it does service a particularly vulnerable part of the population if it’s reformed correctly.

Yes, Medicare recipients are particularly vulnerable.

But then, so are the families of many millions of working class people across America who have to choose between paying for insurance or affording safe housing for their family, healthy meals, decent transportation, etc. Yes, it is a tragedy if a grandparent can’t live an extra year to see a grandchild graduate, or get married. It is perhaps a greater tragedy if a parent of three young children passes away, leaving the survivor to try to raise a family and work at the same time.

But we are talking about Medicare, my dear Dragonlady.

The government is already deep in it. And every time a terminal patient opts for the most expensive treatment, even when it’s almost certain that it will barely lengthen their lifespan and will in many many cases reduce the quality of their final days … it means that we’re going to have to come to you, Dragonlady, and collect more money in taxes to pay for it.

You get that, don’t you?

-You again failed provide any evidence that any bill has any of the provisions you are up in arms about. the fact that anyone is going to go and read the language of the bill to double check himself doesn’t prove that it contains, in fact, what you are ALLEGING (and its an allegation, because you have no evidence of the claim, see the difference?). Why not allege that the bill will give swimming pools to anyone who fills out column B with an X and not a Y? Its just as wrong, but doesn’t help your political argument I guess – I’ll just wait until you concoct something else to bat down (I bet you can make up something far more incendiary than I – I’m just to literal).

-Look, let me try again: I don’t disagree with you that his speech may have been partisan (I haven’t listened to the whole thing and I haven’t analyzed it, so I say “may” – notice how I’m not over inflating a point I’m not able to substantiate). Where I disagree with you is this: what would be the point of doing anything else? Nothing from what you have written or that R. leadership currently holds as a position has anything to do with “non-partisanship.” So, what would be the point of even attempting to work with that type of position? Frankly, if you or the R. leadership are genuine about wanting to work in a non-partisan manner, you wouldn’t start out each sentence with “but the Dems are partisan”. You’d offer ideas and alternative solutions or propose alternatives to those that are currently in existence (i.e. you’d just act in a non-partisan manner). But you (collective there) do not, you write about how people who paid for health insurance, got sick (so then they’d have to actually get the benefit (right?)), made a claim, then their insurer revisited the contract (but not before the claim, see the conflict here?), found a deficiency (some known, some unknown by the insured – it doesn’t make a difference to the outcome) and then rescinded the contract are “sob stories”. If you don’t see a problem with that behavior, then I’d love to do business with you, because you are a fool.

-If you mean by literal, the ability to read and comprehend, then yes, I am literal, which you seem to be taking an issue with and why I think you have a reading comprehension problem. To your illegal issue: as I understand it, this claim arises from the fact that current versions of the bill do not contain enforcement mechanisms, such as penalties for illegals that get caught gaming the system or otherwise committing fraud. However, nowhere in any bill does it give or allow illegals the right to healthcare at U.S. Gov. expense. I think that’s a pretty significant difference – LITERALLY. Now, had that been your point, I would thought differently of you, because that is an issue that may need to be addressed (now there is some history that may be useful to review about other programs with a similar problem, but that is neither here nor there) and reasonable minds may disagree. However you did not, you stated the Pres was a liar and partisan. I would have also thought that you were an informed debater, not a blow hard who bites on what he likes to hear, because it would have shown your ability to look past rhetoric (from either party) and really analyze the issue at hand.

-Another sob story: “the dems won’t work with me” WAH! They are the majority party now, this is a majority rules country, right? Or is that a problem only now that your party is the minority. Funny how that works…

a. I can no longer walk but get around in a wheelchair.
b. I can no longer get outside—I spend all day at home.
c. I can no longer contribute to my family’s well being.
d. I am in severe pain most of the time.
e. I have severe discomfort most of the time (such as nausea, diarrhea, or shortness of breath).
f. I rely on a feeding tube to keep me alive.
g. I rely on a kidney dialysis machine to keep me alive.
h. I rely on a breathing machine to keep me alive.
i. I need someone to help take care of me all of time.
j. I can no longer control my bladder.
k. I can no longer control my bowels.
l. I live in a nursing home.
m. I can no longer think clearly-I am confused all the time.
n. I can no longer recognize family/friends
o. I can no longer talk and be understood by others.
p. My situation causes severe emotional burden for my family (such as feeling worried or stressed all the time).
q. I am a severe financial burden on my family.
r. I cannot seem to “shake the blues.
http://www.ethics.va.gov/YLYC/YLYC_First_edition_20001001.pdf

I’m not against end-of-life planning or counseling at all. I think one should consider these things at the appropriate time. But don’t some of these situations come across as not particularly “end of life” with phrases like “I cannot seem to “shake the blues” or “I’m in a wheelchair”? Nevermind the writer happens to be a Dr who believes in physician assisted suicide.

Partisanship is what you got from Obama Wednesday. If you don’t recognize it, millions of others do, and many are commenting on it around the web. If you don’t think Obama’s failure to consult with Republicans on health reforms since April and his assertion that he won’t talk to anyone he thinks want to kill health reforms is partisanship, most do.

If you don’t think that the GOP has been left out of the process of crafting health reforms is partisan, people who know politics do. That the GOP submitted dozens of amendments and had most turned down shows the partisanship by the Dems.

So you are willing to take a few sob stories about rescission as proof that it’s a big problem? I’m not.

You must be very literal if you don’t see Obama’s lies about illegals and end of life counseling. If so, you’ll be taken by smarter folks the rest of your life. If you’d followed the health debate closely, you’d know how disingenuous the president was.

Was it wrong for my grandfather to have that option?

So Obama “lied” when he said there are no death panels, and then you admit that there are not death panels….but…

He’s “lying” when he says something that you admit is true?

Who’s the one “playing with words”?

D-J, did you just deride partisanship by citing to a partisan op-ed?

I don’t think you know what the definition of partisanship or cooperation means if you think it includes the current Republican approach to debate/reasoning. Further, I don’t think your illegal immigrant and death panel hypotheticals (which they are as there is no bill written or pending that includes those measures, if so CITE please) would leave anyone to believe that you, nor the Republican party could be “worked with.” Not to mention the clear stand of that party, which is to say “No” to any reform. Explain exactly how you see partisanship in that position or how anyone can work together in a partisan way if that is the other parties position.

I also love your “spin” of the rescission issue: “Well, it doesn’t happen enough so that I noticed it, so its not a problem and anyone who discusses it must be making a fallacy.” Seriously?