It is now clear that the plans being forwarded to "reform " health care in the US involves rationing . How do I know this ? Because the people the President assigned to create a new plan make no bones about it .

Ezekiel Emmanuel MD, Rahm Emmanuel’s brother,is Barack Obama’s “Special Advisor for Health Policy”.

He recently penned an article in Lancet (registration required) co-authored with Govind Persad and Alan Wertheimer where they detail their thoughts on creating a model for health care rationing ;a system they call “The complete lives system” .

Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions : The Lancet (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60137-9/fulltext#article_upsell)


This system incorporates five principles: youngest-first, prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value. … When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated … the complete lives system is least vulnerable to corruption. Age can be established quickly and accurately from identity documents. Prognosis allocation encourages physicians to improve patients’ health, unlike the perverse incentives to sicken patients or misrepresent health that the sickest-first allocation creates.

They describe this as a better way for an unnamed bureaurocrat to determine who has the right to care in a rationed system than previous models ;that “the complete lives system is least vulnerable to corruption” .

But the bottom line is that such a decision is being taken from the patient and the health care provider.

On a scale from 1-10 I wonder what my instrumental value is ? Who's friend do I have to be to move my base number up ?
Instrumental value allocation prioritises specific individuals to enable or encourage future usefulness.

Yeah that's what I thought . This bureaurocrat will decide my fate on my usefulness...
where a specific person is genuinely indispensable in promoting morally relevant principles, instrumental value allocation can be appropriate.
So whatever you do ;make sure you are useful to the Obots.

I don't know .Wouldn't it be simpler for Dr Emanuel to dress up in appropriate Nazi garb and just point his swager stick at those who are lebensunwertes ?

Boy, does this sound like gene selection? I thought this was tried and failed around 1935 in Germany!

Boy, does this sound like gene selection?How does it sound like gene selection to you? And it what way do you find it reminiscent of jewish extermination?

NK,

It looks very much like the government deciding who lives and who dies based on age descrimination and nature of their ailment. That's pretty descriminatory in my book. And it is no different from Nazis saying "this one lives and that one dies" based on their ability to provide slave labor for the Reich (instrumental value allocation). The Reich determined who was strongest and most able to work, and those lived, while others went to the gas chambers. Age/health-based descrimination to determine who gets care and who doesn't is exactly what the Nazis did. How can you not see that?

But whether you can see the connection or not, do you find this "instrumental value allocation" system to be a good idea?

Do you think that it is a good idea that if you are over 40 you don't get the same level of care and the same medical options that you did between the ages of 18 and 40?

Do you approve of this concept?

Elliot

Reporting from Washington — President Obama suggested at a town hall event Wednesday night that one way to shave medical costs is to stop expensive and ultimately futile procedures performed on people who are about to die and don't stand to gain from the extra care.

In a nationally televised event at the White House, Obama said families need better information so they don't unthinkingly approve "additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care."


He added: "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller."

Obama discusses deathbed measures - Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-health25-2009jun25,0,1978875.story)

How does it sound like gene selection to you? And it what way do you find it reminiscent of jewish extermination?


OK, here is an example that you might comprehend.
Say you are a 25 year old female, not married yet and no children. You get cancer, and because it will cost 50,000 dollars to treat you it is decided that you are not worth the cost, because that 50K could be spread to 50 other people with lesser illnesses. Because of the cancer you ultimately die, thereby eliminating your genes from the gene pool and also stopping the possible spread of your defective gene that allowed you to get the cancer in the first place. Think it's not possible?
THINK AGAIN!
Any system that allows for rationing of health care is gene selection by it's very nature. Those that are "deemed" worthy get and those that are not don't.

That may explain why it was so easy for Obama to fire Gerald Walpin, he's an old, off his rocker guy that's outlived his usefulness.

Such an Orwellian name, the "complete lives" system, where only the youngest, most "morally relevant" people with high "instrumental value" get to live their 'complete' life. Ain't it ironic that the guy who's name represents the plan is an old, sick senator that may have outlived his usefulness?

Do you think that it is a good idea that if you are over 40 you don't get the same level of care and the same medical options that you did between the ages of 18 and 40?

Do you approve of this concept?Hello Elliot:

You didn't ask me, but I didn't think you'd mind if I answered. Health care is already rationed. The wealthy get it, and the poor don't. But, if it's going to BE rationed, I'd rather the criteria be HEALTH and not PROFITS.

Can you imagine suffering from a disease that just not many people suffer from?? There IS a drug, though, that will SAVE YOUR LIFE, but because the drug companies are looking for PROFITS instead of HEALTH, they're not going to make that life saving drug for you because there's no PROFIT in it.

I'm sure you'd sacrifice your own life in the name of blind conservatism, but what if this was your child? Isn't SHE entitled to live?

excon

Ex

The insurance company is not the final arbiter in that case . It is difficult I know... but one can get medicine outside the approved covered plan . Yes it costs more but so long as the drug is legal or the care and procedure the doctor recommends is available there are ways around the insurance company's decision .

Who do you appeal to when the government tells you no .

I'm sure you are aware of the case in Oregon where the drug for treatment was no approved by their politburo ,but they instead recommeded assisted suicide ? Is that what you want ?
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492&page=1

Who do you appeal to when the government tells you no Hello tom:

An activist judge, perhaps?

excon

You get cancer, and because it will cost 50,000 dollars to treat you it is decided that you are not worth the cost, because that 50K could be spread to 50 other people with lesser illnesses. That's not all how it works. Where did you get that idea? If that was a feasible option then the for-profit insurance companies would have done that decades ago.

AHHH but that is exactly how rationing works. Those that "someone" decides is deserving will get, those that they decide are not worthy will not get. Just look to the UK for an understanding of how a bankrupt/failed system works. Rationing is rationing no matter how you slice it. Just because you might be younger you get cancer treatment and my wife does not? What is fair about that sort of thing?

Hello Elliot:

You didn't ask me, but I didn't think you'd mind if I answered. Health care is already rationed. The wealthy get it, and the poor don't. But, if it's going to BE rationed, I'd rather the criteria be HEALTH and not PROFITS.

Can you imagine suffering from a disease that just not many people suffer from??? There IS a drug, though, that will SAVE YOUR LIFE, but because the drug companies are looking for PROFITS instead of HEALTH, they're not going to make that life saving drug for you because there's no PROFIT in it.

I'm sure you'd sacrifice your own life in the name of blind conservatism, but what if this was your child? Isn't SHE entitled to live?

excon

There are several problems with your argument, Excon.

1) Pharma companies already give away drugs to poor people. We don't need nationalized health care to make drugs available to people who can't afford them. I have already posted links to the pharmaceutical companys' websites for their affordable drug programs. I'm not going to do it again. Look at other threads, I'm sure you'll find it.

2) In the scenario you pose, I can go outside the insurance system to buy whatever I want out of my own pocket. In a Government-run system there is no going out of the program to get your drugs. You can ONLY get them from the government. And if the government has decided that you don't get them, you don't get them. Period. There is no going out of pocket to get them. Private systems leave choices. Government-run systems do not.

A profit based system means that something is ALWAYS available for the right price. A government-run system means that if the government doesn't approve it, you're dead. I'd rather have the choice to get the drugs myself if my insurance doesn't cover it even if it's expensive... even if it bankrupts me... than be stuck without it because the government says so.

Elliot

AHHH but that is exactly how rationing works. Those that "someone" decides is deserving will get, those that they decide are not worthy will not get. Just look to the UK for an understanding of how a bankrupt/failed system works. Rationing is rationing no matter how you slice it. Just because you might be younger you get cancer treatment and my wife does not? What is fair about that sort of thing??The article is dated Jan. 31, Obama took office on Jan. 20. I doubt that paper was written in 10 days. In fact the article evaluates systems already in existence at the time Bush was president. So how is this an Obama thing? Oh right... because it isn't. Also it a paper, not policy. Geez, you scaremongers work 24/7.

The article is dated Jan. 31, Obama took office on Jan. 20. I doubt that paper was written in 10 days. In fact the article evaluates systems already in existence at the time Bush was president. So how is this an Obama thing? Oh right...because it isn't. Also it a paper, not policy. Geez, you scaremongers work 24/7.

Gee, I remember how apoplectic the left was over the PNAC document even though that was just a paper and not policy. Talk about "scaremongers."

What you're missing is that the Obama plan is already establishing such things, namely the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2009pres/03/20090319a.html).

What you're missing is that the Obama plan is already establishing such things, namely the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2009pres/03/20090319a.html).From the article:

"Comparative effectiveness research provides information on the relative strengths and weakness of various medical interventions. Such research will give clinicians and patients valid information to make decisions that will improve the performance of the U.S. health care system".

"The council will not recommend clinical guidelines for payment, coverage or treatment. The council will consider the needs of populations served by federal programs and opportunities to build and expand on current investments and priorities. It will also provide input on priorities for the $400 million fund in the Recovery Act that the Secretary will allocate to advance this type of research."

Where's the scary part here?

From the article:

"Comparative effectiveness research provides information on the relative strengths and weakness of various medical interventions. Such research will give clinicians and patients valid information to make decisions that will improve the performance of the U.S. health care system".

"The council will not recommend clinical guidelines for payment, coverage or treatment. The council will consider the needs of populations served by federal programs and opportunities to build and expand on current investments and priorities. It will also provide input on priorities for the $400 million fund in the Recovery Act that the Secretary will allocate to advance this type of research."

Where's the scary part here?

The scary part is that in order to "improve the performance of the US health care system" the decision of what medical care people get is going to be made not by doctors and patients based on what's best for the specific patient, but by bureaucrats in offices in Washington DC, based on a chart that says this person is too old for this procedure, that person is young enough for the procedure. The scary part is that instead of the needs of the specific patients, the government is going to make medical decisions based on "the needs of populations served by federal programs and opportunities to build and expand on current investments and priorities." If your death is better for the population at large than your survival, in the opinion of some bureaucrat, you don't get the care you need. THAT is what is scary.

What bothers me is why YOU are not scared of that.

Elliot

Notice how the chart in the Emanuel article peaks at the same age demographics as Obama's biggest voting block. (btw don't be a child under 8 and ill according to this chart)

http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/files/2009/07/rahm.jpg

The scary part is that in order to "improve the performance of the US health care system" the decision of what medical care people get is going to be made not by doctors and patients based on what's best for the specific patient, but by bureaucrats in offices in Washington DC, based on a chart that says this person is too old for this procedure, that person is young enough for the procedure.
It says none of that. Point me where it says that.

notice ....
What a nasty little site you get your information from: Pajamas Media (http://pajamasmedia.com/) Propaganda central.

The graph is also in the link provided by Emanuel in his article... or are you denying that ?

If your death is better for the population at large than your survival, in the opinion of some bureaucrat, you don't get the care you need. THAT is what is scary.

What bothers me is why YOU are not scared of that.Hello again, El:

You keep forgetting to talk about the elephant in the room. Doncha worry, though. That's my job...

What scares me personally, is that some insurance adjuster is going to decide that his children's private schooling is more important than my health, so I won't get the care that I need. I just bought some top notch health insurance. But, my policy is a half inch thick with teeny printing. I'm sure the printing isn't saying that I'm going to be covered... Nahhh... They could say that in a half page. I'm sure the printing is saying all the things they're NOT going to pay for. You know I'm not going to catch any of those covered diseases, don't you? Nahhh, I'm going to catch one of those listed in those 100's of pages of fine print. You know that, and I know that.

What bothers me is why YOU are not scared by that? I also wonder why you don't mention that the insurance adjuster, LIKE the bureaucrat, is rationing your health care? His motive is profit instead of health. So what?

excon

From the article:

"Comparative effectiveness research provides information on the relative strengths and weakness of various medical interventions. Such research will give clinicians and patients valid information to make decisions that will improve the performance of the U.S. health care system".

"The council will not recommend clinical guidelines for payment, coverage or treatment. The council will consider the needs of populations served by federal programs and opportunities to build and expand on current investments and priorities. It will also provide input on priorities for the $400 million fund in the Recovery Act that the Secretary will allocate to advance this type of research."

Where's the scary part here?

This is where I agree with excon that Obama is an incrementalist, this is a first step. Sen John Kyl offered an amendment to the bill (which I believe was rejected) which established this board that would "ensure that nothing that we have done so far here will allow health care in the United States to be rationed by the federal government." Kyl then made the point that "if nobody is intending to do it, then there's no problem saying you can't do it." So if there is no intent to ration health care, why won't the Democrats in congress come right out in the legislation and say "you can't ration health care?"

Hello again, El:

You keep forgetting to talk about the elephant in the room. Doncha worry, though. That's my job....

What scares me personally, is that some insurance adjuster is going to decide that his children's private schooling is more important than my health, so I won't get the care that I need. I just bought some top notch health insurance. But, my policy is a half inch thick with teeny printing. I'm sure the printing isn't saying that I'm gonna be covered... Nahhh.... They could say that in a half page. I'm sure the printing is saying all the things they're NOT going to pay for. You know I'm not gonna catch any of those covered diseases, don't you? Nahhh, I'm gonna catch one of those listed in those 100's of pages of fine print. You know that, and I know that.

What bothers me is why YOU are not scared by that? I also wonder why you don't mention that the insurance adjuster, LIKE the bureaucrat, is rationing your health care? His motive is profit instead of health. So what?

excon

Hate to tell you this, excon, but health insurance companies don't pay their adjusters based on what they don't pay out on. That insurance adjust earns a base salary that doesn't change based on what gets paid and what doesn't.

Who's creating doomsday scenarios here.

And instead of guessing what the "teeny print" must be saying, why don't you try reading it. Then you'll know for sure and won't have to speculate about it. But for right now, all you are doing is speculating about the evils of insurance companies.

That seems to be the basis of all your arguments. You SPECULATE that $25 billion is a lot of money, but you don't really know. You speculate that the fine print is hiding information from you about what you won't be covered for, but you haven't read it and so you don't really know. You speculate that global warming is right, but you don't know the science and haven't bothered to do the research on it so you don't really know.

You are all about speculation. You can't supply useful facts, figures, statistics and historical examples, so you speculate, and you assume that nobody will notice and call you on it. I can't remember the last time you supplied a piece if hard evidence to validate your stance on any issue.

Peekaboo, I see you.

Elliot

Hello Elliot:

You didn't ask me, but I didn't think you'd mind if I answered. Health care is already rationed. The wealthy get it, and the poor don't. But, if it's going to BE rationed, I'd rather the criteria be HEALTH and not PROFITS.

Can you imagine suffering from a disease that just not many people suffer from??? There IS a drug, though, that will SAVE YOUR LIFE, but because the drug companies are looking for PROFITS instead of HEALTH, they're not going to make that life saving drug for you because there's no PROFIT in it.

I'm sure you'd sacrifice your own life in the name of blind conservatism, but what if this was your child? Isn't SHE entitled to live?

excon

FYI

The poor get health care via medicaid or schip

Yes healthcare is already rationed - try getting an MRI or coronary bypass in the VA system and compare that with the private sector.

As to your accusation that big pharma does not make life saving medications due to a lack of profits? Where is your proof, show me a link, name the company and the medication.

I'll name one of many medications that is life saving and that I doubt if there is much profit in it : ASPIRIN

Remember that pharma companies usually make a diversified portfolio of medications.
For example Pfizer makes assorted classes of medications from Azithromycin, an antibiotic, to Viagra. It is in there best financial interest to KEEP PEOPLE ALIVE to purchase their products.


Now tell me one medication that the US government has made? And you expect them to be responsible for your health? Koolaid would be better :)




G&P

Now tell me one medication that the US government has made? And you expect them to be responsible for your health?
Do you mean to tell me that you believe that in a universal healthcare system the government now takes over researching and making pharmaceuticals? Where the hell does that idea come from? You have me on the floor laughing.

Who would have thought the government would own GM?

NK, name one medication produced by a government owned company?
The capitalist profit motive that so many decry is the force that makes innovation and progress possible. If the government controls healthcare and demands cost cutting, as they have from hospitals, health insurance companies, pharma companies, where do you think the money or the motive for r and d is going to come from?


G&P

They just forget one thing. They too, will one day grow old. Then fall into there own standard.

Excon is right . The biggest drug dealers are drug companies and Doc's . BIG business. That's the problem with the health system to begin with. Doctors charging money just to write a prescription. No wonder there are teens hooked on pharmaceutical drugs before they ever get to high school. Everyone is over medicated, takeing something.
I say NO WAY , DON'T THINK SO! FOR GET IT! Last option.

OK, here is an example that you might comprehend.
Say you are a 25 year old female, not married yet and no children. You get cancer, and because it will cost 50,000 dollars to treat you it is decided that you are not worth the cost, because that 50K could be spread to 50 other people with lesser illnesses. Because of the cancer you ultimately die, thereby eliminating your genes from the gene pool and also stopping the possible spread of your defective gene that allowed you to get the cancer in the first place. Think it's not possible?
THINK AGAIN!
Any system that allows for rationing of health care is gene selection by it's very nature. Those that are "deemed" worthy get and those that are not don't.

This is not the way health care works in any other Western Nation in the world. If it was, they wouldn't waste money treating elderly, who, by the way, are the most in need of health care. And for those who don't think we have rationing today, think again. We ration based on availability. Renal Dialysis is just one example. It is getting old hearing people who have easy access to health care wanting to block those who don't. With our economy in the tank, millions more are going to be added to the 40 million already without health care access. What kind of Christian, Jew, Muslim or other denomination takes the attitude that you don't want to allow your neighbor to have access to health care? I can tell you; one that is surely going to Hell!

This is not the way health care works in any other Western Nation in the world. If it was, they wouldn't waste money treating elderly, who, by the way, are the most in need of health care. And for those who don't think we have rationing today, think again. We ration based on availability. Renal Dialysis is just one example. It is getting old hearing people who have easy access to health care wanting to block those who don't. With our economy in the tank, millions more are going to be added to the 40 million already without health care access. What kind of Christian, Jew, Muslim or other denomination takes the attitude that you don't want to allow your neighbor to have access to health care? I can tell you; one that is surely going to Hell!

Actually, amdeist, that's EXACTLY how government-run healthcare works in EVERY nation in which it is practiced. The UK just eliminated certain breast cancer drugs from their list of approved meds because they are too expensive. 450donn was giving a specific case in the UK where a woman was denied the drugs she needs to survive. It's cheaper and easier to a) let the patient die, b) give less expensive drugs that don't work as well, and c) pay for cheaper drugs for OTHER people instead of treating this woman.

My grandfather, who was pretty much penniless, had access to renal dialysis for 5 years, three times a week. I know he did, because my mom and I took him to his dialysis treatments. The US system does NOT leave even the most indigent without health care. They may not get great INSURANCE, but they get the best care in the world. Care that is NOT available in the UK or Canada, where the system is nationalized.

Nationalizing the health care system will put "the needs of the community as a whole" over and above the needs of the patient. Obama has already said so... he's said publicly that it might be better to give end-of-life patients some pain killers to ease their pain rather than actually give them health care that "probably" won't work for them, because it's cheaper to let the patient die than to try to save them. I don't want to live in a system where the choices of whether to try to save my life are made by a government bureaucrat.

I don't want the needs of the community (as decided by a bureaucrat who has never met me and doesn't know my situation) to outweigh MY needs. COMMUNISM believes that the needs of the community are more important than the needs of the individual. I live in America, where the rights of the individual are paramount... MY right to choose what medical actions are best for me are paramount over the "needs" of the state or the community.

Elliot

Actually, amdeist, that's EXACTLY how government-run healthcare works in EVERY nation in which it is practiced. Nope. Another one of your big lies. I live in a universal health care country and that is not the case


I live in America, where the rights of the individual are paramount... MY right to choose what medical actions are best for me are paramount over the "needs" of the state or the community.Sorry, that's wrong too. Insurance companies have control over what doctor you see or what meds you can use. They can deny your claim or reduced reimbursement and leave you bankrupt. Or may may not get insurance because of a perceived "preexisting condition", something I have never heard here in my life.

I don't want to live in a system where the choices of whether to try to save my life are made by a government bureaucrat.

I don't want the needs of the community (as decided by a bureaucrat who has never met me and doesn't know my situation) to outweigh MY needs. Hello again, El:

I don't know WHY you keep forgetting stuff, but it's OK. I'm here to remind you...

Interestingly, you DON'T mind an INSURANCE ADJUSTER rationing your health care. He's never met you and doesn't CARE about your situation. He's looking out for the PROFIT of his company, not your health.

Why is it cool to have HIM in the examining room with you??

Oh, I know, I know. You think he'll approve a $250,000 operation for you so he can keep you as a happy customer... Dude! Not only can you not add, you're nuts.

excon

Nope. Another one of your big lies. I live in a universal health care country and that is not the case

The statistics coming out of your own government say otherwise. I think I'll believe the guys who actually RUN your healthcare system over you, who admit that you have little experience in it.


Sorry, that's wrong too. Insurance companies have control over what doctor you see or what meds you can use. They can deny your claim or reduced reimbursement and leave you bankrupt. Or may may not get insurance because of a perceived "preexisting condition", something I have never heard here in my life.

All true. But the difference between a government run health system and a private insurance health system is that if I don't like the controls put on me by the insurance company, I can leave the system and buy different insurance OR pay out of pocket. I have the choice to see whatever doctor I want, obtain whatever meds I want, and if the insurance doesn't pay for it, I can CHOOSE to pay for it myself. In fact, I happen to do that right now with a drug I'm taking for sleep apnea. My insurance doesn't cover it, so I'm paying for it out of pocket. THAT is MY CHOICE. In a government run healthcare system, you don't get that choice. If it ain't covered, you do without... or die.

The difference is CHOICE. I have it in my system, you don't in yours, and I don't want to give it up.

Elliot

Hello again, El:

I dunno WHY you keep forgetting stuff, but it's ok. I'm here to remind you....

Interestingly, you DON'T mind an INSURANCE ADJUSTER rationing your health care. He's never met you and doesn't CARE about your situation. He's looking out for the PROFIT of his company, not your health.

Why is it cool to have HIM in the examining room with you????

Oh, I know, I know. You think he'll approve a $250,000 operation for you so he can keep you as a happy customer.... Dude! Not only can you not add, you're nuts.

excon

Again, excon, if the insurance adjuster decides to deny my claim, I still have the choice to obtain the healthcare by paying out of pocket or by buying a different insurance plan. I can go outside the plan for my coverage. In a government-run system, you can't do that.

Therefore, there is no rationing in the private system. They can deny me all they want and I can STILL get what I want. They can't stop me from obtaining something I pay for myself or something a different insurance company is willing to pay for.

But in a nationalized system, if the government denies it, you do without.

You keep forgetting that little part about being able to pay out of pocket. That's where the "free choice" part comes into play. I don't know why going outside the system is something you forget so often when talking about health care, since you seem to be in favor of it in so many other areas.

I also wonder why you, who think the government should stay out of the bedroom and should stay out of the woman's healthcare when it comes to abortions have no problem with them being in control of every other part of your healthcare. Your positions are self-contradictory.

Elliot

The difference is CHOICE. I have it in my system, you don't in yours, and I don't want to give it up. Hello again, El:

Choice?? You think you have CHOICE?? Dude! Let me ask you this. Lets say that you're covered by your employer. You happen to have a preexisting ailment and you have to wait a year before your insurance company will pay for those treatments...

And, lets say that those treatments are pretty expensive (and you've already held off for a year, which I don't think did you much good), but since you're NOW covered,

(1) do you really have a choice about leaving your job?

(2) given your condition, can you actually CHOOSE who you buy insurance from, or will the insurance companies be doing the choosing?

The answers are obvious - but I'll bet not to you. Lest you say that the circumstances above are RARE, I'd say you really ARE nuts. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that YOU find yourself in that situation - yet you still shill for the insurance companies.

excon

Again, excon, if the insurance adjuster decides to deny my claim, I still have the choice to obtain the healthcare by paying out of pocket or by buying a different insurance plan. I can go outside the plan for my coverage. In a government-run system, you can't do that. Hello again, El:

Let me see if I get this right. You need a very expensive operation and your adjuster turns you down, yet you think you can go somewhere else?? You think you still have choices?? You think some other insurance company is going to sell you insurance and then PAY for your operation??

Do you really believe that stuff?? Really?? Wow!

excon

Hello again, El:

Choice??? You think you have CHOICE????? Dude! Lemme ask you this. Lets say that you're covered by your employer. You happen to have a preexisting ailment and you have to wait a year before your insurance company will pay for those treatments....

And, lets say that those treatments are pretty expensive (and you've already held off for a year, which I don't think did you much good), but since you're NOW covered,

(1) do you really have a choice about leaving your job?

(2) given your condition, can you actually CHOOSE who you buy insurance from, or will the companies be doing the choosing?

The answers are obvious - but I'll bet not to you. Lest you say that the circumstances above are RARE, I'd say you really ARE nuts. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that YOU find yourself in that situation - yet you still shill for the insurance companies.

excon

First of all, you make it very clear that you know nothing about health insurance law.

If I am covered by an insurance plan now, I cannot be denied by a new insurance plan because of a "pre-existing condition". That's why COBRA exists... to make sure that there is continuity of care even if you lose a job and have a pre-existing condition. Therefore, as long as there is no break in coverage for more than 30 days (I think, it might actually be 90 days), I can switch insurance without any sort of pre-existing condition penalty.

Second, If the insurance company denied my treatments for a year, I would have the treatments anyway, and then fight with the insurance company over it after the fact. I've done it before. Want to know a secret about insurance companies? They are more likely to pay for something after the procedure is already done (on an "emergency" basis) than if you ask them beforehand.

So the answers you assumed to be the correct answers to your questions that seem so obvious to you are obviously wrong.

Now... let's take the same scenario in a government-run health system. The government insurance bureaucrat has been pushing off your treatment for a year now. He is telling you that you need to wait another year before you can get it. Since doctors are all in the employ of the government, and there are no doctors to perform the procedure unless the government authorizes it, what are your options?

1) Die
2) Expire
3) Drop dead
4) Kick the bucket
5) All of the above

Elliot

Actually excon he's spouting the republican mantra: "I got mine, screw the rest" - basically saying that he can easily pay for the overpriced procedure from his own pocket.

Hello again, El:

Lemme see if I get this right. You need a very expensive operation and your adjuster turns you down, yet you think you can go somewhere else???? You think you still have choices??? You think some other insurance company is going to sell you insurance and then PAY for your operation???

Do you really believe that stuff??? Really????? Wow!

excon

Yes I do. I've actually DONE it. So have millions of other Americans.

Wanna know a secret about insurance companies? They are more likely to pay for something after the procedure is already done (on an "emergency" basis) than if you ask them beforehand.We never, ever, have to fight for emergency procedure. I guess we don't like using lawyers nearly as much as you do. Enjoy that.

Actually excon he's spouting the republican mantra: "I got mine, screw the rest" - basically saying that he can easily pay for the overpriced procedure from his own pocket.

Actually, NK, that's the lib mantra about what they THINK Republicans say.

Fact of the matter is that capitalism is a more effective, efficient and cost preventive method of distributing ANY service, including medical care, than socialism or "government-run" programs have ever been. They are better for EVERYONE because they give choices that are not available in a government-run system.

But you can keep thinking that socialism and communism are so beneficial to the little guy, if you want. Just try not to think about the millions who starved to death under communist (aka "government-run") rule worldwide.

Elliot

We never, ever, have to fight for emergency procedure. I guess we don't like using lawyers nearly as much as you do. Enjoy that.

You sure don't. If the procedure is denied, you have no recouse. A lawyer would be useless.

You sure don't. If the procedure is denied, you have no recouse. A lawyer would be useless.No denied procedures in emergency.

Fact of the matter is that capitalism is a more effective, efficient and cost preventive method of distributing ANY service, including medical care, than socialism or "government-run" programs have ever been. Not when the people running the companies are filled with greed and corruption.

First of all, you make it very clear that you know nothing about health insurance law.

If I am covered by an insurance plan now, I cannot be denied by a new insurance plan because of a "pre-existing condition". That's why COBRA exists... to make sure that there is continuity of care even if you lose a job and have a pre-existing condition. Therefore, as long as there is no break in coverage for more than 30 days (I think, it might actually be 90 days), I can switch insurance without any sort of pre-existing condition penalty.Hello again, El:

Oh, I understand COBRA. But, I also live in the real world. Years ago, I took advantage of COBRA. Being single and before the present crisis, I think I had to pay something like $150 a month till I had new coverage...

But, today, if I lost my job, my insurance premium would be about $2,000 a month (remember, I have to pay the EMPLOYERS share PLUS my own contribution under COBRA), and in the real world, I couldn't afford it. Nobody else can either.

You lost your job not long ago. Did you take advantage of COBRA? Let me guess. You're not in the greatest of health, and you have a wife and two children. I'll bet your COBRA payments were well beyond what you could afford... True? Real world TRUE?? Wolverine TRUE? I'll bet. I'll also bet you deny it.

excon

Hello again, El:

Oh, I understand COBRA. But, I also live in the real world. Years ago, I took advantage of COBRA. Being single and before the present crisis, I think I had to pay something like $150 a month till I had new coverage...

But, today, if I lost my job, my insurance premium would be about $2,000 a month (remember, I have to pay the EMPLOYERS share PLUS my own contribution under COBRA), and in the real world, I couldn't afford it. Nobody else can either.

You lost your job not long ago. Did you take advantage of COBRA? Lemme guess. You're not in the greatest of health, and you have a wife and two children. I'll bet your COBRA payments were well beyond what you could afford.... True? Real world TRUE??? Wolverine TRUE?? I'll bet. I'll also bet you deny it.

excon

Actually, it's about $1500/mo for a family of 4. I know it because that's what I'm paying NOW until my new insurance kicks in a few months from now.

Yes, I'm taking advantage of COBRA. And my wife's Krohn's disease treatments are coverd, my meds and special treatments are covered, no problem. And they will be covered under my new insurance too.

If you look at the actuall costs of the meds, the treatments, the doctor visits, etc. I'm actually getting off rather cheaply. The out of pocket cost of my medical needs alone is $1500 per month. When you add my wife and kids to the mix, we're well of $4,000. So $1,500 per month is cheap by comparison.

All in, I'm pretty satisfied. I'll be downright extatic when my new employer's insurance kicks in in a few months.

Until and unless the government takes it all over, in which case I'll be paying about double my COBRA payment per month more in taxes and getting less medical service for that price.

THAT is my real world, excon. And yes, it is QUITE doable. I'm doing it.

Elliot

Untill and unless the government takes it all over, in which case I'll be paying about double my COBRA payment per month more in taxes and getting less medical service for that price.How did you figure that?

But, today, if I lost my job, my insurance premium would be about $2,000 a month (remember, I have to pay the EMPLOYERS share PLUS my own contribution under COBRA), and in the real world, I couldn't afford it. Nobody else can either.

I've used COBRA a couple of times in the past 5 years, it wasn't easy but our payments were nowhere near $2000 a month, more like $300-400 a month. But that's another story, the real story here is we're already rationing health in a single payer system in the United States...

PROMISES, PROMISES: Indian health care's victims (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090615/ap_on_go_ot/us_health_care_s_forgotten)


CROW AGENCY, Mont. – Ta'Shon Rain Little Light, a happy little girl who loved to dance and dress up in traditional American Indian clothes, had stopped eating and walking. She complained constantly to her mother that her stomach hurt.

When Stephanie Little Light took her daughter to the Indian Health Service clinic in this wind-swept and remote corner of Montana, they told her the 5-year-old was depressed.

Ta'Shon's pain rapidly worsened and she visited the clinic about 10 more times over several months before her lung collapsed and she was airlifted to a children's hospital in Denver. There she was diagnosed with terminal cancer, confirming the suspicions of family members.

A few weeks later, a charity sent the whole family to Disney World so Ta'Shon could see Cinderella's Castle, her biggest dream. She never got to see the castle, though. She died in her hotel bed soon after the family arrived in Florida.

"Maybe it would have been treatable," says her great-aunt, Ada White, as she stoically recounts the last few months of Ta'Shon's short life. Stephanie Little Light cries as she recalls how she once forced her daughter to walk when she was in pain because the doctors told her it was all in the little girl's head.

Ta'Shon's story is not unique in the Indian Health Service system, which serves almost 2 million American Indians in 35 states.

On some reservations, the oft-quoted refrain is "don't get sick after June," when the federal dollars run out. It's a sick joke, and a sad one, because it's sometimes true, especially on the poorest reservations where residents cannot afford health insurance. Officials say they have about half of what they need to operate, and patients know they must be dying or about to lose a limb to get serious care.

Wealthier tribes can supplement the federal health service budget with their own money. But poorer tribes, often those on the most remote reservations, far away from city hospitals, are stuck with grossly substandard care. The agency itself describes a "rationed health care system."

The sad fact is an old fact, too.

The U.S. has an obligation, based on a 1787 agreement between tribes and the government, to provide American Indians with free health care on reservations. But that promise has not been kept. About one-third more is spent per capita on health care for felons in federal prison, according to 2005 data from the health service.

And you folks want the government to make that universal? You've really got to be kidding me.

No denied procedures in emergency.


Really? How do you know? If the government has denied a particular med or procedure for use by hospitals in all cases because it is expensive, and ER doctors are forced to use something less effective in all cases, how would you know that you have been denied that med or procedure?

Just curious.

Elliot

How did you figure that?

That is going to be the minimum cost per person in taxes to cover universal government medical care... based on Congressional Budget Office figures. However, the actual cost will likely be higher. The Heritage Foundation puts the number at closer to $4,000 per month in taxes. But I'm being conservative in my estimates.

Have you ever wondered why Canadian and UK taxes are so much higher than ours? Have you ever wondered why you guys take home so much less money than we do?

Now you know. The difference in taxes is because of government health care... mostly. The VAT tax is another major component, but it's smaller than the taxes related to medical costs.

Elliot

Not when the people running the companies are filled with greed and corruption.

Actually, EVEN when they are filled with greed and "corruption". In fact, it is that very "greed" that makes them so efficient.

Greed is what makes them want to make as much money as they can. They do that by being EFFICIENT. The greedier the insurance company, the more efficient they become.

You continue to see greed as a bad thing. Greed simply means wanting to get as much as possible out of a deal. That's not a bad thing. Greed is simply a motivating factor that makes people efficient, effective, and (by didn't of the prior two) rich. Greed is neither good notr evil. Greed simply is. HOW GREED IS USED is what defines the PERSON as good or evil.

You libs never got past that.

Elliot

a) the Heritage Foundation is a conservative "think tank" so they share the same views as you. In this case they make up estimates... just like you are. How can you make estimates when the program isn't even outlined?

b) you don't think we don't that our taxes help fund universal healthcare? Every one in the world that has universal healthcare knows that. Except you.

That is going to be the minimum cost per person in taxes to cover universal government medical care...Hello again, El:

Here's where you and I agree. The "incrementalism" evidenced by a two tier system of insurance (one government - one private), is going to cost a fortune. Why?? Cause it's double coverage.

If we just skipped to the chase, which is where Canada is and all the other nations that have universal health care are, to a SINGLE payer system, we could deliver MORE health care to MORE people, for LESS money.

Yes, we can!

excon

Actually, EVEN when they are filled with greed and "corruption". In fact, it is that very "greed" that makes them so efficient.Oh, you mean like AIG and Enron and Worldcom. I see.

a) the Heritage Foundation is a conservative "think tank" so they share the same views as you. In this case they make up estimates...just like you are. How can you make estimates when the program isn't even outlined?

b) you don't think we don't that our taxes help fund universal healthcare? Every one in the world that has universal healthcare knows that. Except you.

First of all, just because the Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank, which it is, doesn't mean their numbers aren't right.

Second, Obama HAS outlined his health plan. That's why the CBO (which by the way, is non-partisan) was able to analyze it and show why it wouldn't work. Heritage took CBOs numbers and showed why the CBO was being too weak in its cost estimates.

Third, I am quite aware that you know that your tax dollars pay for your health care. But do you know HOW MUCH THAT IS? Do you know how much more you pay individually than we do for health care? Do you care? If the COST of health care is the big reason to nationalize the health care system, then isn't an individual cost analysis between the two a good idea?

Fourth, the cost per person of health care under a government-run system in America can be seen from other sources than a comparison with what Canadians pay for their health care... we also have the cost per patient of health care within the VA system and the cost per patient within Medicare and Medicaid. And private insurance, even when paying the full cost of COBRA, is cheaper than the cost of any of the three government systems already existing in the USA.

Remember, just because it's conservative doesn't mean it's wrong. In fact, quite the opposite. Conservatives look at the bare numbers to make their decisions based on logic. LIBERALS ignore the numbers and the facts and make decisions based on their emotions. Therefore, conservatives are more likely than liberals to be right about numbers.

Deal with it.

Elliot

LIBERALS ignore the numbers and the facts and make decisions based on their emotions. Therefore, conservatives are more likely than liberals to be right about numbers.A fanatic speaks. That's bigotry in action.

LIBERALS ignore the numbers and the facts and make decisions based on their emotions. Therefore, conservatives are more likely than liberals to be right about numbers.Hello again, El:

In fact, conservatives make decisions based upon the size of their unit. Actually, that would be PERCEIVED size, because they're known to have little wieners.

excon

Hello again, El:

In fact, conservatives make decisions based upon the size of their unit. Actually, that would be PERCEIVED size, because they're known to have little wieners.

excon

And yet you continue to fume over the size of Cheney's package.

Hello again, El:

Here's where you and I agree. The "incrementalism" evidenced by a two tier system of insurance (one government - one private), is gonna cost a fortune. Why??? Cause it's double coverage.

If we just skipped to the chase, which is where Canada is and all the other nations that have universal health care are, to a SINGLE payer system, we could deliver MORE health care to MORE people, for LESS money.

Yes, we can!

excon

Governments in the UK, Canada, France, Australia, etc. are all looking for ways to defray the costs of health care by INCREMENTALLY moving back to a partially PRIVATE system. Within a few years, you are going to see privatization within the Canadian system, because the PEOPLE are demanding it and the government can't keep up with the costs of care or the demands of patients. Ditto for the UK and Sweden. These governments have already made these statements to that effect.

Coverage & Access | <i>New York Times</i> Examines Proposed Privatization in Canadian National Health Care System - Kaisernetwork.org (http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=35557)

http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~gboychuk/Calgary/Research%20Documents'/Innovation_exposed-revised_Oct_27,2004.pdf

Healthcare Economist NHS Privatization (http://healthcare-economist.com/2009/04/25/nhs-privatization/)

Canada's ObamaCare Precedent - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124451570546396929.html)

Sweden's Single-Payer Health System Provides a Warning to Other Nations (http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA555_Sweden_Health_Care.html)

Sweden Edges Toward Free-Market&#160;Medicine - Brief Analysis #369 (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba369/)

So you are suggesting that we move toward a government health care system in a single shot, while everyone else is slowly moving AWAY from such a system. And you want to do it all at once.

Gee, let's nationalize 20% of the economy during a recession, thus increasing taxes and deepening the recession, at the same time that the rest of the world is privatizing that very sector of the economy.

Brilliant, excon. You are so much smarter than the rest of us. YOU should be the head of the US Treasury.

That way we can commit national suicide in a non-incremental way.

Elliot

Not when the people running the companies are filled with greed and corruption.

Untitled Document (http://www.benefitscanada.com/images/Chaoulli/ChaoullivsQuebecBC.jsp)





George Zeliotis, a retired salesperson from Quebec with recurring hip problems, waited from June 1994 to May 1995 for a left hip replacement and from February 1997 to September 1997 for a right hip replacement. Zeliotis believes he should have had the right to purchase medical procedures, in his home province, from a private provider who could make the surgery available in a shorter timeframe than is available within the public system.





Blogs | CANADA'S SUPREME COURT - "ACCESS TO A WAITING LIST IS NOT ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE" (http://my.journaltimes.com/post/DobberDeeDee/blog/canadas_supreme_court_access_to_a_waiting_list_is_ not_acces.html)




. After a long legal battle the Supreme Court agreed ruling "Access to a waiting list is not access to health care."






This is no a right winger or a right winger saying this, this is canada's own supreme court.





G&P

Gee, let's nationalize 20% of the economy during a recession, thus increasing taxes Hello again, El:

Dude! Wow! We spend 20% of our money on health INSURANCE?? I didn't know they were THAT bad. We should have nationalized them LONNNNNNG ago, if that's right...

But, of course, it AIN'T right, because if it was, and we nationalized them, we'd have enough money left over after we paid for health care, to buy everybody a brand new Cadalak car.

Listen carefully. It's simple. The government takes over the health insurance industry. It will do the same thing that the health insurance industry now does. That's - WRITE CHECKS.

Hospitals won't be nationalized. Doctors won't be nationalized. Pharmaceutical companies won't be nationalized. Drug stores won't be nationalized. You'll have your CHOICE of doctors, hospitals, drug stores and medicines... Just like you do today.

There will be enough money to cover everybody with the profits that the health insurance industry USED to get, but is now going to health care for everybody instead of profits for some.

Yes, there will be some health insurance employees out of a job. But, the insurance INDUSTRY will keep going strong. After all, there's still car insurance, life insurance, homeowners insurance and many more. I'll bet the recently unemployed can be absorbed back in.

Then we can get back to work and never ever again worry about that crap anymore. If you think you're getting a good deal now, you'll get an even better one when ALL your family's medical needs are met. Plus, you'll never have to worry about losing your coverage.

Let me reiterate. There is enough money being spent NOW by everybody, that if we just changed around WHERE we spend it, there is ample money to provide for the best health care for EVERYBODY and we won't have to raise taxes to pay for it.

It's really no more difficult than that. Ok, I AM smarter than most. You should have realized that by now.

excon

Not when the people running the companies are filled with greed and corruption.

The common thread is greed and corruption. Does that only apply to the private sector?
Insurance companies etc. are run by human beings, some of whom are more corrupt and greedy than average.


Do you think that those in government - the polticians, are NEVER corrupt, NEVER greedy?

Obviously they are just as corrupt, as greedy. Why would anyone want to get out of the fire and go into the frying pan, and then have no choice but to stay in the frying pan?




G&P

Do you think that those in government - the polticians, are NEVER corrupt, NEVER greedy?
Obviously they are just as corrupt, as greedy.
You are correct. Your government serves the needs of the corporate contributors and the lobbyists not the people. You are indeed in a tough place.

Hello again, El:

Dude! Wow! We spend 20% of our money on health INSURANCE?????? I didn't know they were THAT bad. We shoulda nationalized them LONNNNNNG ago, if that's right.....

But, of course, it AIN'T right, because if it was, and we nationalized them, we'd have enough money left over after we paid for health care, to buy everybody a brand new Cadalak car.

Listen carefully. It's simple. The government takes over the health insurance industry. It will do the same thing that the health insurance industry now does. That's - WRITE CHECKS.

Hospitals won't be nationalized. Doctors won't be nationalized. Pharmaceutical companies won't be nationalized. Drug stores won't be nationalized. You'll have your CHOICE of doctors, hospitals, drug stores and medicines..... Just like you do today.

There will be enough money to cover everybody with the profits that the health insurance industry USED to get, but is now going to health care for everybody instead of profits for some.

Yes, there will be some health insurance employees out of a job. But, the insurance INDUSTRY will keep going strong. After all, there's still car insurance, life insurance, homeowners insurance and many more. I'll bet the recently unemployed can be absorbed back in.

Then we can get back to work and never ever again worry about that crap anymore. If you think you're getting a good deal now, you'll get an even better one when ALL your family's medical needs are met. Plus, you'll never have to worry about losing your coverage.

Let me reiterate. There is enough money being spent NOW by everybody, that if we just changed around WHERE we spend it, there is ample money to provide for the best health care for EVERYBODY and we won't have to raise taxes to pay for it.

It's really no more difficult than that. Ok, I AM smarter than most. You should have realized that by now.

excon


The problem with that statement is that not all doctors accept medicare or medicaid, or severely limit the percentage of medicare and medicaid patients they see.

You know why?


Medicare and medicaid reimbursement often times does not cover the actual cost of doing business.


Have the government and the politicians determine the amount of pay, and Obama has already wanted to decrease reimbursement and more and more doctors will:
1] not see government patients
2] retire
3] potential doctors will make a practical decision that 20 years of schooling then 3- 9 years of training, and 6 figure debt is to daunting - and they will take their talents elsewhere.



So you will, in effect, have rationed healthcare: see Canada's supreme court decision in 2005.






G&P

The problem with that statement is that not all doctors accept medicare or medicaid, or severely limit the percentage of medicare and medicaid patients they see.

So you will, in effect, have rationed healthcare: Hello again, in:

If the government is the only one writing checks, I'll bet the doctors will accept them. You are assuming that the government will adopt the medicare form of payment instead of how the insurance companies pay. I don't think that's a foregone conclusion.

And, I'm not saying that there wouldn't be any disruption. Some doctors who became doctors because of the money will have to find another economy to work in. However, doctors who became doctors because they can save people will have plenty of work.

You keep on using the term "rationed" as though that's not something that's happening now. But, it IS happening now. At the very least, the health insurance industry is rationing them. You're certainly not going to tell me that once you get health insurance, that you can get any health service you want. That just isn't how it works.

I'm just saying, that beyond the minor disruptions that will occur, the benefits will so outweigh them, that we'll wonder why we didn't do it sooner.

excon

PS> (edited) Once we undertake universal health care, there ain't no place for these money hungry doctors to go to anymore. We're the LAST of the behemoths, They're just going to have get used to being paid like an auto worker. I'd be cool with paying off their debt before we asked them to take less money.

Actually, amdeist, that's EXACTLY how government-run healthcare works in EVERY nation in which it is practiced. The UK just eliminated certain breast cancer drugs from their list of approved meds because they are too expensive. 450donn was giving a specific case in the UK where a woman was denied the drugs she needs to survive. It's cheaper and easier to a) let the patient die, b) give less expensive drugs that don't work as well, and c) pay for cheaper drugs for OTHER people instead of treating this woman.

My grandfather, who was pretty much penniless, had access to renal dialysis for 5 years, three times a week. I know he did, because my mom and I took him to his dialysis treatments. The US system does NOT leave even the most indigent without health care. They may not get great INSURANCE, but they get the best care in the world. Care that is NOT available in the UK or Canada, where the system is nationalized.

Nationalizing the health care system will put "the needs of the community as a whole" over and above the needs of the patient. Obama has already said so... he's said publicly that it might be better to give end-of-life patients some pain killers to ease their pain rather than actually give them health care that "probably" won't work for them, because it's cheaper to let the patient die than to try to save them. I don't want to live in a system where the choices of whether to try to save my life are made by a government bureaucrat.

I don't want the needs of the community (as decided by a bureaucrat who has never met me and doesn't know my situation) to outweigh MY needs. COMMUNISM believes that the needs of the community are more important than the needs of the individual. I live in America, where the rights of the individual are paramount... MY right to choose what medical actions are best for me are paramount over the "needs" of the state or the community.

Elliot

I can't argue with someone without knowledge. I have been to Germany, England, Norway, Denmark and Canada, and know people in all those countries.

Oh, you mean like AIG and Enron and Worldcom. I see.

Enron and Worldcom committed acts of fraud. That isn't "greed", that's illegal activity. There's a difference, though you'll never admit it.

What illegal activity did AIG do that you lump them in with Worldcom and Enron.

What AIG did was perfectly legal and permissible. They made a lot of money LEGALLY trading real estate derivatives. They also made some bad investments and got killed for them. Their greed outweighed their good sense and they got nailed. But there was nothing about their greed that was illegal. It was just bad judgement.

Greed can be tempered by good judgement. Or it can overwhelm a person with bad judgement. Those with good judgement do well. Those with bad judgement either lose their shirts, learn from their errors and start again, or they become criminals and try to cheat their way out of a loss.

Bernie Madoff was greedy and had bad judgment that caused him to commit criminal acts. Henry Ford was greedy and had good judgement that made him rich and provided something good to the people of the world... affordable automobiles. Both were driven by greed, but the outcomes were very different.

You can point to cases of EVIL people all day long. That doesn't make GREED evil.

Put in a logical formula, all evil people are greedy, but not all greedy people are evil.

Elliot

Hello again, El:

Dude! Wow! We spend 20% of our money on health INSURANCE?? I didn't know they were THAT bad. We should have nationalized them LONNNNNNG ago, if that's right...

Actually, the US government already spends 20% of GDP on a per-state basis on health care in the form of Medicare and Medicaid. And after spending all that money, we STILL have 46 million people who are uninsured. What makes you think that spending even MORE is going to fix the problem... especially when the CBO has estimated that even after Obama's big plan, there will still be 35 million people uninsured?

Doing more of something that is already not working.. You remember the definition of insanity don't you? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.


But, of course, it AIN'T right, because if it was, and we nationalized them, we'd have enough money left over after we paid for health care, to buy everybody a brand new Cadalak car.

Assuming that Cadalac is worth the weight of metal it's made from after the government is done trying to manufacture it.

But I'm afraid the numbers ARE right. We spend more money trying to insure the uninsured in this country than on anything else, and we fail every time we try. And the cost of the government insuring them is HIGHER than if the government just handed each of these people a check to cover their health care insurance premiums. About 3-4 times as much. So that "excess" that you think would be left over afterwards is not going to exist. There will, in fact, be a major budget deficit caused by nationalized health care... on the order of $3 trillion dollars. But you are so focused on the profits of private health care companies that you can't see the losses caused by government run health care.


Listen carefully. It's simple. The government takes over the health insurance industry. It will do the same thing that the health insurance industry now does. That's - WRITE CHECKS.

The cost of writing each check will be tree times as high as if it were handled by private industry. GOVERNMENT OVERHEAD, you fool. You can't even see the obvious.


Hospitals won't be nationalized. Doctors won't be nationalized. Pharmaceutical companies won't be nationalized. Drug stores won't be nationalized. You'll have your CHOICE of doctors, hospitals, drug stores and medicines... Just like you do today.

Uhhh... wrong again, numbskull. If the government controls the methods of payment, then it controls the hospitals, doctors and drug stores. If you are not allowed to pay for your own care, then the government is in de facto control and the "private" hospitals aren't private. As soon as the government can say "do things our way, or we won't send you your reimbursement check" they are in control. That IS nationalization. There will be no more private hoispitals or health care providers. They will all be on the government payroll because the government is the only source of payment. That is what your non-incremental system would cause.


There will be enough money to cover everybody with the profits that the health insurance industry USED to get, but is now going to health care for everybody instead of profits for some.

If the government cost for administration is 3-4 times what the current costs are for private companies, there will BE NO PROFITS!! Why can you not see this obvious fact.


Yes, there will be some health insurance employees out of a job. But, the insurance INDUSTRY will keep going strong. After all, there's still car insurance, life insurance, homeowners insurance and many more. I'll bet the recently unemployed can be absorbed back in.

With income taxes doubling or tripling in order to cover the new medical insurance ponzi scheme you're proposing, people won't be able to afford new cars, houses, etc. There will be massive foreclosures because people won't be able to afford their home payments, car payments AND their taxes. When the dust settles, home ownership will be lower, car ownership will be lower, and there will be fewer homes to insure.


Then we can get back to work and never ever again worry about that crap anymore. If you think you're getting a good deal now, you'll get an even better one when ALL your family's medical needs are met. Plus, you'll never have to worry about losing your coverage.

Let me reiterate. There is enough money being spent NOW by everybody, that if we just changed around WHERE we spend it, there is ample money to provide for the best health care for EVERYBODY and we won't have to raise taxes to pay for it.

It's really no more difficult than that. Ok, I AM smarter than most. You should have realized that by now.

Excon

Let ME reiterate. If you change HOW the money is spent, you change who controls the care. You also change how much it costs to provide that care. You drive taxes up. You drive home ownership down. You drive medical experts out of the industry. EVERYTHING in the health care industry begins to fail.

You don't even know what you are proposing. You can't look past the "greedy company" pablum and figure out what happens next.

Oh, you poor, poor fool. You derserve what comes next. But I'm going to do my best to save you from yourself despite your own foolishness.

Elliot

Hello again, El:

Couple things. The above is MY plan. It is NOT Obama's plan. Therefore, you can't tell me that I can't execute my plan. If MY plan doesn't include nationalizing the hospitals, then don't tell me it does.

You assume the government can't do it as cheaply as the insurance industry does. I thought you said that conservatives don't dream up numbers, but they use the real ones. Dude. Real numbers ain't been had yet, so you're dreaming. The numbers you ascribe to the situation above are totally made up. Your diatribe is FULL of assumptions and political clap trap. Are you sure you're a conservative?

It's MY plan, and I know how to run my plan. MY plan would work. It's just simple arithmetic - and THIS liberal can add.

excon

Hello again, El:

Couple things. The above is MY plan. It is NOT Obama's plan. Therefore, you can't tell me that I can't execute my plan. If MY plan doesn't include nationalizing the hospitals, then don't tell me it does.

You assume the government can't do it as cheaply as the insurance industry does. I thought you said that conservatives don't dream up numbers, but they use the real ones. Dude. Real numbers ain't been had yet, so you're dreaming. The numbers you ascribe to the situation above are totally made up. Your diatribe is FULL of assumptions and political clap trap. Are you sure you're a conservative?

It's MY plan, and I know how to run my plan. MY plan would work. It's just simple arithmetic - and THIS liberal can add.

excon

Regarding my "assumptions", they are based on the numbers provided by the Congressional Budget Office... people who DO KNOW the cost of insuring and providing care for people in the USA. If you have problems with those assumptions, take it up with the CBO. If you have reason to believe that those numbers are incorrect, provide it. Otherwise, just accept that there are others in the world with more information than you. I'm just one of many in that regard.

As far as "your plan" is concerned... you're telling me that while everyone else on the board is talking about OBAMA'S health plan, you've been spending the past 70 posts putting forward something that NOBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD IS EVEN DISCUSSING as if it were "the plan"? You're telling me that for that past 7 pages of your posts you have been completely off topic?

Why are you wasting our time?

YOUR PLAN, whatever it is, is not the topic for discussion in this thread. Obama's plan is. If you want to create another thread with YOUR HEALTH PLAN, go for it. If you are trying to give an alternative to what Obama is proposing, then identify it as such. But the topic of THIS string is the rationing that will take place under Obama's plan. And now you tell me that I have been wasting my time debating Obama's plan with you, while you were talking about something else entirely?

No wonder we were miscommunicating. I was talking apples, you were talking mashed potatoes.

Why can't you stick to the topic at hand?

YOUR PLAN means nothing to me, and probably precious little to most Americans who are concerned with the direction of healthcare in the USA. YOUR PLAN is not the one Obama wants to implement. It's OBAMA's plan that's up for debate in the national spotlight.

Again, you are free to put forward any ALTERNATIVE plan you want. But at least IDENTIFY IT as such so we don't waste time when we SHOULD be debating the REAL topic at hand.

I apologize for my earlier comments. I have NO IDEA whether YOUR PLAN would work. I have no idea HOW your plan would work. I just know that OBAMA'S plan is going to fail, as it has everywhere else it's been tried, and it's going to cost the country between $3 trillion and $10 trillion over a 10-year period, creating the largest budget deficit in history and creating the largest national debt in history.

Elliot

Hello again, El:

I'm sorry if I was going to fast for you. I'll try to slow down. I'll even use smaller words.

excon

Hello again, El:

I'm sorry if I was going to fast for you. I'll try to slow down. I'll even use smaller words.

excon


:confused:

I think I can keep up if you just keep me informed as to what you are talking about!!

:D

Elliot

Here is one of the details of the bill just passed

The President promised that those who have their own coverage would be allowed to keep it and that is true according to the language in the passed bill . But that does not mean that we will continue to have "choice" .
If you have private coverage don't try to change providers .If you wanted to purchase private care it isn't happening . If you leave an employer to work on your own... furgetaboutit.

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law. Page 16

So here is your "choice " stay in your employer provided plan until your employer decides to bail out because it becomes too expensive to cover you(the gvt plan will be 30&#37; to 40% cheaper than their current premiums because taxpayers will be funding it).You can stay in your private plan as long as the insurance company stays in a business where the rules are stacked against private insurers ;or join the new government plan.Tighter limits on contributions to HSAs will kill that option.

That's it . Eventually private insurance companies will discontinue service .Private coverage will wither on the vine and soon everyone will be covered by the government plan .

And that's page 16 of a 1,018 page bill . Stay tuned.

Details are emerging. The bill for all intents and purposes will eliminate private coverage. Sure you can keep the coverage you have... with exceptions.

If your employer drops insurance benefits and you can't afford to continue the coverage, which is likely since moving people to the public plan will look mighty good to their bottom line, or if your insurance company cancels your plan, you won't be able to enroll in another private plan.


When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.

It turns out we were right (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?secid=1501&status=article&id=332548165656854): The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.

There's your 'choice.' At least Obama has been technically correct (unless I've missed it) in telling us if you like the coverage you have you can keep it. For now.

Next up, Peter Singer argues for rationing (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all) in NY Times magazine:


You have advanced kidney cancer. It will kill you, probably in the next year or two. A drug called Sutent slows the spread of the cancer and may give you an extra six months, but at a cost of $54,000. Is a few more months worth that much?.

Health care is a scarce resource, and all scarce resources are rationed in one way or another...

Rationing health care means getting value for the billions we are spending by setting limits on which treatments should be paid for from the public purse. If we ration we won’t be writing blank checks to pharmaceutical companies for their patented drugs, nor paying for whatever procedures doctors choose to recommend. When public funds subsidize health care or provide it directly, it is crazy not to try to get value for money. The debate over health care reform in the United States should start from the premise that some form of health care rationing is both inescapable and desirable. Then we can ask, What is the best way to do it?

We already know how they want to do it, by assessing a value on people as the opening post by tom illustrates. So how much are YOU worth?

We already know how they want to do it, by assessing a value on people as the opening post by tom illustrates. So how much are YOU worth?Hello again, Steve:

There's a lot to discuss about this bill, and there's a lot of things WRONG with it... But, to suggest that health care WILL BE rationed, as though it ISN'T rationed now, isn't one of the things we should be arguing about. Primarily that would be because it isn't TRUE!

The question SHOULD be, are you worth MORE to your insurance adjuster, or to your government.

In MY view, I don't think EITHER of them cares about me or my family. But, if you're going to tell me, that my INSURANCE company cares, while the GOVERNMENT doesn't, I ain't going to buy it. To even hint that it is so, as you do constantly, is unfair, and disingenuous at best.

But, it's NOT unfair to ME. I KNOW the facts. It's unfair to the people who believe that crap.

excon

YouTube - joker parade (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Svf2aWr0hfI)

In MY view, I don't think EITHER of them cares about me or my family. But, if you're going to tell me, that my INSURANCE company cares, while the GOVERNMENT doesn't, I ain't gonna buy it. To even hint that it is so, as you do constantly, is unfair, and disingenuous at best.

But, it's NOT unfair to ME. I KNOW the facts. It's unfair to the people who believe that crap.

Ex, I have yet to argue that my insurance company cares about me. I know I'm a means to end, profit. I have argued that the private sector can do a better job as a provider of goods and services than the government. You don't trust 'em, you think they're all dufuses, just some more than others. Why should I trust my health to the government ? Just what is that they get right? And why should I trust a government that won't even read the d*&*@! Bills they pass?

Why should I trust my health to the government ? Just what is that they get right? And why should I trust a government that won't even read the d*&*@! bills they pass?Hello Steve:

This isn't legislation of choice. It's legislation of MUST. You should trust your health care to the government, because you CAN'T trust private industry from ruining us quicker than the government might.

There is NO DOUBT that we are headed for the cliff, and about to go over... I haven't see ANY solution to the problem offered by industry at all. I'd be HAPPY to entertain one or even two. But, there are simply TOO many pigs feeding at the health care trough. Instead of trying to keep on paying them, which is what we've done in the past, it's time to impose a system. Just saying NO, ain't a solution.

excon

PS> Please understand that I don't support THIS particular bill. It's an incremental bill toward my solution. But, we should just cut to the chase.

Ex, I count on government to defend our country and that's about as far as it goes. There's no way I SHOULD trust my health to them. By the way, WWRPD (http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-05-25/ron-paul-introduces-free-choice-in-health-care-bill/)? I thought that was your kind of thinking.

Hello Steve:

I think Ron Paul is right. THAT is the problem with THIS bill. Nobody should be forced to participate.

However, if we get to single payer, the term "health INSURANCE" would't apply. Nobody would have buy anything. They just have to pay their taxes.

excon

PS> Lest you think that my "taxes" comment means that I think taxes would go UP, let me disabuse you of that notion...

If you compared what you spend on your present health care, you'll spend LESS in taxes with single payer, and get MORE health care than you're getting today.

Yes, there's THAT much waste!

PS> Lest you think that my "taxes" comment means that I think taxes would go UP, let me disabuse you of that notion.....

If you compared what you spend on your present health care, you'll spend LESS in taxes with single payer, and get MORE health care than you're getting today.

Yes, there's THAT much waste!

This statement is just not true. I have already explained why private health care is much more efficient than government-run health care. The desire for PROFITABILITY creates efficiency. The government, which is not driven by profits, has no reason to be more efficient. The fact is that the administrative costs of managing health care or health insurance would double or triple under the government.

That's not MY estimate, that's the Congressional Budget Office's numbers.

As much waste as you think there is now in the medical system, it would be MUCH worse under a government-runb system.

Elliot

The desire for PROFITABILITY creates efficiency. Hello again, El:

You're still living in your little fantasy world where your insurance company will pay for whatever your needs are, because they want you to keep paying your premium.

Even you, can't believe that crap.

excon

Hello again, El:

You're still living in your little fantasy world where your insurance company will pay for whatever your needs are, because they want you to keep paying your premium.



If there is an insurance company out there that provides such a service please give me their details!!

If there is an insurance company out there that provides such a service please give me their details!!

You're coming in late to the conversation, Skell.

In another post, excon argues that the government can do a better job of healthcare administration than the private sector because the private sector is too worried about profits to care about people.

I argued the exact opposite. My point was that the insurance companies only make money if you are alive. As long as you are alive, you are a source of income for the insurance companies. As long as you are alive, you pay a premium for your insurance coverage, which is the primary source of insurance company revenues. It is therefore in the insurance company's best interest to keep you alive, so that you can continue paying insurance premiums. PROFITABILITY is the driving force that makes insurance companies want to take care of their customers.

The government, on the other hand, makes its money from taxes, not premium payments. Old people no longer earn, and no longer pay much in taxes. But they are the source of most medical costs. Therefore, old people are effectively a drain on a government-run health care system. The older and sicker they get, the more money they cost the government to keep them alive. It is therefore in the best interests of the government to allow old people to just die and concentrate on keeping young people healthy, because YOUNG PEOPLE ARE THE REAL SOURCE OF INCOME FOR THE GOVERNMENT. They are the ones who earn money and are therefore the ones who pay the most in taxes. Old people are just a cost. Young people are an income source. Therefore, it is best to cover young people and let old folks die.

And if you think that this is craziness, please look at what Obama said recently in a NY Times Magazine interview dated 4/28/09:



“So now she’s [Obama's Grandmother] in the hospital, and the doctor says, Look…maybe you have three months, maybe you have six months, maybe you have nine months to live. Because of the weakness of your heart, if you have an operation on your hip there are certain risks that–you know, your heart can’t take it. On the other hand, if you just sit there with your hip like this, you’re just going to waste away and your quality of life will be terrible. And she elected to get the hip replacement and was fine for about two weeks after the hip replacement, and then suddenly…things fell apart.

"I don’t know how much that hip replacement cost. I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement just because she’s my grandmother. Whether…society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill is a sustainable model, is a very difficult question.”


In other words, he doesn't think that giving care to old people who may not survive for very long is a sustainable model because the cost is too high.

So when I say that it is in the best interest of the government to allow old people to die rather than pay for their care, I am getting that dfirectly from Obama himself. This is what Obama believes.

Oh sure, he's willing to pay out of pocket for his own grandmother's care. He says so himself in the article. But he's trying to create a single-payer government system that will deny that right to others.

In any case, that is why excon is referring to... my beliefe (fully justified, I believe) that the insurance companies have it in their best interest to keep older patients alive because they are a source of income, whereas the government's best interest lies in letting older patients die in order to cut costs.

Elliot

I've been monitoring the conversation Elliot. As I've said before I don't generally chime in if the discussion is on matters that don't have any sort of impact on me (e.g. US Health Care). But I still read every post.

You and Excon both make some good points.

My main concern with your mindset is your almost blind trust in insurance companies. You think the Government and Obama are out to get you but the insurance companies are your best friend.

You must be a used car dealer's dream customer.

I've been monitoring the conversation Elliot. As ive said before I dont generally chime in if the discussion is on matters that dont have any sort of impact on me (e.g. US Health Care). But i still read every post.

You and Excon both make some good points.

My main concern with your mindset is your almost blind trust in insurance companies. You think the Government and Obama are out to get you but the insurance companies are your best friend.

You must be a used car dealer's dream customer.

You misunderstand, Skell. I don't have a blind trust of insurance companies. But I do have a blind MISTRUST of government.

COMPANIES can be dealth with, and you can usually get what you want from them by either pointing out to them why it is in their best interest to give youwhat you want, or by being such a big pest that it is more cost effective for them to give you what you want than to waste time and money NOT giving it to you. (That, by the way, is why customer service representatives usually make good if you complain about a product. It is more cost effective to either give you a replacement item or give you credit than to waste their time, money and reputation fighting you.) And in cases where they don't give you what you want, you have the choice of going elsewhere to get it.

Government agencies, on the other hand, aren't worried about their profitability, wasted time, money or reputation, or anything else. They claim to be worried about the plight of the people and they further claim to be "well-meaning" and "altruistic". They have people on staff who's full time job is to make sure that everything is by the book, all in the name of protecting society, of course. They employ petty little dictators who have to justify their existence in the universe by making sure every little detail is micro-managed and every person who makes a claim is properly harassed into an appropriate level of subjegation. And if the government agency is the only game in town, you have no recourse or other options.

I don't blindly trust insurance companies... but they are COMPANIES, which means that their bottom line is profitability, which can ONLY come if they provide the agreed-upon services. I completely DISTRUST government agencies, because they don't think in terms of profitability.

Robert Heinlein said it best in the voice of Lazarus Long: "Never appeal to a man's 'better nature.' He may not have one. Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage."

I never trust someone who says, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." I'd rather trust someone who's only in it for himself. At least then I know where he stands, and have the ability to appeal to his greed in order to get what I want or need.

Elliot

More odds and ends on Obamacare...

Madame Pelosi, after sounding a little like a dictator in an interview with USA Today (http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/07/health-care-reform-this-is-going-to-happen-.html), smeared opponents of Obamacare,"But this (reform) is going to happen. And those who oppose it are mainly just opposed to health care." Um, just who exactly is opposed to health care, Mimi?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~

The president again doesn't even know what's in a bill (http://www.heritage.org/2009/07/21/morning-bell-obama-admits-hes-not-familiar-with-house-bill/) of incredible scope that he's trying to ram down our throats. He was asked if people will "be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?” Obama's response was “You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about.”

He was still sure enough to tell us again that, “If you have health insurance, and you like it, and you have a doctor that you like, then you can keep it. Period.” That may not be a lie but it's certainly disingenuous as has been shown before.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~

This scares me:


One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nypost.com%2Fseven% 2F07172009%2Fpostopinion%2Fopedcolumnists%2Fos_bro ken_promises_179667.htm) (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and "the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration."

This mandate invites abuse, and seniors could easily be pushed to refuse care. Do we really want government involved in such deeply personal issues?

Yeah, I know the argument, it's a good thing to have an advance directive so everyone will know your wishes. Whatever, I tend to agree that this is an open invitation for abuse. We already know the plan is to ration care based on your value to society and cost effectiveness so why not push seniors to sacrifice care so more worthy members of society can be treated?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~

Lastly, an accidental moment of truth (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25165.html) from the president:


“The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savings and inefficiencies to our health care system,” Obama said in remarks after a health care roundtable with physicians, nurses and health care providers.

He finally got it right, you can bank on greater inefficiencies under Obamacare.

Well, does everyone feel better now that the president has explained Obamacare?

I assume this question was from Jake Tapper at ABC:


Q: Thank you, Mr. President. You said earlier that you wanted to tell the American people what's in it for them, how will their family benefit from health care reform. But experts say that in addition to the benefits that you're pushing there is going to have to be some sacrifice in order for there to be true cost-cutting measures, such as Americans giving up tests, referrals, choice, end-of-life care. When you describe health care reform you don't -- understandably you don't talk about the sacrifices that Americans might have to make. Do you think -- do you accept the premise that other than some tax increases on the wealthiest Americans, the American people are going to have to give anything up in order for this to happen?

Are you ready? This is what we're going to have to sacrifice...


They're going to have to give up paying for things that don't make them healthier. And I -- speaking as an American, I think that's the kind of change you want.

Specifically, "If there's a blue pill and a red pill and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half price for the thing that's going to make you well?"

So, we're going to have to give up the red pill. Got it? Other than that he avoided the question and went into the deficit, how he saved the economy and how he's cutting spending.

We have to be protected against those rasklly doctors blinded by profits who would remove tonsils for a quick buck rather than treating allegies .

we have to be protected against those rasklly doctors blinded by profits who would remove tonsils for a quick buck rather than treating allegies .

That was the one quote I heard last night. I can't remember the last time anyone in my circle of influence that mentioned a tonsillectomy, perhaps because some years ago someone decided they weren't usually necessary.

His administration must be Seinfeld fans and every day is a sort of "opposite" day. His knack for taking credit things that are opposite of reality is amazing. The Cleveland Clinic and Mayo come out opposed to Obamacare (http://healthpolicyblog.mayoclinic.org/2009/07/16/mayo-clinic%E2%80%99s-reaction-to-house-tri-committee-bill/) and he cites them as shining examples of what his plan is all about. Another half million new unemployed last week and he's rescued the economy. You get the idea...

House Democrats have blocked the GOP from sending a mailing (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_12/news/37125-1.html?type=printer_friendly) with a flow chart guide to Obamacare. Frankly I didn't realize they could do that sort of thing, block House members from communicating with their constituents. But once one sees the flow chart it's easy to understand why they would want to...

http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2009-07/brady-chart.jpg

Pdf here (http://www.rollcall.com/pdfs/healthchart072309.pdf).