Ask Me Help Desk - Can anyone explain this article to me?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

In this country, paying for MORE insurance means that you get it... even if you were refused for it before. That's why you are paying MORE. The more you pay, the more coverage you get. It's a free-market concept that I wouldn't expect you to understand.

Ditto for buying supplemental insurance. The more you are willing to pay for, the more coverage you are able to get.

Hello again, El:

You're a slippery guy, all right, but that's why I'm here...

Let me ask you this... You don't have insurance. You HAVE a preexisting condition requiring expensive surgery. Considering the free market concept of profit, what insurance company is going to sell you insurance no matter what the cost??

The fact is, none will. THAT'S the free market at work.

If they intend to make a profit, they're going to have to charge you MORE for the insurance than the surgery will cost, and what dinglebonk is going to do that?? THAT'S the free market at work.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

You're a slippery guy, alright, but that's why I'm here....

Lemme ask you this.... You don't have insurance. You HAVE a preexisting condition requiring expensive surgery. Considering the free market concept of profit, what insurance company is going to sell you insurance no matter what the cost???

The fact is, none will. THAT'S the free market at work.

If they intend to make a profit, they're going to have to charge you MORE for the insurance than the surgery will cost, and what dinglebonk is going to do that??? THAT'S the free market at work.

excon

So... you are saying that no insurance company will sell someone with a pre-existing condition any insurance at any price?

Bull$h!t.

It may cost like a mother... but you could buy insurance, even if you have a pre-existing condition.

OR you could pay your medical bills out of pocket, especially if the cost of insurance premiums is too high.

The point is that in a free market system there are other options, from out of pocket, to supplemental insurance, to paying more for insurance, to charities. With a single-payer system, there is no other option.

That's a point you can't get past. Our system has options. A single payer system doesn't. You are trying to prove that those other options "aren't real options", but you can't. Because you know that in a free-market system, there's always someone willing to sell you something for the right price... even insurance to a person with a pre-existing condition... or medical care for out-of-pocket payment. That's the nature of free-markets. You can't change that little fact no mater how hard you argue against it, and it kills your whole socialist medicine model.

Free markets bring options. Government control brings none. End of story.

Elliot

All I have to say is this...

Obama doesn't have to worry about any pesky health insurance. He and his family have the best money can buy and he doesn't have to pay a dime for it for the rest of his life. Isn't that nice? While the rest of the peasants will happily have to die as they can't get any health treatment regardless as they don't rate.

They don't want to address all the illegal alien free health care that is literally ruining our country and making hospitals close their doors. No, why solve the problem when they can just make more problems? That's our wonderful government for you. Why should everyone get a nice heart surgery when only the "worthy" politicians or wealthy folks can get this type of care? Well, because they're better than we (the peasants that is) are, that's why. Haven't you figured this out yet? The politicians in Washington don't pay into Social Security. Never have and never will. Why should they when they will get their annual salary each year after they are no longer in Washington! Why should they have to live on a SSR check of $1,000 or $2,000 or whatever? They won't and will not do that. No, they collect $100,000+ each year, every year for the rest of their lives. And as far as paying any health care premium. Forget that. They don't and they won't. They get that free as well forever. Why doesn't the American public wake up to the fact that we have all these little "kings and queens" getting rich off the labor of our backs for the rest of their life and stop the overly generous "pensions" that they get and the free health care that they get? No, we're too timid to say anything or pipe up that what they're doing is wrong, wrong, wrong. Take away their "pensions". Take away their free best money can buy health care and see how loudly they protest.

Quote:

That's all you got eh tom?

Nahhh there's plenty more where that came from

http://www.colleenhammond.com/blog/w...-Your-Dead.jpg

Keep 'em coming, it reflect your views nicely! (and those of republicans who can handle things is short soundbites or simple pictures)

Or links to Jon Stewart comedy bits ?

Did you watch it? It was less comedy than investigative journalism. Whereas your cartoons are more sad fear mongering with no back up.

Maybe I'm wrong.. maybe the death commissions will not be as bad as the British NHS they are modeled after
Sentenced to death on the NHS - Telegraph

See, you blew right past what I said. Stewart asked the "death panel" lady to show him where in the bill is her evidence to back up her claim... that's where the comedy began. You're doing the same thing as her.

Betsy McCaughey is former Lt. Governor of NY State and a long time patient advocate.

Jon Stewart gets laughs from a liberal audience repeating what his staff of writers pen.

Hello:

The right wing isn't, and never has been a partner in health care reform. The idea from the beginning was to kill it. Therefore, arguing with them about their points being wrong, won't penetrate. They KNOW they're wrong, but they're succeeding with them, so why change?

Do they have any integrity? Nahhh. They like the INSURANCE INDUSTRY DEATH PANELS that are already set up.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Betsy McCaughey is former Lt. Governor of NY State and a long time patient advocate.

Jon Stewart gets laughs from a liberal audience repeating what his staff of writers pen.

Wow, even after that interview you support her. That's fanaticism.

Actually NK, since it has been pointed out in public about a thousand times where the references to the Death Panels are in the various bills, and since we can point to the actual death panels in Brittain and Canada (whether you care to admit it or not), there's no reason for McCaughey to repeat something she has pointed out so many times before. If Stewart can't keep up, that says much more about his lack of ability than it does about her.

He's a comedian, and not a particularly good one. That's all he's got going for him.

Which means he'll probably run for Congress eventually.

Elliot

See? All you have are personal attacks.

It's also been proven that there is no reference to death panels in the bill - just your vivid imagination fueled by hatred of universal health care.

And no, there are no death panels in Canada <sigh>. You don't even know how the system works here, that much has been very obvious by your posting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello:

The right wing isn't, and never has been a partner in health care reform. The idea from the beginning was to kill it. Therefore, arguing with them about their points being wrong, won't penetrate. They KNOW they're wrong, but they're succeeding with them, so why change?

Do they have any integrity? Nahhh. They like the INSURANCE INDUSTRY DEATH PANELS that are already set up.

excon

As opposed to those on the Left were willing to reach across the aisle and work with the Republicans?

Bwaahahahahahahaha

Then why did the lefties try to ram this piece of cr@p down our throats without giving anyone a chance to read it? What was the emergency?

Why have they rejected EVERY SINGLE AMENDMENT proposed by Republicans without debating the amendments? Republicans have been trying to amend the bills in Congress and have tried to work out several different compromises, and have been rejected EVERY TIME. Tom has posted several of those amendments that were rejected without debate. If the Dems are being bi-partisan, why won't they work with the Reps on these amendments?

Why have the congressional libs KILLED EVERY BILL ASSOCIATED WITH MAKING THEM SUBJECT TO THE SAME PLAN THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO SADDLE US WITH? Why is health care reform good enough for us, but not good enough for them?

C'mon, excon. Do you really think that the libs have attempted to be bi-partisan on health care reform?

Republicans are in favor of health care reform. They're just not in favor of communism. There are other forms of health care reform. I've listed about a dozen items that could be reformed to fix health care. So have others here. Republicans have been pushing THOSE health care reforms for years and gotten nowhere. So to say that Republicans are against health care reform is a fallacy and you know it.

So in essence your post was demonstrably just a pile of BS.

Elliot

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

See? All you have are personal attacks.

It's also been proven that there is no reference to death panels in the bill - just your vivid imagination fueled by hatred of universal health care.

And no, there are no death panels in Canada <sigh>. You don't even know how the system works here, that much has been very obvious by your posting.

HR3200, section 1233, subsection 5(b).

DEATH PANELS.

Checkmate.

Elliot

She read the bill and the writings of Emanuel ;Daschelle and Holder. Stewart can barely read the script he's given .

They are slated to be administrators of the 'Complete Lives Systems' commissions (does that sound better than death panels ?) .

All she has done is read the legalese in the bill and cross referenced it to what Emanuel and Daschele have written.

But since no one likes the message she gets smeared like Palin .

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

HR3200, section 1233, subsection 5(b).

DEATH PANELS.

Checkmate.

Elliot

Quote:

‘(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac or pulmonary problems;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(ii) the individual’s desire regarding transfer to a hospital or remaining at the current care setting;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(iii) the use of antibiotics; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(iv) the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(2) PAYMENT- Section 1848(j)(3) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4(j)(3)) is amended by inserting ‘(2)(FF),’ after ‘(2)(EE),’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(3) FREQUENCY LIMITATION- Section 1862(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395y(a)) is amended--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(A) in paragraph (1)--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(i) in subparagraph (N), by striking ‘and’ at the end;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(ii) in subparagraph (O) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting ‘, and’; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(P) in the case of advance care planning consultations (as defined in section 1861(hhh)(1)), which are performed more frequently than is covered under such section;’; andCommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(B) in paragraph (7), by striking ‘or (K)’ and inserting ‘(K), or (P)’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(4) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendments made by this subsection shall apply to consultations furnished on or after January 1, 2011.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(b) Expansion of Physician Quality Reporting Initiative for End of Life Care-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(1) Physician’S QUALITY REPORTING INITIATIVE- Section 1848(k)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4(k)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

‘(3) Physician’S QUALITY REPORTING INITIATIVE-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

10
‘(A) IN GENERAL- For purposes of reporting data on quality measures for covered professional services furnished during 2011 and any subsequent year, to the extent that measures are available, the Secretary shall include quality measures on end of life care and advanced care planning that have been adopted or endorsed by a consensus-based organization, if appropriate. Such measures shall measure both the creation of and adherence to orders for life-sustaining treatment.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

1
‘(B) PROPOSED SET OF MEASURES- The Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register proposed quality measures on end of life care and advanced care planning that the Secretary determines are described in subparagraph (A) and would be appropriate for eligible professionals to use to submit data to the Secretary. The Secretary shall provide for a period of public comment on such set of measures before finalizing such proposed measures.’

That's it? That's been debated by your side and lost. Where are the references to death panels?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

That's it? That's been debated by your side and lost. Where are the references to death panels?

The references are in what treatments they will have the power to withhold.

Stuff like FOOD, WATER, Antibiotics, medical treatments.

But of course, withholding that stuff doesn't constitute "death panels" in your book, because it doesn't actually say the words "death panels".

What the bill DOES do in sections 142 and 143 is establish two separate 'commissions' that determine who gets what care based on their remaining useful lives as determined by those panels.

So you're right. There are no death panels. There are death commissions.

So... you have two commissions that determin who gets care based on their remaining useful lives. And you have legislation that forces older people to be "counseled" to allow themselves to die rather than be takne care of. And you have legislation about what forms of health care can be withheld for old people.

That translates as DEATH PANELS, no matter how you slice it.

Try as hard as you like, NK, you can't run away from what the bill says. Those words will come back to haunt you every time you try to deny it and make you look even more foolish the more times you try.

Elliot

Hello NK;

I had a conversation with my dinning room table last night... It said Elliot was right...

excon