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

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 450donn

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

Quote:

---

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."

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Obama discusses deathbed measures - Los Angeles Times

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Who do you appeal to when the government tells you no

---

Hello tom:

An activist judge, perhaps?

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 450donn

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 450donn

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

What you're missing is that the Obama plan is already establishing such things, namely the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research.

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

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/richardferna...09/07/rahm.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

notice ....

---

What a nasty little site you get your information from: Pajamas Media Propaganda central.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

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?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 450donn

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amdeist

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

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.