Lie of the Year
Cliff
"Sarah Palin Tells 'Lie of the Year'; Glenn Beck Takes Second"
[
Pulitzer Prize-winning political fact-checking project PolitiFact has announced
their first-ever Lie of the Year: Death panels. Though right-wing nut job Betsy
McCaughey proffered the notion everywhere she could, Sarah Palin, with 61% of
the vote, earns the dishonor of having coined the phrase and made it a household
fear. The first documented use of 'death panels' was on Palin's Facebook page in
the wake of her resignation as governor of Alaska.
....
From PolitiFact.com, here are the runners-up:
� With 12.3 percent of the vote, a claim by conservative talk show host Glenn
Beck that John Holdren, President Barack Obama's top science adviser, "has
proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to
control population."
� With 8.7 percent of the vote, a claim by Orly Taitz that a birth certificate
showed that President Obama was born in Kenya.
� With 7.1 percent of the vote, President Obama's statement that "preventive
care saves money." Rounding out the rest of the finalists:
� 5.8 percent: The shout of "You lie!" by Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., in response
to President Obama saying health reform would not insure illegal immigrants. �
3.2 percent: The claim that Page 92 of the House health care bill "says
specifically that people can�t purchase private health insurance after a date
certain," said by Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.
� 1.7 percent: The claim that "When one person sneezes, it goes all the way
through the aircraft," said by Vice President Joe Biden, when fears of swine flu
were prevalent.
� 0.5 percent: The claim that an amendment to the House health reform bill "puts
new restrictions on women's access to abortion coverage in the private health
insurance market even when they would pay premiums with their own money," said
by Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y.
]
John Q Public
<Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> said:
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH]FAct checking lies my ass, talking points and
misdirection.
Paid for with her own premiums (Heavily subsidized by taxpayers though,
no mention of them!)
Funny how the panel Ezekiel Emmanuelle (Rahm's brother) funded by the
stimulus bill with
the task of restricting and directing medical reserarch, rationing of
care based on your
possible contribution to society (Death panels) isn't mentioned.
more packs of lies by the left
Frank
> On 2009-12-19 05:25:35 -0500, Cliff
> <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> said:
>
>> http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977953779
>> "Sarah Palin Tells 'Lie of the Year'; Glenn Beck Takes Second"
>> [
>> Pulitzer Prize-winning political fact-checking project PolitiFact has
>> announced
>> their first-ever Lie of the Year: Death panels. Though right-wing nut
>> job Betsy
>> McCaughey proffered the notion everywhere she could, Sarah Palin, with
>> 61% of
>> the vote, earns the dishonor of having coined the phrase and made it a
>> household
>> fear. The first documented use of 'death panels' was on Palin's
>> Facebook page in
>> the wake of her resignation as governor of Alaska.
>> ....
>> From PolitiFact.com, here are the runners-up:
>>
>> host Glenn
>> Beck that John Holdren, President Barack Obama's top science adviser,
>> "has
>> proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking
>> water to
>> control population."
>>
>> certificate
>> showed that President Obama was born in Kenya.
>>
>> "preventive
>> care saves money." Rounding out the rest of the finalists:
>>
>> response
>> to President Obama saying health reform would not insure illegal
>> 3.2 percent: The claim that Page 92 of the House health care bill "says
>> a date
>> certain," said by Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.
>>
>> the way
>> through the aircraft," said by Vice President Joe Biden, when fears of
>> swine flu
>> were prevalent.
>>
>> bill "puts
>> new restrictions on women's access to abortion coverage in the private
>> health
>> insurance market even when they would pay premiums with their own
>> money," said
>> by Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y.
>> ]
>
> HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH]FAct checking lies my ass, talking points and
> misdirection.
> Paid for with her own premiums (Heavily subsidized by taxpayers though,
> no mention of them!)
> Funny how the panel Ezekiel Emmanuelle (Rahm's brother) funded by the
> stimulus bill with
> the task of restricting and directing medical reserarch, rationing of
> care based on your
> possible contribution to society (Death panels) isn't mentioned.
> more packs of lies by the left
>
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
> http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977953779
> "Sarah Palin Tells 'Lie of the Year'; Glenn Beck Takes Second"
> [
> Pulitzer Prize-winning political fact-checking project PolitiFact has
> announced
> their first-ever Lie of the Year: Death panels. Though right-wing nut job
> Betsy
> McCaughey proffered the notion everywhere she could, Sarah Palin, with 61% of
> the vote, earns the dishonor of having coined the phrase and made it a
> household
> fear. The first documented use of 'death panels' was on Palin's Facebook page
> in
> the wake of her resignation as governor of Alaska.
The idea of "death panels" wasn't cooked up by Republican strategists.
Such commissions and "panels" have formed in most socialist systems:
Ezekiel Emanuel, special health care advisor to President Obama, has
written extensively about rationing health care. His speeches and
articles are readily available on the internet. See: New England Journal
of Medicine, September 19, 2002.
What Palin opined on her Facebook page was essentially correct.
Universal Health Care will involve rationing.
What's really funny is that PolitiFact felt compelled to disprove what
an ex-Governor posted on her Facebook page.
And, since it couldn't actually disprove what Palin clearly labels her
opinion, which she feels is substantiated by a Thomas Sewell OpEd, it
decided to claim it had disproved it anyway.
Claiming to disprove something isn't the same as disproving something,
of course.
Well, it /might be/ if...say, you're stupid enough to believe that
universal health care means you get any treatment option you want, any
time, any where, anytime you think your health and well-being depend on
it.
Heh.
--
Neolibertarian
"Nobody inherits civilisation.
� You inherit the /ruins/ of civilisation.
� Beginning with yourself.
� And you can't even afford its heating bill."
---Dennnis M. Hammes
Frank
Here's a real life example from the UK:
http://www.phassociation.uk.com/petition_nice_introduction.asp
It took a petition to change panel's action on withholding expensive
drugs used to treat pulmonary hypertension. While these drugs are
extremely expensive, >$100,000 per year, very few people are involved.
"Death panel" as I said before is hyperbole but bottom line is their
decisions can result in people dying - in this case maybe 100 per year
in the UK.
I discussed this with colleague in UK and he told me that there are
regional panels, some will allow drugs that others will not.
Do you want to put your life in the hands of government bureaucrats?
How do you like the NICE acronym? This from the nation of writer that
authored "1984".
Ed Huntress
"Frank" <frankperi...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hgj2fn$j0s$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
How do you think it's handled by insurance companies in the US now? No
smoke-blowing. I was a medical editor who wrote for the health care
insurance industry.
The only difference is that the insurance companies don't respond to
petitions. They respond to their stock price.
--
Ed Huntress
Altered History
> The left hates hyperbole, unless it is their own ;)
Fwank's a Tard.
Frank
Yes but big difference is that you can sue the insurance company.
With the government, you're SOL.
Several years ago when I suffered secondary pulmonary hypertension from
a pulmonary embolism, one of my lawyer sons told me to forget about what
the insurance company may say but get the best care I can and we'll sort
out the expenses later.
I had no insurance company problems and got cured with expensive surgery
and total medical bills of about $250,000.
If I were in the UK, I probably would not have gotten the surgery as I
was too old.
Dittos, a couple of years ago with a clogged coronary artery which was
stented and now OK. At my age, also not covered in the UK.
Under socialized medicine, I'd probably be twice dead, rather than
celebrating my 70th birthday today ;)
Ed Huntress
Yeah? Try it. They're pretty well covered. They'll occassionally give in
when they get a lot of bad press, but they're always weighing it against
costs.
Most of their self-protection is locked into the contracts. If a procedure
or drug isn't covered, that's all she wrote. The only time it comes up is
when doctors argue over whether a treatment is "experimental." The insurance
companies usually win those cases.
>
> Several years ago when I suffered secondary pulmonary hypertension from a
> pulmonary embolism, one of my lawyer sons told me to forget about what the
> insurance company may say but get the best care I can and we'll sort out
> the expenses later.
>
> I had no insurance company problems and got cured with expensive surgery
> and total medical bills of about $250,000.
>
> If I were in the UK, I probably would not have gotten the surgery as I was
> too old.
>
> Dittos, a couple of years ago with a clogged coronary artery which was
> stented and now OK. At my age, also not covered in the UK.
>
> Under socialized medicine, I'd probably be twice dead, rather than
> celebrating my 70th birthday today ;)
Happy birthday! Now, about repairing your understanding of UK health care.
What you're saying is an Internet legend that's been widely copied and
spread around. It is not true.
From Factcheck.org:
"The NHS Constitution states that the NHS provides a 'comprehensive service,
available to all irrespective of gender, race, disability, age, sexual
orientation, religion or belief,' " the spokesman said.
"We also contacted a nonprofit group, England's Age Concern and Help the
Aged, which works to stop age discrimination in various facets of life,
including employment and health care. Age Concern's press office had never
heard of any kind of prohibition on heart surgery for those 60 and older.
"The group's handbook on health care says that a national organization was
created 10 years ago to improve health care for older people. One of the
standards for the organization is rooting out age discrimination."
However, there is one age discrimination that you could face, now that
you're 70. When you pass 70 you're no longer invited to breast-cancer
screenings. You can go, you just don't get an invitation. d8-)
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/englands-and-canadas-health-care/
--
Ed Huntress
Buerste
Happy B-Day! 70 is the new 50.
Buerste
"Altered History" <li...@go.net> wrote in message
news:hgj3eh$hpv$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
Brilliant comeback! Did you think that up by yourself? No, I didn't think
so. Printed in your pamphlet?
Wes
>> I discussed this with colleague in UK and he told me that there are
>> regional panels, some will allow drugs that others will not.
>>
>> Do you want to put your life in the hands of government bureaucrats?
>
>How do you think it's handled by insurance companies in the US now? No
>smoke-blowing. I was a medical editor who wrote for the health care
>insurance industry.
>
>The only difference is that the insurance companies don't respond to
>petitions. They respond to their stock price.
Do you really think changing masters given the forces of economics will have a
dramatically different result?
Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
Wes
>> Yes but big difference is that you can sue the insurance company.
>> With the government, you're SOL.
>
>Yeah? Try it. They're pretty well covered. They'll occassionally give in
>when they get a lot of bad press, but they're always weighing it against
>costs.
(R) Tom Colburn Sen OK was sued once. He prevailed but it still cost him.
He mentioned yesterday that a small percentage of malpractice cases prevail but it still
is very expensive for all involved.
The government can decline to be sued.
>
>Most of their self-protection is locked into the contracts. If a procedure
>or drug isn't covered, that's all she wrote. The only time it comes up is
>when doctors argue over whether a treatment is "experimental." The insurance
>companies usually win those cases.
I've never been presented a contract on what is covered. I'm paying my 'share' for health
insurance. Seems like I should get a legally binding document that is non perisiable each
time I renew my insurance. Blurbs on websites doesn't count.
There are so many things that should be fully disclosed and it doesn't sound like that is
being addressed.
Do you know in advance if a procedure or medication you might need is covered? I assume
by now you are on Medicare or Medicare Advantage (for those who have a financial
advantage) ;(
Ed Huntress
"Wes" <clu...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:NOcXm.200125$mn3.1...@en-nntp-03.dc1.easynews.com...
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>> I discussed this with colleague in UK and he told me that there are
>>> regional panels, some will allow drugs that others will not.
>>>
>>> Do you want to put your life in the hands of government bureaucrats?
>>
>>How do you think it's handled by insurance companies in the US now? No
>>smoke-blowing. I was a medical editor who wrote for the health care
>>insurance industry.
>>
>>The only difference is that the insurance companies don't respond to
>>petitions. They respond to their stock price.
>
> Do you really think changing masters given the forces of economics will
> have a
> dramatically different result?
>
> Wes
Nope. Not in terms of rationing care. We've been doing it for 30 years or
more -- or the insurance companies have.
And that's my point. We do it now. We have to do it now. If costs keep going
up (which is in the insurance companies' interest, BTW), we'll have to do
more of it in the future.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>> Yes but big difference is that you can sue the insurance company.
>>> With the government, you're SOL.
>>
>>Yeah? Try it. They're pretty well covered. They'll occassionally give in
>>when they get a lot of bad press, but they're always weighing it against
>>costs.
>
> (R) Tom Colburn Sen OK was sued once. He prevailed but it still cost him.
>
> He mentioned yesterday that a small percentage of malpractice cases
> prevail but it still
> is very expensive for all involved.
>
> The government can decline to be sued.
The government's incentive will be much different. The Chief Medical
Officers of insurance companies are partially compensated by how many
expensive treatments they can deny. And that's a fact.
>
>>
>>Most of their self-protection is locked into the contracts. If a procedure
>>or drug isn't covered, that's all she wrote. The only time it comes up is
>>when doctors argue over whether a treatment is "experimental." The
>>insurance
>>companies usually win those cases.
>
> I've never been presented a contract on what is covered.
Yes you have, if you have any kind of insurance. If your company doesn't
provide it for you, ask for the terms at your HR department.
> I'm paying my 'share' for health
> insurance. Seems like I should get a legally binding document that is non
> perisiable each
> time I renew my insurance. Blurbs on websites doesn't count.
Ask HR.
>
> There are so many things that should be fully disclosed and it doesn't
> sound like that is
> being addressed.
>
> Do you know in advance if a procedure or medication you might need is
> covered? I assume
> by now you are on Medicare or Medicare Advantage (for those who have a
> financial
> advantage) ;(
I'm 61. I'm on Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Sheesh, don't age me faster than I'm
already aging. <g>
Yes, you can call the insurance company in advance and find out if a
procedure is covered. Or maybe your HR department will do it for you.
Be skeptical about what they say. The people on the phone usually don't
understand the full details of the agreements. I have to call at least once
a month, for one of the three of us. My son just had his fifth MRI, for
example. Soccer player. <g>
--
Ed Huntress
William Wixon
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b2d61a6$0$4972$607e...@cv.net...
i saw something, i think it was pbs, just today, was about the flu, doctors
saying they can't use tamiflu on everyone because there's not enough, they
only use it for people most at risk (seems like rationing to me). they were
also saying if there was a virulent outbreak of flu there wouldn't be enough
respirators in the united states for everyone and some people are gonna die
because there just won't be enough respirators. who gets to decide who's
gonna get the available respirators? there won't be any obama "death
panels", yet, so who's going to decide? insurance companies?
b.w.
Ed Huntress
"William Wixon" <wwi...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:VudXm.2036$yM1....@newsfe11.iad...
That's who does it now. Doctors fight them all the time. Sometimes they win.
On the average, they lose.
From the discussions here I gather that not many people have run into
multiple life-threatening, expensive medical issues. I'm used to it, both
personally and because I was involved with it when I was doing medical
writing and editing.
I'm surprised at many of the questions and statements. Guys, they've been
rationing care for decades. It got going in a big way when HMOs came in.
It's the whole business of "Managed Care." For reference, I was the Senior
Medical Editor for Publicis Managed Care, a communications company that
served Big Pharma and that wrote to the managed care insurers.
Managed care is a euphemism for rationed care. That's what most of us have
now, whether it's through company PPOs or HMOs, or through fee-for-service
insurance. It's all the same in terms of insurance companies dictating what
procedures doctors and hospitals will be compensated for. Doctors are
involved in a constant struggle with those insurers, submitting special
appeals, getting on the phone with them, and so on. That's life in the
medical world today.
I can hardly believe anyone would bring up "rationing" as an issue today.
We're living in it. We have been for a long time.
--
Ed Huntress
--
Ed Huntress
William Wixon
>
-snip-
well, so, i'm guessing insurance companies would say, if it was a kid, or a
working age adult, "give him the respirator", if it was a old person they'd
say "he doesn't get it". does anyone have an idea of who'd get a respirator
and who wouldn't? i'm guessing kids first, seniors last? i'm saying, now,
not after obama's death panels start making decisions but during this reign
of the insurance companies. if there was a 1918 style flu outbreak, who'd
get the respirators first? wondering if race and gender figure into it too.
b.w.
Ed Huntress
That would most likely be up to the doctors and their hospitals, and the
decisions would be made by a hospital ethics committee. The stock of
respirators probably is a budget issue for hospitals, and wouldn't be
something with which the insurance companies would get involved.
But it's another form of rationing. The hospitals, too, have to make
judgments about where to invest their money, based on actuarial analyses of
risks. It's another example that we already live in a rationed-care
environment.
> i'm saying, now, not after obama's death panels start making decisions but
> during this reign of the insurance companies. if there was a 1918 style
> flu outbreak, who'd get the respirators first? wondering if race and
> gender figure into it too.
>
> b.w.
Check with a hospital. It's either them, or state oversight boards, who make
those decisions. Insurance companies are more likely to nix the use of an
expensive procedure or medication, where the question of benefits comes into
play.
That's the basic set of questions involved in all rationing.
--
Ed Huntress
Steve W.
> That's who does it now. Doctors fight them all the time. Sometimes they win.
> On the average, they lose.
>
> From the discussions here I gather that not many people have run into
> multiple life-threatening, expensive medical issues. I'm used to it, both
> personally and because I was involved with it when I was doing medical
> writing and editing.
>
> I'm surprised at many of the questions and statements. Guys, they've been
> rationing care for decades. It got going in a big way when HMOs came in.
> It's the whole business of "Managed Care." For reference, I was the Senior
> Medical Editor for Publicis Managed Care, a communications company that
> served Big Pharma and that wrote to the managed care insurers.
>
> Managed care is a euphemism for rationed care. That's what most of us have
> now, whether it's through company PPOs or HMOs, or through fee-for-service
> insurance. It's all the same in terms of insurance companies dictating what
> procedures doctors and hospitals will be compensated for. Doctors are
> involved in a constant struggle with those insurers, submitting special
> appeals, getting on the phone with them, and so on. That's life in the
> medical world today.
>
> I can hardly believe anyone would bring up "rationing" as an issue today.
> We're living in it. We have been for a long time.
>
Which is why I would like to see ALL health insurance programs
eliminated. Go to paying cash for ALL services. Would level the field
REALLY quick.
I don't think that the Feds have ANY legal reason to get involved. I
cannot find anything in the Constitution that says the government is a
health care provider??
--
Steve W.
Mark Rand
>
>>
>
>Which is why I would like to see ALL health insurance programs
>eliminated. Go to paying cash for ALL services. Would level the field
>REALLY quick.
>I don't think that the Feds have ANY legal reason to get involved. I
>cannot find anything in the Constitution that says the government is a
>health care provider??
So what! There's nothing in your constitution mentioning automobiles,
antibiotics or atomic bombs either. Don't try to use your constitution as an
excuse to remain 70 years behind the rest of the civilized world unless you do
it consistently.
Mark Rand
RTFM
Gunner Asch
wrote:
So then if nothing is mentioned in the Constitution, then we can simply
invade and enslave you and your countrymen?
Afterall...that nasty old Civil War was over a 150 yrs ago and its just
a thing of the past and shouldnt be paid any attention to. Correct?
Gunner
"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.
This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost
Wes
>I'm 61. I'm on Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Sheesh, don't age me faster than I'm
>already aging. <g>
Good news! I thought you were older.
Wes
Cliff
Pretty poor continued winger lies.
--
Cliff
Wes
>>
>> Do you really think changing masters given the forces of economics will
>> have a
>> dramatically different result?
>>
>> Wes
>
>Nope. Not in terms of rationing care. We've been doing it for 30 years or
>more -- or the insurance companies have.
>
>And that's my point. We do it now. We have to do it now. If costs keep going
>up (which is in the insurance companies' interest, BTW), we'll have to do
>more of it in the future.
We ration everything. The limiting factor on you not backing up to bestbuy or whatever
store and filling your vehical with goods is your ablity to pay for it.
Somehow, there seems to be this idea that being able to pay for what you get isn't
supposed to apply when it comes to healthcare.
The one change that I'd have really liked to see would be to have access to the same menu
of plans that government employees have. We would be still dealing with an insurance
company but depending on how much we want to devote to coverage, our level of care would
follow our willingness to pay for it. We also could change insurance companies once a
year if we picked a poor choice.
I fear we are working towards no choice at all.
Wes
Cliff
>In article <vaapi5994i2ul468n...@4ax.com>,
> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>> http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977953779
>> "Sarah Palin Tells 'Lie of the Year'; Glenn Beck Takes Second"
>> [
>> Pulitzer Prize-winning political fact-checking project PolitiFact has
>> announced
>> their first-ever Lie of the Year: Death panels. Though right-wing nut job
>> Betsy
>> McCaughey proffered the notion everywhere she could, Sarah Palin, with 61% of
>> the vote, earns the dishonor of having coined the phrase and made it a
>> household
>> fear. The first documented use of 'death panels' was on Palin's Facebook page
>> in
>> the wake of her resignation as governor of Alaska.
>
>The idea of "death panels" wasn't cooked up by Republican strategists.
Nope. By liars.
>Such commissions and "panels" have formed in most socialist systems:
>
>http://tiny.cc/sPtTl
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case
How large a bill did the taxpayers get stuck with in the end?
>Ezekiel Emanuel, special health care advisor to President Obama, has
>written extensively about rationing health care. His speeches and
>articles are readily available on the internet. See: New England Journal
>of Medicine, September 19, 2002.
http://content.nejm.org/content/vol347/issue12/index.dtl
Feel free to point it out.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200908280011
"At it again: McCaughey distorts Ezekiel Emanuel's writings to smear him as
"Rationer-in-Chief""
"NY Times: McCaughey has "largely quot[ed]" Emanuel's "past writings out of
context this summer"
IOW Winger lies, as usual.
>What Palin opined on her Facebook page was essentially correct.
>Universal Health Care will involve rationing.
Like health insurance does now?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/08/cigna-employee-flips-off_n_314189.html
"CIGNA Employee Flips Off Mother Of Dead Girl Denied Transplant"
Or more like gummer's free health care?
>What's really funny is that PolitiFact felt compelled to disprove what
>an ex-Governor posted on her Facebook page.
"Lie of the Year" ?
>And, since it couldn't actually disprove what Palin clearly labels her
>opinion,
"Lie of the Year" ?
> which she feels is substantiated by a Thomas Sewell OpEd,
"Lie of the Year" ?
>it decided to claim it had disproved it anyway.
"Lie of the Year" ?
>Claiming to disprove something isn't the same as disproving something,
>of course.
"Lie of the Year" ?
>Well, it /might be/ if...say, you're stupid enough to believe that
>universal health care means you get any treatment option you want, any
>time, any where, anytime you think your health and well-being depend on
>it.
And YOU think you can get that now?
http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/newsroom/press-releases/2001-press-releases/press-release-over-75-million-people-denied-medical-care-by-health-plans-since-bush-took-office.html
"Over 7.5 Million People Denied Medical Care by Health Plans Since Bush Took
Office"
That does not even begin to cover the 50 million uninsured ....
>Heh.
LMAO ....
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
>Here's a real life example from the UK:
>
>http://www.phassociation.uk.com/petition_nice_introduction.asp
>
>It took a petition to change panel's action on withholding expensive
>drugs used to treat pulmonary hypertension. While these drugs are
>extremely expensive, >$100,000 per year, very few people are involved.
I personally know of people in the US now who ARE insured but
are still denied the drugs they need unless they pay full retail for
them themselves. NOT COVERED by their drug plan as too expensive
a drug but the doctors say nothing else will do.
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
>Yes but big difference is that you can sue the insurance company.
<Snicker>
Have 10 years & about a million for your lawyers?
And the rethugs want such actions blocked anyway.
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
>
>I had no insurance company problems and got cured with expensive surgery
>and total medical bills of about $250,000.
>
>If I were in the UK, I probably would not have gotten the surgery as I
>was too old.
>
>Dittos, a couple of years ago with a clogged coronary artery which was
>stented and now OK. At my age, also not covered in the UK.
"People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K.
where the National Health Service would say the quality of life of this
brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."
- Investors Business Daily
One can trust wingers not to lie, right?
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
>Dittos, a couple of years ago with a clogged coronary artery which was
>stented and now OK.
This probably will not extend your lifespan.
--
Cliff
Larry Jaques
<clu...@lycos.com> scrawled the following:
If you want better care, force the gov't to come down to our level of
insurance coverage. That'll raise our level a whole lot in and
_extremely_ short time. Talk about unmitigated gall. Public servants
with golden coverage while ours is served from grass huts. It's too
bad the unwashed masses don't get it. That one point should be enough
to cause the next revolution to start all by itself if they did grok
it. <restless tap, tap, tap>
--
This episode raises disturbing questions about scientific standards,
at least in highly political areas such as global warming. Still,
it's remarkable to see how quickly corrective information can now
spread. After years of ignored freedom-of-information requests and
stonewalling, all it took was disclosure to change the debate. Even
the most influential scientists must prove their case in the court
of public opinion�a court that, thanks to the Web, is one where
eventually all views get a hearing. --Gordon Crovitz, WSJ 12/9/09
Ed Huntress
Sheesh. I'm a lot older than I was before I got into arguments with the
paleos here. <g>
--
Ed Huntress
Steve W.
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 19:40:36 -0500, "Steve W." <csr...@NOTyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Which is why I would like to see ALL health insurance programs
>> eliminated. Go to paying cash for ALL services. Would level the field
>> REALLY quick.
>> I don't think that the Feds have ANY legal reason to get involved. I
>> cannot find anything in the Constitution that says the government is a
>> health care provider??
>
> So what! There's nothing in your constitution mentioning automobiles,
Developed in the PRIVATE sector. Nothing to do with the Constitution.
> antibiotics
Developed in the PRIVATE sector. Nothing to do with the Constitution.
or atomic bombs either.
I guess that pesky clause in there about "provide for the common
defense" doesn't apply.
Don't try to use your constitution as an
> excuse to remain 70 years behind the rest of the civilized world unless you do
> it consistently.
>
>
> Mark Rand
> RTFM
--
Steve W.
Ed Huntress
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Do you really think changing masters given the forces of economics will
>>> have a
>>> dramatically different result?
>>>
>>> Wes
>>
>>Nope. Not in terms of rationing care. We've been doing it for 30 years or
>>more -- or the insurance companies have.
>>
>>And that's my point. We do it now. We have to do it now. If costs keep
>>going
>>up (which is in the insurance companies' interest, BTW), we'll have to do
>>more of it in the future.
>
> We ration everything. The limiting factor on you not backing up to
> bestbuy or whatever
> store and filling your vehical with goods is your ablity to pay for it.
>
> Somehow, there seems to be this idea that being able to pay for what you
> get isn't
> supposed to apply when it comes to healthcare.
Yeah, that's true. It's an ethical problem that's been unfolding for a
half-century. We're getting down to brass tacks now, and the issue is going
to be an important one in the years ahead. We have more medical technology
than we can afford.
>
> The one change that I'd have really liked to see would be to have access
> to the same menu
> of plans that government employees have. We would be still dealing with
> an insurance
> company but depending on how much we want to devote to coverage, our level
> of care would
> follow our willingness to pay for it. We also could change insurance
> companies once a
> year if we picked a poor choice.
Well, it isn't going to happen as long as insurance companies have more
lobbying power than God.
>
> I fear we are working towards no choice at all.
>
> Wes
Insurance choices will be limited. That's inevitable. But it's not
inevitable that we'll be limited in *medical* choices. I don't see any
likelihood of a plan in the US, or in most other civilized countries, in
which you can't pay for extras on your own.
--
Ed Huntress
F. George McDuffee
<wwi...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
<snip>
>they were
>also saying if there was a virulent outbreak of flu there wouldn't be enough
>respirators in the united states for everyone and some people are gonna die
>because there just won't be enough respirators. who gets to decide who's
>gonna get the available respirators? there won't be any obama "death
>panels", yet, so who's going to decide? insurance companies?
By long tradition this will depend on two critical social
factors: (1) The patient's net [cash] worth, and (2) The
patient's credit rating.
Unka George (George McDuffee)
..............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).
F. George McDuffee
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>> Nope. Not in terms of rationing care. We've been doing it for 30 years or
>>> more -- or the insurance companies have.
This fall into the category "any old stick is good enough to beat
a dog with."
F. George McDuffee
<csr...@NOTyahoo.com> wrote:
>I don't think that the Feds have ANY legal reason to get involved. I
>cannot find anything in the Constitution that says the government is a
>health care provider??
While it is frequently abused, it appears that the recent and
continuing changes in the basic social and economic/employment
structure of the US and advances in medical science have
justified the application of provisions in the Preamble to the
Constitution.
"We, the People of the United States, in Order to form a more
perfect Union, establish Justice, {possibly this
applies}==>insure domestic Tranquility,<== provide for the common
defence, ==>promote the general Welfare,<== and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain
and establish this Constitution for the United States of
America."
It is well to remember that the US Constitution means no more and
no less than what the nine geezers on the SCOTUS say it means (in
spite of what you and I may think it says). The SOCTUS geezers
are known to have x-ray and micro vision much better than
Superman's and can see many things in the Constitution that no
mere mortal can.
FWIW -- the nine SCOTUS geezers have lifetime employment
regardless of physical/mental/ethical fitness, and have the very
best single payer government run health care. They also have an
inflation indexed defined benefit pension plan backed by the US
taxpayer.
Wes
>> Somehow, there seems to be this idea that being able to pay for what you
>> get isn't
>> supposed to apply when it comes to healthcare.
>
>Yeah, that's true. It's an ethical problem that's been unfolding for a
>half-century. We're getting down to brass tacks now, and the issue is going
>to be an important one in the years ahead. We have more medical technology
>than we can afford.
And if it means living or dying, everyone wants it. Politicians deal in the world of
giving things to one group by taking it from another group. Well not all but that seems
to be the normal Modus Operandi.
Now if I'm paying for mine and government taxes it to give it to someone else thus
diminishing my ability to obtain something I need and could have paid for, how is that
right? You can rob the rich and they still have something but when you rob the middle
class, they don't have much left.
Doctoring and nursing doesn't look like a vow of poverty line of work. There are huge
time and monetary costs involved in achieving competence. That needs to be rewarded for a
continuing flow of new people to enter the medical profession.
So how do we do this? Every man on his own, no one has more than the next guy, or some
rationing scheme?
As you mentioned, the technology is expensive. I've never had a MRI or CAT scan. The
most high tech thing I have had was a ultrasound of my heart a few years ago. Something
that I'm going to get done again before my deductibles reset since it has been a few
years. So far I'm dining on the cheaper part of the medical menu. Couple hundred bucks a
quarter for drugs and I'm hanging on.
I'd love to have the best cardiologist in charge of my care but you know that isn't going
to happen and I'm afraid many people clamoring for the 'public option' and other 'reforms'
think they are going to get the best at low cost. It isn't going to happen either.
>
>>
>> The one change that I'd have really liked to see would be to have access
>> to the same menu
>> of plans that government employees have. We would be still dealing with
>> an insurance
>> company but depending on how much we want to devote to coverage, our level
>> of care would
>> follow our willingness to pay for it. We also could change insurance
>> companies once a
>> year if we picked a poor choice.
>
>Well, it isn't going to happen as long as insurance companies have more
>lobbying power than God.
Do you really think they came out of this in good shape so far?
As far as more lobbying power than God, where does the financial industry rate? ;)
>
>>
>> I fear we are working towards no choice at all.
>>
>> Wes
>
>Insurance choices will be limited. That's inevitable. But it's not
>inevitable that we'll be limited in *medical* choices. I don't see any
>likelihood of a plan in the US, or in most other civilized countries, in
>which you can't pay for extras on your own.
I thought Canada forbid private practices but looked the other way because their system
would collapse without it. I'm not fully up on Canada other than understanding their
health care is regulated at the Province level.
Wes
Ed Huntress
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>> Somehow, there seems to be this idea that being able to pay for what you
>>> get isn't
>>> supposed to apply when it comes to healthcare.
>>
>>Yeah, that's true. It's an ethical problem that's been unfolding for a
>>half-century. We're getting down to brass tacks now, and the issue is
>>going
>>to be an important one in the years ahead. We have more medical technology
>>than we can afford.
>
> And if it means living or dying, everyone wants it. Politicians deal in
> the world of
> giving things to one group by taking it from another group. Well not all
> but that seems
> to be the normal Modus Operandi.
>
> Now if I'm paying for mine and government taxes it to give it to someone
> else thus
> diminishing my ability to obtain something I need and could have paid for,
> how is that
> right? You can rob the rich and they still have something but when you
> rob the middle
> class, they don't have much left.
The Can of Worms is now officially opened! d8-)
It's a tough one, Wes. Nothing is going to work unless we get really serious
about putting medicine on a more rational footing and get those costs down
to something like the better examples in other developed countries.
Otherwise, we're all screwed.
FWIW, I don't think we're going to be able to do it, politically. In other
words, I think we're all screwed. Doing something really sensible, like the
plan they have in Switzerland, which doesn't interfere with *anyone's*
ability to get whatever care they can afford, but which still covers
everyone in the country with decent care, just isn't in the cards for the
US. I've been skeptical about the whole thing for a long time. It's
necessary, but probably undoable. We've screwed ourselves.
>
> Doctoring and nursing doesn't look like a vow of poverty line of work.
> There are huge
> time and monetary costs involved in achieving competence. That needs to
> be rewarded for a
> continuing flow of new people to enter the medical profession.
Agreed.
>
> So how do we do this? Every man on his own, no one has more than the next
> guy, or some
> rationing scheme?
The rational thing would be to have a board of experts who really know what
they're doing; who are invulnerable to lobbying interests; and who are
devoted to implementing the best possible medical care for everyone. Tell us
about such a board for *anything* in the US. Hahahahahoho...
It isn't worth getting into it again, but the "free market" approach doesn't
work with healthcare. For example, when you need a heart transplant and you
just can't afford it, do you say, "oh, well, I'll just do without, and die"?
It isn't like buying a new boat.
Perverse incentives are everywhere; real competition is almost nowhere. And
we're seeing how incapable the political process is of dealing with it. In
the US, markets and Congress are almost all we have. They're both incapable
of solving the problems. They can give us good care, but we'll all be broke.
>
> As you mentioned, the technology is expensive. I've never had a MRI or
> CAT scan. The
> most high tech thing I have had was a ultrasound of my heart a few years
> ago. Something
> that I'm going to get done again before my deductibles reset since it has
> been a few
> years. So far I'm dining on the cheaper part of the medical menu. Couple
> hundred bucks a
> quarter for drugs and I'm hanging on.
May it remain so for a very long time.
>
> I'd love to have the best cardiologist in charge of my care but you know
> that isn't going
> to happen and I'm afraid many people clamoring for the 'public option' and
> other 'reforms'
> think they are going to get the best at low cost. It isn't going to
> happen either.
Right.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> The one change that I'd have really liked to see would be to have access
>>> to the same menu
>>> of plans that government employees have. We would be still dealing with
>>> an insurance
>>> company but depending on how much we want to devote to coverage, our
>>> level
>>> of care would
>>> follow our willingness to pay for it. We also could change insurance
>>> companies once a
>>> year if we picked a poor choice.
>>
>>Well, it isn't going to happen as long as insurance companies have more
>>lobbying power than God.
>
> Do you really think they came out of this in good shape so far?
They're hanging on tenterhooks, but if they get 10 - 20 million new
customers who HAVE to have insurance, there will be big doings in the yacht
clubs next summer.
>
> As far as more lobbying power than God, where does the financial industry
> rate? ;)
God's Other Son. <g>
>
>>
>>>
>>> I fear we are working towards no choice at all.
>>>
>>> Wes
>>
>>Insurance choices will be limited. That's inevitable. But it's not
>>inevitable that we'll be limited in *medical* choices. I don't see any
>>likelihood of a plan in the US, or in most other civilized countries, in
>>which you can't pay for extras on your own.
>
> I thought Canada forbid private practices but looked the other way because
> their system
> would collapse without it. I'm not fully up on Canada other than
> understanding their
> health care is regulated at the Province level.
There are many myths about Canada's system. Around 30% of their care is
privately funded, either through private insurance or direct payments.
But it's not that simple. Wikipedia does a fairly good job of explaining it,
at least in the introduction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada
Also check the "Private Sector" heading in that article.
--
Ed Huntress
Frnak McKenney
>
> "Wes" <clu...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:ftyXm.384730$Xw3.1...@en-nntp-04.dc1.easynews.com...
>> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Somehow, there seems to be this idea that being able to pay for
>>>> what you get isn't supposed to apply when it comes to healthcare.
>>>
>>>Yeah, that's true. It's an ethical problem that's been unfolding
>>> for a half-century.
> It's a tough one, Wes. Nothing is going to work unless we get
> really serious about putting medicine on a more rational footing
> and get those costs down to something like the better examples in
> other developed countries. Otherwise, we're all screwed.
>> Doctoring and nursing doesn't look like a vow of poverty line of
>> work. There are huge time and monetary costs involved in
>> achieving competence. That needs to be rewarded for a continuing
>> flow of new people to enter the medical profession.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> So how do we do this? Every man on his own, no one has more
>> than the next guy, or some rationing scheme?
> The rational thing would be to have a board of experts who really
> know what they're doing; who are invulnerable to lobbying
> interests; and who are devoted to implementing the best possible
> medical care for everyone. Tell us about such a board for
> *anything* in the US. Hahahahahoho...
Ed,
While I think I agree with your reaction, I don't think you're
describing a problem restricted to the United States. Isn't this
one of the basic problems of politics (defined as "the art of
accomplishing things through people)?
"The board", any panel of experts (or idiots), has to be selected by
(choose one or more): appointment, election, or perhaps an
examination of some kind. Appointments are made by other people, who
might or might not be "qualified" (or even able) to select people
who are knowledgeable, devoted, and stubb.. er, "suitably firm in
their convictions". Elections I won't address <grin!>, and
examinations need to be created by other people.
And once a board is selected, making them "invulnerable to lobbying
interests" certainly seems like a good idea. But... can we
effectively insulate our board from lobbying interests without at
the same time creating an overly detached and ingrown group
unresponsive to the needs of the general population? "Scientists"
are periodically accused (deservedly or not) of thinking of
themselves as a "priesthood"; academic tenure protects intellectual
freedom, but also isolates the tenured from having to face reality.
Turn it all over to The Master Computer? Often attempted in SciFi,
with predictably bad results (the problems with doing this seem to
grow out of a mechanism's having to deal with actual human beings
<grin!>). We come close to this with the institutions collectively
referred to as "bureaucracy": our best-so-far mechanism for
enshrining a set of rules and turning it loose to churn away
according to those rules, with consequences that are not often
considered (or even imagined) when the rules were established. Who
-- in FDR's time -- would have thought Social Security would take
over such a huge chunk of the Federal budget?
And then there's the problem of "dedication to a purpose". Most
humans seem to want (need?) to have more in their livs than One
Glorious Purpose: they want to get married, have (and hopefully care
for) children, spend time with other humans talking about sports and
current events (and their children <grin!>); in short, to have a
life. Those are human influences, and they will affect the members
of our board, for good and/or evil.
Hm. After re-reading the above, I think I may be coming across as
simply trying to poke holes in your idea. I hope not, since that
would be a waste of your time and mine, and self-defeating. What
I'm shooting for is more along the lines of this: these seem to be
limitations we're stuck with. Can we change them? If so, how? If
not, how do we build a system that accepts their presence (or
better, one that builds on those limitations) and still accomplishes
our goals?
Okay, okay.. we _might_ not have an answer ready by this Christmas.
But maybe next... <grin>
Frank McKenney
--
...[I]t was assumed by American statesmen that whatever was uttered
or urged in the name of moral or legal principle bore with it no
specific responsibility on the part of him who urged it, even
though the principle might be of questionable applicability to the
situation at hand and the practical effects of adherence to it
drastic and far-reaching. We were at liberty to exhort, to plead,
to hamper, to embarrass. If others failed to hear us, we would cause
them to appear in ungraceful postures before the eyes of world
opinion. If, on the other hand, they gave heed to our urgings, they
would do so at their own risk; we would not feel bound to help them
with the resulting problems -- they were on their own.
-- George F. Kennan / American Diplomacy 1900-1950
--
Frank McKenney, McKenney Associates
Richmond, Virginia / (804) 320-4887
Munged E-mail: frank uscore mckenney ayut mined spring dawt cahm (y'all)
Ed Huntress
"Frnak McKenney" <fr...@far.from.the.madding.crowd.com> wrote in message
news:dcOdnbiQpMqwELLW...@earthlink.com...
I suppose it is, but it's particularly unlikely to happen in the US, because
of the way our political system works -- especially these days.
Switzerland is the example I keep using, because I spent a year there
studying comparative politics and I'm familiar with the culture. An American
wouldn't be uncomfortable with the politics there -- they have a
conservative streak -- but he'd be amazed at how they can accomplish some
policies that, here, would take years of wrangling. For example, they
switched their private health insurance companies to non-profit status with
a single referendum. Can you imagine that happening here?
I get plenty of those on this NG. Yours doesn't appear to be one of those.
<g>
> What
> I'm shooting for is more along the lines of this: these seem to be
> limitations we're stuck with. Can we change them? If so, how? If
> not, how do we build a system that accepts their presence (or
> better, one that builds on those limitations) and still accomplishes
> our goals?
>
> Okay, okay.. we _might_ not have an answer ready by this Christmas.
> But maybe next... <grin>
>
>
> Frank McKenney
Geez, Frank, why not just ask how we can all make the world a better place?
d8-)
All of your points are good ones. They apply in greater or lesser degree in
different circumstances and in different cultures. No one is immune to them
but we're more vulnerable than most.
And I'm not pining for some utopian ideal. Like most Americans, I'm very
wary of turning control of *anything* over to some board of experts. I'm
just trying to point out that there are rational and effective answers to
these questions, while at the same time saying I don't think they're
politically possible to realize.
My opinion, FWIW, is that we're in the grip of corporatism more severe than
at any time in our history, with the possible exception of the Robber Baron
era. I use the term not in the classical sense of the political-science
definition, but in the recent sense meaning something like "rule by
corporate/financial interests." That, combined with a hardening of
ideological conflicts, is producing something like political heart failure.
I am not happy about it. This conflict over health care reform, which should
be a slam-dunk in terms of the interests of the citizens of this country, is
a good example of how it works.
One of the tenets of political science today is that countries that have
long periods of internal peace, and that suffer no dramatic troubles as a
result of their external wars, become victims of their special interests.
They become unable to move; they develop hardening of the political
arteries.
That's us. That could be Switzerland, too, except that they're much more
homogeneous and they have some resistance to political gridlock. With the
upcoming elections the Dems are likely to lose some or all control of
Congress, which will make it even harder to do anything. We're becoming a
beached whale.
And the real problem with that, IMO, is that it's sapping the energy and
drive from our culture. If we can't enact health care reform, when every
other developed country has a more effective system in terms of results,
almost all of which cost roughly half as much per capita as ours, it may be
a sign that we're already screwed.
We'll muddle through. Nothing is going to collapse. The voltage is just
going to drop, IMO, and the lights will dim.
> --
> ...[I]t was assumed by American statesmen that whatever was uttered
> or urged in the name of moral or legal principle bore with it no
> specific responsibility on the part of him who urged it, even
> though the principle might be of questionable applicability to the
> situation at hand and the practical effects of adherence to it
> drastic and far-reaching. We were at liberty to exhort, to plead,
> to hamper, to embarrass. If others failed to hear us, we would cause
> them to appear in ungraceful postures before the eyes of world
> opinion. If, on the other hand, they gave heed to our urgings, they
> would do so at their own risk; we would not feel bound to help them
> with the resulting problems -- they were on their own.
> -- George F. Kennan / American Diplomacy 1900-1950
Good quote.
> --
> Frank McKenney, McKenney Associates
> Richmond, Virginia / (804) 320-4887
> Munged E-mail: frank uscore mckenney ayut mined spring dawt cahm (y'all)
--
Ed Huntress
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 09:53:52 -0600, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <vaapi5994i2ul468n...@4ax.com>,
> > Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977953779
> >> "Sarah Palin Tells 'Lie of the Year'; Glenn Beck Takes Second"
> >> [
> >> Pulitzer Prize-winning political fact-checking project PolitiFact has
> >> announced
> >> their first-ever Lie of the Year: Death panels. Though right-wing nut job
> >> Betsy
> >> McCaughey proffered the notion everywhere she could, Sarah Palin, with 61%
> >> of
> >> the vote, earns the dishonor of having coined the phrase and made it a
> >> household
> >> fear. The first documented use of 'death panels' was on Palin's Facebook
> >> page
> >> in
> >> the wake of her resignation as governor of Alaska.
> >
> >The idea of "death panels" wasn't cooked up by Republican strategists.
>
> Nope. By liars.
It's what happens in other socialized systems.
It's only a "death panel" if you're denied treatment. Everyone else will
call them health care allocation commissions.
>
> >Such commissions and "panels" have formed in most socialist systems:
> >
> >http://tiny.cc/sPtTl
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case
Wikipedia?
>
> How large a bill did the taxpayers get stuck with in the end?
In Britain, it's too much for their economy to sustain. In Italy, their
cadillac socialized health care system has helped propel public debt
into the rest of this century.
But it will be different for the United States because:
1) The populist-bureaucrats in Washington have proved over the years how
prudent and responsible they are when spending public money.
2) The Democrats and Republicans can be expected not to turn health care
issues into political demagoguery every damn election.
3) Government officers have no self-focused agenda; their only concern
is the health and well-being of all Americans.
4) Elected officials know more about what patients need than rich,
selfish doctors.
> >Ezekiel Emanuel, special health care advisor to President Obama, has
> >written extensively about rationing health care. His speeches and
> >articles are readily available on the internet. See: New England Journal
> >of Medicine, September 19, 2002.
>
> http://content.nejm.org/content/vol347/issue12/index.dtl
> Feel free to point it out.
You have to take the excerpts if you don't have an account.
>
> http://mediamatters.org/research/200908280011
> "At it again: McCaughey distorts Ezekiel Emanuel's writings to smear him as
> "Rationer-in-Chief""
> "NY Times: McCaughey has "largely quot[ed]" Emanuel's "past writings out of
> context this summer"
>
> IOW Winger lies, as usual.
"Well, /he/ said..."
Okay, how about this complete article, "Principles for Allocation of
Scarce Medical Interventions," written by Emanuel (et al) this year:
"The complete lives system.
"Because none of the currently used systems satisfy all the ethical
requirements for just allocation, we propose an alternative: the
complete lives system. This system incorporates five principles:
youngest first, prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and
instrumental value. As such, it prioritizes younger people who have not
yet lived a complete life and will be unlikely to do so without aid.
Many thinkers have accepted complete lives as the appropriate focus of
distributive justice."
This is a special advisor to the President of the United States
advocating a bureaucratic instrument for the allocation of medical
resources.
This doesn't scare you, mostly because you've forgotten (it's been over
a year since the last elections, after all) that at some point in the
future, the nasty, evil Republicans are bound to be at the reigns of all
this power you're gleefully signing over to Congress and the Executive.
Me? I'm scared anytime anyone with control of the instrumentalities of
government begins speaking of "distributive justice," or even "economic
justice."
==begin quote==
I am committed to working with the Congress to fully offset the cost of
health care reform by reducing Medicare and Medicaid spending by another
$200 to $300 billion over the next 10 years, and by enacting appropriate
proposals to generate additional revenues. These savings will come not
only by adopting new technologies and addressing the vastly different
costs of care, but from going after the key drivers of skyrocketing
health care costs, including unmanaged chronic diseases, duplicated
tests, and unnecessary hospital readmissions.
To identify and achieve additional savings, I am also open to your ideas
about giving special consideration to the recommendations of the
Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), a commission created by a
Republican Congress. Under this approach, MedPAC's recommendations on
cost reductions would be adopted unless opposed by a joint resolution of
the Congress. This is similar to a process that has been used
effectively by a commission charged with closing military bases, and
could be a valuable tool to help achieve health care reform in a
fiscally responsible way.
==end quote==
---President Barack Obama, Letter to Senators Kennedy and Baucus
June 2, 2009
> >What Palin opined on her Facebook page was essentially correct.
> >Universal Health Care will involve rationing.
>
> Like health insurance does now?
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/08/cigna-employee-flips-off_n_314189.html
Huffington Post?
The difference between freedom and tyranny, is under freedom you can
seek alternatives.
Or am I addressing one of those children who believe you can legislate
away bad outcomes?
> "CIGNA Employee Flips Off Mother Of Dead Girl Denied Transplant"
>
> Or more like gummer's free health care?
>
> >What's really funny is that PolitiFact felt compelled to disprove what
> >an ex-Governor posted on her Facebook page.
>
> "Lie of the Year" ?
>
> >And, since it couldn't actually disprove what Palin clearly labels her
> >opinion,
>
> "Lie of the Year" ?
>
> > which she feels is substantiated by a Thomas Sewell OpEd,
>
> "Lie of the Year" ?
>
> >it decided to claim it had disproved it anyway.
>
> "Lie of the Year" ?
>
> >Claiming to disprove something isn't the same as disproving something,
> >of course.
>
> "Lie of the Year" ?
Words mean things.
If something is your opinion, it may be incorrect but it's not a lie.
How many ex-governors' facebook blogs do you obsess over?
>
> >Well, it /might be/ if...say, you're stupid enough to believe that
> >universal health care means you get any treatment option you want, any
> >time, any where, anytime you think your health and well-being depend on
> >it.
>
> And YOU think you can get that now?
>
> http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/newsroom/press-releases/2001-press-releas
> es/press-release-over-75-million-people-denied-medical-care-by-health-plans-si
> nce-bush-took-office.html
> "Over 7.5 Million People Denied Medical Care by Health Plans Since Bush
> Took
> Office"
>
> That does not even begin to cover the 50 million uninsured ....
A) You can't show that 50 million American citizens were "uninsured."
Even the President has reduced the number to 30 million. While the
number of uninsured has risen recently, this is because insurance is
tied to jobs--and unemployment is still rising. The reason insurance is
tied to your employment is entirely because of legislation that makes it
so.
B) You can't show 7.5 million people were denied vital medical care,
because none were.
If you wanted a breast implant, you may have been denied "medical care."
If you wanted your insurer to pay for your visits to the psychiatrist
and the scripts for Paxil, you may have been denied "medical care."
C) Medicare is set to implode in less than seven years. Hospitalization
ceased to pay for itself in 07, and the rest has ceased to pay for
itself now. It's only surviving because the general fund is being raided
to pay for it. Medicaid never did pay for itself. Between CHIP,
Medicare, Medicaid, and Unemployment, you're talking about over half of
the unsustainable Federal Budget.
But a "National Healthcare System" is going to be "deficit neutral!"
Why, I've even heard the President claim it will reduce the deficit!
Hehe.
If you don't have Constitutional limits, you don't have limits.
You, my friend, have a government without limits.
--
Neolibertarian
"Nobody inherits civilisation.
You inherit the /ruins/ of civilisation.
Beginning with yourself.
And you can't even afford its heating bill."
---Dennnis M. Hammes
Mitchell Holman
news:3918$4b2fb837$18f55223$27...@allthenewsgroups.com:
>
> It's only a "death panel" if you're denied treatment.
Like cancer patients denied treatment because of an
acne condition they had decades earlier?
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090616/testimony_beaton.pdf
Like cancer patients whose treatment is just "too
expensive" for insurance companies to bother with?
Neolibertarian
Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
If a private insurance company denies you treatment, you have
alternatives available to you. There could certainly be far more
alternatives available, but nationalizing health insurance would not
yield any--in fact, it would close the door forever on any alternatives
at all.
As it is, you've taken away reasonable free-market competition through
government regulation in all the fifty states. Additionally, you've bent
the income tax code so far that only group employee plans are affordable
to individuals.
Now you're stuck using one of a dozen or fewer insurance companies in
your state (you can't legally purchase a plan outside of your state),
and you can only afford to purchase it through whatever plan your
employer offers.
For instance, only a few insurance companies in a few states offer
catastrophic-only plans. A catastrophic-only plan is taylor made for
people with lower incomes--but because of your regulations poor people
can't purchase it if they live in the vast majority of states that don't
allow it. This means that their premiums may cover psychologist visits,
chiropractors, breast implants, and Amoxicillin for that occasional
sniffle.
So, if you're poor, you can't afford the premiums. Even though the
industry-wide average for health insurance companies is a mere 3.3%
profit margin.
If you lose your job, you can continue to purchase your heath insurance
for a limited time through COBRA. When that runs out, you're screwed,
chum. All because Ted Kennedy, et al, decided a long time ago that tying
your health insurance to your employment was "good for you."
In other words, your regulations have caused every problem you care to
claim is extant with today's insurance companies. Even so, about 80% of
Americans are satisfied with their insurance coverage plans as they
exist.
If you think that more government regulation and intervention is the
answer to any dilemma you perceive is being caused by insurance
companies...well, you may be insane. If so, you may need to check your
policy to see if trips to the psychiatrist are covered. And hopefully
you have a plan that covers an ongoing prescription for Depakote.
However, if your only fault is thinking that legislation can eliminate
bad outcomes in your personal affairs, you may only be an immature,
undisciplined thinker. If so, the cure may not cost anything at
all--except for some effort on your part.
Sometimes diagnosis is the real challenge.
Cliff
>In article <6c7si512v8q50bfnk...@4ax.com>,
> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 09:53:52 -0600, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <vaapi5994i2ul468n...@4ax.com>,
>> > Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>> >
>> >> http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977953779
>> >> "Sarah Palin Tells 'Lie of the Year'; Glenn Beck Takes Second"
>> >> [
>> >> Pulitzer Prize-winning political fact-checking project PolitiFact has
>> >> announced
>> >> their first-ever Lie of the Year: Death panels. Though right-wing nut job
>> >> Betsy
>> >> McCaughey proffered the notion everywhere she could, Sarah Palin, with 61%
>> >> of
>> >> the vote, earns the dishonor of having coined the phrase and made it a
>> >> household
>> >> fear. The first documented use of 'death panels' was on Palin's Facebook
>> >> page
>> >> in
>> >> the wake of her resignation as governor of Alaska.
>> >
>> >The idea of "death panels" wasn't cooked up by Republican strategists.
>>
>> Nope. By liars.
>
>It's what happens in other socialized systems.
Places where people live years longer at 1/3 the cost
for medical care.
>
>It's only a "death panel" if you're denied treatment.
The original idea of *counseling by doctors* came from
a hospital system in WI or MN IIRC -- where it is in use with happy
people. The doctors get paid for it.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/August/14/end-of-life-care.aspx
"Medicare doesn't explicitly pay for the service, discouraging doctors from
taking the time to talk with patients about the issues. Private insurance
companies often base their own payment policies on Medicare's."
"Under the current payment system, Epperly notes, doctors could see five
patients or complete a more lucrative procedure in the time it would take them
to have an in-depth end-of-life consultation."
Beware your packs of winger lies.
>Everyone else will
>call them health care allocation commissions.
I call it winger lies.
So do the doctors.
>>
>> >Such commissions and "panels" have formed in most socialist systems:
>> >
>> >http://tiny.cc/sPtTl
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case
>
>Wikipedia?
You bet.
Guess you did not look.
>>
>> How large a bill did the taxpayers get stuck with in the end?
>
>In Britain, it's too much for their economy to sustain. In Italy, their
>cadillac socialized health care system has helped propel public debt
>into the rest of this century.
Gee, and both spend less per person .... and the people live
longer ...
>But it will be different for the United States because:
>
>1) The populist-bureaucrats in Washington have proved over the years how
>prudent and responsible they are when spending public money.
>
>2) The Democrats and Republicans can be expected not to turn health care
>issues into political demagoguery every damn election.
>
>3) Government officers have no self-focused agenda; their only concern
>is the health and well-being of all Americans.
>
>4) Elected officials know more about what patients need than rich,
>selfish doctors.
And the CEO of United Health Care gets $124.8 Million a Year ....
http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/denied-claims-c130957.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/06/denied-claims-placed-at-h_n_253160.html
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Medicare-Medicaid-Insurance-992/claim-paid.htm
http://attorneypages.com/hot/united-health-care-huge-fines-scandals.htm
Death for the uninsured & underinsured ...
>> >Ezekiel Emanuel, special health care advisor to President Obama, has
>> >written extensively about rationing health care. His speeches and
>> >articles are readily available on the internet. See: New England Journal
>> >of Medicine, September 19, 2002.
>>
>> http://content.nejm.org/content/vol347/issue12/index.dtl
>> Feel free to point it out.
>
>You have to take the excerpts if you don't have an account.
IOW You had nothing but winger BS..
"are readily available on the internet".
>>
>> http://mediamatters.org/research/200908280011
>> "At it again: McCaughey distorts Ezekiel Emanuel's writings to smear him as
>> "Rationer-in-Chief""
>> "NY Times: McCaughey has "largely quot[ed]" Emanuel's "past writings out of
>> context this summer"
>>
>> IOW Winger lies, as usual.
>
>"Well, /he/ said..."
>
>Okay, how about this complete article, "Principles for Allocation of
>Scarce Medical Interventions," written by Emanuel (et al) this year:
>
>"The complete lives system.
>
>"Because none of the currently used systems satisfy all the ethical
>requirements for just allocation, we propose an alternative: the
>complete lives system. This system incorporates five principles:
>youngest first, prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and
>instrumental value. As such, it prioritizes younger people who have not
>yet lived a complete life and will be unlikely to do so without aid.
>Many thinkers have accepted complete lives as the appropriate focus of
>distributive justice."
>
>http://tiny.cc/9fibb
>
>This is a special advisor to the President of the United States
>advocating a bureaucratic instrument for the allocation of medical
>resources.
Umm ..... how do they decide who gets a transplant NOW?
>This doesn't scare you, mostly because you've forgotten (it's been over
>a year since the last elections, after all) that at some point in the
>future, the nasty, evil Republicans are bound to be at the reigns of all
>this power you're gleefully signing over to Congress and the Executive.
More rethug horrors no doubt.
Except for themselves, naturally.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1109/Abortion_coverage_at_the_RNC.html
"Abortion coverage at the RNC"
[
The Republican National Committee�s health insurance plan covers elective
abortion � a procedure the party�s own platform calls �a fundamental assault on
innocent human life.�
Federal Election Commission Records show the RNC purchases its insurance from
Cigna. Two sales agents for the company said that the RNC�s policy covers
elective abortion.
]
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29456.html
[
According to several Cigna employees, the insurer offers its customers the
opportunity to opt out of abortion coverage � and the RNC did not choose to opt
out.
]
>Me? I'm scared anytime anyone with control of the instrumentalities of
>government begins speaking of "distributive justice," or even "economic
>justice."
>
>==begin quote==
>
>I am committed to working with the Congress to fully offset the cost of
>health care reform by reducing Medicare and Medicaid spending by another
>$200 to $300 billion over the next 10 years, and by enacting appropriate
>proposals to generate additional revenues. These savings will come not
>only by adopting new technologies and addressing the vastly different
>costs of care, but from going after the key drivers of skyrocketing
>health care costs, including unmanaged chronic diseases, duplicated
>tests, and unnecessary hospital readmissions.
The rethugs had just increased the costs a few years ago IIRC.
>To identify and achieve additional savings, I am also open to your ideas
>about giving special consideration to the recommendations of the
>Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), a commission created by a
>Republican Congress. Under this approach, MedPAC's recommendations on
>cost reductions would be adopted unless opposed by a joint resolution of
>the Congress. This is similar to a process that has been used
>effectively by a commission charged with closing military bases, and
>could be a valuable tool to help achieve health care reform in a
>fiscally responsible way.
>
>==end quote==
>
> ---President Barack Obama, Letter to Senators Kennedy and Baucus
> June 2, 2009
>
>http://tiny.cc/w2hgK
>
>> >What Palin opined on her Facebook page was essentially correct.
>> >Universal Health Care will involve rationing.
>>
>> Like health insurance does now?
>>
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/08/cigna-employee-flips-off_n_314189.html
>
>Huffington Post?
Good source for lots of truth.
>The difference between freedom and tyranny, is under freedom you can
>seek alternatives.
You could go to the UK, Canada, Australia, China etc for care.
>Or am I addressing one of those children who believe you can legislate
>away bad outcomes?
We already have lots & lots of bad outcomes. For millions & millions.
At huge expense to us all.
>
>> "CIGNA Employee Flips Off Mother Of Dead Girl Denied Transplant"
>>
>> Or more like gummer's free health care?
>>
>> >What's really funny is that PolitiFact felt compelled to disprove what
>> >an ex-Governor posted on her Facebook page.
>>
>> "Lie of the Year" ?
>>
>> >And, since it couldn't actually disprove what Palin clearly labels her
>> >opinion,
>>
>> "Lie of the Year" ?
>>
>> > which she feels is substantiated by a Thomas Sewell OpEd,
>>
>> "Lie of the Year" ?
>>
>> >it decided to claim it had disproved it anyway.
>>
>> "Lie of the Year" ?
>>
>> >Claiming to disprove something isn't the same as disproving something,
>> >of course.
>>
>> "Lie of the Year" ?
>
>Words mean things.
>
>If something is your opinion, it may be incorrect but it's not a lie.
>
>How many ex-governors' facebook blogs do you obsess over?
I don't see many blogs.
Have you met crazy banquer?
http://jonbanquer.wordpress.com/
>>
>> >Well, it /might be/ if...say, you're stupid enough to believe that
>> >universal health care means you get any treatment option you want, any
>> >time, any where, anytime you think your health and well-being depend on
>> >it.
>>
>> And YOU think you can get that now?
>>
>> http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/newsroom/press-releases/2001-press-releas
>> es/press-release-over-75-million-people-denied-medical-care-by-health-plans-si
>> nce-bush-took-office.html
>> "Over 7.5 Million People Denied Medical Care by Health Plans Since Bush
>> Took
>> Office"
>>
>> That does not even begin to cover the 50 million uninsured ....
>
>A) You can't show that 50 million American citizens were "uninsured."
I said "50 million uninsured".
If you were in Canada, Australia, the UK, the EU .... and got sick ...
you would get care I'd wager. Or even needed a doctor for anything.
>Even the President has reduced the number to 30 million. While the
>number of uninsured has risen recently, this is because insurance is
>tied to jobs--and unemployment is still rising. The reason insurance is
>tied to your employment is entirely because of legislation that makes it
>so.
I pay for my own insurance & have for decades.
>B) You can't show 7.5 million people were denied vital medical care,
>because none were.
http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/newsroom/press-releases/2001-press-releases/press-release-over-75-million-people-denied-medical-care-by-health-plans-since-bush-took-office.html
http://www.medical-care.eu/web/35/denied_medical_care.html
>If you wanted a breast implant, you may have been denied "medical care."
>If you wanted your insurer to pay for your visits to the psychiatrist
>and the scripts for Paxil, you may have been denied "medical care."
>
>C) Medicare is set to implode in less than seven years. Hospitalization
>ceased to pay for itself in 07, and the rest has ceased to pay for
>itself now. It's only surviving because the general fund is being raided
>to pay for it. Medicaid never did pay for itself. Between CHIP,
>Medicare, Medicaid, and Unemployment, you're talking about over half of
>the unsustainable Federal Budget.
Medicaid is mostly a matter of State plans IIRC.
ALL plans of all sorts should be rolled into one with a common
(small) set of financing mechanisms.
>But a "National Healthcare System" is going to be "deficit neutral!"
>Why, I've even heard the President claim it will reduce the deficit!
>
>Hehe.
>
>If you don't have Constitutional limits, you don't have limits.
>
>You, my friend, have a government without limits.
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/preamble
Show where "promote the general welfare" is violated.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>In article <Xns9CE8DB0366B84...@216.196.97.130>,
> Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:3918$4b2fb837$18f55223$27...@allthenewsgroups.com:
>>
>>
>> >
>> > It's only a "death panel" if you're denied treatment.
>
>> Like cancer patients denied treatment because of an
>> acne condition they had decades earlier?
>>
>> http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090616/testimony_beaton.pdf
>
>> Like cancer patients whose treatment is just "too
>> expensive" for insurance companies to bother with?
>>
>> http://www.kmbc.com/health/13298245/detail.html
>
>If a private insurance company denies you treatment, you have
>alternatives available to you.
Peach pits if you can afford them & can get to Mexico?
Rush & Faux will lie you well?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Additionally, you've bent
>the income tax code so far that only group employee plans are affordable
>to individuals.
By making medical expenses deductable?
I'm an individual & have been paying for my own for decades.
I want to pay LESS and cover everyone.
I dont care if I pay via premium or by a tax.
And I want gummer to pay what he can too.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Even so, about 80% of
>Americans are satisfied with their insurance coverage plans as they
>exist.
That is great news for the 30% or so that are uninsured.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>If you think that more government regulation and intervention is the
>answer to any dilemma you perceive is being caused by insurance
>companies...well, you may be insane.
The teabaggers know this.
"Don't let the government socialize my medicare!!"
--
Cliff
Cliff
>
>However, if your only fault is thinking that legislation can eliminate
>bad outcomes in your personal affairs, you may only be an immature,
>undisciplined thinker.
Ban ALL regulation like the rethugs want.
BTW, How did we get in this mess?
--
Cliff
Mitchell Holman
$32...@allthenewsgroups.com:
> In article <Xns9CE8DB0366B84...@216.196.97.130>,
> Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:3918$4b2fb837$18f55223$27...@allthenewsgroups.com:
>>
>>
>> >
>> > It's only a "death panel" if you're denied treatment.
>
>> Like cancer patients denied treatment because of an
>> acne condition they had decades earlier?
>>
>> http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090616/testimony_beaton.pdf
>
>> Like cancer patients whose treatment is just "too
>> expensive" for insurance companies to bother with?
>>
>> http://www.kmbc.com/health/13298245/detail.html
>
> If a private insurance company denies you treatment, you have
> alternatives available to you.
If your insurance company drops you after you
are diagnosed with cancer - as in the above cases -
you have the alternative of just dying, because no
company is going to cover you.
Neolibertarian
Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in news:9b84a$4b305027$18f55223
> $32...@allthenewsgroups.com:
>
> > In article <Xns9CE8DB0366B84...@216.196.97.130>,
> > Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:3918$4b2fb837$18f55223$27...@allthenewsgroups.com:
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > It's only a "death panel" if you're denied treatment.
> >
> >> Like cancer patients denied treatment because of an
> >> acne condition they had decades earlier?
> >>
> >> http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090616/testimony_beaton.pdf
> >
> >> Like cancer patients whose treatment is just "too
> >> expensive" for insurance companies to bother with?
> >>
> >> http://www.kmbc.com/health/13298245/detail.html
> >
> > If a private insurance company denies you treatment, you have
> > alternatives available to you.
>
>
> If your insurance company drops you after you
> are diagnosed with cancer
Insurance companies, believe it or not, are highly regulated. They not
only don't "drop you after you are diagnosed with cancer," they CAN'T.
They're legally obligated to pay for your medical care in such cases.
In your showcase testimony, what becomes clear is the patient wasn't
"dropped," but a treatment drug that isn't "FDA-approved" was not
covered by the policy--this is because the insurance company uses
guidelines provided by the AMA, referred to as "evidence-based medicine."
If you want experimental drugs, you may have to pay for them, yourself.
There ain't no secha thing as a free lunch, chum.
> as in the above cases -
> you have the alternative of just dying, because no
> company is going to cover you.
The alternative isn't "just dying," you hysterical loon.
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
Usenet etiquette is your friend. One post shouldn't require 5 posts in
response.
Just a tip from your Friendly Neighborhood Neolibertarian.
As to alternatives: they fairly abound in these not so United States.
Why do you want to eliminate all those just because you're weary of
managing your own affairs?
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
The Government, in this case, is me, boy. Actually "We." As in We the
People.
You may not care whether you steal from me or not.
The problem for all thieves, of course, is surviving the larcenous act.
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
Through your regulations, of course.
Mitchell Holman
news:999a5$4b30d845$18f55223$31...@allthenewsgroups.com:
> In article <Xns9CE94DB6A7341...@216.196.97.130>,
> Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:9b84a$4b305027$18f55223 $32...@allthenewsgroups.com:
>>
>> > In article <Xns9CE8DB0366B84...@216.196.97.130>,
>> > Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >> news:3918$4b2fb837$18f55223$27...@allthenewsgroups.com:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > It's only a "death panel" if you're denied treatment.
>> >
>> >> Like cancer patients denied treatment because of an
>> >> acne condition they had decades earlier?
>> >>
>> >> http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090616/testimony_beaton
>> >> .pdf
>> >
>> >> Like cancer patients whose treatment is just "too
>> >> expensive" for insurance companies to bother with?
>> >>
>> >> http://www.kmbc.com/health/13298245/detail.html
>> >
>> > If a private insurance company denies you treatment, you have
>> > alternatives available to you.
>>
>>
>> If your insurance company drops you after you
>> are diagnosed with cancer
>
> Insurance companies, believe it or not, are highly regulated. They not
> only don't "drop you after you are diagnosed with cancer," they CAN'T.
> They're legally obligated to pay for your medical care in such cases.
>
Cancer patient tells of rips in health insurance safety net
June 16 2009
CNN
Robin Beaton found out last June she had an aggressive form
of breast cancer and needed surgery -- immediately.
Robin Beaton, 59, found out just days before her mastectomy
that her insurance provider would not cover the procedure.
Her insurance carrier precertified her for a double mastectomy
and hospital stay. But three days before the operation, the
insurance company called and told her they had red-flagged her
chart and she would not be able to have her surgery.
The reason? In May 2008, Beaton had visited a dermatologist
for acne. A word written on her chart was interpreted to mean
precancerous, so the insurance company decided to launch an
investigation into her medical history.
Beaton's dermatologist begged her insurance provider to go
ahead with the surgery.
"He said, 'This is a misunderstanding. This is not precancerous.
All she has is acne.' ... He said ,'Please don't hold up her
cancer surgery for this,' " Beaton, 59, said as she testified
at a House subcommittee hearing on the terminations of individual
health policies by insurance companies.
Still, the insurance carrier decided to rescind her coverage.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/16/health.care.hearing/index.html
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
The point is, you can't change the universe with legislation.
No one can provide you with all the medical care you want, any time and
place and manner you deem necessary.
There are limits to this system you had nothing to do with creating.
Giving the government the power to prioritize is a grave mistake. Mostly
because the government first takes away all of your other alternatives.
> Beware your packs of winger lies.
>
> >Everyone else will
> >call them health care allocation commissions.
>
> I call it winger lies.
> So do the doctors.
There are health care allocations commissions, dummy.
> >> >Such commissions and "panels" have formed in most socialist systems:
> >> >
> >> >http://tiny.cc/sPtTl
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case
> >
> >Wikipedia?
>
> You bet.
> Guess you did not look.
I never go to Wikipedia unless there's a good reason to waste my time
there.
>
> >>
> >> How large a bill did the taxpayers get stuck with in the end?
> >
> >In Britain, it's too much for their economy to sustain. In Italy, their
> >cadillac socialized health care system has helped propel public debt
> >into the rest of this century.
>
> Gee, and both spend less per person .... and the people live
> longer ...
"Living longer" in that case is a statistical expression. Americans lead
dangerous lives.
>
> >But it will be different for the United States because:
> >
> >1) The populist-bureaucrats in Washington have proved over the years how
> >prudent and responsible they are when spending public money.
> >
> >2) The Democrats and Republicans can be expected not to turn health care
> >issues into political demagoguery every damn election.
> >
> >3) Government officers have no self-focused agenda; their only concern
> >is the health and well-being of all Americans.
> >
> >4) Elected officials know more about what patients need than rich,
> >selfish doctors.
>
> And the CEO of United Health Care gets $124.8 Million a Year ....
>
> http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/denied-claims-c130957.html
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/06/denied-claims-placed-at-h_n_253160.ht
> ml
> http://en.allexperts.com/q/Medicare-Medicaid-Insurance-992/claim-paid.htm
> http://attorneypages.com/hot/united-health-care-huge-fines-scandals.htm
I don't fall for class warfare demagoguery, Karl.
3.3% profit margins are unsustainable, except through a government
regulated marketplace.
>
> Death for the uninsured & underinsured ...
>
> >> >Ezekiel Emanuel, special health care advisor to President Obama, has
> >> >written extensively about rationing health care. His speeches and
> >> >articles are readily available on the internet. See: New England Journal
> >> >of Medicine, September 19, 2002.
> >>
> >> http://content.nejm.org/content/vol347/issue12/index.dtl
> >> Feel free to point it out.
> >
> >You have to take the excerpts if you don't have an account.
>
> IOW You had nothing but winger BS..
> "are readily available on the internet".
I had the excerpts, but opted to provide another example in its entirety.
Those who manage their own affairs get the transplant. Those who don't
also get the transplant.
Hell, you can even get fertility drugs from the government health care
services, give birth to 8 kids, and then have the state support yours
and all their subsequent medical bills and expenses into perpetuity.
Is America a great place or what?
Of the "30 million uninsured in the US," something like 10 million of
these earn over $75,000 a year. They can afford to purchase their own
insurance, but chose not to. Many are young and healthy, others have
other priorities. Another 8 million or so were only without insurance
for part of the year--temporarily unemployed, or otherwise in
transition. This is all in the census report that originally created the
"46 million uninsured" number that has been thrown about so freely--and
which has morphed into both "50 million" and the President's new figure
"30 million."
This leaves something like 10-12 million who fall through the
cracks--not eligible for Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP or other Federal or
state programs.
Rather than extend the safety net, you want to destroy an industry,
uproot its millions of employees, erase it's place in supporting the
stocks and bond markets that are so important to sectors of the economy,
and make the entire US populace dependent upon the Federal Government
for all their health care needs for the rest of their lives.
Why is that?
>
> >This doesn't scare you, mostly because you've forgotten (it's been over
> >a year since the last elections, after all) that at some point in the
> >future, the nasty, evil Republicans are bound to be at the reigns of all
> >this power you're gleefully signing over to Congress and the Executive.
>
> More rethug horrors no doubt.
> Except for themselves, naturally.
> http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1109/Abortion_coverage_at_the_RNC.htm
> l
> "Abortion coverage at the RNC"
> [
> The Republican National Committee�s health insurance plan covers elective
> abortion � a procedure the party�s own platform calls �a fundamental assault
> on
> innocent human life.�
>
> Federal Election Commission Records show the RNC purchases its insurance from
> Cigna. Two sales agents for the company said that the RNC�s policy covers
> elective abortion.
> ]
>
> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29456.html
> [
> According to several Cigna employees, the insurer offers its customers the
> opportunity to opt out of abortion coverage � and the RNC did not choose to
> opt
> out.
> ]
And this is relevant to the discussion...how?
Logical fallacy is a mighty poor path to the truth, Cochise.
>
> >The difference between freedom and tyranny, is under freedom you can
> >seek alternatives.
>
> You could go to the UK, Canada, Australia, China etc for care.
There are many great alternatives right here in these not so United
States. For instance, Catholic and Jewish hospitals have programs for
poor and destitute patients, which can include forgiving debts entirely.
Many superb Children's Hospitals are famous in this regard.
The fact of the matter is, no Hospital in the US can refuse treatment
merely because of inability to pay. In many states, this includes
illegal aliens.
In the case of catastrophic illness or injury, you'll get treated no
matter if you've bothered to manage your personal affairs or not.
>
> >Or am I addressing one of those children who believe you can legislate
> >away bad outcomes?
>
> We already have lots & lots of bad outcomes. For millions & millions.
> At huge expense to us all.
There ain't no secha thing as a free lunch.
If you think you've got a way to have one just by passing a law---well,
this is Usenet, and for all I know, you may not even be old enough to be
posting to Usenet on your parent's computer...
> >> "CIGNA Employee Flips Off Mother Of Dead Girl Denied Transplant"
> >>
> >> Or more like gummer's free health care?
> >>
> >> >What's really funny is that PolitiFact felt compelled to disprove what
> >> >an ex-Governor posted on her Facebook page.
> >>
> >> "Lie of the Year" ?
> >>
> >> >And, since it couldn't actually disprove what Palin clearly labels her
> >> >opinion,
> >>
> >> "Lie of the Year" ?
> >>
> >> > which she feels is substantiated by a Thomas Sewell OpEd,
> >>
> >> "Lie of the Year" ?
> >>
> >> >it decided to claim it had disproved it anyway.
> >>
> >> "Lie of the Year" ?
> >>
> >> >Claiming to disprove something isn't the same as disproving something,
> >> >of course.
> >>
> >> "Lie of the Year" ?
> >
> >Words mean things.
> >
> >If something is your opinion, it may be incorrect but it's not a lie.
> >
> >How many ex-governors' facebook blogs do you obsess over?
>
> I don't see many blogs.
> Have you met crazy banquer?
> http://jonbanquer.wordpress.com/
No, I've not met your crazy blogger.
This hardly explains why you're obsessing over an ex-Governor's Facebook
page.
She may be hot, but she's married. Get over it.
> >> >Well, it /might be/ if...say, you're stupid enough to believe that
> >> >universal health care means you get any treatment option you want, any
> >> >time, any where, anytime you think your health and well-being depend on
> >> >it.
> >>
> >> And YOU think you can get that now?
> >>
> >> http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/newsroom/press-releases/2001-press-rel
> >> eas
> >> es/press-release-over-75-million-people-denied-medical-care-by-health-plans
> >> -si
> >> nce-bush-took-office.html
> >> "Over 7.5 Million People Denied Medical Care by Health Plans Since Bush
> >> Took
> >> Office"
> >>
> >> That does not even begin to cover the 50 million uninsured ....
> >
> >A) You can't show that 50 million American citizens were "uninsured."
>
> I said "50 million uninsured".
You could have said 50 billion. It would all mean the same without
evidence to back it up.
Like your blogger friend "jonbanquer" says, you need to "cut though the
bullshit."
> If you were in Canada, Australia, the UK, the EU .... and got sick ...
> you would get care I'd wager. Or even needed a doctor for anything.
Same here in the US.
You don't even need a penny in your pocket. You don't even need to be a
legal US resident.
If you have a job, however, you may get stuck with the bill, but the
Hospital will undoubtedly be willing to put you on a reasonable payment
plan.
>
> >Even the President has reduced the number to 30 million. While the
> >number of uninsured has risen recently, this is because insurance is
> >tied to jobs--and unemployment is still rising. The reason insurance is
> >tied to your employment is entirely because of legislation that makes it
> >so.
>
> I pay for my own insurance & have for decades.
It's extremely likely you're getting socked on taxes.
>
> >B) You can't show 7.5 million people were denied vital medical care,
> >because none were.
>
>
> http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/newsroom/press-releases/2001-press-releas
> es/press-release-over-75-million-people-denied-medical-care-by-health-plans-si
> nce-bush-took-office.html
> http://www.medical-care.eu/web/35/denied_medical_care.html
It doesn't mention, list, or itemize the kind of treatments denied.
Breast implants are a medical procedure, believe it or not. Some people
like to mask the symptoms of their unbalanced life by taking Depakote
and Paxil. These are often denied.
Experimental drugs and treatments are often denied. My own insurance
company has a sliding scale for medications. Pre-approved are covered,
some experimental drugs are only partially covered, some are not covered
at all.
It seems completely reasonable to me.
>
> >If you wanted a breast implant, you may have been denied "medical care."
> >If you wanted your insurer to pay for your visits to the psychiatrist
> >and the scripts for Paxil, you may have been denied "medical care."
> >
> >C) Medicare is set to implode in less than seven years. Hospitalization
> >ceased to pay for itself in 07, and the rest has ceased to pay for
> >itself now. It's only surviving because the general fund is being raided
> >to pay for it. Medicaid never did pay for itself. Between CHIP,
> >Medicare, Medicaid, and Unemployment, you're talking about over half of
> >the unsustainable Federal Budget.
>
> Medicaid is mostly a matter of State plans IIRC.
Medicaid is overloading most states' broken budgets, yes. They only pay
part, We the People pay the rest through the broken Federal Budget.
>
> ALL plans of all sorts should be rolled into one with a common
> (small) set of financing mechanisms.
>
> >But a "National Healthcare System" is going to be "deficit neutral!"
> >Why, I've even heard the President claim it will reduce the deficit!
> >
> >Hehe.
> >
> >If you don't have Constitutional limits, you don't have limits.
> >
> >You, my friend, have a government without limits.
>
> http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/preamble
> Show where "promote the general welfare" is violated.
That clause does not stand alone, dummy:
"..Promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity."
What you're proposing is as ludicrously self-defeating as "I've
abandoned free market principles to save the free market system."
1) You're shoving enormous debt onto your "posterity." You've already
created a $12 trillion debt, and you're planning on adding at least $1
trillion a year for the next decade. Between the unfunded obligations of
Social Security and Medicare, you're demanding upwards of a $100
trillion for the next generation to pay.
2) Taking away choices, forcing citizens to pay for a product they may
not want or need, has nothing to do with "the Blessings of Liberty."
3) The "General Welfare" does not mean "the welfare of some at the
expense of others."
You're advocating the destruction of the private insurance industry in
the United States. These companies' demise will mean that millions of
employees (secretaries, data entry, sales, accounting jobs) will be put
out of work. It also will mean that a huge factor in the bond and stack
markets will suddenly disappear--causing a painful adjustment on Wall
Street. Since pension plans are dependent on a healthy Wall Street
marketplace, this means that Widows and Orphans, the primary
beneficiaries to all pension plans, will be hurt most.
All this so that you needn't manage your own affairs any more.
"It really is difficult to imagine how a people who have entirely given
up managing their own affairs could make a wise choice of those who are
to do that for them. One should never expect a liberal, energetic, and
wise government to originate in the votes of people of servants."
--Alexis de Tocqueville
tankfixer
Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om says...
Once more a leftist demonstrates how well they do at math....
Neolibertarian
Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
Your anecdotal evidence doesn't prove what you think it proves.
UK papers are filled with similar stories from their NHS. Their lone
recourse is coming to the United States.
Why do you want to take that option away from them?
Ed Huntress
"Neolibertarian" <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:617f8$4b310624$18f55223$45...@allthenewsgroups.com...
The UK has roughly 100,000 outbound medical tourists per year. Most go to
India, Singapore Eastern Europe, or, for surgery, Holland or France. Few
come to the US.
OTOH, the US has 3 million outbound medical tourists this year, who will
spend $4.4 billion outside of the country.
This is the US data:
http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/cda/doc/content/us_chs_MedicalTourismStudy(1).pdf
The UK papers know how to provoke and to get readership. Whether they can
count is an open question.
--
Ed Huntress
Joe Irvin
"Mitchell Holman" <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CE94DB6A7341...@216.196.97.130...
"According to the American Medical Association's National Health Insurer
Report Card for 2008, the government's health plan, Medicare, denied medical
claims at nearly double the average for private insurers: Medicare denied
6.85% of claims. The highest private insurance denier was Aetna @ 6.8%,
followed by Anthem Blue Cross @ 3.44, with an average denial rate of medical
claims by private insurers of 3.88%
In its 2009 National Health Insurer Report Card, the AMA reports that
Medicare denied only 4% of claims-a big improvement, but outpaced better
still by the private insurers. The prior year's high private denier, Aetna,
reduced denials to 1.81%-an astounding 75% improvement-with similar declines
by all other private insurers, to average only 2.79%.
Maybe there's something to be said for the need to keep your customers
satisfied in order to make that profit after all."
http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=4459
>
>
>
Ed Huntress
"Joe Irvin" <ji3...@sccoast.net> wrote in message
news:xMSdndg-G80...@comporium.net...
Not really. Medicare serves people over 65. Private insurers serve
relatively few such people. As you get older you run into more potentially
expensive treatments that have very little or no documented benefit, but the
reasons for denial are roughly the same between Medicare and private
insurance.
The biggest gripe that doctors have with Medicare is that it pays a bit less
than private insurers. Imagine that -- a government payer who pays less than
private payers. There must be something more there than meets the eye, huh?
--
Ed Huntress
(former Senior Medical Editor, Publicis Managed Markets)
Mitchell Holman
news:MPG.259a9cf...@news.bytemine.net:
Fox News math, at work:
"Did scientists falsify research to support their
own theories on global warming?"
59% Somewhat likely
35% Very likely
26% Not very likely
________________________
= 120%
http://onespot.wsj.com/politics/2009/12/08/a/544362922-fox-fudges-poll-
numbers-to/
http://reporter.blogs.com/.a/6a00d83451d69069e2012876340026970c-800wi
http://intoxination.net/files/pictures/2009/12/fnc-20091204-raspoll_2.jpg
Mitchell Holman
news:617f8$4b310624$18f55223$45...@allthenewsgroups.com:
> In article <Xns9CE95C0AD68FE...@216.196.97.130>,
> Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:999a5$4b30d845$18f55223$31...@allthenewsgroups.com:
>>
>> > In article <Xns9CE94DB6A7341...@216.196.97.130>,
>> > Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >> news:9b84a$4b305027$18f55223 $32...@allthenewsgroups.com:
>> >>
>> >> > In article <Xns9CE8DB0366B84...@216.196.97.130>,
>> >> > Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >> >> news:3918$4b2fb837$18f55223$27...@allthenewsgroups.com:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > It's only a "death panel" if you're denied treatment.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Like cancer patients denied treatment because of an
>> >> >> acne condition they had decades earlier?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090616/testimony_bea
>> >> >> ton .pdf
Your claim: "They not only don't "drop you after you
are diagnosed with cancer," they CAN'T."
The posted proof proves you wrong, they can and DO
drop you if you develop cancer.
> UK papers
What do "UK papers" have to do with your disproven claim
that American insurance companies cannot drop cancer patients
like a hot rock?
>are filled with similar stories from their NHS. Their lone
> recourse is coming to the United States.
>
> Why do you want to take that option away from them?
Are you unaware that British subjects are free to
buy health insurance on the private market if they
wish to?
http://www.bupa.co.uk/individuals/health-life-cover/health-insurance
http://www.privatehealth.co.uk/healthinsurance/insurancecompanies/british
-insurance/
http://www.medindia.net/patients/insurance/health-insurance/British-
Insurance-Limited-122.htm
RD (The Sandman)
Actually, a couple of these aren't real bright either. The categories
for likely to think research is falsified add up to 94%. 59 + 35. They
also added the next group which *didn't* think so to that number to get
to that 120%. It is amusing when someone correcting someone else steps on
their own dick....figuratively speaking.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who
hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't
pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese
Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?
Monika Eggers
> UK papers are filled with similar stories from their NHS. Their lone
> recourse is coming to the United States.
Why is the US health care system only always compared to the UK health
care system (NHS)? Why not to that of any of the other countries with
100% health care coverage? Which, as far as I am informed, is every
first-world country with the exception of the US.
I don't know the details about the US health care system in-planning,
but it doesn't seem to be too similar to the NHS one. In particular it
does not seem to involve everybody being insured by one state-run
tax-financed health insurance.
Monika.
--
All wars are civil wars, because all men are brothers ... Each one owes
infinitely more to the human race than to the particular country in
which he was born. - Francois Fenelon, theologian and writer (1651-1715)
E-mail address is valid until 4 weeks after the expiration date. Use
@arcor.de instead.
Monika Eggers
> Of the "30 million uninsured in the US," something like 10 million of
> these earn over $75,000 a year. They can afford to purchase their own
> insurance, but chose not to. Many are young and healthy, others have
> other priorities. Another 8 million or so were only without insurance
> for part of the year--temporarily unemployed, or otherwise in
> transition. This is all in the census report that originally created the
> "46 million uninsured" number that has been thrown about so freely--and
> which has morphed into both "50 million" and the President's new figure
> "30 million."
>
> This leaves something like 10-12 million who fall through the
> cracks--not eligible for Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP or other Federal or
> state programs.
Is this census report you refer to available online? Got a link?
> Rather than extend the safety net
So, your suggested solution is to extend Medicaid to those remaining
10-12 million? Or something else?
> you want to destroy an industry,
> uproot its millions of employees, erase it's place in supporting the
> stocks and bond markets that are so important to sectors of the economy,
You think the stock market is more important than the health of several
million people?
I don't see the stock markets of countries with no or limited private
health insurance dwindling more than the NYSE.
And surely those millions of employees would get a job in the US version
of the NHS (if such a thing were truly to come), don't you think?
> and make the entire US populace dependent upon the Federal Government
> for all their health care needs for the rest of their lives.
Doesn't seem to have killed off the populations of quite many other
countries over the past half century. But, from the limited details
about the plans that get through to our media, it does not look like you
are about to get an NHS-like system. If this is right, you're fighting a
straw man.
> Breast implants are a medical procedure, believe it or not. Some people
> like to mask the symptoms of their unbalanced life by taking Depakote
> and Paxil. These are often denied.
Depakote is a medicine against bipolar disorder. Bipolar disorder is a
symptom of an unbalanced life about as much as a broken leg is.
> 1) You're shoving enormous debt onto your "posterity." You've already
> created a $12 trillion debt, and you're planning on adding at least $1
> trillion a year for the next decade. Between the unfunded obligations of
> Social Security and Medicare, you're demanding upwards of a $100
> trillion for the next generation to pay.
Do you protest as much against the debt caused by the illegal war on Iraq?
Neolibertarian
Monika Eggers <monik...@expires-2009-12-31.arcornews.de> wrote:
> Neolibertarian schrieb:
>
> > UK papers are filled with similar stories from their NHS. Their lone
> > recourse is coming to the United States.
>
> Why is the US health care system only always compared to the UK health
> care system (NHS)? Why not to that of any of the other countries with
> 100% health care coverage? Which, as far as I am informed, is every
> first-world country with the exception of the US.
>
> I don't know the details about the US health care system in-planning,
> but it doesn't seem to be too similar to the NHS one. In particular it
> does not seem to involve everybody being insured by one state-run
> tax-financed health insurance.
That's exactly the plan here.
The problem for the socialists in the US is they couldn't do so without
waking the sleeping giant.
But, of course, it's still the plan: Single payer, universal health care.
And, btw, I don't always compare to the British system.
Neolibertarian
Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
You posted two examples. I'm only awake a certain number of hours a day.
tankfixer
noemai...@comcast.net says...
>
> tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:MPG.259a9cf...@news.bytemine.net:
>
> > In article <l8c1j550878co8c8a...@4ax.com>,
> > Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om says...
> >>
> >> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 22:54:35 -0600, Neolibertarian
> >> <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Even so, about 80% of
> >> >Americans are satisfied with their insurance coverage plans as they
> >> >exist.
> >>
> >> That is great news for the 30% or so that are uninsured.
> >
> > Once more a leftist demonstrates how well they do at math....
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Fox News math, at work:
Were we discussing Fox news and their polls ?
No, but you knew that...
Mitchell Holman
news:8ebf9$4b316536$18f55223$75...@allthenewsgroups.com:
> In article <Xns9CE99EA7529B5...@216.196.97.130>,
> Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:617f8$4b310624$18f55223$45...@allthenewsgroups.com:
>>
>> > In article <Xns9CE95C0AD68FE...@216.196.97.130>,
>> > Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >> news:999a5$4b30d845$18f55223$31...@allthenewsgroups.com:
>> >>
>> >> > In article <Xns9CE94DB6A7341...@216.196.97.130>,
>> >> > Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >> >> news:9b84a$4b305027$18f55223 $32...@allthenewsgroups.com:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > In article
>> >> >> > <Xns9CE8DB0366B84...@216.196.97.130>,
>> >> >> > Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >> >> >> news:3918$4b2fb837$18f55223$27...@allthenewsgroups.com:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > It's only a "death panel" if you're denied treatment.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Like cancer patients denied treatment because of an
>> >> >> >> acne condition they had decades earlier?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090616/testimony_
>> >> >> >> bea ton .pdf
Both of which prove you wrong.
Do you need another?
Health Net Ordered To Pay After Canceling Cancer Patient's Policy
Los Angeles Times
February 23, 2008
One of California's largest for-profit insurers stopped a
controversial practice of canceling sick policyholders Friday
after a judge ordered Health Net Inc. to pay more than $9 million
to a breast cancer patient it dropped in the middle of chemotherapy.
The ruling by a private arbitration judge was the first of its kind
and the most powerful rebuke to the state's major insurers whose
cancellation practices are under fire from the courts, state
regulators and elected officials.
Calling Woodland Hills-based Health Net's actions "egregious,"
Judge Sam Cianchetti, a retired Los Angeles County Superior Court
judge, ruled that the company broke state laws and acted in bad
faith.
"Health Net was primarily concerned with and considered its own
financial interests and gave little, if any, consideration and
concern for the interests of the insured," Cianchetti wrote in a
21-page ruling. Patsy Bates, a 52-year-old grandmother, was at
work at the Gardena hair salon she owns when her lawyer William
Shernoff called with the news. Bates said she screamed and thanked
the lawyer. When Health Net dropped her in January 2004, Bates was
stuck with more than $129,000 in medical bills and was forced to
stop chemotherapy for several months until she found a charity to
pay for it.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-insure23feb23,1,5039339.story
Still standing by your claim that insurance companies
"can't" drop cancer patients?
Hawke
>> In its 2009 National Health Insurer Report Card, the AMA reports that
>> Medicare denied only 4% of claims-a big improvement, but outpaced better
>> still by the private insurers. The prior year's high private denier,
>> Aetna, reduced denials to 1.81%-an astounding 75% improvement-with similar
>> declines by all other private insurers, to average only 2.79%.
>>
>> Maybe there's something to be said for the need to keep your customers
>> satisfied in order to make that profit after all."
>>
>> http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=4459
>
> Not really. Medicare serves people over 65. Private insurers serve
> relatively few such people. As you get older you run into more potentially
> expensive treatments that have very little or no documented benefit, but the
> reasons for denial are roughly the same between Medicare and private
> insurance.
>
> The biggest gripe that doctors have with Medicare is that it pays a bit less
> than private insurers. Imagine that -- a government payer who pays less than
> private payers. There must be something more there than meets the eye, huh?
>
The government pays less than private insurance. Why, that's shocking.
The government expecting to actually get a fair deal for its buck? It
just shows that it can be done and that private doesn't always do that
great a job. The thing I never hear about is what private insurance
would cost people 65 and older if there was no Medicare. The right wing
always makes such a fuss about private business doing things so much
better than the government, well, what do you think it would cost if our
seniors were all paying for health insurance out of their own pockets?
I'd bet that they would charge the average 70 year old 40 or 50 thousand
a year. We all know that it's the old people who cost all the health
care money. If they charged them what the actuarial tables said they
needed to for a profit the price would be through the roof and none of
the seniors would be able to buy insurance except for millionaires. So
once again, Medicare allows private insurance to not have to foot the
bill for the old people who cost all the money. They put the old people
onto the government, they won't insure anyone that is already sick, and
they deny or terminate coverage on anyone that costs them too much.
Geez, it's no wonder they are so profitable. With companies like this
it's no wonder that we are on the verge of putting in a government run
health system. It's about time.
Hawke
Curly Surmudgeon
Of course. Would you expect Medicare to cover cosmetic surgery? Without
comparing apples to apples those numbers are meaningless. Pick 5 or 10
life saving proceedures (not cherry pick) and/or life saving drugs and
then show which program has the greatest number of denials.
Further, you must compare particpants. Medicare is for the aged while
Corporate Healthcare is for younger workers so the procedures and drugs
are not comparable either.
Oranges to oranges, not apples to oranges.
>> In its 2009 National Health Insurer Report Card, the AMA reports that
>> Medicare denied only 4% of claims-a big improvement, but outpaced
>> better still by the private insurers. The prior year's high private
>> denier, Aetna, reduced denials to 1.81%-an astounding 75%
>> improvement-with similar declines by all other private insurers, to
>> average only 2.79%.
Same deal.
>> Maybe there's something to be said for the need to keep your customers
>> satisfied in order to make that profit after all."
>>
>> http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=4459
>
> Not really. Medicare serves people over 65. Private insurers serve
> relatively few such people. As you get older you run into more
> potentially expensive treatments that have very little or no documented
> benefit, but the reasons for denial are roughly the same between
> Medicare and private insurance.
Better put than my post above. Same deal though.
> The biggest gripe that doctors have with Medicare is that it pays a bit
> less than private insurers. Imagine that -- a government payer who pays
> less than private payers. There must be something more there than meets
> the eye, huh?
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vote Republican, Suffering Builds Character
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curly Surmudgeon
Buenos Aires is a mecca for breast implants. $1,800/boob, 2 for $3,100.
Europeans and North Americans alike flock to BA for new fun bags...
There is one clinic in the Recoleta (Buenos Aires) that we sometimes
spend afternoons at the street-side coffee shop across the street. In-n-
Out, same day service.
Watching the before and after traffic is most interesting. Dunno what
the Brazilian Butts cost but they look marvelous!
Neolibertarian
Monika Eggers <monik...@expires-2009-12-31.arcornews.de> wrote:
> Neolibertarian schrieb:
>
> > Of the "30 million uninsured in the US," something like 10 million of
> > these earn over $75,000 a year. They can afford to purchase their own
> > insurance, but chose not to. Many are young and healthy, others have
> > other priorities. Another 8 million or so were only without insurance
> > for part of the year--temporarily unemployed, or otherwise in
> > transition. This is all in the census report that originally created the
> > "46 million uninsured" number that has been thrown about so freely--and
> > which has morphed into both "50 million" and the President's new figure
> > "30 million."
> >
> > This leaves something like 10-12 million who fall through the
> > cracks--not eligible for Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP or other Federal or
> > state programs.
>
> Is this census report you refer to available online? Got a link?
The Report:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf
Press Release summary:
OMB explanation of why President Obama suddenly began using the number
"30 million" instead of the Census Bureau's "46 million":
Wall Street Journal analysis of the figures:
==being quote==
The Census Bureau estimates that the number of uninsured amounts to 45.7
million people. But the agency might be overcounting by millions due to
faulty assumptions. Another problem: That 45.7 million figure includes
undocumented immigrants, even though they aren't likely to be covered
under new laws.
[...]
Clouding future projections of uninsured are tricky methods of counting
them today. Even though legislation won't cover many of them, illegal
immigrants are especially difficult to enumerate: Few raise their hands
to be counted. Prof. Gruber estimates they make up about 13% of the
uninsured today, or nearly six million people of that 45 million number.
Of the rest, some people are eligible for health insurance but don't
know it and many can afford it but don't want it. About 43% of uninsured
nonelderly adults have incomes greater than 2.5 times the poverty level,
according to a report released Tuesday by the business-backed Employment
Policies Institute.
Meanwhile, Census's state-by-state counts of the uninsured tend to be
much higher than state surveys, which have their own flaws.
==end quote==
>
> > Rather than extend the safety net
>
> So, your suggested solution is to extend Medicaid to those remaining
> 10-12 million? Or something else?
My solution starts with voting out all the populist-bureaucrats and
statists in my State House and in Washington DC.
>
> > you want to destroy an industry,
> > uproot its millions of employees, erase it's place in supporting the
> > stocks and bond markets that are so important to sectors of the economy,
>
> You think the stock market is more important than the health of several
> million people?
Low blows like rarely hit meat, sweetie. Especially when you're using
nothing but false dilemmas or demagogic nonsense.
I generally couldn't care less about the stock market--except where it
directly strikes at my bank balance or my own pension fund.
What I have a problem with is governmental interference (including
bailouts). The proposal in Washington, as it stands, is a death warrant
for insurance companies. All of these are major players in stocks and
bonds. You suddenly remove them from Wall Street, and everyone in the
world will feel the ground quaking under their feet.
>
> I don't see the stock markets of countries with no or limited private
> health insurance dwindling more than the NYSE.
How many countries do you imagine have "no or limited private heath
insurance?"
>
> And surely those millions of employees would get a job in the US version
> of the NHS (if such a thing were truly to come), don't you think?
It's not within the limits of my Constitution for We the People to
remove millions of citizens from otherwise gainful employment, and force
them into public sector jobs.
That's a ludicrous idea, prima facie. Nor is it within the realm of
reason to think this society won't be further strained towards the
breaking point by such a mass dislocation.
All of those industrious people in those gainfully employed occupations
ALSO pay taxes--which help pay for the bloated, broken bureaucracy we
already enjoy here. Putting them on the public payroll is a double
whammy--you subtract tax revenue and increase outlays. That way lies
disaster.
In other words, it won't just be Wall Street missing all that revenue.
>
> > and make the entire US populace dependent upon the Federal Government
> > for all their health care needs for the rest of their lives.
>
> Doesn't seem to have killed off the populations of quite many other
> countries over the past half century. But, from the limited details
> about the plans that get through to our media, it does not look like you
> are about to get an NHS-like system. If this is right, you're fighting a
> straw man.
It's not a straw man.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfOWnZ82Pm4
Etc.
They said they want it. They say they're planning it. They say that this
legislation is the first step towards achieving it (which was the desire
44 years ago with the Medicare legislation as well).
And they've been working towards it since the New Deal.
It's not a straw man.
>
> > Breast implants are a medical procedure, believe it or not. Some people
> > like to mask the symptoms of their unbalanced life by taking Depakote
> > and Paxil. These are often denied.
>
> Depakote is a medicine against bipolar disorder. Bipolar disorder is a
> symptom of an unbalanced life about as much as a broken leg is.
Like many similar drugs, it's used in the treatment of a range
disorders.
The reason insurance companies are reluctant to pay prescriptions for
Depakote, et al, is quite simple: Psychology is not nearly at the level
of other medical sciences...yet.
For instance, it's still possible to have three different psychiatrists
prescribe three different treatments for a patient with the same
diagnosed disorder. This can and does depend on the particular school of
psychology they've trained in or follow. This state of affairs would be
viewed as unacceptable in most of the medical sciences.
GP's and gynecologists, for instance, muddy the problem greatly, since
they can and many routinely do prescribe anti-depressants and similar
psychotropics--in varying dosages and applied to varying case
histories--as opposed to the clinical practice of psychiatrists.
And, since psychology can't even meaningfully define the subject it
studies, any opinions about what bipolar disorder really is are moot
(biochemical and dna markers not withstanding). At the very least, a
balanced life is a safeguard against depression and many bipolar
disorders--in the end, it is at the root of any long term recovery.
>
> > 1) You're shoving enormous debt onto your "posterity." You've already
> > created a $12 trillion debt, and you're planning on adding at least $1
> > trillion a year for the next decade. Between the unfunded obligations of
> > Social Security and Medicare, you're demanding upwards of a $100
> > trillion for the next generation to pay.
>
> Do you protest as much against the debt caused by the illegal war on Iraq?
That's miniscule in comparison, silly. The US government spends twice as
much just servicing our unimaginable debt as it spends on the Global War
on Terror.
All without touching the principle.
And besides, bin Laden declared war over the intolerable situation in
Iraq. You couldn't have fought a Global War on Terror without first
meaningfully addressing the failed sanctions there and removing Saddam
Hussein.
Sometimes in this life, you just gotta get your hands dirty, and put up
with the snide comments uttered by the likes of Mrs. Grundy while you
save her sorry ass.
Neolibertarian
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
Thanks for the lesson; I stand corrected.
Ed Huntress
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:hgrsjq$ubq$1...@aioe.org...
Most of the private insurance held by seniors is part of their retirement
benefits from working for big companies, back when they were very generous
with such benefits. The statistics and costs for that bunch are combined
with the working people who are part of the same company coverage; because
they're part of the larger insured community, it's hard to identify just how
much they add to the costs for everyone in the plan. I'm sure the corporate
benefits managers know to the penny, and it's probably in the insurance
literature somewhere, but I never ran into it when I was writing to the
health care insurance industry. Or at least, not that I remember.
Aside from them, there are some older wealthy people who have extensive
coverage from private insurers, but I think their number is quite small.
Otherwise, as you say, individual policies would be prohibitively expensive,
if the communities are separated by age.
--
Ed Huntress
Cliff
<monik...@expires-2009-12-31.arcornews.de> wrote:
>Neolibertarian schrieb:
>
>> UK papers are filled with similar stories from their NHS. Their lone
>> recourse is coming to the United States.
>
>Why is the US health care system only always compared to the UK health
>care system (NHS)?
Most of those posting know a bit of English I expect.
>Why not to that of any of the other countries with
>100% health care coverage? Which, as far as I am informed, is every
>first-world country with the exception of the US.
>
>I don't know the details about the US health care system in-planning,
>but it doesn't seem to be too similar to the NHS one. In particular it
>does not seem to involve everybody being insured by one state-run
>tax-financed health insurance.
>
>Monika.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>In article <6sb1j552ibpr2uukk...@4ax.com>,
> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 22:54:35 -0600, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <Xns9CE8DB0366B84...@216.196.97.130>,
>> > Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >> news:3918$4b2fb837$18f55223$27...@allthenewsgroups.com:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > It's only a "death panel" if you're denied treatment.
>> >
>> >> Like cancer patients denied treatment because of an
>> >> acne condition they had decades earlier?
>> >>
>> >> http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090616/testimony_beaton.pdf
>> >
>> >> Like cancer patients whose treatment is just "too
>> >> expensive" for insurance companies to bother with?
>> >>
>> >> http://www.kmbc.com/health/13298245/detail.html
>> >
>> >If a private insurance company denies you treatment, you have
>> >alternatives available to you.
>>
>> Peach pits if you can afford them & can get to Mexico?
>> Rush & Faux will lie you well?
>
>Usenet etiquette is your friend. One post shouldn't require 5 posts in
>response.
I expect you will find about 5 possible subthreads & topics
and now have about 5 much shorter reply posts.
>Just a tip from your Friendly Neighborhood Neolibertarian.
>
>As to alternatives: they fairly abound in these not so United States.
The rethug plan seems to be for you to die.
I've heard others advised to raise the needed funds
with a bake sale.
>Why do you want to eliminate all those just because you're weary of
>managing your own affairs?
OTOH You have welfare queens like gummer ....who
promised to pay .. but bought guns & ammo.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>In article <d0c1j55qvegr7h4uc...@4ax.com>,
> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 22:54:35 -0600, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Additionally, you've bent
>> >the income tax code so far that only group employee plans are affordable
>> >to individuals.
>>
>> By making medical expenses deductable?
>>
>> I'm an individual & have been paying for my own for decades.
>> I want to pay LESS and cover everyone.
>> I dont care if I pay via premium or by a tax.
>> And I want gummer to pay what he can too.
>
>The Government, in this case, is me, boy. Actually "We." As in We the
>People.
>
>You may not care whether you steal from me or not.
>
>The problem for all thieves, of course, is surviving the larcenous act.
Naturally, you don't wish to pay less either OR get better
health care OR live longer ...
What of gummer?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>In article <eic1j5hdd4a06715d...@4ax.com>,
> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 22:54:35 -0600, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >However, if your only fault is thinking that legislation can eliminate
>> >bad outcomes in your personal affairs, you may only be an immature,
>> >undisciplined thinker.
>>
>> Ban ALL regulation like the rethugs want.
>>
>> BTW, How did we get in this mess?
>
>Through your regulations, of course.
Such as the ones removed or not enforced by the
rethugs ...
Which had been put in place after the Great Depression to
try to prevent it happening again?
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different
results." - Albert Einstein
--
Cliff
Cliff
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/2008-nhirc-report-card.pdf
>the AMA reports that
>Medicare denied only 4% of claims-a big improvement, but outpaced better
>still by the private insurers. The prior year's high private denier, Aetna,
>reduced denials to 1.81%-an astounding 75% improvement-with similar declines
>by all other private insurers, to average only 2.79%.
>
>Maybe there's something to be said for the need to keep your customers
>satisfied in order to make that profit after all."
>
>http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=4459
IF you look at the Medicare data again you may note that it was usually
a case of improper billing that needed to be corrected, such as
something left off the bill (like the patient's name) and just
needed to be properly rebilled.
Plus perhaps some attempted fraud, which they can
probably do better at reducing now that the dems (I assume) will
again allow them to do (the rethugs had defunded the fraud checkers
it seemed).
Unlike the stuff you copied you need to check
the codes at
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/2008-nhirc-report-card.pdf
to see what is really going on.
--
Cliff
Joe Irvin
"Cliff" <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message
news:v694j5hh84dv0k3au...@4ax.com...
I think the people that put this report together are well aware of how
screwed up the Medicare/Medicaid systems are.
>
> Unlike the stuff you copied you need to check
> the codes at
> http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/2008-nhirc-report-card.pdf
> to see what is really going on.
As I said above the people that put this report together are aware of the
short falls of the Medicare/Medicaid systems.
> --
> Cliff
>
Neolibertarian
Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
I know this might be a little hard for you to understand, and I refuse
to speculate here about your level of literacy, but this article only
serves to prove my assertion.
A health insurance company cannot capriciously refuse treatment.
The way things are, Ms. Bates can seek a resolution through the US court
system.
When the health insurance provider is the State of California, or the
United States government, she can only sue if the state first allows her
to sue (no citizen has an inherent right to sue the government).
What would be her recourse in that case?
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 08:41:57 -0600, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <eic1j5hdd4a06715d...@4ax.com>,
> > Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 22:54:35 -0600, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >However, if your only fault is thinking that legislation can eliminate
> >> >bad outcomes in your personal affairs, you may only be an immature,
> >> >undisciplined thinker.
> >>
> >> Ban ALL regulation like the rethugs want.
> >>
> >> BTW, How did we get in this mess?
> >
> >Through your regulations, of course.
>
> Such as the ones removed or not enforced by the
> rethugs ...
Please elaborate, and provide cites.
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
I know that you believe you're...
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
sure it's easier to split your reply into
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
shorter posts, but the fact of the matter is
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
most newsreaders organize replies so that
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
you can respond in an organized fashion to
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
all of the several points in one post.
Ed Huntress
"Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
news:hgrua6$gbu$4...@news.eternal-september.org...
So THAT explains it. Yes, that's some of the best T&A in the Western world.
d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
Don't feel alone. The misinformation that gets passed around and believed
regarding health care is outrageous. With half of the country now being fed
nonsense by congressmen who are in the tank with the insurance industry and
Big Pharma, it's hard to avoid.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
Having worked with them for several years, I'd also add that they have a big
financial interest in making Medicare look bad. It's actually the best-run
insurance system in the country.
--
Ed Huntress
Neolibertarian
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
It was my flip remark that you corrected, which I appreciate.
The substance of the argument is hardly affected.
> With half of the country now being fed
> nonsense by congressmen who are in the tank with the insurance industry and
> Big Pharma, it's hard to avoid.
There are two funny things about the above sentence:
1) When you say "half the country [is] now being fed nonsense by
congressmen..." you're only half right.
2) "Big Pharma" and the "insurance industry" are businesses. If there is
an unnatural and destructive relationship between these and government,
this would only be an indictment against corporatism--not government and
not the businesses.
If you don't first define what it is you're fighting, you're not likely
to solve anything, even if you "win."
Ed Huntress
Oh, I agree on the corporatism, aided by a dysfunctional system of campaign
financing and a blind belief that markets always work. Sometimes they don't.
Health care is one of the prime examples, and it has nothing to do with
government involvement. It's the result of the perverse incentives of
business interests being involved with the protection of health and life.
It's not a natural fit. Their interest is not your interest, and you have
little choice or ability to exercise what choices you have, when the rubber
meets the road.
>
> If you don't first define what it is you're fighting, you're not likely
> to solve anything, even if you "win."
Most of the people who work in health care (I wrote for the industry, but
didn't practice medicine) know what it is they're fighting.
--
Ed Huntress
Mitchell Holman
news:a8fbf$4b324f49$18f55223$13...@allthenewsgroups.com:
>> >> >> >> >> ny_ bea ton .pdf
>> >> >> .ht ml
Are you a victim of home schooling or something?
I have just cited you three cases where cancer patients
had their coverage cancelled by private insurance companies -
something you just told us cannot happen.
>
> The way things are, Ms. Bates can seek a resolution through the US
> court system.
Cancer patients don't want protracted legal battles,
they want the treatment they contracted and paid for.
>
> When the health insurance provider is the State of California, or the
> United States government, she can only sue if the state first allows
> her to sue (no citizen has an inherent right to sue the government).
>
> What would be her recourse in that case?
Your claim that private insurance companies "can't"
drop cancer patients has been disproven, deal with it.
Morton Davis
That's Obama's plan.
Neolibertarian
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
Markets work if they're left free.
They certainly are far more generally successful than any of your
alternatives.
> Sometimes they don't.
Please cite.
> Health care is one of the prime examples, and it has nothing to do with
> government involvement.
But the government has been involved in the health insurance industry in
these not so United States, heavily, since 1945.
If the government is, in fact, involved, it seems patently illogical to
claim that problems in the health insurance industry "have nothing to do
with government involvement."
Please explain.
> It's the result of the perverse incentives of
> business interests being involved with the protection of health and life.
Son, if there's perverse incentives involved, that will still apply if
you're speaking of a government-run system instead of a free market
company.
You haven't eliminated humans from the equation. You've only eliminated
free choice.
> It's not a natural fit.
The partnership of medicine, medical research and late-phase industrial
business infrastructure is pretty much why you have a health care system
worth stealing in the first place.
A hundred years ago, it statistically didn't much matter if you lived
near a doctor or not--a doctor couldn't really have done much about
almost any serious illness should you have had the bad luck in
contracting one. Medical science had advanced some since the Civil War,
but not to any great degree--at least not from the perspective we have
looking back from 2009.
Medical treatments for many serious ailments just didn't exist, or were
generally unavailable to all but a few.
It seems that free enterprise and the partnership between medicine and
business are, at the very least, a primary enzyme behind the rise of
todays superb diagnostic and treatment systems.
> Their interest is not your interest, and you have
> little choice or ability to exercise what choices you have, when the rubber
> meets the road.
Government's interest isn't your interest, silly. Unless you're a
bureaucrat.
You're speaking about legislation and the instrumentalities of
government: Laws are force.
Force is the opposite of freedom.
How is it that you seem to imply the free market produces "little
choice," but you somehow think a government controlled system is
superior?
Again, that seems patently non sequitur on the face of it.
> >
> > If you don't first define what it is you're fighting, you're not likely
> > to solve anything, even if you "win."
>
> Most of the people who work in health care (I wrote for the industry, but
> didn't practice medicine) know what it is they're fighting.
Competition? Freedom? Choice?
What?
Neolibertarian
Mitchell Holman <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote:
I said, and I quote:
"Insurance companies, believe it or not, are highly regulated. They not
only don't "drop you after you are diagnosed with cancer," they CAN'T.
They're legally obligated to pay for your medical care in such cases."
Obviously, I meant "they are legally bound."
It is in the same sense I would say "you can't shoot someone down in the
middle of the street just because you don't like them."
Obviously you can, but the likelihood that you'll get away with it are
pretty low.
> >
> > The way things are, Ms. Bates can seek a resolution through the US
> > court system.
>
>
> Cancer patients don't want protracted legal battles,
> they want the treatment they contracted and paid for.
I guess that makes a government health care resource allocation
commission superior.
No legal battles there--you can't even sue them in the first place. If
you're dropped then, that's it. Down the Hospice shoot with you!