Page 72 of 143 FirstFirst ... 2262676869707172737475767782122 ... LastLast
Results 1,421 to 1,440 of 2855
  1. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1421  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Your points are actually very similar to what the current health reform is trying to start the process towards.

    I think everyone agrees that health insurance should be de-linked from employment. The whole point of the public option is to cover the uninsured. If you want it to be Medicaid--that's fine too, but most conservative are against medicaid expansion.

    Using savings to cover non-critical costs is actually the original point of Medicare (Medicare was never designed to cover all costs). With the elderly having lot of political control, they want Medicare to cover everything. you can't change that without incurring the wrath of the elderly.

    The problem with putting money into an HSA is it's just another tax shelter for the rich and it takes away from the insurance pool that would be used to cover everyone. Tort reform is an obvious issue, but the beneficial effects will occur in about a generation because defensive medicine has become standard medicine.

    The problem with so many private insurances is all the paperwork, causing everyone to have to increase administratives costs--doctors, hospitals, and insuranec companies themselves. There are 50 different standards for 50 different states. But, if the Fed tried to make it more uniform, people would cry socialism.

    See, your suggestions makes perfect sense and aren't particularly different from what reform-supporters want. The problem is if you want to rush all that through at once, you're have the exact same hullaballoo you have right now. Obama's trying to do a little at a time.

    No one is trying to take power and control. No one is a commie or a nazi. People need a better healthcare system and Obama is trying to make the first steps towards one.
    Short on time, so let me start my close by saying thanks for the discussion.

    Unfortunately, I think that along with the things that we might agree on (and various politicians can agree on, there are many other things, which is holding things up. Instead of dealing with the things they can agree on, some are trying to push other things no so palatable.

    As far as Medicaid--well, I prefer that people provide for themselves (see my dependency argument) but that's not reality right now--just something to work towards. I don't want to expand medicaid--I'm really questioning why 300 Billion (which we already spend) isn't enough to cover these "47 million uninsured." If we stayed even on that, I'd say its worth looking at.

    About medicare's original intent--example of how government tends to keep expanding (and incurring more costs--paid for by taxpayers).

    HSA's aren't for "the rich" they are for anyone that uses them. The insurance pool will be somewhat smaller, but will also have many fewer claims (less volume also leads to less overhead). As far as Tort Reform...not sure it will take a generation, but either way, its still a good idea.

    I doubt conservatives would cry socialism if the free market for insurance was expanded, and uniform, simplified, non-interfering rules were enacted.

    Are you joking about me (or those who agree with me) wanting to rush things? You must be. President Obama has specifically attempted to rush this (originally demanding it be done before the August recess). You must be joking here, because the plans in front of Congress are not small steps at all, but rather an attempt to make massive changes all at once. That's one of the reasons there is so much resistance, because the people feel they've been burned by the "Bold decisive and immediate" actions of the new administration (such as the stimulus package). In my view, more than anything, the people are really saying "wait, slow down," and the apparent desire to not do so is making them angry.

    Sorry for the brief and rushed reply,
    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 08/20/2009 at 04:27 PM. Reason: Mistaken Million for Billion
  2. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1422  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    They can go together as evidence by all of Europe.
    This is the kind of nonsense that just thoroughly discredits you.
  3. #1423  
    Interesting analysis by Jim Cramer this afternoon. He noted that the rise in the S&P 500 corresponds with the rise in Obama's disapproval ratings. LOL And by the way, Cramer is a democrat and voted for Obama.

    Apparently, as people begin to figure out the Obama scam(s), and start to not trust and dislike the dude, then the market acts favorably as his agenda is less likely. Interesting. Of course....the market can't keep going up and up....there will be breaks....but amazing how the market works.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  4. #1424  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    This is the kind of nonsense that just thoroughly discredits you.
    Groovy....zelgo is missing stuff upstairs....he is living in a world that is different from most He says things and then doesn't remember what he says.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  5. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1425  
    Hello Again,

    Back before dinner.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    They can go together as evidence by all of Europe.
    Hmmm, I'd dispute this supports your point.


    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Before 1964, many elderly were stuck in poverty and couldn't afford healthcare. The whole reason SS and Medicare withholding started was because of this. With this current recession and 401K's wiped out, if you didn't have SS and Medicare, you would see a repeat of that time. People who gave money to 401K's did make saving a priority--it failed them.
    And many elderly got regular healthcare. Poverty existed before and it exists now. We are discussing this in the context of being within these systems, but it is a false assumption to say that only because they exist could any acceptable system be in place. What you are not acknowledging is that we are in a bad place UNDER these systems you praise and hold up as good things. Government has already failed, because in reality, both of these systems are failing as a result of being based on flawed economic theory. Why would anyone want to keep making the same mistakes and following the same flawed thinking.

    As far as 401ks failing. Right now they are down, that is not an indicator of the future, nor can you say for certain that the net result is necessarily negative. Only that it has taken hits recently.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Currently, healthcare for a family of 4 average $15,000/year. How many people can afford that if they had to pay it themselves?
    What plan? What level of coverage? What deductible? Is this the optimal expenditure for them or is it what they are stuck with due to having few choices due to regulations and employers being involved? That;s also assuming that the inflated prices, that have resulted from highly regulated systems (that we currently have) which have destroyed free market balance, and caused skyrocketing prices. That's the point--we need to undo this nonsensical anti-free market system that the government has stuck us with.
    I already talked about eliminating common care "insurance" because its a flawed concept--proven by the skyrocketing costs. You can't grab a statistic from under a broken system and project it onto something as a means of negating better options and possibilities. Costs are high, because the system we currently have is based on flawed premises. Unfortunately, the current "reforms" delves farther into untenable systems rather than seeking actual solutions.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Don't believe what drug companies want you to believe. See Marcia Angell's The Truth about Drug Companies The Truth About the Drug Companies - The New York Review of Books. Angell is a previous editor for the new england journal of medicine.
    I'll read up on that, but perhaps I didn't make my point properly. PROFIT is what fuels all of this. Government only gets money from taxation, which occurs when profit is gained. Making a villain of profit is ludicrous. Profit and the system which encourages gaining of profit is the engine that allows all of these advances to be paid for.


    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Could you point me to the companies that made a killing during this recession and would not have reduced my stock portfolio? I guess I should just blame myself for my stocks--and not the private companies who manipulated the market with weird stock vehicles, got them rated A+ from S&P, and hoisted them on an unsuspecting public. So, the american public also needs to be wall street experts in order to live comfortably in old age? If I'm not an expert, I should be condemned to an impoverished, medicine-free old age?
    You should blame yourself for your own choices. That's called being responsible. As far as manipulation...right that's another failure of the government, who should be prosecuting fraud (which is what you are identifying). If you aren't willing to take the risk that is inherent in a market (that goes up and down naturally), then you should have done something else. If you invest in companies that are engaged in illicit behavior, then ask yourself why the government is not doing its job and enforcing the laws and regulations that are on the books.
    No one is condemning you to anything. You make your own choices and are responsible for them. If you got burned, I'm sorry about that, but it isn't anyone's job to provide for you, your medicine or your retirement. That's your responsibility. Think about this--root problem is that people are trained not to be responsible for themselves--to believe that they can simply put money anywhere and expect it to magically go up and up. This is really another issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    You can leave Medicare anytime you want. The problem is , no private insurance company will even offer you a policy at aged 65 because you're too high risk. You have NO private alternatives.
    So, what you are really acknowledging is that government involvement has destroyed the private market for healthcare amonst the elderly (which clearly previously existed, unless you believe that people over 65 simply never saw a doctor or got medical treatment before medicare--obviously false).

    So, again, it seems you've inadvertently stumbled upon what will happen when government gets in the healthcare business for everyone else--there will be no private alternatives--just like with medicare. Isn't that what people have been saying, and opposite of what these so-called reformers promise (which is more competition). That is false, as your statement on medicare demonstrates.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    If they did not cry out--wouldn't it show that they're not so concerned about socialism as they are about insurance company profits? Expansion with rule from the federal government is socialism, and maybe even unconstitutional, according to them.
    You seem to be making a jump here that doesn't make sense to me. If it increases competition, with free markets, it isn't socialism.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    The main reason there is resistance is because people have been fed lies about what it contains. (actually, there is no "it"--there are five bills floating around right now)

    If you wait and slow down--as the congressmen are finding out in townhall--special interest groups get in and get the people riled up with false information.
    You seem to be confused about who is rushing things. As I stated, the President has demanded this get done--this year, and previously demanded it be done before Congress' August recess. The people are saying "slow down." I'm not sure why or how you are confused about this.

    There is certainly questionable information out there, but that's hardly the only reason people are up in arms. And lies are not coming from one side on this. The President is promising things he cannot possibly insure will occur, and which history (with government programs) tells us likely won't be as he says. The citizens of this country are well aware that the administration and his congressional allies are attempting to pass sweeping "reform" without listening to their concerns and without properly addressing the problem.

    To attempt to discount people's anger about this as being the result of "misinformation" is essentially saying these people are stupid, but that's not the case in most instances. They are often talking about principles--what the proper role of government is, as well as simply asking "how will we pay for this." Finally the citizens of this country are saying "not so fast" and the Administration and their allies respond by launching various attacks--essentially calling them liars.

    Well, I oppose the route they are taking--I don't work for an insurance company, and have not been told what to say by anyone. I'm well aware of how government promises tend to go, and am tired of having fast-ones pulled on me. Don't tell me that the public is misinformed when they clearly are getting more and more informed, and not liking what they are seeing. People aren't the ignorant rubes that government hopes they are. Many people are well informed and getting moreso. People definitely know that they can't simply keep saying "sure whatever" to a government that keeps spending them into oblivion either.

    KAM
  6. #1426  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    So, what you are really acknowledging is that government involvement has destroyed the private market for healthcare amonst the elderly (which clearly previously existed, unless you believe that people over 65 simply never saw a doctor or got medical treatment before medicare--obviously false).

    So, again, it seems you've inadvertently stumbled upon what will happen when government gets in the healthcare business for everyone else--there will be no private alternatives--just like with medicare. Isn't that what people have been saying, and opposite of what these so-called reformers promise (which is more competition). That is false, as your statement on medicare demonstrates.


    There is certainly questionable information out there, but that's hardly the only reason people are up in arms. And lies are not coming from one side on this. The President is promising things he cannot possibly insure will occur, and which history (with government programs) tells us likely won't be as he says. The citizens of this country are well aware that the administration and his congressional allies are attempting to pass sweeping "reform" without listening to their concerns and without properly addressing the problem.

    To attempt to discount people's anger about this as being the result of "misinformation" is essentially saying these people are stupid, but that's not the case in most instances. They are often talking about principles--what the proper role of government is, as well as simply asking "how will we pay for this." Finally the citizens of this country are saying "not so fast" and the Administration and their allies respond by launching various attacks--essentially calling them liars.

    Well, I oppose the route they are taking--I don't work for an insurance company, and have not been told what to say by anyone. I'm well aware of how government promises tend to go, and am tired of having fast-ones pulled on me. Don't tell me that the public is misinformed when they clearly are getting more and more informed, and not liking what they are seeing. People aren't the ignorant rubes that government hopes they are. Many people are well informed and getting moreso. People definitely know that they can't simply keep saying "sure whatever" to a government that keeps spending them into oblivion either.

    KAM
    So "principles" include calling a health plan a Nazi plan? Lying about death panels? You consider that just talking about what the proper role of government is? And are they as well informed as you about the relative role of the government in funding medical research? Actually, the right wing isn't stupid, just "misinformed". I've never seen so many people talking eruditely about issues that they know nothing about whatsoever. Instead of ignorant, I'll just use misinformed. How many of you opponents to health care reform have participated in any way in the health care system? Just Micael, who apparently has disappeared because he still cannot identify any kind of plan to solve our problem, and has difficulty seeing past his own self-interest. Do you think that just because you hold political views about the constitution or don't like Obama that your perspective is rational at all? You are pushing political arguments to support your political position...which has no bearing whatsoever on the delivery of health care. The discussion is truly absurd. Why don't some of you people spend some time trying to do some neurosurgery? You're as qualified to do that as you are to be making pronouncements about what health care should entail. What a huge waste of time this discussion is. Lots of heat and no illumination whatsoever.
  7. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #1427  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Despite all of Micael's hot air about how much he hate's Obama's plan, Micael doesn't actually have any plan of his own...
    I didnt know it was my job to come up with one. You are the ones proposing the plan. What? I can't comment or critique your plan unless I make up one of my own?

    Lets just lay out all the rules guys, so we know how to play your games.

    As for hot air, you avoid direct challenges to the misinformation you spew, so its you with the hot air.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  8. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #1428  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Currently, healthcare for a family of 4 average $15,000/year. How many people can afford that if they had to pay it themselves?
    I had full coverage, hospital, dental, drugs, vision, for 800 a month for a family of 4 just this last year when I was between jobs. That ain't cheap, especially bwtn jobs. Just curious where you come up with that number as an average?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  9. #1429  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    An Analysis is a study--and can be published in journals like other studies.
    And this is a "web memo" apparently. I only called it an analysis since it was taking a critical look (i.e. analyzing) claims made by others. You're elevating it to a higher status on one hand and then dismissing it in another.
    How this suddenly means I don't believe my argument is a questionable leap of logic. (and I'M being accused to twisting myself into mental pretzels??)
    Because, you're trying to paint it in a certain light as a "study" in one sentence and yet trying to paint it in a different light as a "'study'" in another. Again, you can't try to elevate it to a higher status than it is on one hand and denigrate its status in another. Regardless, you're still avoiding the real meat of the issue. It's pointing out a more reasonable way to determine efficiency when comparing disparate populations.
    Medicare does investigate Medicare fraud. Because Medicare is large, criminals want to try to take moeny from it. That's not a valid argument against Medicare being large.
    No one claimed it to be. All that is being claimed is that if we are going to discuss efficiency of administrative tasks, then we should make a more valid comparison. Cook's argument is that Medicare has a sicker population than private insurance, and hence pays out more than private insurance. You don't seem to disagree with that. He then says that a fairer comparison of efficiency in administrative costs is non-benefit costs per beneficiary served. It's a basic productivity equation. The only other apples to apples comparison that might be made (assuming the data is available) would be to compare administrative costs per claim (as in number, not in dollar amount). The flaw with that comparison, though, would be that not all single incidents are necessarily considered a single claim, and it would probably skew one side or the other.
    Private insurers don't investigate fraud very much because they don't want to spend money on it.
    Private insurers use the claims process and EOB reporting to handle fraud. Are you seriously proposing that they're not motivated to eliminate waste and potentially increase their profits?
    Medicare's fraud investigation cannot be used to justify a high administrative cost.
    Why not? Private insurance's costs in weeding out bogus claims is covered in their administrative costs.
    Should we also start adding in the clothes that medicare workers have to buy to come to work and the houses they buy?
    Only if they start paying for them out of Medicare funds.
    The study is a poor one.
    I don't believe you even read it at this point. You saw Heritage and followed the Krugman ad hominem.
    As conservatives keep relying on it (it's all they really have), it just continues damage their position.
    I suppose it might among a certain segment.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  10. #1430  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    So "principles" include calling a health plan a Nazi plan? Lying about death panels? You consider that just talking about what the proper role of government is? And are they as well informed as you about the relative role of the government in funding medical research? Actually, the right wing isn't stupid, just "misinformed". I've never seen so many people talking eruditely about issues that they know nothing about whatsoever. Instead of ignorant, I'll just use misinformed. How many of you opponents to health care reform have participated in any way in the health care system? Just Micael, who apparently has disappeared because he still cannot identify any kind of plan to solve our problem, and has difficulty seeing past his own self-interest. Do you think that just because you hold political views about the constitution or don't like Obama that your perspective is rational at all? You are pushing political arguments to support your political position...which has no bearing whatsoever on the delivery of health care. The discussion is truly absurd. Why don't some of you people spend some time trying to do some neurosurgery? You're as qualified to do that as you are to be making pronouncements about what health care should entail. What a huge waste of time this discussion is. Lots of heat and no illumination whatsoever.
    Doc....something always bothers me about this discussion of "death panels". I read HR 3200 and I personally don't see quite what some see....however....did you see the video where Obama got the question from the woman regarding her elderly mother? I'm sure you did, and I posted it before, but here it is again:



    Now....the video is pretty clear that Obama does indicate that sometimes "you're better off not having the surgery, and better off taking the pain killer". Now, I realize that doesn't mean he wants to kill old people...but...it does indicate that he is open to sometimes taking the less complicated and/or expensive road. Since this is going to be a plan that Obama backs and supports, can't you see why this one statement alone would get people to think that there may be something to worry about here? If we have a single payer system, where some entity or board makes decisions on approving care, based on his answer it doesn't seem like such a stretch to think a panel could say that at 100 years old she is too old for this surgery.

    I guess you could say he is simply talking about having the doctor discuss the "pain killer" option to the woman and her family....but....there is a little bit of distrust with the government these days and so people do have concerns based on what came from Obama's own mouth.

    Oh....I'm not a physician, and don't play one on TV...but I do work in the insurance field. You see patients. I see the people who sometimes can't afford their premium, and I see the people who simply don't want to pay a dime for it. Call me a liar, but yes, some people simply don't want to have it if it will cost them anything.

    I also get calls from people who are having claim issues....sometimes it is the fault of the insurance company, but as I have told you before, many times the issue began with the wrong code being filed....or the doctor's office using the wrong medical card.....and sometimes, the claim was never filed! Yes, I have seen this many times. The client calls me up, all fired up mad, cussing the insurance company because he/she got a bill from the doctor's office for the entire bill. I ask them, "What did the EOB say?" "Well, I didn't get an EOB". So, upon calling.....guess what?.....the doctor's office didn't file the claim. Call me a liar...whatever...but I see stuff like that. Now, when everything goes very smooth, clients don't call....you know how that is, right? But, I do occasionally hear from the client who wants me to know everything went great for this or that and it is quite nice to hear. I also love the call from the client who gets the bill from the doctor's office after the claim has been paid (per the discount) and is furious because of what the insurance didn't pay and the doctor is now asking for. I have them send me the EOB and the bill, and guess what? The doctor's office is trying to bill the patient for the discount! That is just wrong! I simply tell the client to call the doctor's office and explain that they don't owe for the discount and the situation is cleared up at that point. I wonder how many people pay the "discount" that they shouldn't pay because the doctor's office bills them! Here they think it is the insurance company "screwing me again"....when in fact it is the doctor's office that is screwing them. And oh, they tried that on me once before to....and I made it clear I wasn't paying the discount they agreed on with the provider.

    So yes, I do have hands on experience with healthcare, in fact, 24 such years. I'm sorry we can't all be gods, I mean doctors, but I think you are having a little of that "god syndrome" that so many doctors have. Such power in those hands of yours, huh? Why....you have so much intelligence! We non doctors just can't possibly understand this complicated issue! LOL Go have a drink and get off your high horse.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  11. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #1431  
    Quote Originally Posted by Funky Cricket View Post
    holy hell, you all have too much time on your hands! I can't and won't read all of that.

    2 points:

    Who said private insurance is going away? I didn't hear that? Did you, please show the bill that says "you can only have government insurance"
    Apparently you don't have time to do the math either. And maybe you've missed all television and radio discussion on the topic over the last 3 months. Pardon us if we don't rush to fill you in on the details. Over time government insurance will kill off private plans and we'll be on a single-payer systems. thats the goal and plan.

    second, we already pay for the unsinsured, who do you think pays for them when they go to the emergency room with no insurance, WE DO. they get help, don't pay and the hospitals and doctors pass that cost along to us or our insurance companies (that pass it to us). I have the blues their great, but they only cover 500 bucks in preventative care, um, wouldn't that cost less, sure would, but they make less on it, why cover it. I still can't afford to cover a general hows it going visits or vactinations for my kid, cause they are't covered.

    The OP took a ridiculous stand and needs to look at what is actually going on. Not that any of us have seen a bill. But saying GOVERNMENT IS BAD, well you voted, and I voted, and the people WE voted in are trying to do the best they can.
    so just sit down, shut up, and enjoy the ride? we get what we paid for? lol
    Also don't forget, we aren't a democracy, we are a republic. We picked (supposedly) smart people to make decisions for us as a whole.
    maybe you did. I didn't I voted for people who would hear me when I speak up and will act on my wishes. their job is to represent, not rule.
    This whole proccess was set up to prevent jack-arses like rush from rousing a herd of morons to go vote on something. Having a layer from the masses to the bills prevents blind voting with out information. While healthy debate is good and proper, ignorance and blind faith to a radio jock is not good.
    yeah. we're all just mindless jack-arse morons spurred on by a radio jock. do you hear yourself? ever think that maybe rush reflects what we think, and not the other way around?
    I'm not saying that what is proposed is right and good, but at least something is being done. Though personally, i'd like to see education get more attention. (opps, shouldn't have opened that can of worms)
    Doing something is right. We agree on something, finally. But not just anything they try to shove down our throats without a chance to review it, discuss it. debate it, and then decide. Barry tried to shove this through before the August break and it wasn't even written yet? Whats the rush, if this is soooo important? Stop and ask yourself that. Why the hurry?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  12. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #1432  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Doc....something always bothers me about this discussion of "death panels". I read HR 3200 and I personally don't see quite what some see....however....did you see the video where Obama got the question from the woman regarding her elderly mother? I'm sure you did, and I posted it before, but here it is again:
    DEADLY DOCTORS
    OBAMA ADVISERS WANT TO RATION CARE

    By BETSY MCCAUGHEY
    Last updated: 12:44 pm
    August 17, 2009
    Posted: 1:03 am
    July 24, 2009

    THE health bills coming out of Congress would put the decisions about your care in the hands of presidential appointees. They'd decide what plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have and what seniors get under Medicare.

    Yet at least two of President Obama's top health advisers should never be trusted with that power.

    Start with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He has already been appointed to two key positions health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.

    Emanuel bluntly admits that the cuts will not be pain-free. "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change," he wrote last year (Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008).

    Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).

    Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.

    Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.

    Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (JAMA, Feb. 27, 2008).

    Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy.

    He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31).

    The bills being rushed through Congress will be paid for largely by a $500 billion-plus cut in Medicare over 10 years. Knowing how unpopular the cuts will be, the president's budget director, Peter Orszag, urged Congress this week to delegate its own authority over Medicare to a new, presidentially-appointed bureaucracy that wouldn't be accountable to the public.

    Since Medicare was founded in 1965, seniors' lives have been transformed by new medical treatments such as angioplasty, bypass surgery and hip and knee replacements. These innovations allow the elderly to lead active lives. But Emanuel criticizes Americans for being too "enamored with technology" and is determined to reduce access to it.

    Dr. David Blumenthal, another key Obama adviser, agrees. He recommends slowing medical innovation to control health spending.


    Blumenthal has long advocated government health-spending controls, though he concedes they're "associated with longer waits" and "reduced availability of new and expensive treatments and devices" (New England Journal of Medicine, March 8, 2001). But he calls it "debatable" whether the timely care Americans get is worth the cost. (Ask a cancer patient, and you'll get a different answer. Delay lowers your chances of survival.)

    Obama appointed Blumenthal as national coordinator of health-information technology, a job that involves making sure doctors obey electronically deivered guidelines about what care the government deems appropriate and cost effective.

    In the April 9 New England Journal of Medicine, Blumenthal predicted that many doctors would resist "embedded clinical decision support" -- a euphemism for computers telling doctors what to do.

    Americans need to know what the president's health advisers have in mind for them. Emanuel sees even basic amenities as luxuries and says Americans expect too much: "Hospital rooms in the United States offer more privacy . . . physicians' offices are typically more conveniently located and have parking nearby and more attractive waiting rooms" (JAMA, June 18, 2008).

    No one has leveled with the public about these dangerous views. Nor have most people heard about the arm-twisting, Chicago-style tactics being used to force support. In a Nov. 16, 2008, Health Care Watch column, Emanuel explained how business should be done: "Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda. If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration's health-reform effort."

    Do we want a "reform" that empowers people like this to decide for us?

    Betsy McCaughey is founder of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former New York lieutenant governor.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  13. #1433  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I had full coverage, hospital, dental, drugs, vision, for 800 a month for a family of 4 just this last year when I was between jobs. That ain't cheap, especially bwtn jobs. Just curious where you come up with that number as an average?
    These folks like to use a $250 ded/90% co-ins/maternity (not everyone needs maternity)/prescription card with all the other bells and whistles as their "average" plan. If everyone is so worried about protecting against bankruptcy, why not a high deductible plan that gets the premiums down (can easily get an HSA plan for a family of 4 for $400-$500) that will stop a catastrophic loss at $7000. Not many are going to go into bankruptcy over $7000.

    Now....the problem I do think needs to be fixed is the pre-x issue. I would think a state run plan, that would be funded by a combination of participant premiums and some type of state funding (that's right!...a tax to help fund this) could be available for such folks. I honestly would not object to incurring a sales tax or something along those lines in my state to help these folks. I don't think it is reasonable to expect a private health insurance company to take on any and everyone when they decide they have a health issue. I mean, if I could enroll for insurance only when I need it, isn't that what I would do? So, it doesn't seem reasonable to force this issue on insurance companies unless everyone is required to enroll and pay a premium. I tend to be against people being forced to buy something, so requiring private insurance to be forced to take on any and everyone doesn't seem like a very good option.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  14. #1434  
    I know about Ezekiel...but just not going to go as far as some people want to go on that issue. I too am suspicious, be sure of that, but my concern comes more from what came from Obama's own mouth. But I understand the concern of many on this.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  15. #1435  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    [B][SIZE="4"]
    Betsy McCaughey is founder of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former New York lieutenant governor.[/I]
    She is also listed as a member of the board of directors of the Cantel Medical Corporation. It's ironic that your side of this argument will discount CNN as biased, but will blindly listen to someone who works for the health care industry.

    Her allegations, by the way, were refuted by factcheck.org: Doctor’s Orders? | FactCheck.org
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  16. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #1436  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    She is also listed as a member of the board of directors of the Cantel Medical Corporation.
    and so? she stated her sources and quoted him directly.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  17. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #1437  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    She is also listed as a member of the board of directors of the Cantel Medical Corporation.

    Her allegations were refuted by factcheck.org: Doctor’s Orders? | FactCheck.org
    I'm not concerned with her allegations, I'm concerned with what Emmanuel stated, wrote, etc. It's what's not in the bill(s) that concerns us. Your factcheck.org link doesn't invalidate that.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  18. #1438  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    and so? she stated her sources and quoted him directly.
    If I had to decide which was more biased, factcheck.org or someone who works for the health care industry, which would I trust?
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  19. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #1439  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    She is also listed as a member of the board of directors of the Cantel Medical Corporation. It's ironic that your side of this argument will discount CNN as biased, but will blindly listen to someone who works for the health care industry.

    Her allegations, by the way, were refuted by factcheck.org: Doctor’s Orders? | FactCheck.org
    Good lord, how many times are you going to re-edit this one? lol

    It's not what 'she' said that's the point. its what "he" said. Your "shoot the messenger" tactic is lame.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  20. #1440  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    [...] How many of you opponents to health care reform have participated in any way in the health care system?
    First, you should not confuse opposition to a particular set of reforms with opposition to reform. That's a false dichotomy. That being said, I used to do data entry for a clinic on a part time basis during a couple summers. I've also worked as an HR clerk specifically dealing with insurance benefits for the company plan, so I've had more than the average person's share of experience dealing with claims processors. Further, I've served on employee committees on insurance benefits (since my undergrad degree was in HR before I wound up working into IT). I have also had a fairly wide array of plans since I was no longer covered on my parents' plan (tuition fee-based, individual, various types of employer group plans). That's not even considering doctors, nurses, and other health professionals I may know and can inquire for alternate perspectives.
    Just Micael, who apparently has disappeared because he still cannot identify any kind of plan to solve our problem, and has difficulty seeing past his own self-interest.
    I notice you've not commented on the John Mackey ideas that I've mentioned a couple times.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...

Posting Permissions