GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Aug 7, 2009 19:30:07 GMT -5
Ignoring the Palin/Bachmann craziness ("Obama's gonna kill my Down Syndrome baby with his DEATH PANELS!") for a second, GIGA - do you in any way see the public option as a way of getting to single payer? I think you're the basically target audience of that Barney Frank clip as a single payer advocate. In a word, no. I just don't see a scenario where a new payer gets added to our multiple-payer system, starts by picking up the riskiest clients and pricing them as the least risky, subsidizes this massive spread, and then somehow kicks so much a** at this it crowds out the private insurers. And that's before considering one pretty obvious question which is "If this Congress and president can't get a single-payer system, what future government would?" And single-payer isn't perfect by any means. It's a give and take. But at least it's a discussion to be had. And there are even hybrid systems that have a better chance of working than this one. But I think short-term and long-term this is the worst of both worlds and it's not going to lead to anything better. Anyone who thinks there won't be cost overruns is fooling themselves. And anyone who thinks when there are, the answer will be single-payer and not "fund it to appease the electorate and do a photo-op with the CEO of Aetna on buy three pills get one free day" is not paying attention.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Aug 11, 2009 9:31:36 GMT -5
One of the problems with the Federal Government being involved in health care is its penchant for using the program to advance various agendas. As a conservative this means I'm concerned they can (and ultimately will) mandate coverage of illegal aliens, same-sex unions, Viagra, contraceptives, abortions, in-vitro fertilization, face lifts, vacations in Cancun for mental therapy, etc. If the conservatives ever regain power they would be free to mandate that none of the above would be covered. In other words, once the Feds become involved the health care system WILL be used to foster political agendas. Ed, I don't know who your current HMO/PPO is, but do you know if they pay for the same things? Also, I'm confused how giving someone a choice in a market place between a public plan (maybe) and several private plans will lead to the government mandating those things. Also, assuming you selected a public option, wouldn't having government control mean that you could then have avenues for legal review of decisions to deny you coverage and then having a government option would allow you to vote for a new Congress or administration that could manage the plan in a way that you agreed with, thus giving you more control over decisions made about your health care than you get with your HMO/PPO?
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Aug 11, 2009 9:45:29 GMT -5
Here's Sarah Palin's comment :http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0809/Palin_calls_Dems_healthcare_plan_evil_cites_threat_to_Trig.html?showall Pay close attention to the link to Rep. Michelle Bachman's speech on the floor of the House concerning views/comments held by Rahm Emmanuel's brother and another person both of whom are advisors to the President. It would be nice if any comments concern the content of Palin's and Bachman's words rather than the usual trashing of the messenger. Ed, here's my response. For a long time, Republicans have encouraged people to read the H.R. 3200, the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. Here is an amendment to the Medicare Rules, contained in Section 1233 of the bill. It illustrates the debate: That says that people on Medicare will get information about how they can plan for future extreme medical emergencies by naming people to make decisions for you (think guardians for children) when you are incapacitated, giving you the locations of hospices and other places to care for you if you have a terminal illness, and encouraging people on Medicare to consider whether they do or do not want all medical measures to be used to keep them alive in extreme circumstances. Any competent estate planning attorney would tell you to do the same thing. Here's what Sara Palin had to say about the same section of the bill on her facebook page: What's evil about giving someone a brochure? Where's the panel? How is just talking about what happen when your in a coma or otherwise in some serious trouble medically evil? And why did someone who fought tooth and nail during the campaign to keep the media from focusing on her children feel that it was ok to talk about one of them when it was politically expedient? This is just cynical and a lie. If you just listened to Palin, you'd think Obama was coming to your hospital bed and pulling the plug. If you actually read the bill, you find out how desperate some people are to protect the status quo. EDIT: Sorry for the ton of small text - here's a link where you can see it with bigger text: thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200:
|
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Aug 11, 2009 10:39:15 GMT -5
Personally, I'd be willing to switch party affiliation if it got me appointed to the federal who-lives/who-dies committee. The Death Panel concept was proposed by Rahm Emmanual's brother (not the one played by Jeremy Piven) in an ethics essay that appeared in the Lancet earlier this year. The idea is that we'll never get health care costs under control until we stop allocating medical resources to people who aren't worthwhile investments, i.e., between the ages of 15 and 55. legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/08/inconvenient-truth-about-death-panel.htmlUnfortunately for those who like consistency in their publicy policy, these guys are way way too smart to ever suggest reductions to the public funding of breast cancer and AIDS research to their appropriate levels.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,438
|
Post by TC on Aug 11, 2009 10:52:28 GMT -5
Will these death panels be shooting babies and old people from helicopters?
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Aug 11, 2009 10:58:14 GMT -5
Personally, I'd be willing to switch party affiliation if it got me appointed to the federal who-lives/who-dies committee. The Death Panel concept was proposed by Rahm Emmanual's brother (not the one played by Jeremy Piven) in an ethics essay that appeared in the Lancet earlier this year. The idea is that we'll never get health care costs under control until we stop allocating medical resources to people who aren't worthwhile investments, i.e., between the ages of 15 and 55. legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/08/inconvenient-truth-about-death-panel.htmlUnfortunately for those who like consistency in their publicy policy, these guys are way way too smart to ever suggest reductions to the public funding of breast cancer and AIDS research to their appropriate levels. So, where did you find that proposal by a citizen in the bill?
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,696
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 11, 2009 13:31:42 GMT -5
Ahhh, the Chief of Staff's brother.
I was talking last weekend with a doctor on the payroll of the state of California as a policy expert for medicine and life long Republican who actually posited a similar thing. He proposed minimal investment in the dying and the mentally and physically disabled.
I guess the Republicans are trying to kill us all off!
In other news, most private insurers have limits here as well. When is this a state-funded issue? Methinks many of you have never actually had to get a claim from an insurance company for something like this. They will find ANY reason to deny you.
More importantly here is that anyone in health care will tell you that this issue -- which is really non-partisan -- is your biggest issue. We invest something like 80% of health care dollars into the last six months of life. Now that's somewhat deceptive for obvious reasons but the reality is, it's an investment choice whether it comes from employers or taxes or whatever. And where that line is drawn -- and that line is ALWAYS drawn -- is not necessarily according to party and it ain't necessarily further along in private insurance.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 11, 2009 15:13:53 GMT -5
I am surprised by the degree to which misinformation campaigns have taken over this debate. It has produced some strange visuals. In the last week, we've had the following:
1. Obama depicted as a socialist on the infamous Joker poster but also decried as a fascist or Hitler-sympathizer by swastika-displaying protestors in town hall fora.
2. A protestor asking for the government to "stay out" of "his" Medicare.
I am sure there are other examples.
I am all for debate of health care reform. There are parts of the proposed legislation that I do not like and other pragmatic measures that I could do without, but the debate would get more healthy if the protestors and legislators alike read the bill.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Aug 11, 2009 15:20:18 GMT -5
Obama glibly pointed out that FedEx and UPS do well while the Postal Service has all kinds of trouble. Am I missing something? The private entities do it well while the federal entity sucks? Sign me up.
|
|
|
Post by badgerhoya on Aug 11, 2009 16:48:23 GMT -5
Obama glibly pointed out that FedEx and UPS do well while the Postal Service has all kinds of trouble. Am I missing something? The private entities do it well while the federal entity sucks? Sign me up. C'mon - you know this analogy works on so many other levels than what you're describing. The Postal Service provides a base level of service at an extremely affordable rate -- more affordable than any other Western country in the world, if I'm not mistaken. Yes, they may have customer service issues - but all things considered, it's quite reliable. However, if you want better service and guaranteed delivery times, you can certainly purchase it. Granted, you'll pay more (at least 3x and probably as much as 5 or 6x), and service locations are much fewer than those of the Postal Service, but the service (and market) is definitely there. How different would this really be from what Obama's team's proposing? Gov't provides a base level of care at a relatively affordable rate - but if you want more (and can afford it), the private options are there as well.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,696
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 11, 2009 17:16:35 GMT -5
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Aug 11, 2009 17:58:35 GMT -5
But...the postal service is also bankrupt. And public education...also wastes tons of money.
That's not a bad thing to have a base level of service run by the government but it rarely operates efficiently. Why? Well it's a hodgepodge of you name it. Unionized employees with sweet wages who can't be fired? Check. Spending tons of cash to cover services to the very last guy in a cabin at the same rate? Check. Fat cat bureaucratic management with no incentive to react to the market? Check, check, check.
Healthcare gets to add the potential of not being able to use its leverage to drive down costs with pharma (yes, that is what happened no matter how it gets spun). So this thing is going to be expensive, very very expensive.
You can like the concept of the USPS, Amtrak, or public education...it's a matter of priorities of what should be supported by the public system. But we have to get real about how much this thing is going to cost (as in, a lot more than the Dems are willing to admit).
For the Republicans, we also have to stop saying grandma will be suffocated by men in black. I just typed that sentence. That's where this debate has gone. Yikes.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Aug 11, 2009 18:07:24 GMT -5
Bear in mind that in the very same "town hall meeting" a/k/a "DNC campaign staffer meet and greet" Obama claimed that he never supported or advocated single payer when there is clear video evidence to the contrary. The man has gone completely off the rails and will be a one-term flop.
P.S. He also flat out LIED when he claimed an AARP endorsement for the House Bill.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,438
|
Post by TC on Aug 11, 2009 19:20:57 GMT -5
But...the postal service is also bankrupt. The Post Office is generally self-sustaining, it's in the red because of the recession. It might do even better if Republicans approached it with a profit motive and not as Jason Chaffetz's census toy.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Aug 11, 2009 19:54:23 GMT -5
But...the postal service is also bankrupt. The Post Office is generally self-sustaining, it's in the red because of the recession. It might do even better if Republicans approached it with a profit motive and not as Jason Chaffetz's census toy. Correction it WAS self-sustaining. Unfortunately it hasn't been for almost three years and it's not the recession. Substitutes have replaced mail and scaling back federal employees or innovating is, uh, not the government's strong suit. Census toys have a name. It's called "politics" which is why this system usually ends up in disarray at the first sign of disruption. Public options become public burdens quickly. Ask any GSE or Citi. Oh wait they're not technically owned by the...oh yes now they are, so ask Citi.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Aug 11, 2009 19:57:40 GMT -5
I'd agree with that - the post office is ok, it gets my mail there. UPS has trouble delivering stuff to me on time, and Kinkos never has anyone to help me when I come in the door.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Aug 11, 2009 20:12:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Aug 11, 2009 21:06:18 GMT -5
Here's a somewhat reasonable explanation for the references to the DEATH PANEL (which I think should always be typed with all caps, BTW) from the Singer op-ed I linked to on the last page:
"Last year Britain’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence gave a preliminary recommendation that the National Health Service should not offer Sutent for advanced kidney cancer. The institute, generally known as NICE, is a government-financed but independently run organization set up to provide national guidance on promoting good health and treating illness. The decision on Sutent did not, at first glance, appear difficult. NICE had set a general limit of £30,000, or about $49,000, on the cost of extending life for a year. Sutent, when used for advanced kidney cancer, cost more than that, and research suggested it offered only about six months extra life. But the British media leapt on the theme of penny-pinching bureaucrats sentencing sick people to death. The issue was then picked up by the U.S. news media and by those lobbying against health care reform in the United States. An article in The New York Times last December featured Bruce Hardy, a kidney-cancer patient whose wife, Joy, said, “It’s hard to know that there is something out there that could help but they’re saying you can’t have it because of cost.” Then she asked the classic question: “What price is life?”"
The fractures in the Republican party seem evident WRT this issue. Social conservatives want to scare people with DEATH PANELS and funding for abortion/facelifts/tranny ops. But this is not a "culture of life" issue. We're talking about reforming health care because costs make up too great a percentage of GDP, and the grownup Republican politicians attempting to reach across the aisle on this issue have rightly framed the problem as an economic one. Which is really not a bad idea, since as GIGA points out the Democrats are lying about the costs (at least according to the CBO). And Democrats should have anticipated the DEATH PANEL attacks and sold this plan on a grassroots level rather than throwing some fake on ABC and hoping the public tuned in.
In short: everybody blows, particularly the United States Congress, which continues an epic streak of petulance and lameness. It's really time for some new leadership in the Legislative branch.
Also, a question for ed in the same vein as St. Pete's comment above: why is it that only government can politicize health care? Don't corporations take actions best described as political all the time?
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Aug 11, 2009 23:13:53 GMT -5
I have a VERY important question.
Does anyone know if Rick Pitino's mistress' abortions are covered under the public option?
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 12, 2009 10:00:45 GMT -5
With reference to the small letter passages from the Health Care "Reform" Bill as shown by St. Pete, there is nothing in the words that would forbid a health care provider (government or private) from suggesting to the patient that they should consider taking measures to end their lives rather than obtaining further treatments. There is also nothing that forbids either from refusing to fund treatments in the interest of saving money for the insurance company or government.
If the Health Care "Reform" will not have "Death Panels", as the president and others are saying, there are simple solutions to putting this to rest: (1) remove the section completely from the Bill and replace it with a requirement that the insurance company or the government send letters every five years to those on Medicare suggesting they give consideration to end of life options and to seek assistance wherever they desire; or (2) have the Bill categorically forbid any information being given to the patient that even suggests euthanasia, in whatever form it might be stated. For instance, deprivation of intravenous feeding or liquids would be categorically forbidden. Attach to option 2 a mandatory 25 year sentence for any care provider, insurance executive or government official found guilty of suggesting euthanasia in the forms described above.
Merely saying "trust me, we won't do it" just doesn't work with me.
|
|