To those who mocked Palin when she talked about "death panels"

[Jim in CT]

Now, I find the term "death panels" inflammatory. But Palin was vilified by the left for suggesting that governmnet run healthcare would result in death panels.

Tell that to the parents of this little kid.

I'm sure the kooks at MSNBC will be issuing an apology to Palin any minute now, given that she was 100 percent correct, even if her chioce of words was incendiary.

After budget cuts, Indiana baby denied life-saving treatment - Yahoo! News

May God look after this kid. I made a small donation.

[JohnnyD]

Your correlation of those two topics might be the most ridiculous thing I've read all week.

[scottw]

yeah, what's wrong with you Jim? It's not like that story is about governement/state provided and run health care/ insurance agency denying payment for life saving treatment to someone due to budget restraints and rationing or anything.......geez....

next you'll be telling us that hundreds and hundreds of companies need Obamacare waivers....

http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations...or_waiver.html

[RIROCKHOUND]

Right...
because Obama's healthcare bill, and not the (Republican) Govenor's budget slashing that did this.

There was a case in Arizona last week with an otherwise healthy woman in her 20's who needed a transplant... all Obama's Death Panels...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Your correlation of those two topics might be the most ridiculous thing I've read all week.

Another cheap, tired, and common liberal tactic...

Johnny calls my correlation "ridiculous", yet he offers NOT ONE WORD, not one, as to why my correlation is flawed.

Insulting me is easy. try telling me where I'm wrong, please. enlighten us...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Right...
because Obama's healthcare bill, and not the (Republican) Govenor's budget slashing that did this.

There was a case in Arizona last week with an otherwise healthy woman in her 20's who needed a transplant... all Obama's Death Panels...

Rockhound, Gov Palin's concern was that Obama's healthcare plan would result in governmnet employees making life-and-death decisions regarding whether or not healthcare would be provided.

If you have proof that Obama's plan has something in it that would prevent that from happening, that would prove that Palin was wrong. Since you are mocking me, I assume you can point me to the language in Obama's bill that says that never would any government employee make thos ekinds of decisions.

If you want to defend Oba,a's plan by saying that government employees make those kinds of decisions today, therefore Obama's plan doesn't change the status quo, that's valid.

The fact is, there would be government employees deciding who lives and who dies. Like we have today, and I'm opposed to that today.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The fact is, there would be government employees deciding who lives and who dies. Like we have today, and I'm opposed to that today.

I chose the status quo argument. This is different than someone at United or BlueCross making the very same decisions how?

I don't see the difference, you are trading one decider for another. My hope is that the current HC plan allows more people to have insurance, rather than go to the Social service Agency in the first place.

[RIJIMMY]

[QUOTE=RIROCKHOUND;817175]I chose the status quo argument. This is different than someone at United or BlueCross making the very same decisions how?

QUOTE]

its opening up a huge can of worms that the government has no business in. Nothing good will come out of this.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Another cheap, tired, and common liberal tactic...

Johnny calls my correlation "ridiculous", yet he offers NOT ONE WORD, not one, as to why my correlation is flawed.

Insulting me is easy. try telling me where I'm wrong, please. enlighten us...

Why bother? Trying to have a discussion with you is futile and merely results in a long pretentious, condescending post from you droning on about how much you hate liberals. Reading about the same 5 talking points has grown exceptionally boring.

What is going to happen to the child is a shame but it is the unfortunate result of not being able to afford real health care. Kids die every day. It's a terrible tragedy but it is not the taxpayer's job to pay half a million dollars to save a person's life.


Edit - Apparently, my post has been edited by a moderator without the courteous of a pm and my main point taken out.

[RIROCKHOUND]

[QUOTE=RIJIMMY;81717

its opening up a huge can of worms that the government has no business in. Nothing good will come out of this.[/QUOTE]

But you are ok with private businesses making the same decisions? Would this same procedure be covered by a private insurance co?

[The Dad Fisherman]

I think Palin's point was more to the fact that a Government board would be deciding whether someone receives care based on the panel reading the patients history and making a determination whether it is warranted that their treatment gets paid for by the government....where this looks more like there just simply isn't any money for it do to budget cuts.

At least that's how I read the differences in the two.....

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Why bother? Attempting to have a discussion with you is like trying to reason with these people:
and merely results in a long pretentious, condescending post from you droning on about how much you hate liberals. Reading about the same 5 talking points has grown exceptionally boring.

What is going to happen to the child is a shame but it is the unfortunate result of not being able to afford real health care. Kids die every day. It's a terrible tragedy but it is not the taxpayer's job to pay half a million dollars to save a person's life.

nice family photo JD

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

At least that's how I read the differences in the two.....

I would agree with that. good point TDF

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=RIJIMMY;817178]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I chose the status quo argument. This is different than someone at United or BlueCross making the very same decisions how?

QUOTE]

its opening up a huge can of worms that the government has no business in. Nothing good will come out of this.

"This is different than someone at United or BlueCross making the very same decisions how? "

Here's how. Look at the difference between the US Post Office and FedEx. Government cannot do anything better than private companies. The larger role the government plays, the more waste there is, menaing less money to pay for actual care, meaning MORE families are told "no", compared to having private companies handle these things.

You really, really don't get that? That's why I want private companies in this space, and not just the feds. Private companies have an incentive to be as lean as possible. The feds would have all kinds of ineffecencies, plus unions to placate.

Lile you, I wish everyone had good healthcare. But if the choice is between limited care provided by the feds, or limited care provided by private enterprise, I'll take private enterprise.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

But you are ok with private businesses making the same decisions? Would this same procedure be covered by a private insurance co?

Private businesses are hired by customers. You know what you're buying when you buy it. I can tell you I went through numberous discussions with my Mom's doctors and insurance companies on experimental treatment and they were always up front on what to expect. My dealings with the insurance companies were fantastic. I cant imagine what it would have been like dealing with a govt. agency. My wife was a legal alien when we met and you should have seen the BS to get her citizenship. You're dealing with the bottom of the barrel admin staff with teh govt. Insurance companies have to manage their risk to stay in business. They have to keep customers happy (to some degree)What does the government have to do? Does the govvt make a business or a moral call? If moral, who pays the bill? I think its too much control by the govt. I really dont have the answer, but dont want the govt in this business.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"This is different than someone at United or BlueCross making the very same decisions how? "

Here's how. Look at the difference between the US Post Office and FedEx. Government cannot do anything better than private companies. The larger role the government plays, the more waste there is, menaing less money to pay for actual care, meaning MORE families are told "no", compared to having private companies handle these things.

You really, really don't get that? That's why I want private companies in this space, and not just the feds. Private companies have an incentive to be as lean as possible. The feds would have all kinds of ineffecencies, plus unions to placate.

Lile you, I wish everyone had good healthcare. But if the choice is between limited care provided by the feds, or limited care provided by private enterprise, I'll take private enterprise.

Another fundamental difference.

In the goal of being leaner, I see the private companies saying 'no' more than the feds IMHO.....

[scottw]

[QUOTE=RIROCKHOUND;817189
I don't see the difference, you are trading one decider for another. My hope is that the current HC plan allows more people to have insurance, rather than go to the Social service Agency in the first place.

Another fundamental difference.

In the goal of being leaner, I see the private companies saying 'no' more than the feds IMHO.....[/QUOTE]

thick as a brick

[RIJIMMY]

How come Jim in Cts quote is attributed to me? everyone knows I dont type that well.

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=RIROCKHOUND;817189]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Another fundamental difference.

In the goal of being leaner, I see the private companies saying 'no' more than the feds IMHO.....

Wrong again.

See, for now at least, we have this thing called the "free market". If a company had a reputation of saying "no" (unreasonably) to save money, no one would buy the product from that company...everyone would buy from the company that delivered the most possible coverage you could afford.

In a single payer system, the consumer has no such protection.

[RIROCKHOUND]

OK. enough of this back to work

Who is advocating for a single payer system?
Not I. I didn't once say we need a single payer system.

You are right about free market. My earlier question stands, would this experimental treatment have been covered by any reasonable private or public insurance?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

OK. enough of this back to work

Who is advocating for a single payer system?
Not I. I didn't once say we need a single payer system.

You are right about free market. My earlier question stands, would this experimental treatment have been covered by any reasonable private or public insurance?

ummmm....if you are getting your healthcare benefits through a government agency you are on single payer health insurance(WHICH IS WHY THIS IS A WONDERFUL EXAMPLE)...the single payer being the tax payer...

there is a far greater chance and many more options for this child in a thriving, free market healthcare than in an overregulated, underfunded government run system(which happens to be the current state of pretty much every example that you can exhibit AND THE DIRECTION THAT OBAMACARE SEEKS TO TAKE US) ....

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Wrong again.

See, for now at least, we have this thing called the "free market". If a company had a reputation of saying "no" (unreasonably) to save money, no one would buy the product from that company...everyone would buy from the company that delivered the most possible coverage you could afford.

In a single payer system, the consumer has no such protection.

amednews: Coverage denials by 4 major insurers rise nearly 50% :: Oct. 25, 2010 ... American Medical News

Here's your free market.

Coverage denials by 4 major insurers rise nearly 50%
Preexisting conditions were used to reject more than 651,000 applicants during a three-year period, says a House committee report.

Also part of the bill is written to stop insurers from denying insurance to children (like this one) with pre-existing conditions.

[scottw]

Why would a government health care program (e.g. Medicare) deny more claims than private insurers?

"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%."

just sayin'

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

Why would a government health care program (e.g. Medicare) deny more claims than private insurers?

"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%."

just sayin'

Thank you Scott W!

Likwid, rirockhound, this is game, set & match. Ask any fair-minded doctor which payer is more likely to pay out, and which is more likely to balk at payment...medicare/medicaid, or private insurers. Why do you think that more and more doctors refuse to accept medicare/medicais patients? Because the docs lose money on those folks.

If you'd put down your Obama worshipping glasses for 2 seconds and look at this objectively, it would be cclear.

Put the word "public" in front of ANYTHING, and it implies something that is dirty, ineffective, dysfunctional, and scary. "Public" parks, schools, golf courses, rest rooms, just name it.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Thank you Scott W!


Put the word "public" in front of ANYTHING, and it implies something that is dirty, ineffective, dysfunctional, and scary. "Public" parks, schools, golf courses, rest rooms, just name it.

public transit, public sector unions, public housing, public enemies...some would argue that they are all simply underfunded otherwise they'd be "utopia"

[scottw]

UTOPIA

Report: British National HC Increasingly Turning Its Back on KidsPosted on December 14, 2010

Ruby Own is a three-year-old British girl with a big smile. But when she was stricken with brain cancer, that smile got weaker and weaker. Similar smiles faded from her parents’ faces when British doctors, part of its socialized medicine system called NHS, told her there was nothing they could for the Ruby.

Couldn’t, or wouldn’t? That‘s the question London’s Daily Mail asks in an extensive article showing how Ruby and others have been “abandoned” by NHS. Luckily, there’s the U.S. Ruby’s parents raised enough money for her to get treatment in Indiana, and the young girl is now cancer free.

From the Mail:

Ruby is just one of a number of cancer-stricken children who have been effectively abandoned by the NHS, leaving their parents to strive against the odds to raise huge sums to fund life-saving specialist care abroad.

Only yesterday, the Mail revealed how John and Vicky Inglis, from York, raised £400,000 to save their five-year-old son Jamie’s life with a pioneering American cancer therapy. They were convinced his chances would be impossibly low if his treatment was left to the NHS.

It is a shameful reflection on our health care service. And, says Peter Bone, a Tory MP campaigning on behalf of such parents, it’s sadly all too typical of an NHS that has an ‘appalling record’ of not taking up new treatments that are adopted far more quickly in other countries.

But what is even more #^&disturbing is that NHS funding may actually be available to give children these kinds of life-saving care. Some of the treatments are available as part of clinical trials here, while in other cases the NHS pays for children to be treated in Europe and the U.S.

Nevertheless, children often miss out: #^&parents say their youngsters get labelled as too ill to receive specialist care in clinical trials for fear of making the treatment’s success rates look too low, or the families simply live in the wrong postcode to get funds for treatment overseas.

Instead, these parents are told there is #^&nothing more that the NHS can do.

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by likwid

amednews: Coverage denials by 4 major insurers rise nearly 50% :: Oct. 25, 2010 ... American Medical News

Also part of the bill is written to stop insurers from denying insurance to children (like this one) with pre-existing conditions.

You are partially correct. Prior to that part of the bill taking effect, private insurers rushed to notify parents of children that they were no longer insured.

Who won, who lost?