Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[quote name='UncleBob']I really don't see what the problem is. I mean, obviously Myke and cammor are smart, well versed individuals. If they're making broad, sweeping statements about "anyone" who says things like "Obamacare", then obviously, they're 100% correct all the time, every time, right? Right?[/QUOTE]

I don't speak in absolutes. And who claimed to be correct 100% of the time?
 
[quote name='dopa345']Just in case anyone here actually wants to understand the health care system and concrete ways to fix it, rather than relying on partisan sound bites, you can download this excellent book to Kindle for free at Amazon.com.[/QUOTE]

Skipping through the book he seems to think UHC is okay if we can keep the waste down, and have an after market for other health services.
 
[quote name='dopa345']Just in case anyone here actually wants to understand the health care system and concrete ways to fix it, rather than relying on partisan sound bites, you can download this excellent book to Kindle for free at Amazon.com.[/QUOTE]

This might be a dumb question but I have to ask none the less. Have you read this book?
 
[quote name='cindersphere']This might be a dumb question but I have to ask none the less. Have you read this book?[/QUOTE]

Of course I've read it. I'm a member of a physician website where the author is also a member and many of his points were discussed as he was writing it.

You may not agree with his suggestions, but I think he does a good job laying out the facts and inefficiencies in our current health care system. And I figured the price was right so I'd pass it along. I hope at the very least, it dispels the myth that doctors and hospitals are somehow "the bad guys" responsible for the rising costs. We're the victims, just as much as patients are.
 
[quote name='dopa345']Of course I've read it. I'm a member of a physician website where the author is also a member and many of his points were discussed as he was writing it.

You may not agree with his suggestions, but I think he does a good job laying out the facts and inefficiencies in our current health care system. And I figured the price was right so I'd pass it along. I hope at the very least, it dispels the myth that doctors and hospitals are somehow "the bad guys" responsible for the rising costs. We're the victims, just as much as patients are.[/QUOTE]

Just asking, I have been rec'd books by people they haven't read before. I just skimmed through it a bit, probably take a better look at it next week.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']Just asking, I have been rec'd books by people they haven't read before. I just skimmed through it a bit, probably take a better look at it next week.[/QUOTE]

There are a couple of things in the book that are iffy (the harping on "market solutions" is usually a tipoff for a non-serious person), but solution #1 is making sure the system has universal coverage.

He seems to be advocating a system like Singapore's but he is short on substance when it comes to how that is going to actually be achieved.
 
I'm not going to start rambling about "Death Panels" like so many on the right are stupidly doing right now, but this quote is pretty awesome...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/us/politics/26death.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1

We would ask that you not broadcast this accomplishment out to any of your lists, even if they are ‘supporters’ — e-mails can too easily be forwarded. Thus far, it seems that no press or blogs have discovered it, but we will be keeping a close watch and may be calling on you if we need a rapid, targeted response. The longer this goes unnoticed, the better our chances of keeping it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no one's trying to sneak anything past the American people here...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Yeah, no one's trying to sneak anything past the American people here...[/QUOTE]
We can't have a grown up conversation about it because Republicans scorched the earth so badly. To review:

1. It's good policy.
2. It saves money.
3. It's common sense.

Naturally the Dems feel like they have to hide it because Republicans will use it further political gains. The paragraph before the one you quoted:
“While we are very happy with the result, we won’t be shouting it from the rooftops because we aren’t out of the woods yet,” Mr. Blumenauer’s office said in an e-mail in early November to people working with him on the issue. “This regulation could be modified or reversed, especially if Republican leaders try to use this small provision to perpetuate the ‘death panel’ myth.”
Click to expand...
facepalm.jpg
 
Make your case and let the people decide.

That's what is supposed to be so great about our government (that whole "by the people, for the people" shtick)... Hiding things simply shows that you feel you automatically know better than everyone else and their opinion on the subject doesn't matter. That's something I don't want our political leaders thinking. Yeah, I know they already do... but I don't care for it.
 
Issuing regulations is a tool. It's not a particularly desirable one, but it is what it is. Congress can pass a law overturning a regulation any time it wants. I agree that I don't like the train of thought here, but we're also dealing with the single most absurd part of the Republican resistance. People hate death panels not because they were ever real or part of the debate, but because they were lied to.

If there is a case to made, I think it's the Republicans that need to propose and vote on a bill. The Dems won the regulation pen fair and square.
 
I personally love the idea of "death panels." Tough choices have to be made and we need to confront them rather than sticking our heads in the sand and pretend those decisions aren't already made every day.
 
Overlap in threads, but still awesome:

http://www.courierpostonline.com/ar...61/State-still-pays-for-GOP-rep-s-health-care
Lance opposes the health care reform package on cost concerns - he's a deficit hawk - and on small-government principles. But it turns out he receives medical care for practically nothing, thanks to the taxpayers of New Jersey.
Lance receives family health coverage that is free except for co-pays, the state Department of Treasury confirmed Friday. The former state senator, assemblyman and Kean administration official qualified for retirement in 2006, his 25th year of service. He retired in January 2009, when he moved on to Washington, and enrolled in the state's free health plan for retirees.
The family plan Lance is enrolled in is the most expensive of the 10 options available. His coverage costs $1,906.42 per month, or $22,877.04 per year.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Make your case and let the people decide.

That's what is supposed to be so great about our government (that whole "by the people, for the people" shtick)... Hiding things simply shows that you feel you automatically know better than everyone else and their opinion on the subject doesn't matter. That's something I don't want our political leaders thinking. Yeah, I know they already do... but I don't care for it.[/QUOTE]
They know that conservatives have derpified a large number of people in this country and they knew if this got out those same people would go DERPDERPDERPDERP DEATH PANELS!!!!.

I swear you are the most disingenuous person in this place. you know why things are done, but you throw your hands up like you're clueless.
 
[quote name='Clak']They know that conservatives have derpified a large number of people in this country and they knew if this got out those same people would go DERPDERPDERPDERP DEATH PANELS!!!!.

I swear you are the most disingenuous person in this place. you know why things are done, but you throw your hands up like you're clueless.[/QUOTE]

Knowing why things are done a certain way and disagreeing with the way they're being done are not exclusive events.

Ultimately, the American People get the government they deserve. The entire process is thrown out the window when politicians try to sneak things through out of fear that people might come out against it. That's a damn scary idea and you know it. Regardless of the reason.
 
[quote name='dopa345']I personally love the idea of "death panels." Tough choices have to be made and we need to confront them rather than sticking our heads in the sand and pretend those decisions aren't already made every day.[/QUOTE]

The very idea is redundant. Denial of care happens in medicine, denial of funding of care happens in the insurance industry. Parsing out where costs are unnecessary due to a low probability of working or improving quality of life would be a sensible approach, fiscally.

But while Bob naively clamors for "a case to be made," as if facts are presented properly in the media, and not misrepresented at all, or spun so that an idiot public doesn't trust facts (see also: "death tax"), the public is already misinformed of what the idea of denial of service would involve.

What Republicans want you to think it is: "Grandma's old, so...no."

What it should be if properly implemented: "Your liver has failed due to decades of alcohol abuse, and we have not found a suitable donor."
 
[quote name='mykevermin']But while Bob naively clamors for transparency in and honesty from government...[/QUOTE]

Re-worded that a bit for you...
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The very idea is redundant. Denial of care happens in medicine, denial of funding of care happens in the insurance industry. Parsing out where costs are unnecessary due to a low probability of working or improving quality of life would be a sensible approach, fiscally.

But while Bob naively clamors for "a case to be made," as if facts are presented properly in the media, and not misrepresented at all, or spun so that an idiot public doesn't trust facts (see also: "death tax"), the public is already misinformed of what the idea of denial of service would involve.

What Republicans want you to think it is: "Grandma's old, so...no."

What it should be if properly implemented: "Your liver has failed due to decades of alcohol abuse, and we have not found a suitable donor."[/QUOTE]

Tell me what the difference is between denial of care, and a family deciding together that it is time to let "grandma" go?
 
And you want to give some bureacracy the power to do this? You can argue that insurance companies already do this, but wouldn't that simply be a transfer of power? You may trust the government to do what is right in those cases, but I most certainly don't, and I also don't believe it is in the governments job description to set something up such as that.

We always come back to the problem being the insurance companies, and yet we just gave them 30 million new customers. That taught em a lesson. Ya-hoo. Of course those 30 million are going to both get coverage they need, and balance out the cost with people paying in that don't actually need it. How it will accomplish both at the same time is beyond me....
 
[quote name='Knoell']And you want to give some bureacracy the power to do this? You can argue that insurance companies already do this, but wouldn't that simply be a transfer of power? You may trust the government to do what is right in those cases, but I most certainly don't, and I also don't believe it is in the governments job description to set something up such as that.[/quote]

moot. because, yes, the decision already exists. and that decision is predicated upon your ability to pay, not your likelihood of dying. a procedure's likelihood of success is a far more sensible matric for establishing or denying care than your ability to afford it. that's not 'care,' that's just classism.

We always come back to the problem being the insurance companies, and yet we just gave them 30 million new customers. That taught em a lesson. Ya-hoo. Of course those 30 million are going to both get coverage they need, and balance out the cost with people paying in that don't actually need it. How it will accomplish both at the same time is beyond me....
Click to expand...

their new customers they don't want and/or have already denied. so while I'm no fan of insurance companies, and would vastly prefer a single payer universal coverage system to the moderate Republican plan that we have in place instead, let's not act like it's a de facto windfall for insurance companies the way medicaid reform under President Bush led to an immediate windfall profit of $32B for the pharmaceutical industry (fiscal responsibility!).
 
[quote name='Clak']I don't understand what's so bad about speaking to someone about how they want to proceed with care.[/QUOTE]

It isn't just speaking to the family, that already happens all the time. It is denying care based on the criteria myke just listed.

I still disagree with it though, health care should be provided to people who need it regardless of cost, or chances of success. The unfortunate problem is really just the cost though, families can already make the decision on their own (with doctor input of course) whether or not to proceed based on the likelihood of success. There is no need for a third party to decide this.

It may not be windfall profits, but they certainly aren't going to be losing money. There is a third group in there which I think is vastly underestimated. I have health insurance and I have only used it once, I wouldn't even bother with it if I didn't get a decent deal from work. That may be my own individually unique perspective, but I have seen too many co-workers and friends tell me they a) don't need health insurance b) don't use the insurance they have. That may just be my age group, but again it is just what I think, and it is a group that is overlooked.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
can you imagine a plan where there is no denial of service *at all* and that equal care is made available to every citizen?

denial of care is a fact of life, and while I agree that agency should be in the hands of the individual and families, it can not always be that way (e.g., would this include the ability of the family to deny care for their under-18 children? not according to this recent ruling: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/l..._operate_on_teen_against_parents__wishes.html )

I agree with you in principle, that denial of care is an unpleasant thing. but to think it can be done away with entirely is too optimistic a view. Moving denial of care from one in which is it based on ability to pay to one where it is based on metrics of the success of the procedure is preferrable, though not perfect, to me.

That's all I'm saying.
 
Nothing in that article that bob posted said care would be denied, it simply discussed how doctors would talk to their patients about where to go with their care.
 
[quote name='Clak']Nothing in that article that bob posted said care would be denied, it simply discussed how doctors would talk to their patients about where to go with their care.[/QUOTE]


They already do that, so how is that denial of care? Case in point a friend of mine's grandparent is deciding not to get another operation to get rid of the cancer he has. He will likely die, but that was their decision. It already happens.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']can you imagine a plan where there is no denial of service *at all* and that equal care is made available to every citizen?

denial of care is a fact of life, and while I agree that agency should be in the hands of the individual and families, it can not always be that way (e.g., would this include the ability of the family to deny care for their under-18 children? not according to this recent ruling: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/l..._operate_on_teen_against_parents__wishes.html )

I agree with you in principle, that denial of care is an unpleasant thing. but to think it can be done away with entirely is too optimistic a view. Moving denial of care from one in which is it based on ability to pay to one where it is based on metrics of the success of the procedure is preferrable, though not perfect, to me.

That's all I'm saying.[/QUOTE]

That may set a dangerous precedent, but I think the Judge was in a pretty tight spot. There are too many unanswered questions, was this a life or death situation? Would not getting the surgery leave the child ultimately paralyzed? Were herbs an appropriate treatment for such an injury?

You can get in trouble for not talking care of injuries to your children already, I don't see why this would be any different. The right of parenting does not supercede the right of the child. (There are limits to that though)

I agree that eliminating both the high cost, and all denial of care is way too optimistic, but if you are looking for a trade off, I don't see how placing your medical future in a third party is going to help the cost unless a lot of people don't get the medical help that you believe they should have.
 
[quote name='Clak']Nothing in that article that bob posted said care would be denied, it simply discussed how doctors would talk to their patients about where to go with their care.[/QUOTE]

Dishonest people tend to be dishonest.
 
[quote name='Knoell']They already do that, so how is that denial of care? Case in point a friend of mine's grandparent is deciding not to get another operation to get rid of the cancer he has. He will likely die, but that was their decision. It already happens.[/QUOTE]
It's not, that's my point. The people screaming death panels!!! are idiots who can't read apparently.
 
Gummint should not be denying people healthcare!

[quote name='Knoell']That may set a dangerous precedent, but I think the Judge was in a pretty tight spot. There are too many unanswered questions, was this a life or death situation? Would not getting the surgery leave the child ultimately paralyzed? Were herbs an appropriate treatment for such an injury?[/QUOTE]

Gummint should be forcing healthcare down the throats of the people!
 
My point is that "death panels" would make the decision making process and the cost factors far more transparent for everyone involved especially patients. One area where there is considerable potential to cut costs is in caring for the terminally ill where we get very little bang for the buck we spend to keep these patients alive. While on the surface it sounds callous, I would argue the opposite that by being upfront about the costs incurred for prolonging life just for a few months, despite the quality of those additional months being dismal and patients can take this into account when making their decision. For example, is it really worth, say, $12,000 a year for 4-6 years if you'll only add 3-5 months of life on a ventilator (a drug Rilutek for ALS for example)? We should have a frank discussion of cost of care and it should be a factor in the decision making process. Otherwise there is no way you achieve meaningful health care reform to curb costs.
 
[quote name='dopa345']My point is that "death panels" would make the decision making process and the cost factors far more transparent for everyone involved especially patients. One area where there is considerable potential to cut costs is in caring for the terminally ill where we get very little bang for the buck we spend to keep these patients alive. While on the surface it sounds callous, I would argue the opposite that by being upfront about the costs incurred for prolonging life just for a few months, despite the quality of those additional months being dismal and patients can take this into account when making their decision. For example, is it really worth, say, $12,000 a year for 4-6 years if you'll only add 3-5 months of life on a ventilator (a drug Rilutek for ALS for example)? We should have a frank discussion of cost of care and it should be a factor in the decision making process. Otherwise there is no way you achieve meaningful health care reform to curb costs.[/QUOTE]

So we should streamline the process for which the situation will occur that at a certain point, you do not have a right to health care because you won't get the "bang for your buck".

How will this not create the same situation in which the rich will pay for that health care because they can afford it, and the poor will simply have to agree.

How do you save money or lower the cost by using denial of service without denying people health coverage?
 
[quote name='IRHari']Gummint should not be denying people healthcare!



Gummint should be forcing healthcare down the throats of the people![/QUOTE]

Yes because making sure a kid is not paralyzed because of poor parenting decisions is certainly shoving healthcare down the throats of the people.

Like I said there isn't enough information, but if your kid gets hit by a car, and you don't take them to a hospital, and they die, can you get in trouble? Absolutely.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Yes because making sure a kid is not paralyzed because of poor parenting decisions is certainly shoving healthcare down the throats of the people.

Like I said there isn't enough information, but if your kid gets hit by a car, and you don't take them to a hospital, and they die, can you get in trouble? Absolutely.[/QUOTE]

You said it *may* set a bad precedent, but it *does* set a bad precedent. I'm sure you were vehemently against the government intervention in the Terri Schiavo case, right?

You are against the gov't pulling care, but you have no problem with the gov't forcing a procedure that the parents don't want. They have some crazy ass nature method that will probably do nothing.
 
[quote name='IRHari']You said it *may* set a bad precedent, but it *does* set a bad precedent. I'm sure you were vehemently against the government intervention in the Terri Schiavo case, right?

You are against the gov't pulling care, but you have no problem with the gov't forcing a procedure that the parents don't want. They have some crazy ass nature method that will probably do nothing.[/QUOTE]

There still isn't enough information out there on what is wrong with the kid, and what would happen if he didn't have the operation. If your kid is in a life or death situation, you have a responsibility to seek medical attention.

This is just like home schooling. Yes you can choose to bring your child out of school and school them yourself, but if you don't do it properly you can get in trouble. There are checks and balances for parents rights over their children.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I am still waiting for someone to explain why its ok to spend more money to exclude people from a free market system.[/QUOTE]

Still waiting.
 
[quote name='Knoell']So we should streamline the process for which the situation will occur that at a certain point, you do not have a right to health care because you won't get the "bang for your buck".

How will this not create the same situation in which the rich will pay for that health care because they can afford it, and the poor will simply have to agree.

How do you save money or lower the cost by using denial of service without denying people health coverage?[/QUOTE]

I'm not advocating making the decisions based sorely on that. I think patients should be far more aware of the financial aspect of their medical decisions. And if the care provided is futile (happens all the time in ICU's where patients are kept alive despite no change of meaningful recovery) then I think patients should foot the bill so if a wealthy family wants to spend their money keeping their brain dead family member on life support, go right ahead. As it is now, insurance does not cover the costs care with no medical benefit, hospitals eat those costs which is a major waste of resources and also limits access to care to a potential patient that could benefit.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Still waiting.[/QUOTE]

Exclude more people? I know we shouldn't exclude those nonexistant people who are getting 15 hemoroid treatments and billing it to medicare but something just tells me they shouldn't get away with that....
 
It is hypocritical to be against Obamacare and still receive taxpayer funded healthcare, right? Or is the argument 'oh well they receive it as part of their job so its A-Okay'.
 
[quote name='IRHari']It is hypocritical to be against Obamacare and still receive taxpayer funded healthcare, right? Or is the argument 'oh well they receive it as part of their job so its A-Okay'.[/QUOTE]

Nada.

If you're receiving taxpayer funded health care because the taxpayers are your employer and you're providing them a "service" (which, of course, the service provided by some is debatable), that's obviously a very different story.

However, I don't think it's necessarily hypocritical to be against government provided health insurance/care just because you're on it. If someone with a legitimate reason (and, again, we could debate what constitutes a "legitimate reason") is on a taxpayer funded health insurance program, I could see them being against the government providing health care/insurance to, say, Bill Gates or such.

I'm not straight-up against taxpayer funded health insurance/health care, but don't believe it should be provided for every single individual.
 
However, state House Republicans remain vigilant in their anti-human life campaign. They are refusing to let measures to restore funding for organ transplants advance because, as the state House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jon Kavanagh (R) explained, “not enough lives would be saved to warrant restoring millions in budget cuts” for the transplants.
Click to expand...
Wait, is that someone judging who gets to live and die? Can't be, he's a member of the party who fought against notions of such tings. I mean if you got a few more people together they could form some sort of panel, a panel of death.
 
[quote name='Clak']Wait, is that someone judging who gets to live and die? Can't be, he's a member of the party who fought against notions of such tings. I mean if you got a few more people together they could form some sort of panel, a panel of death.[/QUOTE]

.....Weren't you guys just agreeing that this would hypothetically be ok? You know, less chance to live = less bang for your buck which = not worth keeping alive. It's more kosher when the government does it right?
 
[quote name='Knoell'].....Weren't you guys just agreeing that this would hypothetically be ok? You know, less chance to live = less bang for your buck which = not worth keeping alive. It's more kosher when the government does it right?[/QUOTE]
I don't think i said shit about letting people die if it's more cost effective. i'm calling about the hypocrites who said our mooslim communist/socialist dictator was going to institute death panels because that's exactly what representative douchebag up there is saying Arizona already does.

Personally I think everyone deserves every chance they have to live. Whether that's practical or not, probably not.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']I'm down to discuss free market healthcare improvements with you. Actual free market solutions, not Republican/Establishment Free Market ideas.[/QUOTE]

So how is that working out?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top