Obama's "Death Panel"

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
As Fern's post above serves to illustrate: corporate death panels = just dandy; gov't death panels = OMG Revolution! Blood in the streets! And while corporate death panels will decide your fate based on how expensive your treatment is, at least the gov't could be expected to have some compassion considering there's no profit motive on their part.

See bolded part - I suspect that's where these people disagree.

While there's no profit motive for the government, there is a cost reduction motive. And no real difference between for the person requesting a life-extending proceedure.

Fern

There were no "Death Panels". The idea of Private "Death Panels" was born merely to point out the ridiculousness of the whole "Death Panel" issue when what was really being proposed already existed in the Status Quo. The implication was that the Reform was adding something New that was insidious, not that Private Corps were more trustworthy than Government. The Trustworthiness angle is merely backtracking, trying to cover up ones' embarrassment of falling for the "Death Panel" propaganda. Sorry.

Of course there are.

Proponents of UHC have dragged out anecdotal stories of someone being denied a possible life-extending procedure by their private insurer because it was ruled not worthy of a try. Surely you cannot have forgotten all these stories back when UHC proponents were in the 'demonize private insureres' phase of this debate?

To first have elevated this issue in the selling of UHC and now deny it exists because it has boomeranged against you isn't going to fly IMO.

Fern

Esk pretty much nailed it. No one called those "Death Panels", but they were certainly real situations that happened often. They were rightly used to criticize the Status Quo.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

Well, at least you admit there's no practical difference between some faceless corporation making life choices for you and some gov't bureaucracy making that same decision. So *ahem* what's all the fuss about again?

Personally, I accept the existence of death panels. I suppose some are willing to push for every possible proceedure that may extend their life (or one of a loved one etc). But I wouldn't choose to put myself through that.

So, for me the whole 'death panel' issue lacks interest.

However, I can image whether for ideological reasons (they simply don't want the gov having that power) or some practical reasons (you might be able to threaten a private insurer with litigation or bad publicity etc, but not the US gov) some have strong opposition to this. As hard as it is to fight the decision of a big private insurance company, it's much harder to fight the US gov.

Fern

You keep trying to sanitize the term. No one is buying it.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: loki8481
she's some lady who ran for a ceremonial office, lost, and will never hold another public office again in her life.

Never hold office again? I wouldn't be so sure. Don't ever underestimate the collective stupidity of the American electorate. We "elected" Bush twice, after all.

And just what ceremonial office are you talking about? The one that elevated Theodore Roosevelt to the Presidency? THAT one?

Or is it the one which put the decision to use the atomic bomb in the hands of an ex-haberdasher and machine pol from Missouri? Oh, wait, that's the same "ceremonial" office as the one above!

Anyway, here's the deal: When she shuts up, we will, k?

Electing Bush was an error, electing Obama was a sign of the stupidity of the general populace of America.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: loki8481
she's some lady who ran for a ceremonial office, lost, and will never hold another public office again in her life.

Never hold office again? I wouldn't be so sure. Don't ever underestimate the collective stupidity of the American electorate. We "elected" Bush twice, after all.

And just what ceremonial office are you talking about? The one that elevated Theodore Roosevelt to the Presidency? THAT one?

Or is it the one which put the decision to use the atomic bomb in the hands of an ex-haberdasher and machine pol from Missouri? Oh, wait, that's the same "ceremonial" office as the one above!

Anyway, here's the deal: When she shuts up, we will, k?

Electing Bush was an error, re-electing Bush was a sign of the stupidity of the general populace of America.

fixed

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

The death panels at private insurance companies rescind your insurance when you are diagnosed with cancer and other treatable ailments. Are you saying that a national healthcare system would deny people cancer treatment? (Is this how it works in the other nations? I suspect that a horde of angry Brits would say otherwise.)

Re: Bolded part

I'm not familiar with people getting dropped because they've had expensive proceedures (my father recently had a by-pass operation that cost over $100K).

I understood the problem was upon after having the problem you couldn't get (new) insurance. I.e., if currently covered under your employer's plan you can't quit or get fired/laid-off for fear of being denied coverage.

Seems to me an employee in the company's group plan couldn't be dropped for several reasons. I suppose a lone individual purchasing their coverage might be.

However, if the private insurers do drop people merely because they now need their coverage - well that's a matter for HI reform (which I've always argued here needs to be done before any type of UHC which is really just universal health insurance anyway. Why do we need crappy HI universally?).

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

You keep trying to sanitize the term. No one is buying it.

I've already said the term is needlessly dramatic. However you guys persist in repeating it so I use it in my responses.

Fern

 

[Pens1566]

I find it amusing that the viewpoint of "I don't want the govt. making end of life decisions, it should be up to the family" is held by the same ideological group that passed legislation to replace someone's feeding tube a few years ago ...

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern

Of course there are.

Proponents of UHC have dragged out anecdotal stories of someone being denied a possible life-extending procedure by their private insurer because it was ruled not worthy of a try. Surely you cannot have forgotten all these stories back when UHC proponents were in the 'demonize private insureres' phase of this debate?

To first have elevated this issue in the selling of UHC and now deny it exists because it has boomeranged against you isn't going to fly IMO.

Fern

A panel making nonbinding recommendations is nowhere close to the same thing and you know it.

Yeah, I know it.

Nobody is talking it either. Who cares about non-binding stuff"

So the question is why do you even bring it up? A strawman attempt?

Fern

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Did they remove the end-of-life counseling part that confused Americans who suffer from low IQs? I think it was a good move on their part and something I had thought they would need to do. Hopefully this will defuse some of the bogus claims about government "death panels".

Its bad precedent because the opponents will make stuff up about other parts of the bill (not that they aren't already) knowing that if enough FUD is spread around, it will get deleted from the bill.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

The death panels at private insurance companies rescind your insurance when you are diagnosed with cancer and other treatable ailments. Are you saying that a national healthcare system would deny people cancer treatment? (Is this how it works in the other nations? I suspect that a horde of angry Brits would say otherwise.)

Re: Bolded part

I'm not familiar with people getting dropped because they've had expensive proceedures (my father recently had a by-pass operation that cost over $100K).

I understood the problem was upon after having the problem you couldn't get (new) insurance. I.e., if currently covered under your employer's plan you can't quit or get fired/laid-off for fear of being denied coverage.

Seems to me an employee in the company's group plan couldn't be dropped for several reasons. I suppose a lone individual purchasing their coverage might be.

However, if the private insurers do drop people merely because they now need their coverage - well that's a matter for HI reform (which I've always argued here needs to be done before any type of UHC which is really just universal health insurance anyway. Why do we need crappy HI universally?).

Fern

Ya, well who is going to propose that? The Republicans? :laugh:

When HillaryCare was shot down, the Insurance Industry was all apologetic and promising to mend their ways....nothing happened and problems continued to get worse. Republicans did nothing to fix the situation. If the current attempt of Reform fails, nothing will change again and you can bet that even if a new Bill was brought forth the wailing against it would be just as loud and full of Alarmist BS, no matter what is in that Reform. The real opposition behind Reform wants the Status Quo.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern

Of course there are.

Proponents of UHC have dragged out anecdotal stories of someone being denied a possible life-extending procedure by their private insurer because it was ruled not worthy of a try. Surely you cannot have forgotten all these stories back when UHC proponents were in the 'demonize private insureres' phase of this debate?

To first have elevated this issue in the selling of UHC and now deny it exists because it has boomeranged against you isn't going to fly IMO.

Fern

A panel making nonbinding recommendations is nowhere close to the same thing and you know it.

Yeah, I know it.

Nobody is talking it either. Who cares about non-binding stuff"

So the question is why do you even bring it up? A strawman attempt?

Fern

Because that's the absolute closest thing that this legislation has to these magical death panels you have conjured up. Fern, you've really bought into the crazy lately. You feeling ok? You still calling for Obama's birth certificate?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

Because that's the absolute closest thing that this legislation has to these magical death panels you have conjured up. Fern, you've really bought into the crazy lately. You feeling ok? You still calling for Obama's birth certificate?

Nope.

There is much discussion, and support of some Dem leaders and their followers for a single payer system. Then there's also just the gov plan that would competre with existing private insurers.

If private insurers have to make these kinds of decisions, so will the bueaucrats running the gov system. No way around it.

Yeah, I'd like to see Obama's birth certificate, I suspect it's the "Delayed BC" allowed under Hawaiian law (the document being shown now reflects his birth registration as ocurring 4 days after his DOB - which meets the parameters of the Delayed BC rules). If so, that'll generate an unholy, yet entertaining, fuss all across the USA.

Fern

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Fern
Yeah, I'd like to see Obama's birth certificate, I suspect it's the "Delayed BC" allowed under Hawaiian law (the document being shown now reflects his birth registration as ocurring 4 days after his DOB - which meets the parameters of the Delayed BC rules). If so, that'll generate an unholy, yet entertaining, fuss all across the USA.

Fern

Fern, you seem to be a reasonable person so i will ask you this question. Don't you think the secret service does the appropriate background checks of people running for this position (potus) to ensure that they meet the requirements of the constitution?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

Because that's the absolute closest thing that this legislation has to these magical death panels you have conjured up. Fern, you've really bought into the crazy lately. You feeling ok? You still calling for Obama's birth certificate?

Nope.

There is much discussion, and support of some Dem leaders and their followers for a single payer system. Then there's also just the gov plan that would competre with existing private insurers.

If private insurers have to make these kinds of decisions, so will the bueaucrats running the gov system. No way around it.

Yeah, I'd like to see Obama's birth certificate, I suspect it's the "Delayed BC" allowed under Hawaiian law (the document being shown now reflects his birth registration as ocurring 4 days after his DOB - which meets the parameters of the Delayed BC rules). If so, that'll generate an unholy, yet entertaining, fuss all across the USA.

Fern

/facepalm

Sorry to hear you've gone nuts. Maybe if we ever get UHC we can get you the help you need.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Fern

If private insurers have to make these kinds of decisions, so will the bueaucrats running the gov system. No way around it.

The difference is, public insurance programs like Medicare pay out around 95% of funds allocated for operations with 5% going to overhead while insurance companies pay out about 80% of the funds allocated for operations with 20% going to overhead, and that's not including the execs' mega-buck salaries, mega-buck bonuses and golden parachutes.

You're going to get "bureaucrats" making decisions regardless of whether it's a private or government run program. The job has to be done.

Yeah, I'd like to see Obama's birth certificate, I suspect it's the "Delayed BC" allowed under Hawaiian law (the document being shown now reflects his birth registration as ocurring 4 days after his DOB - which meets the parameters of the Delayed BC rules). If so, that'll generate an unholy, yet entertaining, fuss all across the USA.

Been smoking that holy water again, have you? :Q

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: Fern
Yeah, I'd like to see Obama's birth certificate, I suspect it's the "Delayed BC" allowed under Hawaiian law (the document being shown now reflects his birth registration as ocurring 4 days after his DOB - which meets the parameters of the Delayed BC rules). If so, that'll generate an unholy, yet entertaining, fuss all across the USA.

Fern

Fern, you seem to be a reasonable person so i will ask you this question. Don't you think the secret service does the appropriate background checks of people running for this position (potus) to ensure that they meet the requirements of the constitution?

No, it's not their job.

After checking quite a bit the only thing we currently have is the person's own signature on the F.E.C. form asserting that they meet the requirements. For this reason a bill was recently introduced in Congress by a Rep from CA. Obviously, no need for a bill if we had existing proceedures.

EDIT: This is the wrong thread to bring up Obama's BC - it's off-topic - so I won't reply to that subject here.

Fern