WTF? Were it not for my benefits rep, I'd have burned countless hours trying to sort through insurance BS. It's a benefit provided by my company, and it doesn't have diddly shit to do with all this waste you're talking about. And tell me this - how are you supposed to have insurance adjusters, but still have insurance?
WTF? Were it not for my benefits rep, I'd have burned countless hours trying to sort through insurance BS. It's a benefit provided by my company, and it doesn't have diddly shit to do with all this waste you're talking about. And tell me this - how are you supposed to have insurance adjusters, but still have insurance?
never once did i say they cant make a profit, i said they should not be allowed to advertise prescription drugs... i gave MY idea on starting to control health care COSTS, where is yours? oh, right, you don't have one. and if you do, i would like to see you post it, but i expect you are like Obama, beat around the bush until you have obfuscated the original question enough that people think you said something worth while
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
The relevant percentages are not the percentage of policy holders but rather the percentage of policy holders who are diagnosed with serious diseases and/or need very expensive procedures. Of course, it doesn't really matter how small the number is if its your policy that's getting canceled on the day you're scheduled to have surgery to have a tumor removed. Regardless, the point is that our current outrageously expensive and inefficient system isn't working well and that the private health insurance companies are unreliable and care nothing for the welfare of the people they are supposed to be insuring.
Would the two of you care to argue that private health insurers do not have "death panels" and that they do not try to rescind people's policies for bogus reasons when they are otherwise obligated to pay up? Are all of the news stories about former employees who used to work on the death panels mere fiction? I suppose you guys think that the statistics which show that the American system is pathetically inefficient and expensive compared to foreign systems are fictitious as well?
A black man, who is much more intelligent than your entire family line will ever be, is the President of the USA. You're a dumbass cracker pouting on a geek forum. How does it feel?
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
Edit: This post was mistakenly addressed to Mike Mike. I apologize for that.
Kind of like how everyone else is still waiting for you to explain why the American system is better than other systems when it spends 17% of its GDP on health care while leaving tens of millions uninsured or under-insured with the rest living in terror of losing their insurance when other nations are able to cover everyone with for a much lower percentage of GDP, often having a higher number of doctors per capita?
Mike, are you going to tell us that insurance company death panels do not exist when it's been well documented? Heck, people receive bonuses for finding ways to drop people's insurance coverage.
I'm pretty certain I addressed your pathetic concern three posts up.
where have i said any of that? you are now putting words in my mouth...
I was under the impression that before Obama became POTUS, we needed healthcare REFORM, in order to CONTROL COSTS... now we have legislation on the table which seems to have no way to control costs... all i am asking for is Phokus to show me his plans for controlling costs.
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
Oh, my mistake then. I just have an itchy trigger finger is all. My apologies for that post then.
You're asking the wrong questions. Since pre-existing conditions are irrelevant to employer-paid policies, recission isn't practiced in that market. And since it is only initiated when a subscriber makes a relatively costly claim, the relevant figure is what percentage of paying subscribers end up having their coverage rescinded when they really need it. (See Unconscionable Math for details.)
For those reasons, most people are largely unaware of the scope of the problem and mistakenly think that recission rarely happens. When the State of California Department of Insurance reviewed the practices at Blue Cross though, it found that 72% of the recission determinations were incorrect. Blue Cross eventually agreed to a settlement that involved reinstatement of 2,330 subscribers, a $1 million fine, and $14 million to reimburse improperly dropped subscribers for care. That was only two months after the company had been fined $13 million by the state Department of Managed care for improper recission of another 2,200 subscribers.
HealthNet also was also caught making improper recissions and ended up paying a total of $17.6 million for fines and reimbursed fees for just under 1000 people. Having seen the writing on the wall, Blue Shield avoided fines by "voluntarily" reinstating 700 policy holders and reimbursing them an undisclosed amount for the bills they incurred when they sought care without insurance.
As might be expected, all three companies have severely curtailed their recission practices in California ...but they and other insurers told Congress they have no intention of discontinuing the practice in other less regulated states where it remains a profitable activity. Is it any wonder that insurance companies would like to escape state insurance commissioners and sell their policies with little oversight?
Unlike the Death Panels, recission is real...and it is not rare.
sportage
Lifer
- Feb 1, 2008
- 11,492
- 3,163
- 136
Ok people? here are the ?truths? and benefits from healthcare reform, simplified.
What passing reform will mean for YOU.
1. Portability.
No job? Lost job? Want to change jobs? You keep your healthcare. Period.
2. Competition.
Adding a government plan will force non- government plans to compete. Lower costs for ALL.
3. No ?pre existing? denial. Ever. Period.
You will get healthcare, private and/or a government plans, regardless of current health status..
4. Choice.
Keep your employer based private plan, or go the government plan.
Remember, FedEx and UPS do just fine competing with the government US postal service.
Your new term for today? Choice is Good.
Basically, those are the main benefits.
Lets summarize?
Portability.
Competition.
No Pre existing.
Choice.
And need we remind? Lower costs for all.
So don?t be fooled, or foolish.
Support reform.
Reform will STOP ?CIGNA?s own current ?Death Panels?.
Reform will STOP ?CIGNA? profiting BILLIONS from the sick.
And END CIGNA?s CEO?s collecting MILLIONS from the current ?healthcare for profit? system.
Don?t be fooled. Don?t be foolish. Support reform. Save a life? even if it is yours.
What passing reform will mean for YOU.
1. Portability.
No job? Lost job? Want to change jobs? You keep your healthcare. Period.
2. Competition.
Adding a government plan will force non- government plans to compete. Lower costs for ALL.
3. No ?pre existing? denial. Ever. Period.
You will get healthcare, private and/or a government plans, regardless of current health status..
4. Choice.
Keep your employer based private plan, or go the government plan.
Remember, FedEx and UPS do just fine competing with the government US postal service.
Your new term for today? Choice is Good.
Basically, those are the main benefits.
Lets summarize?
Portability.
Competition.
No Pre existing.
Choice.
And need we remind? Lower costs for all.
So don?t be fooled, or foolish.
Support reform.
Reform will STOP ?CIGNA?s own current ?Death Panels?.
Reform will STOP ?CIGNA? profiting BILLIONS from the sick.
And END CIGNA?s CEO?s collecting MILLIONS from the current ?healthcare for profit? system.
Don?t be fooled. Don?t be foolish. Support reform. Save a life? even if it is yours.
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
Originally posted by: soulcougher73You sure? Maybe cheezburgers will be banned for being too unhealthy?
If this happens, then Lolcats everywhere will go into a violent frenzy in protest.
Specop 007
Diamond Member
- Jan 31, 2005
- 9,454
- 0
- 0
It seems Palin may have been, at least partially, correct in her claim of death panels. Legislation has been changed to remove that which, according to the liberals pushing this, was never there to begin with. If in fact there were no death panels I dont see why the provision would be removed.... Oh thats right. That silly claim that it could be misinterpreted.
Sounds to me like backpedaling. The baseless attacks the Left has made against Palin dont seem to be working to get her to quietly slide away into the night.
And of course if Sarahs assessment wasnt enough, and if the Lefts incessant baseless attacks werent enough... We have this gem of a quote int he article.
"You're putting the authority in the individual rather than the government," Isakson said. "I don't know how that got so mixed up."
Thats right folks. The government knows best.....
Click
Senators exclude end-of-life provision from bill
WASHINGTON ? Key senators are excluding a provision on end-of-life care from health overhaul legislation after language in a House bill caused a furor.
Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a statement Thursday that the provision had been dropped from consideration because it could be misinterpreted or implemented incorrectly.
A health care bill passed by three House committees allows Medicare to reimburse doctors for voluntary counseling sessions about end-of-life decisions. But critics have claimed the provision could lead to death panels and euthanasia for seniors.
The Senate Finance Committee is still working to complete a bill.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
WASHINGTON (AP) ? For more than a decade in Congress, Oregon Rep. Earl Blumenauer has been known for his ever-present bow-tie and tireless advocacy of bikes.
So it is something of a surprise to the Portland Democrat that he has earned a new measure of fame in recent days ? as author of a health-care provision that some critics say would set up a "death panel."
In a widely quoted Facebook posting, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin charged that federal bureaucrats would play God, ruling on whether ailing seniors or children with Down syndrome ? such as Palin's son Trig ? are worthy of health care. Palin called the proposal "downright evil."
Many news organizations ? including The Associated Press ? debunked Palin's claim. The provision that caused the uproar would authorize Medicare to pay doctors for voluntary counseling about end-of-life care.
But Blumenauer says he is astounded that Palin and other critics have not tempered their bleak descriptions of the health care bill.
"It's deliberate at this point," Blumenauer said of Palin's failure to correct her Aug. 7 Facebook posting. "If she wasn't deliberately lying at the beginning, she is deliberately allowing a terrible falsehood to be spread with her name."
Blumenauer singled out another prominent Republican, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, saying he has "linked arms with Sarah Palin and death panels." While Gingrich has not used the term death panel, he has declined several opportunities to denounce Palin's claim.
"You are asking us to trust turning power over to the government, when there are clearly people in America who believe in establishing euthanasia, including selective standards," Gingrich said Sunday on the ABC's "This Week."
Blumenauer called the comments despicable and part of an orchestrated effort by Republicans to discredit the health care overhaul and scare seniors.
In nearly four decades of public life, "this is the starkest example I've ever seen of how, if we're not careful, political discourse dissolves into some type of partisan cage-fighting, where there are no rules and anything goes," said Blumenauer, 60.
Palin did not respond to requests for comment. But in a Facebook posting late Wednesday night, Palin defended her original claim, which President Barack Obama and other Democrats have criticized.
"With all due respect, it's misleading for the president to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients," she said, noting that the provision authorizes consultations whenever a Medicare recipient's health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home.
Since the bill's intent is to reduce overall health care costs, it's logical to assume that care for seniors may be curtailed, Palin said.
"It's all just more evidence that the Democratic legislative proposals will lead to health care rationing, and more evidence that the top-down plans of government bureaucrats will never result in real health care reform," she wrote.
Rick Tyler, a spokesman for Gingrich, said Blumenauer was following a Democratic tactic of linking all Republicans to Palin.
"Obviously Newt didn't embrace her euphemism of death panels. But he said to the larger point, there is a concern that people have about allowing government to be involved in these decisions," Tyler said. "She's raising a point we should discuss."
Blumenauer said the measure he supports would merely allow Medicare to pay doctors for voluntary counseling sessions that address end-of-life issues. Topics include living wills, designating a close relative or a trusted friend as a health care proxy and information about pain medications for chronic discomfort.
The measure would block funds for counseling that presents suicide or assisted suicide as an option, Blumenauer said, calling references to death panels or euthanasia "mind-numbing."
"It's a blatant lie, and everybody who has checked it agrees," he said.
Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski said this week that Palin and other critics were not helping the GOP by throwing out false claims.
"Quite honestly, I'm so offended at that terminology, because it absolutely isn't" in the bill, Murkowski said. "There is no reason to gin up fear in the American public by saying things that are not included in the bill."
Georgia Sen. Johnny Isakson, a Republican who co-sponsored a similar measure in the Senate, said it was "nuts" to claim the bill encourages euthanasia.
"You're putting the authority in the individual rather than the government," Isakson said. "I don't know how that got so mixed up."
Blumenauer said the controversy was helping Democrats in a "perverse way."
By continuing to spread a widely refuted claim, Republican critics are undercutting their own credibility, he said. The controversy has drawn more attention to the original proposal, which passed largely unnoticed when a health overhaul was approved by three House committees.
"This has taken on an outsized significance and so more people are paying attention to it than ever before," Blumenauer said. "I think you will see more people use this to say, 'What will happen to me if I am in an accident? Here's what I want.' More people are going to take matters into their own hands."
Thread merged with existing thread discussing this topic
Anandtech Senior Moderator
Red Dawn
Sounds to me like backpedaling. The baseless attacks the Left has made against Palin dont seem to be working to get her to quietly slide away into the night.
And of course if Sarahs assessment wasnt enough, and if the Lefts incessant baseless attacks werent enough... We have this gem of a quote int he article.
"You're putting the authority in the individual rather than the government," Isakson said. "I don't know how that got so mixed up."
Thats right folks. The government knows best.....
Click
Senators exclude end-of-life provision from bill
WASHINGTON ? Key senators are excluding a provision on end-of-life care from health overhaul legislation after language in a House bill caused a furor.
Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a statement Thursday that the provision had been dropped from consideration because it could be misinterpreted or implemented incorrectly.
A health care bill passed by three House committees allows Medicare to reimburse doctors for voluntary counseling sessions about end-of-life decisions. But critics have claimed the provision could lead to death panels and euthanasia for seniors.
The Senate Finance Committee is still working to complete a bill.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
WASHINGTON (AP) ? For more than a decade in Congress, Oregon Rep. Earl Blumenauer has been known for his ever-present bow-tie and tireless advocacy of bikes.
So it is something of a surprise to the Portland Democrat that he has earned a new measure of fame in recent days ? as author of a health-care provision that some critics say would set up a "death panel."
In a widely quoted Facebook posting, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin charged that federal bureaucrats would play God, ruling on whether ailing seniors or children with Down syndrome ? such as Palin's son Trig ? are worthy of health care. Palin called the proposal "downright evil."
Many news organizations ? including The Associated Press ? debunked Palin's claim. The provision that caused the uproar would authorize Medicare to pay doctors for voluntary counseling about end-of-life care.
But Blumenauer says he is astounded that Palin and other critics have not tempered their bleak descriptions of the health care bill.
"It's deliberate at this point," Blumenauer said of Palin's failure to correct her Aug. 7 Facebook posting. "If she wasn't deliberately lying at the beginning, she is deliberately allowing a terrible falsehood to be spread with her name."
Blumenauer singled out another prominent Republican, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, saying he has "linked arms with Sarah Palin and death panels." While Gingrich has not used the term death panel, he has declined several opportunities to denounce Palin's claim.
"You are asking us to trust turning power over to the government, when there are clearly people in America who believe in establishing euthanasia, including selective standards," Gingrich said Sunday on the ABC's "This Week."
Blumenauer called the comments despicable and part of an orchestrated effort by Republicans to discredit the health care overhaul and scare seniors.
In nearly four decades of public life, "this is the starkest example I've ever seen of how, if we're not careful, political discourse dissolves into some type of partisan cage-fighting, where there are no rules and anything goes," said Blumenauer, 60.
Palin did not respond to requests for comment. But in a Facebook posting late Wednesday night, Palin defended her original claim, which President Barack Obama and other Democrats have criticized.
"With all due respect, it's misleading for the president to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients," she said, noting that the provision authorizes consultations whenever a Medicare recipient's health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home.
Since the bill's intent is to reduce overall health care costs, it's logical to assume that care for seniors may be curtailed, Palin said.
"It's all just more evidence that the Democratic legislative proposals will lead to health care rationing, and more evidence that the top-down plans of government bureaucrats will never result in real health care reform," she wrote.
Rick Tyler, a spokesman for Gingrich, said Blumenauer was following a Democratic tactic of linking all Republicans to Palin.
"Obviously Newt didn't embrace her euphemism of death panels. But he said to the larger point, there is a concern that people have about allowing government to be involved in these decisions," Tyler said. "She's raising a point we should discuss."
Blumenauer said the measure he supports would merely allow Medicare to pay doctors for voluntary counseling sessions that address end-of-life issues. Topics include living wills, designating a close relative or a trusted friend as a health care proxy and information about pain medications for chronic discomfort.
The measure would block funds for counseling that presents suicide or assisted suicide as an option, Blumenauer said, calling references to death panels or euthanasia "mind-numbing."
"It's a blatant lie, and everybody who has checked it agrees," he said.
Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski said this week that Palin and other critics were not helping the GOP by throwing out false claims.
"Quite honestly, I'm so offended at that terminology, because it absolutely isn't" in the bill, Murkowski said. "There is no reason to gin up fear in the American public by saying things that are not included in the bill."
Georgia Sen. Johnny Isakson, a Republican who co-sponsored a similar measure in the Senate, said it was "nuts" to claim the bill encourages euthanasia.
"You're putting the authority in the individual rather than the government," Isakson said. "I don't know how that got so mixed up."
Blumenauer said the controversy was helping Democrats in a "perverse way."
By continuing to spread a widely refuted claim, Republican critics are undercutting their own credibility, he said. The controversy has drawn more attention to the original proposal, which passed largely unnoticed when a health overhaul was approved by three House committees.
"This has taken on an outsized significance and so more people are paying attention to it than ever before," Blumenauer said. "I think you will see more people use this to say, 'What will happen to me if I am in an accident? Here's what I want.' More people are going to take matters into their own hands."
Thread merged with existing thread discussing this topic
Anandtech Senior Moderator
Red Dawn
WOW!!! This has never been covered. thanks for this new and fresh topic.
:roll:
Mods can we please have 1 tread on this medical mess?
:roll:
Mods can we please have 1 tread on this medical mess?
Specop 007
Diamond Member
- Jan 31, 2005
- 9,454
- 0
- 0
Then why remove the provision? Why remove something that wasnt there to begin with.
You know rationed health care HAS to occur, because its the only reasonable way to control costs.
Even Obama knows this.
Click
THE PRESIDENT: So that?s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that?s also a huge driver of cost, right?
I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.
So how do you ? how do we deal with it?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that?s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It?s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that?s part of what I suspect you?ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.
Ok, we just wont call them Death Panels. Gotchya.
Click
So Obama "suspects" that the legislative process will produce some sort of independent group that can give non-determinative "guidance" on end-of-life care for the chronically ill, with an eye towards saving money. Just don't call them death panels!
Why remove what wasnt there. Oh wait. It must have been there, because they removed it! Of course they wont admit thats what it was and of course the fools running around will of course support the claims made by the political criminals. No suprises here so far.
Every form of health care on earth is already rationed. The death panels never existed, anyone who thinks the legislation said anything of the sort is either woefully misinformed or deliberately ignorant.
EDIT: If you think what the legislation is proposing is a 'death panel', then every single insurance company and hospital on the planet has a 'death panel' already.
AND even if their were "Death Panels". It is no different then Insurance Company "Death Panels".
Next time try to at least pick a real fight.
Pulsar
Diamond Member
- Mar 3, 2003
- 5,224
- 306
- 126
Frankly, I don't think any president in recent times has had a mandate. 66% (2/3) would be a mandate - the amount of votes it takes to over turn a presidential veto. I don't think Bush ever had a mandate either.
Are you somehow insinuating that because I don't think that this is a mandate, I must be republican? That would be silly on your part.
They took it out because of Republicans like Palin and Chuck Grassley lying to the public about it.
Which is sad, because then other Republican lie about that "proving" the death panels would happen.
Swiftboats: 1, Truth: 0.
Which is sad, because then other Republican lie about that "proving" the death panels would happen.
Swiftboats: 1, Truth: 0.
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
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".
Of course, the morons complaining about the fictitious government death panels conveniently ignore the very real death panels at the private insurance companies. One can only assume that they support and back the private insurance death panels wholeheartedly.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter