Slickdeals.net

Slickdeals.net (http://slickdeals.net/forums/index.php)
-   The Podium (http://slickdeals.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=18)
-   -   Paul Krugman Recommends 'Death Panels' and 'VAT Tax' to Help Balance Budget (http://slickdeals.net/f/2394747-paul-krugman-recommends-death-panels-and-vat-tax-to-help-balance-budget)

OhNoItsDEVO 11-18-2010 11:10 AM

Paul Krugman Recommends 'Death Panels' and 'VAT Tax' to Help Balance Budget
 
Interesting bit of news

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel...nce-budget

horskj 11-18-2010 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhNoItsDEVO (Post 34417229)

Oh No… but you have to remember that those of us who have been in the insurance industry or have read the bill were accused of wild conspiracy theories, when it came to “death panels”

Epiphyte 11-18-2010 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by horskj (Post 34417413)
Oh No… but you have to remember that those of us who have been in the insurance industry or have read the bill were accused of wild conspiracy theories, when it came to “death panels”

He used the term mockingly. Do you think Medicare should fund any medical procedure regardless of efficacy and cost?

Dr. J 11-18-2010 11:22 AM

no more taxes until gov't severely tightens its belt.

horskj 11-18-2010 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epiphyte (Post 34417499)
He used the term mockingly. Do you think Medicare should fund any medical procedure regardless of efficacy and cost?

Do you think that a government official should make healthcare decisions that should be left to you and your doctor?

Mocking...my ass

farnan 11-18-2010 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by horskj (Post 34418049)
Do you think that a government official should make healthcare decisions that should be left to you and your doctor?

Make that "you, your doctor AND YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY."

What makes you think every single insurance company doesn't also determine whether or not a life and death procedure is covered?

Epiphyte 11-18-2010 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by horskj (Post 34418049)
Do you think that a government official should make healthcare decisions that should be left to you and your doctor?

Of course they should. Just like how your private insurance does. If you still want the treatment you can get it if you pay for it yourself. How do you expect Medicare to reduce costs if it has to pay for every treatment any doctor wants regardless of whether it's effective or exorbitantly expensive?

Quote:

Originally Posted by horskj (Post 34418049)
Mocking...my ass

From the Newsbusters article:

"Now, to be sure, Krugman was likely being derisive using that term."

OhNoItsDEVO 11-18-2010 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epiphyte (Post 34417499)
He used the term mockingly. Do you think Medicare should fund any medical procedure regardless of efficacy and cost?

In trying to explain himself, Krugman said this,

Quote:

health care costs will have to be controlled, which will surely require having Medicare and Medicaid decide what they’re willing to pay for — not really death panels, of course, but consideration of medical effectiveness and, at some point, how much we’re willing to spend for extreme care
AKA Death Panels.

farnan 11-18-2010 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by horskj (Post 34417413)
Oh No… but you have to remember that those of us who have been in the insurance industry or have read the bill were accused of wild conspiracy theories, when it came to “death panels”

Funny thing is, the death panels argument came up in conjunction with "end of life counseling". Something we've done for a LONG time. But the fanatical idiots interpreted that as death panels when, in actuality, it is just the one-on-one counseling to help prepare a person for death--i.e. financial decisions (make sure wills are in place), DNR instructions (do not recessitate), etc.

TRNT 11-18-2010 11:40 AM

From the article: "Although he was likely taking a swipe at former governor Sarah Palin with the reference, Paul Krugman on Sunday recommended "death panels" as a means of helping to balance the federal budget."

This (that is this OP) is pretty desperate and pitiful.

Epiphyte 11-18-2010 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhNoItsDEVO (Post 34418299)
In trying to explain himself, Krugman said this...
AKA Death Panels.

And the article itself says he was "likely being derisive using that term."

If you want to call it Death Panels, go ahead. But that's not an argument against them. Why is it OK for your private insurance to have Death Panels and not the Government?

TRNT 11-18-2010 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by horskj (Post 34418049)
Do you think that a government official should make healthcare decisions that should be left to you and your doctor?

I am reminded of Terry Schiavo.

Lilian 11-18-2010 11:52 AM

Or we can just have no social health insurance/care and let people die without having to decide for them.

They're going to die either way. Might as well save the money to not have something depressing like a Death Panel.

larrymoencurly 11-18-2010 11:55 AM

Why are you trying to keep intelligence and reason out of this forum?

Quit posting nonsense from liars.

OhNoItsDEVO 11-18-2010 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 34418479)
From the article: "Although he was likely taking a swipe at former governor Sarah Palin with the reference, Paul Krugman on Sunday recommended "death panels" as a means of helping to balance the federal budget."

This (that is this OP) is pretty desperate and pitiful.

Cool personal attack bro

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ZsFQ2Sifuy...0/thumbsUp.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by larrymoencurly (Post 34419099)
Why are you trying to keep intelligence and reason out of this forum?

Quit posting nonsense from liars.

Was that directed at me? I was simply posting a news story.

Epiphyte 11-18-2010 12:00 PM

Here's what I see happening:

Some people don't think there should be Medicare at all. That's a reasonable idea. But, given that we do have Medicare, some of the people against it say that it shouldn't be able to manage costs by choosing not to fund extremely expensive and questionably effective treatments, which is what any private insurance company does.

Basically, if we're to have Medicare at all, they want it to be as expensive and uncompetitive as possible.

rrc06 11-18-2010 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larrymoencurly (Post 34419099)
Why are you trying to keep intelligence and reason out of this forum?

So you'll feel more at home? Heck, with the way Paul Krugman has been lately [theatlantic.com], he will feel at home too.

TRNT 11-18-2010 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhNoItsDEVO (Post 34419127)
Cool personal attack bro.

I am sorry if I/it was vague. I meant OP as original POST.

Krazen1211 11-18-2010 12:04 PM

It's well known that Paul Krugman is a redistributionist, massive government shill.

He crossed big government a long time ago.

Mixels 11-18-2010 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhNoItsDEVO (Post 34418299)
AKA Death Panels.

Good: Life Panels
Bad: Death Panels

I c wut u did thar.

horskj 11-18-2010 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by farnan (Post 34418195)
Make that "you, your doctor AND YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY."What makes you think every single insurance company doesn't also determine whether or not a life and death procedure is covered?

You obviously do not understand how insurance…whether it is Medicare Advantage or a Supplement… relates to Medicare.


Medicare is always the primary vendor… if it is a supplement, Medicare determines coverage. If it Medicare Advantage… Medicare determines coverage, so how would the insurance company be involved in the decision process?

Epiphyte 11-18-2010 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by horskj (Post 34421541)
You obviously do not understand how insurance…whether it is Medicare Advantage or a Supplement… relates to Medicare.


Medicare is always the primary vendor… if it is a supplement, Medicare determines coverage. If it Medicare Advantage… Medicare determines coverage, so how would the insurance company be involved in the decision process?

I think Farnan was saying that the decision isn't between you and your doctor when you have private insurance either. So why all the demand that Medicare can have no say in what procedures are funded? It's a double standard.

The only time the decision is between you and your doctor is when insurance (public or private) is not involved and you are paying out of pocket.

farnan 11-18-2010 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epiphyte (Post 34421689)
I think Farnan was saying that the decision isn't between you and your doctor when you have private insurance either. So why all the demand that Medicare can have no say in what procedures are funded? It's a double standard.

The only time the decision is between you and your doctor is when insurance (public or private) is not involved and you are paying out of pocket.

Bingo.

horskj 11-18-2010 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 34418523)
I am reminded of Terry Schiavo.

Terry Schiavo was not on Medicare

appleyum 11-18-2010 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhNoItsDEVO (Post 34417229)

Sometimes I wonder how he got a nobel prize and if he isn't using it for publicity way too much.

VAT seriously??? :facepalm2:

TRNT 11-18-2010 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by horskj (Post 34422871)
Terry Schiavo was not on Medicare

So private individuals and private ins forced to pay goooooooooooood but Medicare pay baaaaaaaaad?

cruizerfish 11-18-2010 07:08 PM

If anyone mentions the word "gold" around this Keynesian standard bearer, expect nothing but ridicule. Krugman channels Keynes in everything he does....
Quote:

"Keynes. It's nonsense. He's like a witch doctor in medicine. You can't follow Keynes. Keynes didn't understand Economics."
Peter Schiff

Epiphyte 11-19-2010 05:12 AM

So no one can tell me why it's ok for private insurance to have "death panels" but not Medicare?

Does that mean that we're finally through with this absurd double standard?

tbuccaneer 11-19-2010 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epiphyte (Post 34442393)
So no one can tell me why it's ok for private insurance to have "death panels" but not Medicare?

Does that mean that we're finally through with this absurd double standard?

The only possible justification I can see is that the elderly are somewhat forced to use Medicare.

Epiphyte 11-19-2010 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbuccaneer (Post 34442501)
The only possible justification I can see is that the elderly are somewhat forced to use Medicare.

I could say that I'm somewhat forced to use the insurance my employer provides because otherwise I wouldn't get a tax break on it. Are parents somewhat forced to send their children to public schools? Does that mean that public schools should offer more resources than any private schools?

Edit: If you're against Medicare "death panels" then you're for big government and for a larger national debt.

rrc06 11-19-2010 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epiphyte (Post 34442393)
So no one can tell me why it's ok for private insurance to have "death panels" but not Medicare?

Does that mean that we're finally through with this absurd double standard?

Silly right-wingers need to stop throwing around the "death panel" term and realize that doctors and patients need to be more realistic about the limits of modern medicine.

Here's a great read on the subject (a bit lengthy but well worth it IMO): http://www.newyorker.com/reportin...ct_gawande

Mixels 11-19-2010 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epiphyte (Post 34442393)
So no one can tell me why it's ok for private insurance to have "death panels" but not Medicare?

Does that mean that we're finally through with this absurd double standard?

Chill with the death panels, mon amie. I'm willing to bet you know full well that the term "death panel" implies some sinister organization that sits about deciding, on regular bases, who will die of an arbitrarily selected group of people in much the same way that Nazi officials might have decided every Wednesday whose turn was up for the gas chamber. That's not what this is about. Not even close. People die. Don't like it, take it up la Creador Grande.

The fact about medicine is that, while it can save some of these people in some situations, it is unrealistic to think it can save all of them in all situations. Further, every attempt at medical treatment consumes a piece of the proverbial pie (freshly baked annually though it may be). An unfortunately practical problem exists when there are more mouths to feed than their are pieces in the pie, and one feature of this problem as it applies to medicine is that rationing is not possible. Inadequate treatment have you die just as dead as no treatment at all. Ergo, selective medical treatment is, to the extent necessary, entirely appropriate and, well, necessary.

To call the people who make those decisions members of "death panels," however, is reckless, spiteful, and intellectually dishonest. The term is inaccurate and distracts readers and listeners from the crux of the problem (as those who use the term should see it). These decision panels (which are nothing new--they've been doing their thing in hospitals for a great long while) aren't required because the people who compose them revel in the joy of condemning poor souls to torturous demises. They are required because each individual instance of health care incurs a cost. In America, those costs come all too frequently on account of the prevalence of unhealthy habits (especially concerning the foods we tend to eat and the unhealthy habits such as smoking and drinking we tend to practice), and that problem is compounded by the litigious and bureaucratic nature of the system, which of course emboldens and magnifies each individual expense. Those are the problems. Kindly redirect your flapping, ye olde sanguine herrings.

Danman114 11-19-2010 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epiphyte (Post 34442393)
So no one can tell me why it's ok for private insurance to have "death panels" but not Medicare?

Does that mean that we're finally through with this absurd double standard?

The problem with government "death panels" is inherant in the nature of Government.

As a citizen, you make up a part of your government and paying taxes into it is mandatory. We perceive it as immoral for government (which we consider representing the people, including the sick needing treatment) to deny treatment because we force individuals to pay into the 'system', we consider the 'system' as being run on behalf of those who pay into it, and considering no one would deny themselves access to the medical needs, it doesn't make sense that the government that represents them would deny it.

Private insurance is different in this because private insurance is a completely seperate entity that you enter into an agreement with (it's voluntary) and part of the agreement you recognize that the insurance company has the final say in what treatments you receive.

Dr. J 11-19-2010 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danman114 (Post 34443645)
The problem with government "death panels" is inherant in the nature of Government.

As a citizen, you make up a part of your government and paying taxes into it is mandatory. We perceive it as immoral for government (which we consider representing the people, including the sick needing treatment) to deny treatment because we force individuals to pay into the 'system', we consider the 'system' as being run on behalf of those who pay into it, and considering no one would deny themselves access to the medical needs, it doesn't make sense that the government that represents them would deny it.

Private insurance is different in this because private insurance is a completely seperate entity that you enter into an agreement with (it's voluntary) and part of the agreement you recognize that the insurance company has the final say in what treatments you receive.

e.g. it's an entitlement.

We're very fond of creating entitlements in this country, even though they have a tendency to explode cost-wise, and of course they're all sacred cows so the politicians stick their heads in the sand and hope the problems "go away".

Epiphyte 11-19-2010 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danman114 (Post 34443645)
The problem with government "death panels" is inherant in the nature of Government.

As a citizen, you make up a part of your government and paying taxes into it is mandatory. We perceive it as immoral for government (which we consider representing the people, including the sick needing treatment) to deny treatment because we force individuals to pay into the 'system', we consider the 'system' as being run on behalf of those who pay into it, and considering no one would deny themselves access to the medical needs, it doesn't make sense that the government that represents them would deny it.

Private insurance is different in this because private insurance is a completely seperate entity that you enter into an agreement with (it's voluntary) and part of the agreement you recognize that the insurance company has the final say in what treatments you receive.

But, why such high expectations for Medicare, but not for other programs we're forced to pay for, yet often choose not to utilize? I don't expect every public school to offer the resources of Exeter.

Also, it's curious that most of the people who deride the so-called "death panels" seem to be conservatives. It takes quite a level of cognitive dissonance to be opposed to big government entitlements while simultaneously demanding that if there are going to be entitlements, that they need to be nearly limitless in scale. I guess it makes it easy to accuse government of being inefficient when you don't allow government programs to cut-costs in ways that private industry does.

tbuccaneer 11-19-2010 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epiphyte (Post 34442773)
I could say that I'm somewhat forced to use the insurance my employer provides because otherwise I wouldn't get a tax break on it. Are parents somewhat forced to send their children to public schools? Does that mean that public schools should offer more resources than any private schools?

Edit: If you're against Medicare "death panels" then you're for big government and for a larger national debt.

No, not because of that. You can't collect Social Security without also signing up for Medicare.

tbuccaneer 11-19-2010 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epiphyte (Post 34445777)
But, why such high expectations for Medicare, but not for other programs we're forced to pay for, yet often choose not to utilize? I don't expect every public school to offer the resources of Exeter.

Also, it's curious that most of the people who deride the so-called "death panels" seem to be conservatives. It takes quite a level of cognitive dissonance to be opposed to big government entitlements while simultaneously demanding that if there are going to be entitlements, that they need to be nearly limitless in scale. I guess it makes it easy to accuse government of being inefficient when you don't allow government programs to cut-costs in ways that private industry does.

You're right. I'd rather abolish Medicare entirely.

smegalicious 11-19-2010 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danman114 (Post 34443645)
The problem with government "death panels" is inherant in the nature of Government.

As a citizen, you make up a part of your government and paying taxes into it is mandatory. We perceive it as immoral for government (which we consider representing the people, including the sick needing treatment) to deny treatment because we force individuals to pay into the 'system', we consider the 'system' as being run on behalf of those who pay into it, and considering no one would deny themselves access to the medical needs, it doesn't make sense that the government that represents them would deny it.

Would this same logic apply to other govt-funded "systems" and benefits?

In other words, since no poor person would deny themselves additional SNAP benefits or additional Section 8 benefits, does it make sense that the govt that represents them would deny it?

The problem w/this argument is that it is not the function of govt to represent the interests of each individual person (who all, likely, have competing interests), but to represent the interests of the people as a whole.

Epiphyte 11-19-2010 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbuccaneer (Post 34446041)
No, not because of that. You can't collect Social Security without also signing up for Medicare.

But, you can still get supplemental insurance or pay out of pocket. Just like how you can choose to pull your kids out of public school and pay for private school while simultaneously paying taxes for the public school you're not using directly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbuccaneer (Post 34446461)
You're right. I'd rather abolish Medicare entirely.

I'm far more receptive to arguments about abolishing Medicare than arguments against "death panels."

tbuccaneer 11-19-2010 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epiphyte (Post 34446581)
But, you can still get supplemental insurance or pay out of pocket. Just like how you can choose to pull your kids out of public school and pay for private school while simultaneously paying taxes for the public school you're not using directly.



I'm far more receptive to arguments about abolishing Medicare than arguments against "death panels."

Yes, but you've already paid the taxes to Medicare, which is more akin to what goes on in public schooling. You're asking someone to pay the taxes, then also pay the tuition supplement, and then be forced to pay for private school. That seems a little unreasonable doesn't it? I see no reason why the elderly should be forced to sign up for Medicare if they don't want it, especially being that most of the funding comes from payroll taxes anyway.

tbuccaneer 11-19-2010 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epiphyte (Post 34446581)
I'm far more receptive to arguments about abolishing Medicare than arguments against "death panels."

And for the record, I oppose the death panels arguments too. I just don't like the tying of Social Security with Medicare.

The article posted is good, but leaves out the whole picture.

"Market purists blame the existence of insurance: if patients and families paid the bills themselves, those expensive therapies would all come down in price. But they’re debating the wrong question. The failure of our system of medical care for people facing the end of their life runs much deeper. To see this, you have to get close enough to grapple with the way decisions about care are actually made."

The issue isn't that the therapies would come down in price, although they probably would somewhat. It's that most families wouldn't be willing to sell their houses and everything they own to prolong treatments that just have no realistic chance of working.

The problem is one of a disconnect between the people paying and those receiving. It's the same reason that parents of school age children want the world for their kids in terms of education spending. All non parents are forced to subsidize and indulge their excess fantasies.

Epiphyte 11-19-2010 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbuccaneer (Post 34447113)
Yes, but you've already paid the taxes to Medicare, which is more akin to what goes on in public schooling. You're asking someone to pay the taxes, then also pay the tuition supplement, and then be forced to pay for private school. That seems a little unreasonable doesn't it?

That's my point, that it's similar to public schools. You're not forced to pay for your kids to go to private schools. Just as you're not forced to pay for supplemental insurance to go along with Medicare.

I'm open to arguments that Medicare or public education are unreasonable. But, I think it's silly to expect Medicare to offer nearly limitless resources just because we're forced to pay for it. We don't have the same expectations for public schools and we're forced to pay for them too.

Edit: Many conservatives want to limit public school funding. Yet, many conservatives are against limiting Medicare spending. How come?

tbuccaneer 11-19-2010 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epiphyte (Post 34447353)
That's my point, that it's similar to public schools. You're not forced to pay for your kids to go to private schools. Just as you're not forced to pay for supplemental insurance to go along with Medicare.

I'm open to arguments that Medicare or public education are unreasonable. But, I think it's silly to expect Medicare to offer nearly limitless resources just because we're forced to pay for it. We don't have the same expectations for public schools and we're forced to pay for them too.

Edit: Many conservatives want to limit public school funding. Yet, many conservatives are against limiting Medicare spending. How come?

You're not following what I'm saying. Medicare isn't free. Public school is, if you live in that community. Public schools are supported by tax money alone. Medicare is supported by payroll taxes AND the premiums the elderly must pay. If you want to go to private school, you still have to pay the taxes, but there is no tuition you must also pay for the public school that you won't use. Once you start to collect Social Security, you must also pay the Medicare premium, even if you do not desire to use it.

See what I'm saying now?

tbuccaneer 11-19-2010 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epiphyte (Post 34447353)
That's my point, that it's similar to public schools. You're not forced to pay for your kids to go to private schools. Just as you're not forced to pay for supplemental insurance to go along with Medicare.

I'm open to arguments that Medicare or public education are unreasonable. But, I think it's silly to expect Medicare to offer nearly limitless resources just because we're forced to pay for it. We don't have the same expectations for public schools and we're forced to pay for them too.

Edit: Many conservatives want to limit public school funding. Yet, many conservatives are against limiting Medicare spending. How come?

As to why many conservatives are against cutting Medicare spending, it's probably that for many, they'd love to see the whole system crash and fail. I've teetered on that idea before, but ultimately, the joy I would get in watching the entire liberal regime come crashing down forever is outweighed by my desire to see a return to traditional America, without the violence and fiscal ruin.

Epiphyte 11-19-2010 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbuccaneer (Post 34447657)
You're not following what I'm saying. Medicare isn't free. Public school is, if you live in that community. Public schools are supported by tax money alone. Medicare is supported by payroll taxes AND the premiums the elderly must pay. If you want to go to private school, you still have to pay the taxes, but there is no tuition you must also pay for the public school that you won't use. Once you start to collect Social Security, you must also pay the Medicare premium, even if you do not desire to use it.

See what I'm saying now?

Is there really all that substantial a difference between Medicare premiums and a tax if you're forced to pay them both?

tbuccaneer 11-19-2010 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epiphyte (Post 34447815)
Is there really all that substantial a difference between Medicare premiums and a tax if you're forced to pay them both?

Perhaps not, but I can see why people would think that a system that doesn't allow them to opt out shouldn't declare some people not worth spending treatment money on.

It's the same way that parents of children with severe learning disabilities demand that the schools pay $100,000 a year to try to educate their children, even though many of them cannot be educated.

Epiphyte 11-19-2010 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tbuccaneer (Post 34448007)
Perhaps not, but I can see why people would think that a system that doesn't allow them to opt out shouldn't declare some people not worth spending treatment money on.

It's the same way that parents of children with severe learning disabilities demand that the schools pay $100,000 a year to try to educate their children, even though many of them cannot be educated.

Right, I can understand how paying that second tax (premiums) could unnerve some.

With all the talk about debt, it's critical to engage the greatest contributor, which is Medicare, and make it more efficient using cost-cutting practices that are regularly implemented in private industry. We might be better off with no Medicare at all, but I don't foresee it disappearing any time soon and we can't afford to wait for that to happen before taking action.

On a side note: This has been a pretty enjoyable exchange. I appreciate the reasoned views you and others have offered up. :)

tbuccaneer 11-19-2010 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epiphyte (Post 34448729)
Right, I can understand how paying that second tax (premiums) could unnerve some.

With all the talk about debt, it's critical to engage the greatest contributor, which is Medicare, and make it more efficient using cost-cutting practices that are regularly implemented in private industry. We might be better off with no Medicare at all, but I don't foresee it disappearing any time soon and we can't afford to wait for that to happen before taking action.

On a side note: This has been a pretty enjoyable exchange. I appreciate the reasoned views you and others have offered up. :)

Thank you :) Same to you.

I agree that something has to be done about Medicare. But notice that people don't complain when Medicaid forbids certain procedures. I think it's because people recognize that Medicaid is in essence provides a basic level of support for which the beneficiaries have not paid for. Medicare, people see as something they've paid into their whole lives and should not be limited by some evil panel now. Of course you and I know that most people on Medicare today draw far more out then they ever contributed, even adjusting for inflation and investment returns.

But that's the key difference.

Danman114 11-19-2010 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smegalicious (Post 34446545)
Would this same logic apply to other govt-funded "systems" and benefits?

In other words, since no poor person would deny themselves additional SNAP benefits or additional Section 8 benefits, does it make sense that the govt that represents them would deny it?

If you look at the trends in gov't provided housing, one of the lastest and greatest ideas (in the northeast anyway) is 'mixed income' housing. Pairing Section 8 receipients with young professionals in the same type of units in new construction. Essentially providing 'premium' housing to the poorest members of our society.

One thing you can always tell in government is it will almost always cost more to do something next year than it does this year. One might think over time people get more efficient at things, whether it's preventing crime, teaching students, providing food and shelter, etc., but when it's government running the show, that is more the exception than the rule.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epiphyte (Post 34445777)
But, why such high expectations for Medicare, but not for other programs we're forced to pay for, yet often choose not to utilize? I don't expect every public school to offer the resources of Exeter.

If you think the current drive isn't for more public schools to be more like elite schools, your crazy. Small class sizes, special attention to students who are slow or falling behind, more diverse educational programs, and virually anything else you can think of that costs money is being used in our public school system.

In fact, I bet there are school systems today that have a single teacher earning $90,000 (in salary and bene's) to help a few disadvantaged students.

Schools in this country are getting anything except more efficient.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epiphyte (Post 34445777)
Also, it's curious that most of the people who deride the so-called "death panels" seem to be conservatives.

Just so we're on the same page, I'm against all those entitlements. SS, Medicare, & Medicaid are all giant slush funds wasting my money as far as I'm concerned. And the only reason I use the term 'death panels' as a discripter for those who make the decisions between what procedures are selected is because I don't believe they have the tools needed (that the market process provides) to efficiently make decisions to improve the lives of citizens.

It's by no means their fault, it's just inherent in the nature of their position. They won't be able to make as good of a decision because if they fail at their job they don't go out of business. In fact if they fail, they'll probably get more money shifted their way.

JackHandey 11-19-2010 09:27 AM

Perhaps the level of care we provide to our own citizens would be less of an issue, were we to stop providing health care to those that are not citizens without reimbursement.

Epiphyte 11-19-2010 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackHandey (Post 34450679)
Perhaps the level of care we provide to our own citizens would be less of an issue, were we to stop providing health care to those that are not citizens without reimbursement.

Less of an issue, sure. But, would that make more than a small dent in the problem? I'd like to see some numbers.

Tony_Danza 11-19-2010 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epiphyte (Post 34450975)
Less of an issue, sure. But, would that make more than a small dent in the problem? I'd like to see some numbers.

Well if we're talking solely about emergency room costs, Medicaid patients use the ER with twice the frequency of the uninsured, and only a subset of the uninsured patients are non-citizens.

tbuccaneer 11-19-2010 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony_Danza (Post 34451423)
Well if we're talking solely about emergency room costs, Medicaid patients use the ER with twice the frequency of the uninsured, and only a subset of the uninsured patients are non-citizens.

Yup, it wouldn't make that enormous a dent, just like removing earmarks wouldn't. But it's symbolic, and it's important.

Many people on the government teet, either through Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, Social Security, unemployment, or whatever, say things like "Cut all the waste and then we can talk about cutting my benefits" or "Stop providing tons of services to illegals first."

I don't think people will be willing to take the necessary drastic cutbacks that will be required in the entitlement programs until after the most egregious of wasteful expenditures are eliminated.

JackHandey 11-19-2010 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epiphyte (Post 34450975)
Less of an issue, sure. But, would that make more than a small dent in the problem? I'd like to see some numbers.

This is what I am able to find... Bear in mind that we have more illegal aliens now than when this was written, so the costs are most likely higher.
Data on health care costs for illegal immigrants are sketchy because hospitals and community health centers don't ask about patients' legal status. In California, a 2004 study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform put the state's annual cost at $1.4 billion. Similar studies in Colorado and Minnesota in 2005 came up with much smaller estimates: $31 million and $17 million, respectively. Texas estimated its 2006 costs at $1.3 billion. Because most illegal immigrants are relatively young and healthy, they generally don't need as much health care treatment as U.S. citizens.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) continues to bring injured and ill illegal immigrants to hospital emergency rooms without taking financial responsibility for their medical care. Almost $190 million or about 25 percent of the uncompensated costs southwest border county hospitals incurred resulted from emergency medical treatment provided to illegal immigrants.
That's $2.748 BILLION dollars. In just 4 states.

They are also using the hell out of our SW ER's.

That isn't even considering the impact upon our educational system...

California $3,220,200,000
Texas $1,645,400,000
New York $1,306,300,000
Illinois $834,000,000
New Jersey $620,200,000
For all 50 states $11,919,900,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econ...ted_States

That's right, we spend almost 12 BILLION dollars educating illegal immigrants. If we just took care of our own, we would not be spread so thin.

Epiphyte 11-19-2010 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackHandey (Post 34452153)
This is what I am able to find... Bear in mind that we have more illegal aliens now than when this was written, so the costs are most likely higher.
Data on health care costs for illegal immigrants are sketchy because hospitals and community health centers don't ask about patients' legal status. In California, a 2004 study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform put the state's annual cost at $1.4 billion. Similar studies in Colorado and Minnesota in 2005 came up with much smaller estimates: $31 million and $17 million, respectively. Texas estimated its 2006 costs at $1.3 billion. Because most illegal immigrants are relatively young and healthy, they generally don't need as much health care treatment as U.S. citizens.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) continues to bring injured and ill illegal immigrants to hospital emergency rooms without taking financial responsibility for their medical care. Almost $190 million or about 25 percent of the uncompensated costs southwest border county hospitals incurred resulted from emergency medical treatment provided to illegal immigrants.
That's $2.748 BILLION dollars. In just 4 states.

They are also using the hell out of our SW ER's.

That isn't even considering the impact upon our educational system...

California $3,220,200,000
Texas $1,645,400,000
New York $1,306,300,000
Illinois $834,000,000
New Jersey $620,200,000
For all 50 states $11,919,900,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econ...ted_States

That's right, we spend almost 12 BILLION dollars educating illegal immigrants. If we just took care of our own, we would not be spread so thin.

Thanks for the research. $2.748 billion for a few large states with large illegal immigrant populations is still a very small part of medicare/medicaid spending. So it would make a small dent, but in no way comes close to solving the problem.

JackHandey 11-19-2010 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epiphyte (Post 34452425)
Thanks for the research. $2.748 billion for a few large states with large illegal immigrant populations is still a very small part of medicare/medicaid spending. So it would make a small dent, but in no way comes close to solving the problem.

To place it in perspective, it's equivalent to 30,000 of those prostate cancer treatments that you thought were outrageous enough to create a thread about.

Epiphyte 11-19-2010 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackHandey (Post 34452635)
To place it in perspective, it's equivalent to 30,000 of those prostate cancer treatments that you thought were outrageous enough to create a thread about.

Right, still a drop in the bucket as far as overall expenditures. Of course, if restrictions were expanded to many other procedures that cost too much to do too little, then we could be approaching an actual solution.

Edit: If we want to do something about the debt, healthcare spending needs to be reduced. If we're going to reduce health care spending, we're going to have to do a lot more than restrict illegal's access and implement malpractice reform because those two solutions are small in scale compared to the overall beast.

JackHandey 11-19-2010 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epiphyte (Post 34453169)
Right, still a drop in the bucket as far as overall expenditures. Of course, if restrictions were expanded to many other procedures that cost too much to do too little, then we could be approaching an actual solution.

Kind of the point... All of these "drops in the bucket" add up. If we cracked down on the illegal aliens, and government aid fraud, we would have more money available to take care of the things that are a concern for our citizens. I would feel much better about providing 30K citizens an extra 4 months of life, than allowing illegal aliens to steal that money from us.

Neo Tocqueville 11-19-2010 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danman114 (Post 34443645)
The problem with government "death panels" is inherant in the nature of Government.

As a citizen, you make up a part of your government and paying taxes into it is mandatory. We perceive it as immoral for government (which we consider representing the people, including the sick needing treatment) to deny treatment because we force individuals to pay into the 'system', we consider the 'system' as being run on behalf of those who pay into it, and considering no one would deny themselves access to the medical needs, it doesn't make sense that the government that represents them would deny it.

Private insurance is different in this because private insurance is a completely seperate entity that you enter into an agreement with (it's voluntary) and part of the agreement you recognize that the insurance company has the final say in what treatments you receive.

Have to completely disagree, Dan. The 'problem' with government "death panels" is simply the fact that dishonest propagandists are using the term to describe what is an utterly reasonable and proper thing to do.

Government-provided health care is an attempt to mitigate the effects of inequities that exist in our societies (because of a free market economy) that are, most often, not the fault of an individual and (therefore) unjust. Since it is impossible to make a determination about each individual -- whether or not his circumstances are his fault or 'bad luck' -- we've created some basic structure to provide basic services to those we think are likely to need it.

It is the moral thing to do, in a nation so rich with resources. And, to make sure that this service is available to the citizens, a judicious use of available resources is also the right/moral thing to do. There is nothing improper, let alone immoral about judicious use of resources.

Danman114 11-19-2010 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo Tocqueville (Post 34463611)
Have to completely disagree, Dan. The 'problem' with government "death panels" is simply the fact that dishonest propagandists are using the term to describe what is an utterly reasonable and proper thing to do.

I have no doubt that propagandists use the term... They actually use it much differently than I do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo Tocqueville (Post 34463611)
Government-provided health care is an attempt to mitigate the effects of inequities that exist in our societies (because of a free market economy) that are, most often, not the fault of an individual and (therefore) unjust. Since it is impossible to make a determination about each individual -- whether or not his circumstances are his fault or 'bad luck' -- we've created some basic structure to provide basic services to those we think are likely to need it.

What is also impossible to determine in a government run health care system is at what level to stop services, which is the exact role of supposed "death panels".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo Tocqueville (Post 34463611)
It is the moral thing to do, in a nation so rich with resources. And, to make sure that this service is available to the citizens, a judicious use of available resources is also the right/moral thing to do. There is nothing improper, let alone immoral about judicious use of resources.

The problem is, showing you are making a judicious use of resources. If there is a health care company that does a poor job at the 'death panel' job, then they would eventually go out of business. This isn't the case with a government run system.

As for the morality of taking care of the sick, I couldn't agree more. Prior to the government getting really involved, most Boston area hospitals were either run by the Church or in conjunction with local universities (or both). The problem began when government stuck its fingers in this charity work, and then created a profitable business out of it, eventually forcing out many non-profit hospitals and charities.

Neo Tocqueville 11-19-2010 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danman114 (Post 34466585)
I have no doubt that propagandists use the term... They actually use it much differently than I do.

What is also impossible to determine in a government run health care system is at what level to stop services, which is the exact role of supposed "death panels".

The problem is, showing you are making a judicious use of resources. If there is a health care company that does a poor job at the 'death panel' job, then they would eventually go out of business. This isn't the case with a government run system.

Why not? It very well could be (and frankly IS the case). Elected officials are our "board of directors." If we hold them accountable for the performance of the government agencies, and not just empty sloganeering and broad ideologies, which is what I think a lot of people intuitively do, then they would ensure that government agencies do their job right.

But, just to look at it only from the cost side, I hope you're aware that Medicare cost [hhs.gov] has risen by about 9% annually whereas health care premiums have risen at about 10% annually, since the 60s. As many have rightly pointed out, we don't have a Medicare problem; we have a health care problem.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Danman114 (Post 34466585)
As for the morality of taking care of the sick, I couldn't agree more. Prior to the government getting really involved, most Boston area hospitals were either run by the Church or in conjunction with local universities (or both). The problem began when government stuck its fingers in this charity work, and then created a profitable business out of it, eventually forcing out many non-profit hospitals and charities.

Government made medicine profit-able? What era are you referring to?

Anyway, to my mind, it was technology and surplus income that made medicine such a profitable business. I don't remember the statistic exactly but the share of GDP we spend on food + clothing + health care hasn't changed since the 60s. What has happened is that food + clothing has become much cheaper (thanks to technology) and those savings have been transferred to the health care industry. A good argument to be made here is, well, may be food and clothing prices haven't risen because government doesn't buy lots of foods or cloths. There are issues of subsidies, etc., but I think the bottom line is technology.

Besides, even if you're right, it doesn't matter because there's no turning the clock back. Today, the difference between the quality of life that money can buy and what is available for free is simply enormous. That wasn't the case even back in 1965.

Radeck 02-24-2013 06:48 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feat...-P4HwI4i5I

Paul Krugman, a major architect and hero of the Keynesian left, admits Death Panels and higher taxes will be needed by 2020-2035.

Let's see if the media (and Krugman himself) will apologize to Sarah Palin and the conservatives who said exactly that, but were mocked and called racists and fear mongers.

transcript (audio is a bit unclear)
Quote:

“Eventually we do have a problem. That the population is getting older, health care costs are rising,” Krugman said during his lecture at Sixth & I Historic Synagogue in Washington, D.C. “There is this question of how we’re going to pay for the programs.”

“The year 2025, the year 2030, something is going to have to give,” he added. “We’re going to need more revenue … Surely it will require some sort of middle class taxes as well.”

“We won’t be able to pay for the kind of government the society will want without some increase in taxes … on the middle class, maybe a value added tax.”

“And we’re also going to have to make decisions about health care, doc pay for health care that has no demonstrated medical benefits. So the snarky version, which I shouldn’t even say because it will get me in trouble, is death panels and sales taxes is how we do this.

riznick 02-25-2013 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epiphyte (Post 34418493)
Why is it OK for your private insurance to have Death Panels and not the Government?

Because private insurance isn't the government. Death panels are necessary. It's important to bring them up so that people are aware that decisions will be made and they might not like who is making those decisions.

While I am for national health care, I trust private insurance death panels more than government death panels. My grandparents in Britain would have lived much longer if they were in the US and had insurance. It's purely annecdotal, but when these things happen close to home, it strongly helps us form our opinions.

Hopefully, one day, I'll have coverage from both the government and insurance, so I'll get the best of both worlds.

riznick 02-25-2013 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo Tocqueville (Post 34467335)
Why not? It very well could be (and frankly IS the case). Elected officials are our "board of directors." If we hold them accountable for the performance of the government agencies, and not just empty sloganeering and broad ideologies, which is what I think a lot of people intuitively do, then they would ensure that government agencies do their job right.

I'm not sure how to hold them accountable. The election system is terribly flawed. People who vote are not really qualified to decide on who to vote for. It's incredibly depressing.

In theory, you may be right. In practice, it's a disaster.

rrc06 02-25-2013 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by riznick (Post 57807102)
Because private insurance isn't the government. Death panels are necessary. It's important to bring them up so that people are aware that decisions will be made and they might not like who is making those decisions.

While I am for national health care, I trust private insurance death panels more than government death panels. My grandparents in Britain would have lived much longer if they were in the US and had insurance. It's purely annecdotal, but when these things happen close to home, it strongly helps us form our opinions.

Hopefully, one day, I'll have coverage from both the government and insurance, so I'll get the best of both worlds.

And honestly, this whole thing with death panels is nothing but scare tactics. We spend way too much on ICU/aggressive care for terminal patients. Doctors need to more frank with families/patients and families/patients need to be more realistic.

Long but a good read: http://www.newyorker.com/reportin...ntPage=all

riznick 02-25-2013 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrc06 (Post 57807772)
And honestly, this whole thing with death panels is nothing but scare tactics. We spend way too much on ICU/aggressive care for terminal patients. Doctors need to more frank with families/patients and families/patients need to be more realistic.

Long but a good read: http://www.newyorker.com/reportin...ntPage=all

A friend of mine exhausted his insurance benefits and spent everything he had to keep his wife alive as long as possible. I think it prolonged her life a few months. He lost his home and everything. He moved in with his parents at around 50 without a dime to his name.

He said that he doesn't regret it at all and would do it again. I'd do the same. I wouldn't think twice about sacrificing every last cent I have to prolong a family member's life.

I understand that the government and health care companies couldn't survive doing that. There are lines that they need to set. They shouldn't cross those lines for anyone because of or age or social status. I accept that and understand it.

rrc06 02-25-2013 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by riznick (Post 57816030)
A friend of mine exhausted his insurance benefits and spent everything he had to keep his wife alive as long as possible. I think it prolonged her life a few months. He lost his home and everything. He moved in with his parents at around 50 without a dime to his name.

He said that he doesn't regret it at all and would do it again. I'd do the same. I wouldn't think twice about sacrificing every last cent I have to prolong a family member's life.

I understand that the government and health care companies couldn't survive doing that. There are lines that they need to set. They shouldn't cross those lines for anyone because of or age or social status. I accept that and understand it.

Exactly. For the extraordinary heroic care, it should come down to the patient and their families to provide those resources.

travathian 02-25-2013 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by riznick (Post 57816030)
He said that he doesn't regret it at all and would do it again. I'd do the same. I wouldn't think twice about sacrificing every last cent I have to prolong a family member's life.

I can't help but think you didn't even bother reading the article linked. It should be required reading for everyone in this country who ever wants to use the term "death panels" or frankly even talk about the state of health care in this country.

riznick 02-25-2013 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by travathian (Post 57822677)
I can't help but think you didn't even bother reading the article linked. It should be required reading for everyone in this country who ever wants to use the term "death panels" or frankly even talk about the state of health care in this country.

It's quite reasonable for me to call them that. Want an open discussion? Don't pretend that death panels wont exist.

I'm not sure why you quoted that specific line of text, however. I stated that I understand that providers have to draw the line somewhere, and that when it gets personal you might not want any line drawn.

travathian 02-25-2013 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by riznick (Post 57823066)
Two of my grandparents died early due to national health care "death panels". It's quite reasonable for me to call them that. Want an open discussion? Don't pretend that death panels wont exist.

Thanks for proving my point, you obviously didn't read the article. It isn't possible to have an open discussion with someone who is ignorant about the situation or the facts at hand. Come back when you have actually educated yourself instead of just blathering useless anecdotes.

edit: If you actually read the article, you will "get" why I quoted that part of your post in particular.

TRNT 02-25-2013 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhNoItsDEVO (Post 34417229)

Oh goodie....a blog claiming Krugman recommends death panels.

riznick 02-25-2013 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by travathian (Post 57823158)
Thanks for proving my point, you obviously didn't read the article. It isn't possible to have an open discussion with someone who is ignorant about the situation or the facts at hand. Come back when you have actually educated yourself instead of just blathering useless anecdotes.

edit: If you actually read the article, you will "get" why I quoted that part of your post in particular.

I read some of it. I'll give it some more consideration later.

But who is more difficult to have a conversation with here? Answer: it's you.
Perhaps you could explain the article a bit so that people understand what you are referring to. Don't expect everyone on a forum to read a 10 page essay when you can give us the cliffs.

You call me ignorant about the situation, but it is you who exhibits ignorance. You don't have enough details to call me ignorant on the situation.

The anecdotes that I provided were quite useful and appropriate.

DJPlayer 02-25-2013 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 57803180)
Paul Krugman, a major architect and hero of the Keynesian left, admits Death Panels and higher taxes will be needed by 2020-2035.

actually I assumed probably in the mere next couple years. But this is just all a matter of basic mathematics.. People get older cost more to support in older age. More surgeries to prolong life etc.. At some point it becomes a cost issue.

As for taxes.. I actually thought a VAT tax would be the table in the next couple years. But people won't like that because it taxes everyone rather than a particular group. Yes, those with more money buy more and will pay more.. But, since everyone will feel it, people will gripe.

Now when the middle class feels a tax increase that's when sh*t hits the fan.. b/c that's when people will become active and wonder how we ever got to that point. At that point they will turn on MSNBC and be made aware that it's Bush's fault.. :lol:

Gotchaforce 02-25-2013 10:33 PM

Im confused, are people seriously suggesting that private health care insurance companies never disagree with doctors and have never once let someone die while trying to deny a procedure??
Lets not even mention health care companies fighting tooth and nail to attribute illnesses to pre-existing conditions.

Health care companies are traded on the stock market for christ sake and are in the business of denying as much care as possible in the name of profit, exactly how dumb do you have to be to use the word death panels without realizing it applies equally if not MORE to private health insurance?

Gotchaforce 02-25-2013 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by riznick (Post 57807102)
Because private insurance isn't the government. Death panels are necessary. It's important to bring them up so that people are aware that decisions will be made and they might not like who is making those decisions.

While I am for national health care, I trust private insurance death panels more than government death panels. My grandparents in Britain would have lived much longer if they were in the US and had insurance. It's purely annecdotal, but when these things happen close to home, it strongly helps us form our opinions.

Hopefully, one day, I'll have coverage from both the government and insurance, so I'll get the best of both worlds.

That is one vague anecdote. the NHS has longer life expectancies than the U.S.

The only area where NHS falls short is when it comes to throwing money at experimental cancer treatments. Did your grandparents have cancer?

When you say "much longer" what does that even mean? 6 months? 5 years?

You forgot a big asterik after "US and had insurance" and thats "and a big bank account to pay for their enormous health care rates"

The NHS has been blasted for not extending the lives of elderly cancer patients for several months. Theres another side to the coin and thats the families who keep people alive through tortuous chemo treatments for several months instead of letting them succumb relatively peacefully to the cancer.

riznick 02-25-2013 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gotchaforce (Post 57830228)
Im confused, are people seriously suggesting that private health care insurance companies never disagree with doctors and have never once let someone die while trying to deny a procedure??

It's less rare than we are made to believe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gotchaforce (Post 57830228)
Lets not even mention health care companies fighting tooth and nail to attribute illnesses to pre-existing conditions.

Again, this is also more rare than we are led to believe. There are plenty of valid reasons for the pre-existing condition rules. Some people like to cheat the system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gotchaforce (Post 57830228)
Health care companies are traded on the stock market for christ sake and are in the business of denying as much care as possible in the name of profit, exactly how dumb do you have to be to use the word death panels without realizing it applies equally if not MORE to private health insurance?

Ok, you have been brainwashed. This paragraph makes it very clear. Your arguments are extremely flawed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gotchaforce (Post 57830282)
That is one vague anecdote. the NHS has longer life expectancies than the U.S.

That likely has to do with many factors. Also, I favor NHS as I am very aware not everyone has access to insurance or care. BTW, insurance and care are two completely separate things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gotchaforce (Post 57830282)
The only area where NHS falls short is when it comes to throwing money at experimental cancer treatments. Did your grandparents have cancer? When you say "much longer" what does that even mean? 6 months? 5 years?

No, not cancer. Could very well be 5 years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gotchaforce (Post 57830282)
You forgot a big asterik after "US and had insurance" and thats "and a big bank account to pay for their enormous health care rates"

As I stated. I hope to have both universal health care and insurance for those events that universal care doesn't cover.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gotchaforce (Post 57830282)
The NHS has been blasted for not extending the lives of elderly cancer patients for several months. Theres another side to the coin and thats the families who keep people alive through tortuous chemo treatments for several months instead of letting them succumb relatively peacefully to the cancer.

I think that's up to the family, patient and those willing and capable to pay for the care. I wouldn't force a family member to suffer. If they asked me to help keep them alive as long as possible, I'd do what I could to help them.

Gotchaforce 02-25-2013 11:05 PM

What a great breakdown

"its rare.

its rare.

YOURE BRAINWASHED"

So you acknowledge theres very real death panels for private health care but its not as bad as socialized medicine.

Please at least know your numbers regarding how little people spend on doctors in countries with socialized medicine and how much longer they live before you spout such hogwash.

rrc06 02-26-2013 04:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gotchaforce (Post 57830282)
The only area where NHS falls short is when it comes to throwing money at experimental cancer treatments. Did your grandparents have cancer?

The US actually has something to show for spending on cancer care (diagnosis and treatment).

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/...xpectancy/

Danman114 02-26-2013 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gotchaforce (Post 57830472)
So you acknowledge theres very real death panels for private health care but its not as bad as socialized medicine.

I think the big difference here is that it's not in the best interest of a private insurance company to have such panels.

If a company gains a reputation of turning its back on it's sickest customers, they won't last long (absent a government intervention preventing competition).

In socialized medicine there's hardly anywhere else to turn as the government surely won't go out of business because it's not competing for your revenue.

politicaljunkie 02-26-2013 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danman114 (Post 57837576)
In socialized medicine there's hardly anywhere else to turn as the government surely won't go out of business because it's not competing for your revenue.

But it is competing for your vote.

rrc06 02-26-2013 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicaljunkie (Post 57838588)
But it is competing for your vote.

Hard to compete with something that's "free"

politicaljunkie 02-26-2013 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rrc06 (Post 57839168)
Hard to compete with something that's "free"

Then you're trying to have it both ways. Either you have a company who is going to make decisions based upon profit margins or a government who can't say no to its voters.

Danman114 02-26-2013 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicaljunkie (Post 57838588)
But it is competing for your vote.

Last I checked, you can't vote in or out the people who head up these organizations in the executive branch.

At best, you'd be voting for the boss of someone (or boss of a boss), which is hardly comparable to the free market where companies are created and expire on a daily basis.

Lilian 02-26-2013 12:43 PM

The Death Panel already exists.

It's the current insurance / healthcare system that can't afford to provide for everyone so those with the least resources will be left to die.

politicaljunkie 02-26-2013 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danman114 (Post 57843450)
Last I checked, you can't vote in or out the people who head up these organizations in the executive branch.

At best, you'd be voting for the boss of someone (or boss of a boss), which is hardly comparable to the free market where companies are created and expire on a daily basis.

Healthcare Insurance companies are created and expire on a daily basis? Really? With those barriers to entry? And i can't for the life of me think of the last time i heard of a healh insurance company going out of business. I'm sure it happens, but boy is it rare.

And when i have the choice between my employer's healthcare and healthcare on the open market (which is oppressively expensive and not subsidized by my employer), do i really have a choice to switch insurers? Think my grievance with an insurer will impact my company's decision to select an insurer?

And even if you could chance, there are only a few health insurance companies that operate in a given area. And before you start saying "sell insurance over state lines!!!" you need to be cognizant of the biggest component of healthcare costs--overhead. Billing is a HUGE portion of the cost of delivering healthcare and adding more insurers will drive these costs through the roof. This would be absolutely horrible without a standardized billing system that ALL insurers used.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lilian (Post 57843522)
The Death Panel already exists.

It's the current insurance / healthcare system that can't afford to provide for everyone so those with the least resources will be left to die.

Bingo. That and insurance companies currently act as death panels when they approve or deny coverage.

Radeck 02-26-2013 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicaljunkie (Post 57844164)
Bingo. That and insurance companies currently act as death panels when they approve or deny coverage.

not quite...with private coverage, if denied, the patient and their family have the option to pay for the procedures out of their own pocket....with Medicare, if denied, the doctor CAN NOT provide the service to you, EVEN IF you pay him in cash...Medicare BANS DOCTORS from providing services that medicare denies, EVEN IF THE PATIENT IS WILLING TO PAY FOR IT...such is the moronic stupidity of the government.

another one, is the 40% tax on so-called cadillac coverage. Some employers choose to provide excellent complete coverage to their employees, because they want to do right by them. Under Obamacare, such employers are PENALIZED with 40% tax, resulting in the employer CANCELLING THE EXCELLENT COVERAGE AND SWITCHING TO INFERIOR COVERAGE because they can not afford the 40% tax on the already very expensive coverage....in what demented universe is this considered a good thing: that Obamacare FORCES inferior coverage for those that have something that government thugs decide is 'too good for you' ???

Danman114 02-26-2013 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicaljunkie (Post 57844164)
Healthcare Insurance companies are created and expire on a daily basis? Really? With those barriers to entry? And i can't for the life of me think of the last time i heard of a healh insurance company going out of business. I'm sure it happens, but boy is it rare.

Strikes me more of a problem of government intervention than the market... If we had a free market in health care services, we'd see a lot less consolidation and a lot more start ups.

Healthcare Insurance companies are created and expire And even if you could chance, there are only a few health insurance companies that operate in a given area. And before you start saying "sell insurance over state lines!!!" you need to be cognizant of the biggest component of healthcare costs--overhead. Billing is a HUGE portion of the cost of delivering healthcare and adding more insurers will drive these costs through the roof. This would be absolutely horrible without a standardized billing system that ALL insurers used.[/QUOTE] Which is all the more reason to eliminate barriers of state borders. Heck, eliminate country borders, and let some who choose outsource that to India.

riznick 02-26-2013 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gotchaforce (Post 57830472)
What a great breakdown

"its rare.

its rare.

YOURE BRAINWASHED"

Care to disprove any of that?

BTW, my insurance company is a non profit. Many of them are. [huffingtonpost.com]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gotchaforce (Post 57830472)
So you acknowledge theres very real death panels for private health care but its not as bad as socialized medicine.

I always have felt that way. Do you disagree? I support socialized medicine, but would like insurance for additional coverage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gotchaforce (Post 57830472)
Please at least know your numbers regarding how little people spend on doctors in countries with socialized medicine and how much longer they live before you spout such hogwash.

Your point is irrelevant. Your hogwash comment is hogwash. It seems like you feel I am against national health care, when I made it clear that I support it. That's very typical of someone who's been brainwashed. Come up with something original and relevant.

124nic8 02-26-2013 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by riznick (Post 57816030)
He said that he doesn't regret it at all and would do it again. I'd do the same. I wouldn't think twice about sacrificing every last cent I have to prolong a family member's life.

If I were the sick one, I would not allow a loved one to sacrifice every last cent in order to keep me alive for a couple more months. I would refuse treatment and/or request discharge so I might pursue other "solutions."

124nic8 02-26-2013 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 57844526)
not quite...with private coverage, if denied, the patient and their family have the option to pay for the procedures out of their own pocket....with Medicare, if denied, the doctor CAN NOT provide the service to you, EVEN IF you pay him in cash...Medicare BANS DOCTORS from providing services that medicare denies, EVEN IF THE PATIENT IS WILLING TO PAY FOR IT...such is the moronic stupidity of the government.

You got ANY evidence for this ^?

At the very least they cannot ban you from seeking treatment in a foreign nation.

Radeck 02-26-2013 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57846374)
You got ANY evidence for this ^?

At the very least they cannot ban you from seeking treatment in a foreign nation.

I thought you were an expert on medical care, yet you did not know this basic fact about medicare?

here you go
http://www.cchfreedom.org/cchf.ph...S1FSzc2Cos
Quote:

Medicare is essentially compulsory. People who refuse to join Medicare Part A are not allowed to receive their earned Social Security benefits. Brian Hall, et al. v. Kathleen Sebelius, et al, was filed October 9, 2008 and appealed in July 2011. On June 30, 2011, U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint and 12 GOP colleagues introduced the Retirement Freedom Act to decouple Medicare from Social Security.

Medicare patients cannot pay cash for care. A 1997 law (Balanced Budget Act, section 4507) forbids private contracts between patients and doctors. With few exceptions, Medicare recipients cannot pay cash for a Medicare-covered service that Medicare denies until the doctor has opted out of Medicare. Most physicians cannot afford to opt out, so the law essentially prohibits private contracting between elderly patients and their doctors. Obamacare cut $500 billion from Medicare and enacted two administrative panels that are expected to advance rationing: the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI).

Initial refusal to enroll in Medicare Part B leads to costly penalties. Seniors are automatically enrolled in Medicare Part B. Those who refuse and later change their minds will pay a premium for the rest of their lives that is 10 percent higher for EACH year they were not enrolled.
those are 3 bullets, there are 14 more at the link, related to general medicare facts...worth reading to see what we are all in for when everyone is inevitably forced into Obamacare after the new laws bankrupt the private providers.

124nic8 02-26-2013 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 57847298)
I thought you were an expert on medical care, yet you did not know this basic fact about medicare?

here you go
http://www.cchfreedom.org/cchf.ph...S1FSzc2Cos


those are 3 bullets, there are 14 more at the link, related to general medicare facts...worth reading to see what we are all in for when everyone is inevitably forced into Obamacare after the new laws bankrupt the private providers.

^ This is the problem when you rely on right wing propaganda outlets for your info.

Official policy: [hhs.gov]

Quote:

Medicare rules apply only to services covered by Medicare. Medicare beneficiaries can, and in fact must, pay out of their own funds or have other sources of insurance for services that Medicare does not cover. Medicare covers about half of the elderly's health expenses, and Congress determines what services are covered. Examples of services that Medicare does not cover include cosmetic surgery, hearing aids, routine physical exams, outpatient prescription drugs and long term nursing home care. If Medicare doesn't cover a service, no private contract is needed, and physicians are not limited in what they can charge. The Balanced Budget Act provision on private contracts did not change this aspect of Medicare. A physician does not have to opt out of Medicare for two years in order to provide a non-covered service to a Medicare beneficiary. That was the law a year ago; it's still the law today.

The law requires that Medicare pay only for medically necessary services which requires judgments about the type and quantity of services that are medically necessary. For example, Medicare may determine that one physician visit per month to a nursing home resident would be medically necessary (absent other medical complications) and would pay for one such visit. However, a Medicare beneficiary who wanted more frequent visits (absent medical complications) could pay for them out of his or her own funds, even though the carrier determined the additional visits not to be reasonable and necessary.

A private contract is not necessary to provide these more frequent visits; a physician who remains in Medicare can still provide these services to beneficiaries. In such a case, the physician files a claim with Medicare and provides the beneficiary with an "Advance Beneficiary Notice" (ABN) stating that the service may not be covered by Medicare and the beneficiary agrees to pay for the service if Medicare doesn't pay. Again, the Balanced Budget Act did not change this aspect of Medicare.


jplayland 02-26-2013 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57848626)
^ This is the problem when you rely on right wing propaganda outlets for your info.

Official policy: [hhs.gov]

So your propaganda is better? I think research and reading the real full law would be required to find the real truth.

124nic8 02-26-2013 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jplayland (Post 57848778)
So your propaganda is better? I think research and reading the real full law would be required to find the real truth.

Have at it. I think testimony under oath of government officials is an adequate substitute.

jplayland 02-26-2013 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57848834)
Have at it. I think testimony under oath of government officials is an adequate substitute.

Lol. You don't think some self interest is involved. No one ever lied under oath. Like about a cigar or something?

124nic8 02-26-2013 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jplayland (Post 57848928)
Lol. You don't think some self interest is involved. No one ever lied under oath. Like about a cigar or something?

Why would they lie about something which is easily checked?

jplayland 02-26-2013 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57849000)
Why would they lie about something which is easily checked?

I don't know ask Obama and Biden, they do it all the time. So did Bush, so did Clinton. Maybe because people are dumb and believe what they are told.

Radeck 02-26-2013 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57848626)
^ This is the problem when you rely on right wing propaganda outlets for your info.

Official policy: [hhs.gov]

from your own link
Quote:

Physicians who choose to provide covered services to Medicare beneficiaries under private contracts must "opt out" of the Medicare program for two years. During this two-year period, Medicare does not pay the physician either directly or on a capitated basis for any covered services provided to Medicare beneficiaries. A physician must treat all Medicare beneficiaries in the same way; the physician cannot choose to privately contract with some Medicare beneficiaries but not others, and for some services and not others.
that is the same thing my "right wing propaganda outlet" stated...thanks for confirming my point.

Also, your quotes relate to services that medicare does NOT cover (cosmetic surgery, hearing aids, etc)...that is NOT the same thing as services that medicare DOES cover, but DENIES the claim for some reason...then, unless the doctor has opted out of medicare (which s/he obviously has not since they had to submit a claim to medicare in the first place for it to be denied), you as a patient can NOT ask for and pay for that service out of pocket

http://www.heritage.org/research/...ontracting
Quote:

Medicare patients are restricted by federal law in their ability to go outside of the Medicare system to spend their own money on a medical service of their choosing, even if no taxpayer money is involved. This untenable development is the direct result of a provision in the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997. If a service is already "covered" or "paid for" by Medicare, a Medicare patient is not allowed to purchase that service privately under any circumstance, even if it is a life-saving procedure, of a better quality than Medicare provides, or performed by an outstanding physician or surgeon of choice. There is simply no exception to this rule for "covered" Medicare medical services.
http://www.heritage.org/research/...tsnbsp-how
Quote:

However, Section 4507 contains a catch. A doctor who wishes to contract privately with a patient enrolled in Medicare Part B must first sign an affidavit to that effect, submit that affidavit to the Secretary of Health and Human Services within ten days, and agree to remove himself from the Medicare program and refrain from submitting any claims to Medicare for reimbursement for a period two full years.

In other words, a doctor could not even treat his mother in exchange for an apple pie without dropping out of Medicare for two years. The new law has been the subject of extensive and heated debate in Congress. It also is becoming a subject of debate around the country.

Curious Propositions
Since the 1997 enactment of Section 4507, a number of curious explanations have surfaced concerning the rights of doctors and patients in the Medicare program. As a result, we have some curious propositions evolving not only from the law, but also from recent litigation.

After gleaning the official record, let me just share with you a few of them. I think you'll find them intriguing, if not entertaining.

Proposition #1:
Americans 65 and over who are enrolled in Medicare have no constitutional right to privacy in their relations with their physicians unless they are getting an abortion or securing birth control services. Here in Washington, the federal district court recently ruled that personal liberty and privacy are restricted to certain fashionable-one could say politically correct-medical conditions adjudicated by the federal courts.

Proposition #2:
Private contracts between doctors and Medicare patients were always illegal-according to certain Members of Congress and spokesmen for the American Association of Retired Persons, among others-even if they were not against the law. No, I'm not making any of this up.

Proposition #3:
Your personal freedom to spend your own money on medical services outside of Medicare depends not on federal law or regulation made pursuant to the law, but on whatever the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) may say in communications with doctors in something called a carrier manual.

Proposition #4:
HCFA has authority to impose rules and regulations not only on transactions between doctors and patients within Medicare, but also on transactions that take place outside of Medicare.

So we've learned all kinds of wondrous new things since passage of the Balanced Budget Act in 1997.

124nic8 02-26-2013 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 57849074)
from your own link

that is the same thing my "right wing propaganda outlet" stated...thanks for confirming my point.

You mean proving your point wrong:

Quote:

A private contract is not necessary to provide these more frequent visits; a physician who remains in Medicare can still provide these services to beneficiaries.
No private contract is necessary for services that Medicare chooses not to cover and no opt out is necessary.

124nic8 02-26-2013 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jplayland (Post 57849036)
I don't know ask Obama and Biden, they do it all the time. So did Bush, so did Clinton. Maybe because people are dumb and believe what they are told.

All the time? Under oath? :nono:

Radeck 02-26-2013 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57849142)
You mean proving your point wrong:



No private contract is necessary for services that Medicare chooses not to cover and no opt out is necessary.

wrong...for the second time, things NOT covered is NOT the same as things that ARE covered but the claim is denied, or if covered, then the patient is BANNED from paying out of pocket (again, unless the doctor has opted out of medicare)....see my additional edits/quotes in my previous post

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57849238)
All the time? Under oath? :nono:

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monika Lewinski"

politicaljunkie 02-26-2013 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 57844526)
not quite...with private coverage, if denied, the patient and their family have the option to pay for the procedures out of their own pocket....with Medicare, if denied, the doctor CAN NOT provide the service to you, EVEN IF you pay him in cash...Medicare BANS DOCTORS from providing services that medicare denies, EVEN IF THE PATIENT IS WILLING TO PAY FOR IT...such is the moronic stupidity of the government

That isn't true. If it is covered and deemed necessary, THEN you can't create a private contract with a physician. If denied, it is either not covered or deemed unnecessary and the patient is free to privately contract.

http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t980226c.html

http://www.heritage.org/research/...ontracting

Quote:

another one, is the 40% tax on so-called cadillac coverage. Some employers choose to provide excellent complete coverage to their employees, because they want to do right by them. Under Obamacare, such employers are PENALIZED with 40% tax, resulting in the employer CANCELLING THE EXCELLENT COVERAGE AND SWITCHING TO INFERIOR COVERAGE because they can not afford the 40% tax on the already very expensive coverage....in what demented universe is this considered a good thing: that Obamacare FORCES inferior coverage for those that have something that government thugs decide is 'too good for you' ???
You are a talking point parrot. How many employers fall within this coverage? What are the decreases in coverage? Has anyone actually done this yet? I bet you don't know and don't care.

124nic8 02-26-2013 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 57849502)
wrong...for the second time, things NOT covered is NOT the same as things that ARE covered but the claim is denied, or if covered, then the patient is BANNED from paying out of pocket (again, unless the doctor has opted out of medicare)....see my additional edits/quotes in my previous post

So even if your contradiction of that government official is correct, all the patient has to do is find a different doctor who has opted out of Medicare.

But if a claim is denied, then it is not covered by Medicare, and no private contract is necessary.

Your contention is contradicted by testimony:

Quote:

The law requires that Medicare pay only for medically necessary services which requires judgments about the type and quantity of services that are medically necessary. For example, Medicare may determine that one physician visit per month to a nursing home resident would be medically necessary (absent other medical complications) and would pay for one such visit. However, a Medicare beneficiary who wanted more frequent visits (absent medical complications) could pay for them out of his or her own funds, even though the carrier determined the additional visits not to be reasonable and necessary.
Visits are covered by Medicare, but the patient can still pay for additional visits when that claim is denied by Medicare based on "judgments about the type and quantity of services that are medically necessary." QED.


Quote:

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monika Lewinski"
One example, even if true, is not "all the time."

politicaljunkie 02-26-2013 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danman114 (Post 57844832)
Strikes me more of a problem of government intervention than the market... If we had a free market in health care services, we'd see a lot less consolidation and a lot more start ups.

Ummm... Truly free markets result in consolidation. And there are considerable barriers to entry---you need considerable capital, a ton of provider contracts, countless insureds, etc. and that is extremely difficult, expensive and time consuming. The barriers these days are huge.

Quote:

Which is all the more reason to eliminate barriers of state borders. Heck, eliminate country borders, and let some who choose outsource that to India.
Between this and your denial of natural barriers of entry makes me think you just don't understand the problems/issues faced by doctors, insurers and patients.

The cost of billing and coding is incredible. And the amazing part is no conservative seems to want to reduce this huge cost through a standardized system. Moreover, since each state has its own regulations, without federal regulatory framework that would replace state regulations, a state could eliminate its regulations to attract insurers to sell across state lines. A race to the bottom. That state gets tax dollars and zero impact on its citizens. Huge moral hazard. Fix those two problems and ill support selling across state lines.

Danman114 02-26-2013 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicaljunkie (Post 57849932)
Ummm... Truly free markets result in consolidation. And there are considerable barriers to entry---you need considerable capital, a ton of provider contracts, countless insureds, etc. and that is extremely difficult, expensive and time consuming. The barriers these days are huge.

I'm not saying it's easy, but it's certainly possible, and it's certainly doable.

Starting your own company in most industries is difficult. But people start their own investment firms, restaurants, banks, software companies, tech companies, all the time, because it's not you or I who start them in some random field. It's people with years (decades) of experience who bring in a few others to start up the company.

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicaljunkie (Post 57849932)
Between this and your denial of natural barriers of entry makes me think you just don't understand the problems/issues faced by doctors, insurers and patients.

I don't deny there are natural barriers. There are many. But that's every industry. The larger problems are the mandates from the feds and various states, and the barriers put in place. Why do we need this many Blue Cross Blue Shields [wikipedia.org]?

politicaljunkie 02-26-2013 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danman114 (Post 57850688)
I'm not saying it's easy, but it's certainly possible, and it's certainly doable.

Starting your own company in most industries is difficult. But people start their own investment firms, restaurants, banks, software companies, tech companies, all the time, because it's not you or I who start them in some random field. It's people with years (decades) of experience who bring in a few others to start up the company.

Those industries, except for banks, have rather low barriers to entry when compared to insurance companies. And yes, that is partly due to regulations.

Quote:

I don't deny there are natural barriers. There are many. But that's every industry. The larger problems are the mandates from the feds and various states, and the barriers put in place. Why do we need this many Blue Cross Blue Shields [wikipedia.org]?
Regulations typically result from the need to protect individuals from fraud and abuse. The need for multiple BCBS is due to the various different state regulations. And the need for various state regulations is comes from a lack of federal regulations.

Regulations are complex, difficult and costly. But if we didn't have them, we'd be at the mercy of fraudsters and profiteers who care more about their bottom line than the health of its patients. Sure, people could revolt against a particular insurer, but that wouldn't be until countless individuals fell victim to bad acts. The free market isn't perfect and doesn't work fast enough. I'm not someone who thinks the government can cure all--but it is a necessary evil. Full faith in the government is about as naive as full faith in the free market. History is full of examples of companies taking advantage of our citizens for profit. We need a referee in business like we need a referee in a football game. I'm 100% for tweaking regulations, getting rid of the dumb ones and creating others where needed. But we need to think these things through. You have yet to acknowledge the problems posed by selling across state lines nor shown any willingness to remedy those problems--all the time seeming to rely on the magical free market. That isn't a viable solution.

jonsmith74 02-26-2013 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicaljunkie (Post 57851524)
Regulations typically result from the need to protect individuals from fraud and abuse. The need for multiple BCBS is due to the various different state regulations. And the need for various state regulations is comes from a lack of federal regulations.

Lack of federal health regulations? Hardly. The principal reason why there are so many separate and distinct state health care providers - the federal McCarran-Ferguson Act (1945), which grants states the right to regulate health plans within their borders. The result - 50 states regulating the issuance of health insurance policies within their state.

Quote:

Regulations are complex, difficult and costly. But if we didn't have them, we'd be at the mercy of fraudsters and profiteers who care more about their bottom line than the health of its patients. Sure, people could revolt against a particular insurer, but that wouldn't be until countless individuals fell victim to bad acts. The free market isn't perfect and doesn't work fast enough. I'm not someone who thinks the government can cure all--but it is a necessary evil. Full faith in the government is about as naive as full faith in the free market. History is full of examples of companies taking advantage of our citizens for profit. We need a referee in business like we need a referee in a football game. I'm 100% for tweaking regulations, getting rid of the dumb ones and creating others where needed. But we need to think these things through. You have yet to acknowledge the problems posed by selling across state lines nor shown any willingness to remedy those problems--all the time seeming to rely on the magical free market. That isn't a viable solution.
Please present these "problems".

As of last July, 25 states were exploring inter-state compacts that would operate outside of the inter-state compact provision of Obamacare and 7 states have actually formed them with - surprise - republican and conservative support.

jonsmith74 02-26-2013 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicaljunkie (Post 57849666)
You are a talking point parrot. How many employers fall within this coverage? What are the decreases in coverage? Has anyone actually done this yet? I bet you don't know and don't care.

Not many since health plans associated with collectively-bargained union contracts are exempted from this tax.

Nice sweetheart deal from the Democrats to their unions lackeys.

Radeck 02-26-2013 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicaljunkie (Post 57849666)
You are a talking point parrot. How many employers fall within this coverage? What are the decreases in coverage? Has anyone actually done this yet? I bet you don't know and don't care.

most of them are unions, as jon mentioned above....I remember very well the screams and protests if the unions about the 'cadillac tax', until Obama remembered they were his masters and gave them an exemption for a number of years...must be nice to have your agent in high places, eh?

also, there are some private employers who do that....one that you love to hate is Glenn Beck....his employee roster is ballooning on a daily basis these days, but as of last time I heard him comment on it, he has about 300 employees, and he provides them full 100% coverage: no fees, no deductibles, no copays, nothing....his plan pays for everything. He let it out that the insurance companies tell him he is the only employer in New York that offers this coverage, simply because it is so expensive...he said when the 40% tax kicks in he won't be able to afford this coverage any longer and will have to switch his people to less coverage....

yeah, that sounds like a GREAT policy...thanks Obama: force employers who love and want to take care of their employees to dump high quality care for inferior one....please explain to us why Obamacare does this, and under what demented logic that is a "good" thing for the "little guy" who Obama and the dems lie daily about being "for"

Gotchaforce 02-26-2013 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 57844526)
not quite...with private coverage, if denied, the patient and their family have the option to pay for the procedures out of their own pocket....with Medicare, if denied, the doctor CAN NOT provide the service to you, EVEN IF you pay him in cash...Medicare BANS DOCTORS from providing services that medicare denies, EVEN IF THE PATIENT IS WILLING TO PAY FOR IT...such is the moronic stupidity of the government.

another one, is the 40% tax on so-called cadillac coverage. Some employers choose to provide excellent complete coverage to their employees, because they want to do right by them. Under Obamacare, such employers are PENALIZED with 40% tax, resulting in the employer CANCELLING THE EXCELLENT COVERAGE AND SWITCHING TO INFERIOR COVERAGE because they can not afford the 40% tax on the already very expensive coverage....in what demented universe is this considered a good thing: that Obamacare FORCES inferior coverage for those that have something that government thugs decide is 'too good for you' ???

Where are you getting your info from? unskewedmedicare.com???? You didnt provide a source so im confused and im forced to guess.

Socialized health care like NHS allows you to buy private healthcare whenever you want... derp

Gotchaforce 02-27-2013 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danman114 (Post 57837576)
I think the big difference here is that it's not in the best interest of a private insurance company to have such panels.

If a company gains a reputation of turning its back on it's sickest customers, they won't last long (absent a government intervention preventing competition).

In socialized medicine there's hardly anywhere else to turn as the government surely won't go out of business because it's not competing for your revenue.

Youre right, people pay ENORMOUS sums of money for private healthcare and if healthcare companies tried to deny care to everyone people might actually revolt against them. Instead most of their death panels are the ones making sure sickly people cant even buy the insurance in the first place due to huge premiums.

politicaljunkie 02-27-2013 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonsmith74 (Post 57853434)
Lack of federal health regulations? Hardly. The principal reason why there are so many separate and distinct state health care providers - the federal McCarran-Ferguson Act (1945), which grants states the right to regulate health plans within their borders. The result - 50 states regulating the issuance of health insurance policies within their state.

Isn't this chicken or the egg situation? If there were federal regulations, there'd be no reason for state. SOMEONE needs to regulate the insurance companies. It just so happens that the path selected in 1945 caused a patchwork of regulations.

Quote:

Please present these "problems".

As of last July, 25 states were exploring inter-state compacts that would operate outside of the inter-state compact provision of Obamacare and 7 states have actually formed them with - surprise - republican and conservative support.
I've discussed these problems before, but i'll go through it again. First is the "race to the bottom scenario. States who want to lure insurance companies into their state for business taxes, jobs, etc. can allow these companies to operate on a very loose regulatory framework that would result in horrible coverage, shady business practices surrounding denials/approvals, etc. They can go so far as allowing them to operate but not sell insurance in their state. The state gets the tax dollars but doesn't have the problem of its citizens getting ripped off. It is a major moral hazard. In that inter-state compact, I bet part of those states were dealing with the "race to the bottom" problem.

I also suspect they're overlooking the serious problem this will cause with doctors billing overhead. With cost of billing being on the high side of around 14% and the low side of 9-10%, that is a significant amount of $$ being sucked up by billing functions. Adding dozens of more insurers will dramatically increase this burden on doctor practices. This will further destroy small private practices. Unless standardized billing and coding process is adopted, doctors are going to get screwed. They're going to need to hire more people to collect the same amount of revenue--that or pay an outside company to perform those tasks (if they don't already do this) and will end up paying more due to the increased burden.

My overall problem with solely targeting healthcare insurance for saving money is this--it doesn't address the underlying cost of delivering heathcare. The ACA did some great things by setting certain standards and requirements. But with healthcare insurance profits now capped, it isn't as if the insurance company in WV will be able to deliver insurance that much cheaper in NY because they're not those who are performing the medical services. They're just the middle man. I see selling across state lines as a minor gain, at best, and a huge pain for doctors. It might well turn out to be a net negative.

politicaljunkie 02-27-2013 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 57855130)
most of them are unions, as jon mentioned above....I remember very well the screams and protests if the unions about the 'cadillac tax', until Obama remembered they were his masters and gave them an exemption for a number of years...must be nice to have your agent in high places, eh?

also, there are some private employers who do that....one that you love to hate is Glenn Beck....his employee roster is ballooning on a daily basis these days, but as of last time I heard him comment on it, he has about 300 employees, and he provides them full 100% coverage: no fees, no deductibles, no copays, nothing....his plan pays for everything. He let it out that the insurance companies tell him he is the only employer in New York that offers this coverage, simply because it is so expensive...he said when the 40% tax kicks in he won't be able to afford this coverage any longer and will have to switch his people to less coverage....

yeah, that sounds like a GREAT policy...thanks Obama: force employers who love and want to take care of their employees to dump high quality care for inferior one....please explain to us why Obamacare does this, and under what demented logic that is a "good" thing for the "little guy" who Obama and the dems lie daily about being "for"

I don't believe a word out of Glen Beck's mouth. First, i thought he moved out of NY. Second, there is no way in hell he has 300 employees. He has a radio and a TV show. No way he has that many employees. I also doubt he has zero deductible, copays, fees, expenses. I just don't believe him.

EDIT: Apparently here, his entire media company has 100 employees: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/program/

Even if he didn, if he wants to provide that coverage, increase the deductible and move the substantial cost savings for lower premiums into regular compensation or a healthcare account to defray any copays/deductibles.

Danman114 02-27-2013 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicaljunkie (Post 57851524)
Those industries, except for banks, have rather low barriers to entry when compared to insurance companies. And yes, that is partly due to regulations.

It's not only start ups that would be offering new products and services. Hospitals might get in on the action. Heck, maybe we need some consolidation, that would certainly improve standardization. Then, which often happens in the banking industry, some enterprising executives branch off into a start up and do it there way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicaljunkie (Post 57851524)
Regulations typically result from the need to protect individuals from fraud and abuse. The need for multiple BCBS is due to the various different state regulations. And the need for various state regulations is comes from a lack of federal regulations.

Laws against fraud and abuse is all you need to protect people from fraud & abuse. There is a reason the first groups to come out in support of protectionist state or federal policies are existing big businesses. They are already equipped with the people needed to adopt any new, ridiculous, or wasteful policy passed. The other problem is that in order to provide health care in many states you have to be approved. Most approval processes require physical plants (ie, jobs for the state and higher costs to the consumer) or some other guarantee that leads to organizations being set up with 38 CEO's and 38 executive teams. No other industry that I'm aware incentivises this sort of behavior.

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicaljunkie (Post 57851524)
Sure, people could revolt against a particular insurer, but that wouldn't be until countless individuals fell victim to bad acts.

But that's how every other law on the books works. People fall victim to murder, rape, and a host of other awful crime. We work diligently to put them in prison after the fact and life proceeds along just fine with the way that works.

jonsmith74 02-27-2013 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicaljunkie (Post 57857404)
Isn't this chicken or the egg situation? If there were federal regulations, there'd be no reason for state. SOMEONE needs to regulate the insurance companies. It just so happens that the path selected in 1945 caused a patchwork of regulations.

Certainly not chicken or the egg. The government has far more important things to do than regulate every single area of our lives. Government exists principally for public safety, i.e., defense, war, policing, even food safety. But here we have a government regulation which fundamentally screwed up an entire industry and through a combination of federal and state health care regulations, have, literally, thousands and thousands of regulations impacting the sale and issuance of policies.

There's a need for government regulation, however, we generally see government regulation fail to do what it is intended to do, rarely is repealed, and continues to harm us in innumerable ways.

Quote:

I've discussed these problems before, but i'll go through it again. First is the "race to the bottom scenario. States who want to lure insurance companies into their state for business taxes, jobs, etc. can allow these companies to operate on a very loose regulatory framework that would result in horrible coverage, shady business practices surrounding denials/approvals, etc. They can go so far as allowing them to operate but not sell insurance in their state. The state gets the tax dollars but doesn't have the problem of its citizens getting ripped off. It is a major moral hazard. In that inter-state compact, I bet part of those states were dealing with the "race to the bottom" problem.
Except that states have no incentive to see it's insurance market collapse should they abandon basic consumer protections and/or skimp on enforcement.

But look at the states currently...all states have mandates requiring coverage for this or that, e.g., include adopted children, diabetic maintenance, etc. The landscape is low-mandate versus high mandate, so yeah, we could see some states drop some mandates, but right now we don't hear complaints about the inadequacy of low-mandate states.

Your race to the bottom thesis is heavy on conjecture of ill intent, rather than reasoning.

There's a race to the bottom for sure, but you've got this wrong. The race to the bottom is to scoop up as many federal dollars as possible to expand programs that simply don't work, see Medicaid, SCHIP, etc. and create more and more government dependency by spending state dollars and federal matching funds to sign up more people.

Quote:

I also suspect they're overlooking the serious problem this will cause with doctors billing overhead. With cost of billing being on the high side of around 14% and the low side of 9-10%, that is a significant amount of $$ being sucked up by billing functions. Adding dozens of more insurers will dramatically increase this burden on doctor practices. This will further destroy small private practices. Unless standardized billing and coding process is adopted, doctors are going to get screwed. They're going to need to hire more people to collect the same amount of revenue--that or pay an outside company to perform those tasks (if they don't already do this) and will end up paying more due to the increased burden.
Private insurance overhead is not significantly different than that for Medicare when you properly account for Medicare's total costs. But this also ignores the massive level of reporting and administrative requirements imposed via regulation.

Quote:

My overall problem with solely targeting healthcare insurance for saving money is this--it doesn't address the underlying cost of delivering heathcare.
Targeting healthcare for savings? Savings towards what?

And you're right...trying to manage the cost of health insurance does nothing to the cost of actually delivering health care or affect the efficacy of health care.

Quote:

The ACA did some great things by setting certain standards and requirements. But with healthcare insurance profits now capped, it isn't as if the insurance company in WV will be able to deliver insurance that much cheaper in NY because they're not those who are performing the medical services. They're just the middle man. I see selling across state lines as a minor gain, at best, and a huge pain for doctors. It might well turn out to be a net negative.
Great things...like which standards and requirements? Like compelling all plans to provide birth control and abortion drug coverage notwithstanding people may not want or need such coverage and thereby increasing costs on everyone?

That's the major cost driver you're ignoring, government-mandated coverages, in addition to shall-issue requirements, and community rating. When a state or the fed govt requires that all plans include specific coverages, it automatically increases the risk in the pool and for consumers.

Obamacare added yet another layer of regulatory complexity to the health care industry...and it isn't cheap as we already see via OMB and CBO reporting.

Radeck 02-27-2013 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicaljunkie (Post 57857514)
I don't believe a word out of Glen Beck's mouth. First, i thought he moved out of NY. Second, there is no way in hell he has 300 employees. He has a radio and a TV show. No way he has that many employees. I also doubt he has zero deductible, copays, fees, expenses. I just don't believe him.

EDIT: Apparently here, his entire media company has 100 employees: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/program/

Even if he didn, if he wants to provide that coverage, increase the deductible and move the substantial cost savings for lower premiums into regular compensation or a healthcare account to defray any copays/deductibles.

that shows how little you know about him. Just a few months ago he mentioned he had 200 employees, now it is 300...his network is growing at an explosive speed.
While he and a few people have moved to a new base in Dallas, he still has the corporate headquarters in New York.
He has a radio and Tv program yes, but that is not all. He has a whole TV channel with about 8 hours a day of programming, it's not just his show, and he is working on new programming filling up more time slots.
for example, a new show starts in 2 weeks called "For the Record" which will be what 60-minutes USED to be, a REAL investigative reporting program.
He has a radio network that runs several shows other than his.
He has a news website that has better stats than The Daily Beast
He has a publishing arm Mercury Ink that published his books as well as those of others.
He has a charity Mercury One that is similar to Newman's Own, selling his 1791 US-made clothing line and other items to raise money for disaster relief and other charity work
He is building satellite locations in Utah and New Zealand (of all places) as part of his Dream Labs project
He has a Special Events department that organizes and runs several huge events every year (such as the Dallas 65,000 person event Restoring Love in the Cowboys stadium that sold out all the seats, a feat rarely achieved)
He is now on Dish Network with his own channel and is about to exit his exclusivity deal with them and is working on getting The Blaze on other cable providers when that happens.

And that's just what I can think of from memory, i'm sure I have missed some but I can't be bothered to research it for you.

As for you 'solution' to his health care coverage, you STILL have not explained to me the logic of Obamacare essentially regulating 'Cadillac" plans out of existence. You make sure you explain the benefits of your plan and Obamacare to those who are about to lose their current complete coverage...I would LOVE to hear even 1 person convinced by you that they will be ok or better off.

politicaljunkie 02-27-2013 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danman114 (Post 57858890)
It's not only start ups that would be offering new products and services. Hospitals might get in on the action. Heck, maybe we need some consolidation, that would certainly improve standardization. Then, which often happens in the banking industry, some enterprising executives branch off into a start up and do it there way.

Do you want consolidation or competition? Because if you have a large consolidated company with its own system to code/bill--you just created one more barrier to entry that would restrict competition.

Quote:

Laws against fraud and abuse is all you need to protect people from fraud & abuse.
Fraud is one of the most difficult things to detect and prove. Add that to the fact that we have people's lives at stake, I can't believe leaving this up to the magical "free market" will do much of anything.

This is one area where i really think the libertarians just don't get it. By the time fraud is detected, its too late. And those who are really good at it will get away with it. Just look at how many people went to jail during the last financial meltdown. Very, very few.

Quote:

There is a reason the first groups to come out in support of protectionist state or federal policies are existing big businesses. They are already equipped with the people needed to adopt any new, ridiculous, or wasteful policy passed. The other problem is that in order to provide health care in many states you have to be approved. Most approval processes require physical plants (ie, jobs for the state and higher costs to the consumer) or some other guarantee that leads to organizations being set up with 38 CEO's and 38 executive teams. No other industry that I'm aware incentivises this sort of behavior.
More reason to have standardized federal regulations with a standardized coding/billing system.

Quote:

But that's how every other law on the books works. People fall victim to murder, rape, and a host of other awful crime. We work diligently to put them in prison after the fact and life proceeds along just fine with the way that works.
That isn't true. We have a lot of preventative regulations outside of prohibitions against fraud. And we have agencies that monitor compliance. But you don't like that.

Xygonn 02-27-2013 01:45 PM

Let's take a practical real life example of what happens given some regulation.

1) Insurance providers may not spend more than 10% of their costs on administration
2) Insurance providers must cover all potential clients at the same price
3) High cash reserve requirements to assure companies can pay out in particularly bad situations/epidemics

(3) Results in an oligopoly due to high barrier to entry. (2) makes competition difficult and collusion easy. (1) makes it so insurance companies are not rewarded for lowering medical costs because that would increase the percent of administrative costs.

The government receives tax money on the profits and has no desire to reduce the total profits of the insurance companies or break up the price fixing.

Collusion pushes the price of insurance up. Profit goes up. Taxes collected go up. The consumer gets squeezed.

politicaljunkie 02-27-2013 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonsmith74 (Post 57859676)
Certainly not chicken or the egg. The government has far more important things to do than regulate every single area of our lives. Government exists principally for public safety, i.e., defense, war, policing, even food safety. But here we have a government regulation which fundamentally screwed up an entire industry and through a combination of federal and state health care regulations, have, literally, thousands and thousands of regulations impacting the sale and issuance of policies.

-Please stay on the issue we were discussing. We were talking about state vs. federal regulation.
-I didn't say government should regulate every single area of our lives
-healthcare insurance IS an issue of public safety
-If we had one set of basic federal regulations, we would need the thousands of state regulations.

Quote:

There's a need for government regulation, however, we generally see government regulation fail to do what it is intended to do, rarely is repealed, and continues to harm us in innumerable ways.
Lets work to fix that instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Quote:

Except that states have no incentive to see it's insurance market collapse should they abandon basic consumer protections and/or skimp on enforcement.

But look at the states currently...all states have mandates requiring coverage for this or that, e.g., include adopted children, diabetic maintenance, etc. The landscape is low-mandate versus high mandate, so yeah, we could see some states drop some mandates, but right now we don't hear complaints about the inadequacy of low-mandate states.

Your race to the bottom thesis is heavy on conjecture of ill intent, rather than reasoning.

There's a race to the bottom for sure, but you've got this wrong. The race to the bottom is to scoop up as many federal dollars as possible to expand programs that simply don't work, see Medicaid, SCHIP, etc. and create more and more government dependency by spending state dollars and federal matching funds to sign up more people.
The "race to the bottom" theory isn't conjecture. It happened with credit card companies (ever notice how most are formed in SD or DE?). It happens with corporate governance (where companies are legally "formed", most in DE). It happens constantly in international trade.


**Sorry had to end it there... busy.**

Danman114 02-27-2013 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicaljunkie (Post 57868740)
Do you want consolidation or competition? Because if you have a large consolidated company with its own system to code/bill--you just created one more barrier to entry that would restrict competition.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Right now, Blue Cross California doesn't compete with Blue Cross Massachusetts for my business. I see the barriers that incentivize this to be a problem.

If you drop the barriers, you'll see at the same time (I expect, anyway) more competition and more consolidation. Both should lead to a more efficient market.

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicaljunkie (Post 57868740)
Fraud is one of the most difficult things to detect and prove. Add that to the fact that we have people's lives at stake, I can't believe leaving this up to the magical "free market" will do much of anything.

This is one area where i really think the libertarians just don't get it. By the time fraud is detected, its too late. And those who are really good at it will get away with it. Just look at how many people went to jail during the last financial meltdown. Very, very few.

I guess we'll have to disagree then. If someone commits fraud that results in a person's death, I don't see that as some penalty where a fine suffices, that strikes me as overtly criminal, and it would be treated like the countless other laws that deal with violence and death in our country. We rely on government to offer us protection and the courts to prosecute these scenarios, I don't see why it would be different for health care.

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicaljunkie (Post 57868740)
More reason to have standardized federal regulations with a standardized coding/billing system.

And I'm sure big businesses would be right there with you. Because that stuff is expensive to adopt. The other problem is that it inhibits entrepreneurship and innovation, but government's don't pay mind to that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicaljunkie (Post 57868740)
That isn't true. We have a lot of preventative regulations outside of prohibitions against fraud. And we have agencies that monitor compliance. But you don't like that.

Useless agencies supported by those the monitor. Do you think Goldman Sachs wants to get rid of the SEC, who green lights almost everything they do, while providing a nice barrier to entry for small timers? Hardly.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:12 AM.


1999-2014