Can you leftist assure me that this is bs?(Obamacare)

[ScienceRocks]

Leftist can you reassure me that this isn't true? The health care system in Britain seems to work a lot like this. Why shouldn't we have a system that can supply our entire population with what they need? Why limit and put medical suppliers out of business???

"The reason they want pre-existing condition coverage is to eventually complain about the cost of them. Some day these people will be referred to the death panels. The death panel will determine that your newly discovered stage 3 or 4 cancer doesn’t meet the cost/benefit analysis, and you will be prescribed pain killers."

What this guy was talking about is we won't be able to supply people with what they need. This scares me.

 

[rightwinger]

Leftist can you reassure me that this isn't true? The health care system in Britain seems to work a lot like this. Why shouldn't we have a system that can supply our entire population with what they need? Why limit and put medical suppliers out of business???

"The reason they want pre-existing condition coverage is to eventually complain about the cost of them. Some day these people will be referred to the death panels. The death panel will determine that your newly discovered stage 3 or 4 cancer doesn’t meet the cost/benefit analysis, and you will be prescribed pain killers."

What this guy was talking about is we won't be able to supply people with what they need. This scares me.

Could we ever supply people with what they need?

Or only those who could afford healthcare?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Leftist can you reassure me that this isn't true? The health care system in Britain seems to work a lot like this. Why shouldn't we have a system that can supply our entire population with what they need? Why limit and put medical suppliers out of business???

"The reason they want pre-existing condition coverage is to eventually complain about the cost of them. Some day these people will be referred to the death panels. The death panel will determine that your newly discovered stage 3 or 4 cancer doesn’t meet the cost/benefit analysis, and you will be prescribed pain killers."

What this guy was talking about is we won't be able to supply people with what they need. This scares me.

Could we ever supply people with what they need?

Or only those who could afford healthcare?

If someone has to wait months to get basic help. That is what scares me...I don't want to find myself in such a case.

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

Link please.

 

[ScienceRocks]

HHS releases rules requiring pre-existing conditions coverage
The Hill ^ | 11/20/12 | Sam Baker

HHS releases rules requiring pre-existing conditions coverage - The Hill's Healthwatch

The Obama administration issued new rules Tuesday that require insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions — one of the most popular provisions of President Obama’s healthcare law. The Health and Human Services Department also began to implement other popular, but expensive, parts of the Affordable Care Act. Regulations released Tuesday will prohibit insurers from charging women a higher premium than men, and will require plans in every state to cover certain services.

This will force everyone to pay equal and force insurance company out of the business.

 

[rightwinger]

Leftist can you reassure me that this isn't true? The health care system in Britain seems to work a lot like this. Why shouldn't we have a system that can supply our entire population with what they need? Why limit and put medical suppliers out of business???





What this guy was talking about is we won't be able to supply people with what they need. This scares me.

Could we ever supply people with what they need?

Or only those who could afford healthcare?

If someone has to wait months to get basic help. That is what scares me...I don't want to find myself in such a case.

You don't wait months for basic help, only nonemergency and elective procedures

 

[g5000]

HHS releases rules requiring pre-existing conditions coverage
The Hill ^ | 11/20/12 | Sam Baker

HHS releases rules requiring pre-existing conditions coverage - The Hill's Healthwatch

The Obama administration issued new rules Tuesday that require insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions — one of the most popular provisions of President Obama’s healthcare law. The Health and Human Services Department also began to implement other popular, but expensive, parts of the Affordable Care Act. Regulations released Tuesday will prohibit insurers from charging women a higher premium than men, and will require plans in every state to cover certain services.

This will force everyone to pay equal and force insurance company out of the business.

Forcing insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions is exactly why there is an individual mandate. The mandate offsets the higher cost of insuring people with pre-existing conditions.

Forcing healthy people to pay premiums offsets the outlays for the chronically ill.

.

 

[rightwinger]

HHS releases rules requiring pre-existing conditions coverage
The Hill ^ | 11/20/12 | Sam Baker

HHS releases rules requiring pre-existing conditions coverage - The Hill's Healthwatch

The Obama administration issued new rules Tuesday that require insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions — one of the most popular provisions of President Obama’s healthcare law. The Health and Human Services Department also began to implement other popular, but expensive, parts of the Affordable Care Act. Regulations released Tuesday will prohibit insurers from charging women a higher premium than men, and will require plans in every state to cover certain services.

This will force everyone to pay equal and force insurance company out of the business.

Everyone should pay equal

If insurance companies don't like the business they are in, why did they fight so hard against the Government getting involved?

 

[g5000]

As for "death panels", the fact that stupid meme persists is incredibly annoying.

The "death panels" meme began when Congressman Blumenauer of Oregon added a provision to have end of life counseling paid for by insurance. A senior citizen could discuss with a doctor ahead of time what sort of care they would like should they ever become too ill to communicate their wishes. The provision required insurance to pay for this doctor visit.

This is the exact OPPOSITE of a "death panel". This was a means to EMPOWER the patient.

Calling that insured doctor visit a "death panel" was a classic case of people not even bothering to read the legislation and instead drinking the piss of ignorant demagogues like Sarah Palin. They really need to be kicked in the nuts.

To cover up their supreme embarrassment over this incredible fuckup, "death panels" has now been morphed into a whole new meaning.

Every insurance company has actuaries. And these actuaries determine how much each and every illness and disease under the sun costs, on average, and how frequently they appear in the population, on average.

Based on these actuarials, insurance companies are able to determine how much outlays they will have for a given number of customers in a given condition of general good health. From this they are able to determine how much money they need those customers to pay to cover the outlays, plus a little profit (or not, if they are a non-profit health insurance).


If you then get a disease and live past the average, you become a risk to their business model. So they start pressuring the hospital to put you on an ice floe and wave bye-bye.

Just about every person who has ever had a family member come down with cancer has experienced this.

Now...have you ever heard Sarah Palin or any other rabid pissing dog call this process a "death panel" in the entire history of the world B.O. (Before Obama)?

Neither have I.


So when the government does the EXACT SAME THING by setting up actuarials in the ACA, why is it suddenly the new and improved definition of a "death panel"?

Because they are fucking asshole hypocrites, that's why.



Read the bill. There's a lot more valid shit to bitch about in that bill than this bullshit death panel thing.


.

 

[The Rabbi]

There will certainly be "death panels." Just like Britain and Oregon and every other place that has similar systems, this one encourages over use by people and limits supply. The result is shortage. Since you cannot allocate resources based on price, you must ration them. Ergo some people's lives will not be considered worth saving.

 

[Dr Grump]

HHS releases rules requiring pre-existing conditions coverage
The Hill ^ | 11/20/12 | Sam Baker

HHS releases rules requiring pre-existing conditions coverage - The Hill's Healthwatch

The Obama administration issued new rules Tuesday that require insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions — one of the most popular provisions of President Obama’s healthcare law. The Health and Human Services Department also began to implement other popular, but expensive, parts of the Affordable Care Act. Regulations released Tuesday will prohibit insurers from charging women a higher premium than men, and will require plans in every state to cover certain services.

This will force everyone to pay equal and force insurance company out of the business.

So what you are saying is, only those that can afford health care should get it. Those that can't, shouldn't?

At least with Obamacare they are trying to be all inclusive. Every other method seems to be exclusive in some way..

 

[Antares]

HHS releases rules requiring pre-existing conditions coverage
The Hill ^ | 11/20/12 | Sam Baker

HHS releases rules requiring pre-existing conditions coverage - The Hill's Healthwatch

The Obama administration issued new rules Tuesday that require insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions — one of the most popular provisions of President Obama’s healthcare law. The Health and Human Services Department also began to implement other popular, but expensive, parts of the Affordable Care Act. Regulations released Tuesday will prohibit insurers from charging women a higher premium than men, and will require plans in every state to cover certain services.

This will force everyone to pay equal and force insurance company out of the business.

Forcing insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions is exactly why there is an individual mandate. The mandate offsets the higher cost of insuring people with pre-existing conditions.

Forcing healthy people to pay premiums offsets the outlays for the chronically ill.

.

Good little parrot.
It will do no such thing.

You probably believe the part about there being a Healthcare Trust Fund too.

 

[g5000]

HHS releases rules requiring pre-existing conditions coverage
The Hill ^ | 11/20/12 | Sam Baker

HHS releases rules requiring pre-existing conditions coverage - The Hill's Healthwatch



This will force everyone to pay equal and force insurance company out of the business.

Forcing insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions is exactly why there is an individual mandate. The mandate offsets the higher cost of insuring people with pre-existing conditions.

Forcing healthy people to pay premiums offsets the outlays for the chronically ill.

.

Good little parrot.
It will do no such thing.

You probably believe the part about there being a Healthcare Trust Fund too.

You are a fool if you believe otherwise. That's why before the Supreme Court decision there was so much discussion about severability.

The whole purpose of the mandate was to support the costs of insuring pre-existing conditions.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceja...e-health-insurance-industrys-idea-not-obamas/

.

 

[Antares]

As for "death panels", the fact that stupid meme persists is incredibly annoying.

The "death panels" meme began when Congressman Blumenauer of Oregon added a provision to have end of life counseling paid for by insurance. A senior citizen could discuss with a doctor ahead of time what sort of care they would like should they ever become too ill to communicate their wishes. The provision required insurance to pay for this doctor visit.

This is the exact OPPOSITE of a "death panel". This was a means to EMPOWER the patient.

Calling that insured doctor visit a "death panel" was a classic case of people not even bothering to read the legislation and instead drinking the piss of ignorant demagogues like Sarah Palin. They really need to be kicked in the nuts.

To cover up their supreme embarrassment over this incredible fuckup, "death panels" has now been morphed into a whole new meaning.

Every insurance company has actuaries. And these actuaries determine how much each and every illness and disease under the sun costs, on average, and how frequently they appear in the population, on average.

Based on these actuarials, insurance companies are able to determine how much outlays they will have for a given number of customers in a given condition of general good health. From this they are able to determine how much money they need those customers to pay to cover the outlays, plus a little profit (or not, if they are a non-profit health insurance).


If you then get a disease and live past the average, you become a risk to their business model. So they start pressuring the hospital to put you on an ice floe and wave bye-bye.

Just about every person who has ever had a family member come down with cancer has experienced this.

Now...have you ever heard Sarah Palin or any other rabid pissing dog call this process a "death panel" in the entire history of the world B.O. (Before Obama)?

Neither have I.


So when the government does the EXACT SAME THING by setting up actuarials in the ACA, why is it suddenly the new and improved definition of a "death panel"?

Because they are fucking asshole hypocrites, that's why.



Read the bill. There's a lot more valid shit to bitch about in that bill than this bullshit death panel thing.


.

You haven't read shit, and you have no idea what you are talking about.

There is a panel that will decid who gets what care, you can call it what you want but it will decide who lives and who doesn't.

Moron

 

[g5000]

As for "death panels", the fact that stupid meme persists is incredibly annoying.

The "death panels" meme began when Congressman Blumenauer of Oregon added a provision to have end of life counseling paid for by insurance. A senior citizen could discuss with a doctor ahead of time what sort of care they would like should they ever become too ill to communicate their wishes. The provision required insurance to pay for this doctor visit.

This is the exact OPPOSITE of a "death panel". This was a means to EMPOWER the patient.

Calling that insured doctor visit a "death panel" was a classic case of people not even bothering to read the legislation and instead drinking the piss of ignorant demagogues like Sarah Palin. They really need to be kicked in the nuts.

To cover up their supreme embarrassment over this incredible fuckup, "death panels" has now been morphed into a whole new meaning.

Every insurance company has actuaries. And these actuaries determine how much each and every illness and disease under the sun costs, on average, and how frequently they appear in the population, on average.

Based on these actuarials, insurance companies are able to determine how much outlays they will have for a given number of customers in a given condition of general good health. From this they are able to determine how much money they need those customers to pay to cover the outlays, plus a little profit (or not, if they are a non-profit health insurance).


If you then get a disease and live past the average, you become a risk to their business model. So they start pressuring the hospital to put you on an ice floe and wave bye-bye.

Just about every person who has ever had a family member come down with cancer has experienced this.

Now...have you ever heard Sarah Palin or any other rabid pissing dog call this process a "death panel" in the entire history of the world B.O. (Before Obama)?

Neither have I.


So when the government does the EXACT SAME THING by setting up actuarials in the ACA, why is it suddenly the new and improved definition of a "death panel"?

Because they are fucking asshole hypocrites, that's why.



Read the bill. There's a lot more valid shit to bitch about in that bill than this bullshit death panel thing.


.

You haven't read shit, and you have no idea what you are talking about.

There is a panel that will decid who gets what care, you can call it what you want but it will decide who lives and who doesn't.

Moron

Link to the provision in the bill, please.

Quote it.


.

 

[Clementine]

Leftist can you reassure me that this isn't true? The health care system in Britain seems to work a lot like this. Why shouldn't we have a system that can supply our entire population with what they need? Why limit and put medical suppliers out of business???

"The reason they want pre-existing condition coverage is to eventually complain about the cost of them. Some day these people will be referred to the death panels. The death panel will determine that your newly discovered stage 3 or 4 cancer doesn’t meet the cost/benefit analysis, and you will be prescribed pain killers."

What this guy was talking about is we won't be able to supply people with what they need. This scares me.

Could we ever supply people with what they need?

Or only those who could afford healthcare?

So the left's solution is nobody can get what they need if some fucked up panel says it costs too much. If a person can afford, who the hell are you or anyone to tell them no? This is a free country, correct? Well, for a little while longer anyway.

 

[konradv]

There will certainly be "death panels." Just like Britain and Oregon and every other place that has similar systems, this one encourages over use by people and limits supply. The result is shortage. Since you cannot allocate resources based on price, you must ration them. Ergo some people's lives will not be considered worth saving.

There have always been "death panels". If an insurance company refused to cover something, it essentially became a "death warrant panel". Just like in the past, you can always cover it out-of-pocket.

 

[g5000]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_panel

"Death panel" is a political term that originated during a 2009 debate about federal health care legislation to cover the uninsured in the United States. The term was first used in August 2009 by Sarah Palin, the former Republican Governor of Alaska, when she charged that the proposed legislation would create a "death panel" of bureaucrats who would decide whether Americans—such as her elderly parents or child with Down syndrome—were worthy of medical care. Palin's claim, however, was debunked, and it has been referred to as the "death panel" myth;[1] nothing in any proposed legislation would have allowed individuals to be judged to see if they were "worthy" of health care.[2] Palin specified that she was referring to Section 1233 of bill HR 3200 which would have paid physicians for providing voluntary counseling to Medicare patients about living wills, advance directives, and end-of-life care options.

Exactly as I said. Palin called the insured doctor visit for end of life counseling a "death panel".

Dumb fucking bitch.



.

 

[g5000]

There will certainly be "death panels." Just like Britain and Oregon and every other place that has similar systems, this one encourages over use by people and limits supply. The result is shortage. Since you cannot allocate resources based on price, you must ration them. Ergo some people's lives will not be considered worth saving.

There have always been "death panels". If an insurance company refused to cover something, it essentially became a "death warrant panel". Just like in the past, you can always cover it out-of-pocket.

I defy anyone to provide a quote by a politician from before Obama was elected who called that process a death panel.

.

 

[Antares]

Forcing insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions is exactly why there is an individual mandate. The mandate offsets the higher cost of insuring people with pre-existing conditions.

Forcing healthy people to pay premiums offsets the outlays for the chronically ill.

.

Good little parrot.
It will do no such thing.

You probably believe the part about there being a Healthcare Trust Fund too.

You are a fool if you believe otherwise. That's why before the Supreme Court decision there was so much discussion about severability.

The whole purpose of the mandate was to support the costs of insuring pre-existing conditions.

.

Now you are just making me laugh, you haven't read the Bill.
They "rold" you thats what it would do and you are just parroting the line.

Tell me oh learned one....

1) Which HC Bill are you talking about.....
2) What the Health Exchanges are responsible for