Death Panels Plus?

Sinatra

Senior Member
Feb 5, 2009
8,013
1,008
48
You decide - excerpts from Duke Professor John Lewiss on what sections of the bill say, and more importantly, mean...


"1. This section amends the Social Security Act. 2. The government has the power to determine what constitutes an 'applicable [medical] condition.' 3. The government has the power to determine who is allowed readmission into a hospital. 4. This determination will be made by statistics: when enough people have been discharged for the same condition, an individual may be readmitted." In other words, there's nothing personal about this. That's why Obama's answer to the woman with the 100-year-old mother, "Are you gonna take into account the spunk and spirit, the will to live?" was, "I don't think we can do that." It's going to be statistic based. "5. This is government rationing, pure, simple, and straight up."

___


"2. Anyone caught without acceptable coverage and not in the government plan will pay a special tax." Now, this we know. We've seen this ourselves. "3. The IRS will be a major enforcement mechanism for the plan," as written in this bill. The IRS will be a major enforcer. The next section that he analyzed: "What constitutes 'acceptable' coverage?"
...Let me read that again: "1. The bill defines 'acceptable coverage' and leaves no room for choice in this regard. 2. By setting a minimum 70% actuarial value of benefits, the bill makes health plans in which individuals pay for routine services" out of their own pockets, "but carry insurance only for catastrophic events ... illegal." That is one of the solutions to the problem we have now. Pay for what you want -- a standard checkup, a standard visit to the doctor -- and catastrophic insurance for when that could break your bank. Doing that will be illegal in the House bill. In other words, paying for your own routine day-to-day services but only having insurance for catastrophic events will be illegal

___

"5. The Commissioner (meaning, always, the bureaucrats) will determine whether a particular network of physicians, hospitals and insurance is acceptable" even if you do stay private. "6. With private insurance starved, many people enrolled in the government 'option' will have no place else to go" if they don't like it. So all this talk from Obama about adding to competition is the exact opposite, which is what everybody who's read this understands and which is why they know he's lying to them when he says, "If you like your plan you can keep it." Another way to look at that, "If you like your plan, you can keep it," is: What if everybody decided to do that, but he says the health care plan, the system we have now is unsustainable. It's horrible

____

The evaluation: "1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code 2. The bill opens up income tax return information to federal officials. 3. Any stated 'limits' to such information are circumvented by item (v), which allows federal officials to decide what information is needed. 4. Employers are required to report whatever information the government says it needs to enforce the plan," meaning your medical records, your employment records, how you're living your life, what kind of risk that's posing to the health care system



What The Health Care Bill Actually Says | Sweetness & Light
 
Ah yes, let us just keep everything the same and let the Insurance companies make the decisions. Then we can pay three times as much for even less care than the citizens of the rest of the industrialized nations are getting.
 
I think any government-run type of health care plan must rely on rationing or price controls as bureaucrats try to outguess the market and fail.
 
I think any government-run type of health care plan must rely on rationing or price controls as bureaucrats try to outguess the market and fail.

Agreed.

There can be health care reform, and it should be primarily state-based. No need to scrap a system that the vast majority of Americans prefer, out of deference for a minority, many of whom are illegals, or simply choosing not to sign up for a health care plan...
 
lb0810cd.jpg
 
Ah yes, let us just keep everything the same and let the Insurance companies make the decisions. Then we can pay three times as much for even less care than the citizens of the rest of the industrialized nations are getting.
Red herring, Old Dickweed.

Also, Americans pay more because we use more and have have the most abundant of cutting edge technologies, thereby giving us better value for the dollar.
 
Ah yes, let us just keep everything the same and let the Insurance companies make the decisions. Then we can pay three times as much for even less care than the citizens of the rest of the industrialized nations are getting.
Red herring, Old Dickweed.

Also, Americans pay more because we use more and have have the most abundant of cutting edge technologies, thereby giving us better value for the dollar.

Now that is just too much common sense for such a brief sentence!

How dare you pickle their red herring!
 
Forgive me, but just how much did y'all want to spend to keep 100 year olds alive?

That's a personal decision and one that should not be made by the government or their "death panels". This is a decision that should be made between a doctor and his patient. Not the doctor and the government.
 
I think any government-run type of health care plan must rely on rationing or price controls as bureaucrats try to outguess the market and fail.

Agreed.

There can be health care reform, and it should be primarily state-based. No need to scrap a system that the vast majority of Americans prefer, out of deference for a minority, many of whom are illegals, or simply choosing not to sign up for a health care plan...

No need to scrap a system that is designed to profit off of the illness and pain of American Citizens. Hell, they should be paying twice what other nations pay for inferior care,(results matter, average lifespan, infant mortality), so that the very wealthy can become even wealthier, and continue to bitch and whine about having to pay taxes at half the rate that the working American does.

No, the vast majority of Americans do not like our present system.
 
Forgive me, but just how much did y'all want to spend to keep 100 year olds alive?

That attitude, right there, is why people in the government SHOULD NOT be allowed to have panels deciding such things!!!!

Sure, baby, sure. So let us deprive a five year old of the care needed to prevent a dihibilitating illness so some old man or woman can live another three weeks.
 
Forgive me, but just how much did y'all want to spend to keep 100 year olds alive?

That's a personal decision and one that should not be made by the government or their "death panels". This is a decision that should be made between a doctor and his patient. Not the doctor and the government.

Really? Then why are we letting insurance companies make these decisions every day? And how do you intend to fund such decisions? Shall we just shut down the military to pay for whatever care anyone thinks that they need?

Such nonsense is the reason that people like myself create living wills.
 
Prediction - 2020 - six major insurers in the "exhange". Pre-certification, admissions, and claims processing will be outsourced to India. Ever deal with a Dell customer service rep? Hello death panels.
 
Ah yes, let us just keep everything the same and let the Insurance companies make the decisions. Then we can pay three times as much for even less care than the citizens of the rest of the industrialized nations are getting.
Red herring, Old Dickweed.

Also, Americans pay more because we use more and have have the most abundant of cutting edge technologies, thereby giving us better value for the dollar.

Really? Then why do we rank so far down on list on average life span and infant mortality?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVgOl3cETb4[/ame]
 
Forgive me, but just how much did y'all want to spend to keep 100 year olds alive?

That's a personal decision and one that should not be made by the government or their "death panels". This is a decision that should be made between a doctor and his patient. Not the doctor and the government.

That's a lovely sentiment, BBD, but it gets us nowhere. The fact is medical and nursing care of the elderly are expensive as hell. There's not enough money to go around, so how much do you want to allocate to their care? Would you authorize insurance to pay for a transplant on a 100 year old?

I sure as shit wouldn't.
 
Forgive me, but just how much did y'all want to spend to keep 100 year olds alive?

That's a personal decision and one that should not be made by the government or their "death panels". This is a decision that should be made between a doctor and his patient. Not the doctor and the government.

That's a lovely sentiment, BBD, but it gets us nowhere. The fact is medical and nursing care of the elderly are expensive as hell. There's not enough money to go around, so how much do you want to allocate to their care? Would you authorize insurance to pay for a transplant on a 100 year old?

I sure as shit wouldn't.

Isn't that what insurance is for? If you paid for a catastrophic policy that covered transplants on 100 year old and you need a transplant at 100, then what's the problem? If you get really sick that's what it's there for, isn't it? What insurance should not be covering is doctors visits, routine checkups, etc.

If I wreck my car to the tune of thousands of dollars my insurance covers it. They don't cover oil changes and yearly inspections because that would drive the cost of car insurance through the roof.
 
Last edited:
That's a personal decision and one that should not be made by the government or their "death panels". This is a decision that should be made between a doctor and his patient. Not the doctor and the government.

That's a lovely sentiment, BBD, but it gets us nowhere. The fact is medical and nursing care of the elderly are expensive as hell. There's not enough money to go around, so how much do you want to allocate to their care? Would you authorize insurance to pay for a transplant on a 100 year old?

I sure as shit wouldn't.

Isn't that what insurance is for? If you paid for a catastrophic policy that covered transplants on 100 year old and you need a transplant at 100, then what's the problem? If you get really sick that's what it's there for, isn't it? What insurance should not be covering is doctors visits, routine checkups, etc.

If I wreck my car to the tune of thousands of dollars my insurance covers it. They don't cover oil changes and yearly inspections because that would drive the cost of car insurance through to roof.

Extending life beyond the 100 year marker is an anomoly. Just how long did you wanna live, Zoom-boing? Why should insurance set aside huge dollars for your heroic care at that advanced age and deprive the young of access to ordinary preventive care?

This seems to me the very height of selfishness...and hubris. You live to 103 on your own steam, great. You need millions of dollars of heroic care to live that long, pay for it in cash or die.

We all die. I dunno why we have the fixation with long life that we do, and I see no reason to steal from the young to fuel it.
 
That's a lovely sentiment, BBD, but it gets us nowhere. The fact is medical and nursing care of the elderly are expensive as hell. There's not enough money to go around, so how much do you want to allocate to their care? Would you authorize insurance to pay for a transplant on a 100 year old?

I sure as shit wouldn't.

Isn't that what insurance is for? If you paid for a catastrophic policy that covered transplants on 100 year old and you need a transplant at 100, then what's the problem? If you get really sick that's what it's there for, isn't it? What insurance should not be covering is doctors visits, routine checkups, etc.

If I wreck my car to the tune of thousands of dollars my insurance covers it. They don't cover oil changes and yearly inspections because that would drive the cost of car insurance through to roof.

Extending life beyond the 100 year marker is an anomoly. Just how long did you wanna live, Zoom-boing? Why should insurance set aside huge dollars for your heroic care at that advanced age and deprive the young of access to ordinary preventive care?

This seems to me the very height of selfishness...and hubris. You live to 103 on your own steam, great. You need millions of dollars of heroic care to live that long, pay for it in cash or die.

We all die. I dunno why we have the fixation with long life that we do, and I see no reason to steal from the young to fuel it.

If I've paid the money for a catastrophic policy and my doctor and I think it's a go (I can't imagine this, just putting it out there), then why shouldn't my insurance cover it?

If doctor's visits and yearly checkups and mamograms weren't covered (comparing it to routine maintenance on your car), don't you think the cost of health insurance would come down? Don't you think doctors would then be forced to compete with each other and prices would come down? If I could shop around for a better doc at a better price, I would. I can't do that now; I have to shop around and go to whoever takes my insurance. Seems backwards to me.

fwit, I'm planning on living to 100 all on my own. heh
 

Forum List

Back
Top