Death Panels Plus?

[NYcarbineer]

Oh, and btw,

this 'bureaucrat' who's coming between your granny and her doctor over her treatment? He's not deciding whether or not she can have the treatment,

he's only deciding whether or not the concern he represents will pay for it.

If someone else pays for it, including granny herself, the matter becomes of no concern to the bureaucrat.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

No matter how you people try to spin it things just don't look good here.

Having some government bureaucrat involved in ANY health care decisions be it coverage, care, or anything else is something that independant minded american's are opposed to.

You can try and make people look like boogeymen for supporting what we have now, with maybe a few minor tweaks to the regulations to prevent things such as dropped coverage, when it is you who are the actual boogeymen allowing our inept government to get its hands into the coverage business. Seriously these are the people who told us Saddam had WMD, can't make a profit with AMtrack, and run the DMV.

 

[Trajan]

Ok then, if I was a person of modest means would I want a government healthcare system with a mandate (aka 'ideology') to make every reasonable effort to provide healthcare to all without regard to their ability to pay,

or would I want my only healthcare option to be a private sector for-profit system with the bottomline as its primary concern?

Happy now?

You seem to have bought the line- in that care as it stands now at the average level which is pretty darn good would be able to be extended to everyone on the same basis- that is quality and access....

thats a pipe dream. there is no gov. or bus. model in the world that allows for such, UNLESS you are willing to pay MORE, aside from what you would pay via mandate, taxes whatever vehicle they employ to make you pay so its 'available' to everyone and that means you, as your own access and care degrades.


if thats what you want? hey thats your opinion, good for you, like I said to maddy, lets see how brave you are if you or yours was denied access or care because you would have had now or that you have contarcted for via a prvt co. , but don't get because someone else who could not afford it, got it....and you are left by ideological dictum on the side of the road with lesser care.

You didn't answer the question. You know, employing ever more incomprehensible rhetoric on your part does not strengthen your arguments.

Simple question.

Why do Americans on Medicare buy supplemental insurance policies?

thats a pipe dream. there is no gov. or bus. model in the world that allows for such, UNLESS you are willing to pay MORE, aside from what you would pay via mandate, taxes whatever vehicle they employ to make you pay so its 'available' to everyone and that means you, as your own access and care degrades.

seems clear to me. and you are narrowing the debate to retirees only, they can and do buy supplemental, yes, thats exactly the point, hello, why should they have to? and they will either being paying more if that ability is dissolved have to buy a particular treatment when they need it, if they cannot get it wiht what they will be left with.

 

[Trajan]

Who should decide whether or not you get food stamps? Who should decide whether or not you can deduct your pet cat as a dependent on your income taxes?

when food stamps or other transfer payment reach critical mass, we'll see. be patient we are almost there. and again you are choosing relatively un-complex issues from which to draw analogies .

You didn't answer the questions. Since you seem to take a dim view of anyone who won't answer questions,
at this point you should have a VERY dim view of yourself.

Let me make the question harder for you to avoid looking ridiculous by not answering:

Who should decide whether or not you should be able to get your healthcare paid for by Medicaid?

I did answer, we are not talking of food stamps, read what I wrote. if you want to discuss that issue start a thread.

"whether or not you should be able to get your health-care paid for by Medicaid? I don't even know what that question has to do with this.

For the record of course you should.

and you're getting personal, lets leave that at the door please.

 

[Trajan]

Oh, and btw,

this 'bureaucrat' who's coming between your granny and her doctor over her treatment? He's not deciding whether or not she can have the treatment,

he's only deciding whether or not the concern he represents will pay for it.

If someone else pays for it, including granny herself, the matter becomes of no concern to the bureaucrat.

who was that for?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh, and btw,

this 'bureaucrat' who's coming between your granny and her doctor over her treatment? He's not deciding whether or not she can have the treatment,

he's only deciding whether or not the concern he represents will pay for it.

If someone else pays for it, including granny herself, the matter becomes of no concern to the bureaucrat.

who was that for?

For anyone who thinks otherwise. For anyone who thinks the talking point about a bureaucrat coming between doctor and patient is some sort of good argument against so-called Obama-care.

 

[Revere]

It does involve a bureaucrat coming between a doctor and a patient.

Obamacare the legislation means nothing.

The writing of administrative law is completely out of control and accountable to nobody.

This proves it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You seem to have bought the line- in that care as it stands now at the average level which is pretty darn good would be able to be extended to everyone on the same basis- that is quality and access....

thats a pipe dream. there is no gov. or bus. model in the world that allows for such, UNLESS you are willing to pay MORE, aside from what you would pay via mandate, taxes whatever vehicle they employ to make you pay so its 'available' to everyone and that means you, as your own access and care degrades.


if thats what you want? hey thats your opinion, good for you, like I said to maddy, lets see how brave you are if you or yours was denied access or care because you would have had now or that you have contarcted for via a prvt co. , but don't get because someone else who could not afford it, got it....and you are left by ideological dictum on the side of the road with lesser care.

You didn't answer the question. You know, employing ever more incomprehensible rhetoric on your part does not strengthen your arguments.

Simple question.

Why do Americans on Medicare buy supplemental insurance policies?

thats a pipe dream. there is no gov. or bus. model in the world that allows for such, UNLESS you are willing to pay MORE, aside from what you would pay via mandate, taxes whatever vehicle they employ to make you pay so its 'available' to everyone and that means you, as your own access and care degrades.

seems clear to me. and you are narrowing the debate to retirees only, they can and do buy supplemental, yes, thats exactly the point, hello, why should they have to? and they will either being paying more if that ability is dissolved have to buy a particular treatment when they need it, if they cannot get it wiht what they will be left with.

Because Medicare is not designed nor is it funded to provide unlimited care. Would you like to fund it in the amounts necessary to provide unlimited care?

 

[Revere]

You didn't answer the question. You know, employing ever more incomprehensible rhetoric on your part does not strengthen your arguments.

Simple question.

Why do Americans on Medicare buy supplemental insurance policies?

thats a pipe dream. there is no gov. or bus. model in the world that allows for such, UNLESS you are willing to pay MORE, aside from what you would pay via mandate, taxes whatever vehicle they employ to make you pay so its 'available' to everyone and that means you, as your own access and care degrades.

seems clear to me. and you are narrowing the debate to retirees only, they can and do buy supplemental, yes, thats exactly the point, hello, why should they have to? and they will either being paying more if that ability is dissolved have to buy a particular treatment when they need it, if they cannot get it wiht what they will be left with.

Because Medicare is not designed nor is it funded to provide unlimited care. Would you like to fund it in the amounts necessary to provide unlimited care?

Then where did the new reimbursements come from for doctors dispensing end of life planning?

 

[Trajan]

You didn't answer the question. You know, employing ever more incomprehensible rhetoric on your part does not strengthen your arguments.

Simple question.

Why do Americans on Medicare buy supplemental insurance policies?

thats a pipe dream. there is no gov. or bus. model in the world that allows for such, UNLESS you are willing to pay MORE, aside from what you would pay via mandate, taxes whatever vehicle they employ to make you pay so its 'available' to everyone and that means you, as your own access and care degrades.

seems clear to me. and you are narrowing the debate to retirees only, they can and do buy supplemental, yes, thats exactly the point, hello, why should they have to? and they will either being paying more if that ability is dissolved have to buy a particular treatment when they need it, if they cannot get it wiht what they will be left with.

Because Medicare is not designed nor is it funded to provide unlimited care. Would you like to fund it in the amounts necessary to provide unlimited care?

hey why not? it won't cost extra will it? I mean look here, do you really believe that we can a) increase the consumer base by 30 or so million, b) render better care c) cost will go down?


do you believe that?

 

[Revere]

You didn't answer the question. You know, employing ever more incomprehensible rhetoric on your part does not strengthen your arguments.

Simple question.

Why do Americans on Medicare buy supplemental insurance policies?

thats a pipe dream. there is no gov. or bus. model in the world that allows for such, UNLESS you are willing to pay MORE, aside from what you would pay via mandate, taxes whatever vehicle they employ to make you pay so its 'available' to everyone and that means you, as your own access and care degrades.

seems clear to me. and you are narrowing the debate to retirees only, they can and do buy supplemental, yes, thats exactly the point, hello, why should they have to? and they will either being paying more if that ability is dissolved have to buy a particular treatment when they need it, if they cannot get it wiht what they will be left with.

Because Medicare is not designed nor is it funded to provide unlimited care. Would you like to fund it in the amounts necessary to provide unlimited care?

Which government program gives everyone all the health care they think they should have?

 

[Madeline]

No matter how you people try to spin it things just don't look good here.

Having some government bureaucrat involved in ANY health care decisions be it coverage, care, or anything else is something that independant minded american's are opposed to.

You can try and make people look like boogeymen for supporting what we have now, with maybe a few minor tweaks to the regulations to prevent things such as dropped coverage, when it is you who are the actual boogeymen allowing our inept government to get its hands into the coverage business. Seriously these are the people who told us Saddam had WMD, can't make a profit with AMtrack, and run the DMV.

Your entire argument seems to be that "independent minded" people prefer to be dictated to by profit-seeking corporations they have no control over rather than by the government. I find this irrational.

We should be discussing which system can best deliver the care needed to the whole of America, not which system strokes your ego.

 

[Revere]

Government can't do better than what we have in terms of health care.

There are no collectivist solutions for individual problems, bumpkin.

 

[Madeline]

Government can't do better than what we have in terms of health care.

There are no collectivist solutions for individual problems, bumpkin.

The very concept of "insurance" is "a collectivist solution for individual problems", Revere. It's no use saying "government can't do better" when so many governments around the globe do exactly that.

Our system is irrational and overly-expensive and fails to provide coverage to all. That's a serious indictment, yet you guys on the right cling to it as if it cannot be improved upon. What nonsense.

 

[Revere]

Insurance is a contract you voluntarily enter into.

They are rioting in Europe because they can't afford their benefits anymore, bumpkin.

It's a myth to expect government will give health care to all.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

No matter how you people try to spin it things just don't look good here.

Having some government bureaucrat involved in ANY health care decisions be it coverage, care, or anything else is something that independant minded american's are opposed to.

You can try and make people look like boogeymen for supporting what we have now, with maybe a few minor tweaks to the regulations to prevent things such as dropped coverage, when it is you who are the actual boogeymen allowing our inept government to get its hands into the coverage business. Seriously these are the people who told us Saddam had WMD, can't make a profit with AMtrack, and run the DMV.

Your entire argument seems to be that "independent minded" people prefer to be dictated to by profit-seeking corporations they have no control over rather than by the government. I find this irrational.

We should be discussing which system can best deliver the care needed to the whole of America, not which system strokes your ego.

So you have no valid challenge to my comments just some passing insults to throw around.

Kudos at offering up no intellect.

BTW I can CHOOSE which company to buy insurance from so if I think mine is going for profit at the expense of my care, coverage, and cost I can always switch (well for now until the hidden road to a public option becomes visible).

Our current system, while not perfect, currently provides the highest quality of care in the world (care does not equal access/availability before you throw that straw-man into it)

Why drastically change it instead of doing slow, small, and targeted reforms.....hell I'll even start it off with the first, free, and effective reform which is allowing insurance to be sold across state lines. Think about how much competition and the price wars that go on to get your car insurance .

 

[Greenbeard]

Our current system, while not perfect, currently provides the highest quality of care in the world (care does not equal access/availability before you throw that straw-man into it)

Why drastically change it instead of doing slow, small, and targeted reforms.....

What about our system is drastically changing?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Our current system, while not perfect, currently provides the highest quality of care in the world (care does not equal access/availability before you throw that straw-man into it)

Why drastically change it instead of doing slow, small, and targeted reforms.....

What about our system is drastically changing?

Where to start....here are a few thousand pages of new laws in regards to health insurance and care http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf

Would you like the stuff from the stimulus bill in relation to health care too?

Dont act daft, I've seen you post smarter than this.

 

[Greenbeard]

Where to start....here are a few thousand pages of new laws in regards to health insurance and care http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf

Would you like the stuff from the stimulus bill in relation to health care too?

Dont act daft, I've seen you post smarter than this.

First of all, you're not even linking to the right bill. H.R. 3962 never became law. Second, you didn't response to my question. I read your thread about the HITECH Act (the health information technology piece of the stimulus); it was full of bullshit misrepresentations. That's why I replied to it.

So what's the drastic change? The decade-long transition to digital records over paper?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Insurance is a contract you voluntarily enter into.

They are rioting in Europe because they can't afford their benefits anymore, bumpkin.

It's a myth to expect government will give health care to all.

The stats of health quality, life longevity, and quality of nationalized health care in a dozen industrialized countries rebuke your talking point, Revere.