FACT CHECK: No 'death panel' in health care bill

[Jay Canuck]

 

[Annie]

The OP is correct. There is nothing called a "Death Panel" in the bill.

However, if you read the language, instead of reading left wing or right wing talking points you may learn the truth.

If people decide to click the link and read the text of the bill be warned, once you learn the truth you wont be able to go back to believing in a lie.

yep. There will be a 'panel' to decide whether or not someone should receive certain treatments/surgeries. I'll just address old folks, leaving aside younger people with mental/physical impairments. Presume a person is 70, with high blood pressure, but is living a fulling lifestyle. He/She is diagnosed with blocked arteries, but also with kidney problems. The surgery might make the heart problem better, but the kidneys, not so much so. So, does the surgeon complete the surgery? Today, yes. Tomorrow?

 

[Immanuel]

Have you really thought through the repercussions if that started occurring? There would be wrongful death lawsuits up the wazoo against the US Government [Mr. & Mrs. Taxpayer, remember]. OF COURSE that isn't going to happen. Geezus.

Really? And just how far do you think such a suit would get before it was thrown out of court?

The clerk's desk? Think it would make it that far?

Immie

You're kidding, right? Crafty lawyers are constantly waiting in the wings for some new "cause" to concoct class action suits. And you must not know much about the legal process and the courts. Nothing is "thrown out" except by a judge and that's only AFTER a complaint and answer to the complaint are filed. As long as a person has the filing fee, you can file a complaint against your mother for force-feeding you macaroni and cheese that made you fat.

The irony of this particular back and forth is that if intentional ending of a person's life by the government were indeed part of the dark 'plan,' then the same government would be clamoring for tort reform which would have the effect of quashing such lawsuits (as you suggest they would).

The point is Maggie that there is not going to be a secret panel deciding each and every case. They will say, this is covered that is not and you don't want bean counters like me deciding whether or not your particular problem is covered.

It happens now in the private insurance industry. However, when it does you still have the ability to get medical services. In the future, when the government handles everything, you won't have that ability. When the bean counters say no... you're done.

Immie

 

[PoliticalChic]

Did you ever notice that when Republicans read the health care bills, they are always into interpretation?

They read about a panel to study comparative effectiveness and say, "that means death panels..."

They read that private insurers are supposed to continue to exist, but say "clearly though, it is mandated that they will cease to exist..."

But, of course, there are some who ideologically believe that the "marketplace" should determine who gets to have health care and who does not. They believe that private insurance companies - with their rosters of doctors who decide what care people receive - should decide who lives or dies, who is bankrupted or not.

Tell me how the CEO of an insurance carrier who needs to justify his $100 million per year cares more about your health than a government oversight regulator?

Seems to me that health insurance companies are in business to KEEP the money they have received in premiums as opposed to paying it out for services.

So glad to have this opportunity for, as our President phrases it, a 'teaching moment.'

"...when Republicans read the health care bills, they are always into interpretation?"

This is because those you refer to as 'Republicans' have two attributes that you seem to lack: education and experience.

Using these two tools, one is often able to see the true aim of those whose objectives may be less than magnanimous.

"They read about a panel to study comparative effectiveness and say, "that means death panels..."
Praytell, what do you suppose is the aim of this non-elected panel who will tell individuals that the drug they need is too expensive?

"..."comparative effectiveness" research. That in turn will be used to impose price controls and deny some types of medical treatment and drugs. And because government is able to skew the whole health system through Medicare and Medicaid, comparative effectiveness could end up micromanaging the practice of medicine."
Democrats Use the Stimulus Bill to Create a Health Information Monopoly - WSJ.com


"They read that private insurers are supposed to continue to exist, but say "clearly though, it is mandated that they will cease to exist..."
Insurance policies are priced based on what they cover. The following are mandated to be included in all policies:
1. have guaranteed issue and renewal

2. no exclusions for pre-existing conditions

3. , no lifetime or annual limits on benefits,

4. family policies would have to cover “children” up to age 26.

5. to cover “essential health benefits,” as defined by a new Medical Advisory Council (MAC), appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The MAC would determine what items and services are “essential benefits.” The MAC would have to include items and services in at least the following categories: ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and new born care, medical and surgical, mental health, prescription drugs, rehab and lab services, preventive/wellness services, pediatric services, and anything else the MAC thought appropriate.
6. compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430).

7. prohibits engaging in other discriminatory practices. cover smokers, parachute jumpers, and race car drivers.

8. Caps total out-of-pocket spending

Should ObamaCare pass, and these items were in a policy, the costs would skyrocket, and leave only the 'government option' for most to afford. That is the purpose.
Can you connect the dots?

Did you note that the 9 million federal employees and their families are specifically excluded from ObamaCare?

From 'Animal Farm': All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

" who gets to have health care and who does not."
A fallacy, since every individual in the country, citizen or not, has healthcare coverage at this time.

And the usual "insurance companies ration care" is equally untrue. There is no rationing of healthcare in the United States, and will be none unless ObamaCare passes: then a bureaucrat will decide who gets care.

" how the CEO of an insurance carrier who needs to justify his $100 million per year"

"and few would dispute the fact that health insurance company CEOs make healthy salaries — these numbers represent a very small fraction of total health care spending in the U.S. In 2007, national health care expenditures totaled $2.2 trillion. Health insurance profits of nearly $13 billion make up 0.6 percent of that. CEO compensation is a mere 0.005 percent of total spending."
Pushing for a Public Plan | FactCheck.org

There is a great deal of misconception among the public regarding excessive versus appropriate nonprofit salaries. To equip donors in evaluating the appropriateness of an individual charity’s CEO compensation in relation to its location, size, mission and overall performance, Charity Navigator has conducted an annual study on nonprofit CEO pay. With an average salary of roughly $160,000, this year’s findings prove that the majority of CEOs are not excessively compensated. Access our report to determine if the paycheck of your favorite charity’s CEO is reasonable, inadequate or excessive.
Charity Navigator - 2009 CEO Compensation Study


"...a government oversight regulator..."
The same ones who give us $480 hammers and $160 toilet seats? And they have a particular resonance with your health and safety?


"Seems to me that health insurance companies are in business to KEEP the money they have received in premiums as opposed to paying it out for services."
Read the factcheck above for healthcare industry profits.

And read my previous post re: ways to save money in healthcare. Dispute any if you can.

My poor friend, you have been sucking on the liberal teat too long. Wise up. Grow up.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Have you really thought through the repercussions if that started occurring? There would be wrongful death lawsuits up the wazoo against the US Government [Mr. & Mrs. Taxpayer, remember]. OF COURSE that isn't going to happen. Geezus.

Really? And just how far do you think such a suit would get before it was thrown out of court?

The clerk's desk? Think it would make it that far?

Immie

You're kidding, right? Crafty lawyers are constantly waiting in the wings for some new "cause" to concoct class action suits. And you must not know much about the legal process and the courts. Nothing is "thrown out" except by a judge and that's only AFTER a complaint and answer to the complaint are filed. As long as a person has the filing fee, you can file a complaint against your mother for force-feeding you macaroni and cheese that made you fat.

The irony of this particular back and forth is that if intentional ending of a person's life by the government were indeed part of the dark 'plan,' then the same government would be clamoring for tort reform which would have the effect of quashing such lawsuits (as you suggest they would).

You can sue your mother if you have the filing fee, but you can't sue the federal government unless it consents to being sued with only narrow exceptions.

The FTCA [Federal Tort Claims Act] provides a limited waiver of the federal government's sovereign immunity when its employees are negligent within the scope of their employment. Under the FTCA, the government can only be sued 'under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.' 28 U.S.C. S 1346(b). Thus, the FTCA does not apply to conduct that is uniquely governmental, that is, incapable of performance by a private individual.

Can you sue the federal government? - Yahoo! Answers

 

[MaggieMae]

I listened to what Obama said, while he'd not call them 'death panels' he agrees as does all countries with government provided insurance that people that are not 'healthy' shouldn't be prolonging their lives, regardless of quality. It's not 'personal' but for the 'good of the most', meaning socialism.

I didn't recall him mentioning other countries in any analogy, so I pulled up a copy of the text of the town hall exchanges in Portsmouth. Nope, he didn't. And your statement isn't even close to anything he said about so-called "death panels" or health care rationing. Making stuff up again hoping it will stick?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/us/politics/12obama.text.html

 

[PoliticalChic]

Okay, this is just downright absurd. A COST STUDY with the sole purpose of REDUCING FUCKING HEALTH CARE COSTS ALREADY PAID FOR BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, and Republicans suddenly have a problem with that? No--not absurd, it's pure partisan horseshit. If the tables were turned and it was REPUBLICANS who devised this cost saving panel and DEMOCRATS opposed it, the goddamned cons would be yelping like little piggies.

Demonstrably absurd.

Only a liberal would conflate cost cutting for healthcare by reducing services to the ill and the elderly.

If cost cutting is the aim, tort reform would be the first step. And the reason that tort reform is not in the bill? Democrat pocket-lining by lawyers.

Should you actually be interested in cost cutting, consider the following:

1. Tort Reform:
While malpractice litigation accounts for only about 0.6 percent of U.S. health care costs, the fear of being sued causes U.S. doctors to order more tests than their Canadian counterparts. So-called defensive medicine increases health care costs by up to 9 percent, Medicare's administrator told Congress in 2005. "
Canada keeps malpractice cost in check - St. Petersburg Times

Now, compare those with these:
"Also, it’s worth noting that while these figures sound like a lot of money — and few would dispute the fact that health insurance company CEOs make healthy salaries — these numbers represent a very small fraction of total health care spending in the U.S. In 2007, national health care expenditures totaled $2.2 trillion. Health insurance profits of nearly $13 billion make up 0.6 percent of that. CEO compensation is a mere 0.005 percent of total spending."
FactCheck.org: Pushing for a Public Plan

The conclusion is that the cost of malpractice suits is equal to the profit of the entire industry.

This may be significant of and by itself, but when we look at the costs of defensive medicine, it alone adds to the costs of healthcare by a factor 15!!!
Once providers don’t have to watch over their shoulders for the lawyers, we should move toward coordinated care networks that take responsibility for their members' medical needs in return for fixed annual payments (called "capitation"). One approach is through vouchers; Medicare recipients would receive a fixed amount and shop for networks with the lowest cost and highest quality.


2. Reform of Insurance Policy Mandates:

Scrap all city, state, federal mandates for healthcare insurance policies. When a statute says policies must “cover mammograms of everyone 35 and over,’ how is this fair for a construction company with all male employees? What about ‘Podiatry,’ or ‘sexual reorientation surgery/? Allow insurance companies to write policies covering exactly what the consumer asks for:
Take two very different states: Wisconsin and New York. In Wisconsin, a family can buy a health-insurance plan for as little as $3,000 a year. The price for a basic family plan in the Empire State: $12,000. The stark difference has nothing to do with each state’s health sector as a share of its economy (14.8 percent in Wisconsin as of 2004, the most recent year for which data are available, and 13.9 percent in New York). Rather, the difference has to do with how each state’s insurance pools are regulated. In New York State, politicians have tried to run the health-insurance system from Albany, forcing insurers to deliver complex Cadillac plans to every subscriber for political reasons, driving up costs. Wisconsin’s insurers are far freer to sell plans at prices consumers want.
The gulf in insurance-premium prices among American states is a sign that too much government intervention—not too little—is what’s distorting prices from one market to the next. The key to reducing health-care costs for patients, then, is to promote competition, not to dictate insurance requirements from on high. Unfortunately, a government-run insurance plan is the core of ObamaCare.
Bigger Is Healthier by David Gratzer, City Journal 22 July 2009
a. NJ has some 68-69 mandates including in vitro fertilization, which adds some 2-2.5% to the cost of the policy

3.. Doctors currently have no ability to re-price or re-package their services that way every other professional does. Medicare dictates what it pays for and what it won’t pay for, and the final price. Because of this there are no telephone consultations paid for, and the same for e-mails, normal in every other profession.
Most doctors don’t digitize records, thus they cannot use software that allows electronic prescription, and make it easier to detect drug interactions or dosage mistakes. Again, Medicare doesn’t pay for it.

4. Another free market idea aimed at better quality is have warranties for surgery as we do for cars. 17% of Medicare patients who enter a hospital re-enter within 30 days because of a problem connected to the original surgery. The result is that a hospital makes money on its mistakes!

5. Walk-in clinics are growing around the country, where a registered nurse sits at a computer, the patient describes symptoms, the nurse types it in and follows a computerized protocol, the nurse can prescribe electronically, and the patient sees the price in advance

6. To reduce healthcare costs, increase the number of doctors. Obama care would do the opposite. Both tax incentives and support of the tuition of medical school.

7. Identify the 8-10 million who need and are unable to get healthcare, including those with pre-existing conditions,and provide debit cards as is done for food stamps:

"Food debit cards help 27 million people buy food, similar to the number who need help buying health coverage. In all fifty states, debit card technology has transformed the federal food stamp program, which used to be notorious for fraud and abuse. (Only 2 percent of card users are found to be ineligible, according to the General Accounting Office.) Cards are loaded with a specific dollar amount monthly, depending on family size and income, and allow cardholders to shop anywhere. The same strategy could be adapted to provide purchasing power to families who need help buying high-deductible health coverage. It's what all Americans used to buy (see chart 5), and it's all that's needed for families with moderate incomes, who can afford a routine doctor visit. "
Downgrading Health Care

8. Current law provides unlimited tax relief for coverage obtained through an employer but no comparable relief for those who purchase coverage outside their places of work. S. 334 would replace the current tax preference for employer-based health coverage with a new individual-based system. The bill would end the tax exclusion in the personal income tax for employer-based health insurance benefits and instead use a combination of subsidies and tax deductions for health insurance. Ideally, the current employer-based tax structure should be replaced with a fair and equitable universal tax credit. An across-the-board, fixed-dollar health care tax credit, for example, would offer every American federal tax relief for health care.(Wyden-Bennett Bill)

And which of the above are 'partisan'?

Oh good God, would you PLEASE put your thousand-fold points in separate postings or better yet, separate threads? I'm sticking to the issue at hand, if you don't mind, which is alleged reduction of health care options for the elderly. I]

This is the answer to one- and only one- point: your reference to the (magnanimous) administration attempting to save money.

I have listed my responses one to eight. Only eight. Not one thousand.

Surely you can handle eight.

Actually, the sense I get is that you can handle none of them.

 

[Annie]

I listened to what Obama said, while he'd not call them 'death panels' he agrees as does all countries with government provided insurance that people that are not 'healthy' shouldn't be prolonging their lives, regardless of quality. It's not 'personal' but for the 'good of the most', meaning socialism.

I didn't recall him mentioning other countries in any analogy, so I pulled up a copy of the text of the town hall exchanges in Portsmouth. Nope, he didn't. And your statement isn't even close to anything he said about so-called "death panels" or health care rationing. Making stuff up again hoping it will stick?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/us/politics/12obama.text.html

You are lying, but it's to be expected.

 

[MaggieMae]

Notice farther down they do provide three sources for the information, but the early answers are not even sourced. Who gave those answers? How can we trust them? Congress hasn't read the bill, how do we know that there isn't something in there setting up such a panel?

Personally, I do not believe there is such language in the bill, but the language need not be there for it to happen. Congress is damned good at redefining the meaning of language after they have pushed it through.

Do I believe there will be government bean counters determining what services you get? Yeah, I believe that is a damned good possibility. Is the language in the bill? No.

Can I substantiate any of that? No, but neither can you substantiate that it is false. We won't know until our so called leaders have pushed this through and by then, it will be too late to do anything about it. That is what bothers me.

Immie

Highlights are mine.

Democrats have to substantiate that things not in the bill won't happen?

Isn't that just a little absurd?

A requirement that everyone pay 50% more in taxes isn't in the bill either - do you think it shoud be voted down because that COULD happen?

Really?

Republicans are infamous for their "what-if" political strategy. They win elections by using it; they start wars based on it; they appeal to the highest animal instinct of fear by using it. When you think about it, Republican (conservative) ideology is nothing BUT fear-based what-if scenarios such as Randism and Neoconism.

 

[Annie]

Notice farther down they do provide three sources for the information, but the early answers are not even sourced. Who gave those answers? How can we trust them? Congress hasn't read the bill, how do we know that there isn't something in there setting up such a panel?

Personally, I do not believe there is such language in the bill, but the language need not be there for it to happen. Congress is damned good at redefining the meaning of language after they have pushed it through.

Do I believe there will be government bean counters determining what services you get? Yeah, I believe that is a damned good possibility. Is the language in the bill? No.

Can I substantiate any of that? No, but neither can you substantiate that it is false. We won't know until our so called leaders have pushed this through and by then, it will be too late to do anything about it. That is what bothers me.

Immie

Highlights are mine.

Democrats have to substantiate that things not in the bill won't happen?

Isn't that just a little absurd?

A requirement that everyone pay 50% more in taxes isn't in the bill either - do you think it shoud be voted down because that COULD happen?

Really?

Republicans are infamous for their "what-if" political strategy. They win elections by using it; they start wars based on it; they appeal to the highest animal instinct of fear by using it. When you think about it, Republican (conservative) ideology is nothing BUT fear-based what-if scenarios such as Randism and Neoconism.

and you have links to all your accusations? If not, f off, if so, list them.

 

[EriktheRed]

I listened to what Obama said, while he'd not call them 'death panels' he agrees as does all countries with government provided insurance that people that are not 'healthy' shouldn't be prolonging their lives, regardless of quality. It's not 'personal' but for the 'good of the most', meaning socialism.

I didn't recall him mentioning other countries in any analogy, so I pulled up a copy of the text of the town hall exchanges in Portsmouth. Nope, he didn't. And your statement isn't even close to anything he said about so-called "death panels" or health care rationing. Making stuff up again hoping it will stick?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/us/politics/12obama.text.html

You are lying, but it's to be expected.

She's giving you a source to back up her claim that the Prez didn't say what you said he said and you say she's lying???

 

[Vast LWC]

FACT CHECK: No 'death panel' in health care bill
AP – Tue Aug 11, 3:04 am ET
...Sarah Palin says the health care overhaul bill would set up a "death panel." Federal bureaucrats would play God, ruling on whether ailing seniors are worth enough to society to deserve life-sustaining medical care. Palin and other critics are wrong.​

FACT CHECK

ACTUAL TEXT http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-of-life-council-euthenasia-talk-origins.html

I don't see anything in there abour "enforced euthanasia".

Can anyone else point out any part of that that implies it?

 

[MaggieMae]

FACT CHECK: No 'death panel' in health care bill
AP – Tue Aug 11, 3:04 am ET
...Sarah Palin says the health care overhaul bill would set up a "death panel." Federal bureaucrats would play God, ruling on whether ailing seniors are worth enough to society to deserve life-sustaining medical care. Palin and other critics are wrong.​

FACT CHECK

ACTUAL TEXT http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-of-life-council-euthenasia-talk-origins.html

No pun intended, but the length of that section is basically overkill. That said, nothing therein, to me anyway, even vaguely hints of cutting off care in order to speed up death (which is really what we're talking about here). In effect, 75% of that section is a reiteration of existing guidelines and explanations that accompany the "Living Will Packages" you can order online. No harm, no foul (except for adding convoluted legal mumbo jumbo).

 

[Jay Canuck]

 

[MaggieMae]

Highlights are mine.

Democrats have to substantiate that things not in the bill won't happen?

Isn't that just a little absurd?

A requirement that everyone pay 50% more in taxes isn't in the bill either - do you think it shoud be voted down because that COULD happen?

Really?

You're damned right they have to prove that the bill is legitimate and constitutional. The language may not be there... the intent may very well be there. That is the problem.

If Americans are concerned that they are setting up bean counters to determine who gets medical services and who doesn't, then they damned well better clarify what the intention of this bill is.

If Americans are concerned about the destruction of the health insurance industry then Congress damned well better write the legislation so that it doesn't destroy the industry because the language is there that will mean the death of Private Health Insurance. Not the banning of such, but a stake through the heart of the industry none the less.

Yes, it is up to Congress to convince the American Public that this bill is good for us. Last I checked, they work for us, not the other way around.

Immie

IF this thing ever gets passed (and I'm highly dubious at the moment that it will), the health care insurance EXCHANGE program to be set up will be similar to insurance pools whereby any existing insurance company, big or small, can bid on participation. In effect, that means that even the largest private health care provider, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, which is one insurance POOL provided for government employees to choose from, could also bid by offering a variety of choices for other pools of like industries or companies. For that reason, the argument that private insurers will be shoved out is moot, since THEY will be the very ones bidding for the business in the first place.

 

[Jay Canuck]

Those so called "facts" are unsubstantiated. If you even read the article, then you will see that the first two questions dealing with whether or not there is such a panel are not even sourced. In who's opinion are these answers?



Notice farther down they do provide three sources for the information, but the early answers are not even sourced. Who gave those answers? How can we trust them? Congress hasn't read the bill, how do we know that there isn't something in there setting up such a panel?

Personally, I do not believe there is such language in the bill, but the language need not be there for it to happen. Congress is damned good at redefining the meaning of language after they have pushed it through.

Do I believe there will be government bean counters determining what services you get? Yeah, I believe that is a damned good possibility. Is the language in the bill? No.

Can I substantiate any of that? No, but neither can you substantiate that it is false. We won't know until our so called leaders have pushed this through and by then, it will be too late to do anything about it. That is what bothers me.

Immie

so with no proof of a "death panel" being "pushed" through why would Sarah say there is such a thing?

Personally, I'd have to say she has been infected with hoof and mouth disease.

The language is not there.

However, as I said, it is apparent that there will be bean counters (such as me) determining the medical services that are covered. You really do not want me determining that... honest, you don't, my job is to cut costs not save lives. Trust me, you don't want a government cost cutter determining what services you can have and can't have.

And for the record, I don't have a problem with the described "end of life" consultations. I lost my dad, two months ago. He spent the last two weeks of his life in a hospice and believe me they were wonderful. I can't thank them enough. That being said, this plan has more holes in it than fifty thousand pounds of Swiss Cheese and I am concerned about being able to maintain decent health care coverage after the plan takes affect.

Immie

Insurer asks docs to report on new patients with pre-existing conditions - On Deadline - USATODAY.com

Blue Cross of California recently asked doctors to look for pre-existing conditions that could be used to justify the cancellation of insurance policies held by new patients, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Byron Tucker, a spokesman for the Insurance Department, tells the Times that this letter is "extremely troubling on several fronts. It really obliterates the line between underwriting and medical care. It is the insurer's job to underwrite their policies, not the doctors'. Doctors deliver medical care. Their job is not to underwrite policies for insurers."

Here is a link to the same story; from FoxNews:

FOXNews.com - Blue Cross to Doctors: Help Us Get Rid of New Patients With Pre-Existing Conditions - Health News | Current Health News | Medical News

I'm sorry about your Dad.

 

[Immanuel]

Republicans are infamous for their "what-if" political strategy. They win elections by using it; they start wars based on it; they appeal to the highest animal instinct of fear by using it. When you think about it, Republican (conservative) ideology is nothing BUT fear-based what-if scenarios such as Randism and Neoconism.

For the record, I am not a Republican and as to whether or not, I am a conservative, I will admit to having many conservative beliefs, but quite truthfully, I have trouble really identifying myself as either conservative or mildly liberal because although I believe abortion is wrong, I have many reservations as to whether or not it should be illegal. I am for Welfare as long as it is not something permanent for those who are just too plain lazy to get off there butts and go to work. I have many left leaning feelings.

As for health care reform, I know that we are in a crisis. The Republicans didn't do crap when they had the chance. Hell, I'm not even sure they mentioned it in the last 9 years. I am, however, very concerned about the government running health care. One thing that keeps me from being termed liberal in many more things, is that I do not believe that the government can do anything successful or efficiently.

Bigger government is a disaster waiting to happen.

You can say, I am fear-mongering if you want. But, if I am, it is only because I am fearful of what those people in Washington are doing to this country.

Immie

 

[MaggieMae]

The OP is correct. There is nothing called a "Death Panel" in the bill.

However, if you read the language, instead of reading left wing or right wing talking points you may learn the truth.

If people decide to click the link and read the text of the bill be warned, once you learn the truth you wont be able to go back to believing in a lie.

yep. There will be a 'panel' to decide whether or not someone should receive certain treatments/surgeries. I'll just address old folks, leaving aside younger people with mental/physical impairments. Presume a person is 70, with high blood pressure, but is living a fulling lifestyle. He/She is diagnosed with blocked arteries, but also with kidney problems. The surgery might make the heart problem better, but the kidneys, not so much so. So, does the surgeon complete the surgery? Today, yes. Tomorrow?

Why not both? those are organs, not appendages. Bad example. A better one might be an elderly person who has had osteoarthritis for years (a common ailment as we age), and his primary physician suggests his knees would work better with knee replacement surgery. "Might work better" should be the operative words. I say no, unless he's willing to pay for it himself. And I'm betting, given those same quantifications, that any private insurer would also decline coverage.

 

[MaggieMae]

Really? And just how far do you think such a suit would get before it was thrown out of court?

The clerk's desk? Think it would make it that far?

Immie

You're kidding, right? Crafty lawyers are constantly waiting in the wings for some new "cause" to concoct class action suits. And you must not know much about the legal process and the courts. Nothing is "thrown out" except by a judge and that's only AFTER a complaint and answer to the complaint are filed. As long as a person has the filing fee, you can file a complaint against your mother for force-feeding you macaroni and cheese that made you fat.

The irony of this particular back and forth is that if intentional ending of a person's life by the government were indeed part of the dark 'plan,' then the same government would be clamoring for tort reform which would have the effect of quashing such lawsuits (as you suggest they would).

The point is Maggie that there is not going to be a secret panel deciding each and every case. They will say, this is covered that is not and you don't want bean counters like me deciding whether or not your particular problem is covered.

It happens now in the private insurance industry. However, when it does you still have the ability to get medical services. In the future, when the government handles everything, you won't have that ability. When the bean counters say no... you're done.

Immie

No true. That is absolutely NOT true. You can pay out of pocket for anything you want. Where do you get that idea?

 

[Vast LWC]

The point is Maggie that there is not going to be a secret panel deciding each and every case. They will say, this is covered that is not and you don't want bean counters like me deciding whether or not your particular problem is covered.

True.

It happens now in the private insurance industry. However, when it does you still have the ability to get medical services.

As long as you have the monetary resources to do so, which you would also with a public option.

In the future, when the government handles everything, you won't have that ability. When the bean counters say no... you're done.

Assuming that "the government will be handling everything in the future", which no-one has suggested will happen.

In fact that is the point of this whole public option thing, it is a compromise between two opposing camps. Compromise is the heart of democracy.

Remember, if Hillary Clinton had won the election, she would be pushing mandated Universal Health Care...

And if Mike Huckabee had won, this would never have been on the table at all.