The "Death Panels" are already here

[KittenKoder]

There really is no point whatsoever in discussing Health Care with people who believe in "death panels", "rationing","euthanasia", etc. Your belief in the GOP paid-liers knows no bounds and your gullibility is comical beyond words. What more can be said?

Health care reform will be upon you shortly. Obama said he would do it and he WILL do it. The lies, and hyberbole will not stop it.

Long Live Obama !

Shush, we already know you want to see the US destroyed.

 

[Jay Canuck]

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

 

[EriktheRed]

wow so you want to continue the practice, what a chump

No, I wish to end the practice by spreading that decision making power around some, rather than concentrating it in the hands of a few private entities that bypass free market controls due to the nature of the business. The people who have no alternative plan but just blindly bitch and moan about the plan presented - those are the folks who are chumps. Grow a pair and don't be so afraid of using your brain.

But Gudrid, you don't get it. These insurance companies are private, for-profit entities, which means that letting them make their $$$ any way they choose is as American as apple pie.

They don't really give a shit about hard decisions being made about people with who are elderly are terminally ill, just as long as good old hard-working private insurers are doing it. A publicly-operated insurer making the same kinds of decisions? Well, that's just un-American.

 

[Gudrid]

There really is no point whatsoever in discussing Health Care with people who believe in "death panels", "rationing","euthanasia", etc. Your belief in the GOP paid-liers knows no bounds and your gullibility is comical beyond words. What more can be said?

Health care reform will be upon you shortly. Obama said he would do it and he WILL do it. The lies, and hyberbole will not stop it.

Long Live Obama !

Lol. In light of the commentary in the link, that's a positively nonsensical response.

 

[Gudrid]

If we want to keep the cost of health insurance tax exempt, the government can increase consumer choices by loosening its grip on the market by making the cost of health insurance tax exempt for employers only if they provide employees the choice of using the employer contribution for the group plan(s) the employer provides or for another health insurance plan they might choose. This will increase the market for individual health insurance policies, which will increase price competition for these policies making them more competitive with group plans and giving consumers the ability to buy a plan that suits their individual needs rather than settle for one that best suits the needs of his/her employer.

That's an excellent idea, and would certainly help get some free market controls back in play. However, there's other limits to getting individual plans as well. Most private plans, for instance, will not cover pregnancy for single women. There's also the issue of pre-existing conditions. There's a lot of people stuck with the employer plans for more reasons that merely cost benefit.

If the government further frees the market by allowing health insurers to compete across all state boundaries, the problem of portability of health insurance will be solved and price competition to drive down health insurance rates will be increased, allowing even more people to afford health insurance policies that best suit their needs and further allowing them to take advantage of better employment opportunities without fear of losing their health insurance, and this freedom to move to more highly valued employment will also serve to increase the efficiency of our economy.

Absolutely agree.

The government can further free us from the bizarre medical malpractice system we have with meaningful tort reform by replacing the spectacle of a judge with no medical background presiding over a trial in which lawyers with no medical backgrounds try to persuade jurors with no medical backgrounds about how to decide complex medical issues with panels of medical experts empowered to fairly but not excessively compensate patients for accidents or negligence and to protect the public by suspending or revoking medical licenses for physicians who are found to be careless or negligent. The US spends between $100 billion and $200 billion a year on defensive medical tests and referrals out of fear of litigation, and these costs are passed on to health insurers and then to consumers in the form of higher health insurance premiums. This kind of meaningful tort reform would lower costs to insurers and in the context of the freer markets I described above would lower costs to consumers, making it possible for more people to be able to afford health insurance and making it cheaper for the government to provide financial aid to low income people and those with pre existing conditions that still can't afford it.

I don't think there's anyone who's going to argue against tort reform; however, I think the malpractice suits against doctors are also a side effect of lawsuit immunities provided to insurers.

I think your solutions would definitely have a positive effect, but I don't think it solves the problem of insurance companies making decisions about treatments that they have no business making. A public option with a universal standard of approval based on doctor recommendation, which this appears to be gearing toward, does more than than merely provide the plan. It also provides an incentive for the private insurers to start covering things they've slowly dropped, merely because they could due to stranglehold they have on healthcare in this country. And it further provides a backup for when they try to pull the "we don't cover that" garbage on things they contractually do cover. Because then the consumer submits to the government program, and that ends up functioning as de facto oversight.

 

[Gudrid]

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

That's creepy.

 

[EriktheRed]

Good find, don't expect the wingnuts on here to consider that irony, they need, actually require an enemy in order to feel alive. Death for them would be common sense.

A 17 year old with leukemia is a "Good find"

What a sick fuck you are

How many here believe Frank would have no problem using that same patient if her death had occurred from a delay in a public healthcare system?

 

[Fatality]

saying its bad for insurance companies to have a "death panel" and then cheering for the same thing by the federal government that has weapons and force to back it up is not making anything better, it is nothing but socialist tool number one- force people against their will, the gas chambers await.

 

[Gudrid]

Gas chambers? That's quite the paranoia attack you've got going there.

The government doesn't generally approve on a case by case basis. There's a list of what is or is not covered, plus an end of the year payment to hospitals that take government insurance. The system simply works differently than it does with private insurers. And we know this, because we already have government healthcare in this country. The gloom and doom predictions don't reflect what we've already seen.

 

[EriktheRed]

saying its bad for insurance companies to have a "death panel" and then cheering for the same thing by the federal government that has weapons and force to back it up is not making anything better, it is nothing but socialist tool number one- force people against their will, the gas chambers await.

Yup, that's what they're doing in England, Canada, Germany, Norway...etc.

 

[Old Rocks]

The "death panels" are already here | Salon News

Long before anyone started talking about government "death panels" or warning that Obama would have the government ration care, 17-year-old Nataline Sarkisyan, a leukemia patient from Glendale, Calif., died in December 2007, after her parents battled their insurance company, Cigna, over the surgery. Cigna initially refused to pay for it because the company's analysis showed Sarkisyan was already too sick from her leukemia; the liver transplant wouldn't have saved her life.

That kind of utilitarian rationing, of course, is exactly what Palin and other opponents of the healthcare reform proposals pending before Congress say they want to protect the country from. "Such a system is downright evil," Palin wrote, in the same message posted on Facebook where she raised the "death panel" specter. "Health care by definition involves life and death decisions."

When Obama says the fact that different doctors prescribe different treatments for the same conditions means the federal government must decide on the comparative effectiveness and cost effectiveness of the various treatments, he is talking about how much money we should spend to keep this girl alive, not just whether a treatment will actually keep her alive.

When the House votes to increase Medicare spending for end of life counseling, they are intending this as a soft sell approach to persuading seniors with terminal illnesses to choose less expensive palliative care in a hospice rather than more expensive intensive care in a hospital.

One can argue that since Medicare is a government run program it is appropriate for politicians to try to influence life and death decisions in order to save money, but the question we should all be considering now is whether we want these same politicians to try to influence life and death decisions for us before we go on Medicare?

My representative, Congressman Earl Bluamanuar put in the provision. And it does not say anything like you claim. What it does do, is allow Medicare to pay for end of life counseling once every five years for those that request it. You must request it, it is not mandatory. My mother-in-law paid for such counseling years ago. What this does is just relieve our seniors of one more expense as they approach the end of their life.

I am 65 years old and totally approve of this provision.

 

[Fatality]

The "death panels" are already here | Salon News

When Obama says the fact that different doctors prescribe different treatments for the same conditions means the federal government must decide on the comparative effectiveness and cost effectiveness of the various treatments, he is talking about how much money we should spend to keep this girl alive, not just whether a treatment will actually keep her alive.

When the House votes to increase Medicare spending for end of life counseling, they are intending this as a soft sell approach to persuading seniors with terminal illnesses to choose less expensive palliative care in a hospice rather than more expensive intensive care in a hospital.

One can argue that since Medicare is a government run program it is appropriate for politicians to try to influence life and death decisions in order to save money, but the question we should all be considering now is whether we want these same politicians to try to influence life and death decisions for us before we go on Medicare?

My representative, Congressman Earl Bluamanuar put in the provision. And it does not say anything like you claim. What it does do, is allow Medicare to pay for end of life counseling once every five years for those that request it. You must request it, it is not mandatory. My mother-in-law paid for such counseling years ago. What this does is just relieve our seniors of one more expense as they approach the end of their life.

I am 65 years old and totally approve of this provision.

if someone needs "end of life" counseling let them see their family, friends, priest, pastor, doctor, counselor. they do not need to see an obamacrat.

 

[Gudrid]

They'd be seeing their doctor, as you suggest. Glad to hear you approve.

 

[toomuchtime_]

If we want to keep the cost of health insurance tax exempt, the government can increase consumer choices by loosening its grip on the market by making the cost of health insurance tax exempt for employers only if they provide employees the choice of using the employer contribution for the group plan(s) the employer provides or for another health insurance plan they might choose. This will increase the market for individual health insurance policies, which will increase price competition for these policies making them more competitive with group plans and giving consumers the ability to buy a plan that suits their individual needs rather than settle for one that best suits the needs of his/her employer.

That's an excellent idea, and would certainly help get some free market controls back in play. However, there's other limits to getting individual plans as well. Most private plans, for instance, will not cover pregnancy for single women. There's also the issue of pre-existing conditions. There's a lot of people stuck with the employer plans for more reasons that merely cost benefit.

If the government further frees the market by allowing health insurers to compete across all state boundaries, the problem of portability of health insurance will be solved and price competition to drive down health insurance rates will be increased, allowing even more people to afford health insurance policies that best suit their needs and further allowing them to take advantage of better employment opportunities without fear of losing their health insurance, and this freedom to move to more highly valued employment will also serve to increase the efficiency of our economy.

Absolutely agree.

The government can further free us from the bizarre medical malpractice system we have with meaningful tort reform by replacing the spectacle of a judge with no medical background presiding over a trial in which lawyers with no medical backgrounds try to persuade jurors with no medical backgrounds about how to decide complex medical issues with panels of medical experts empowered to fairly but not excessively compensate patients for accidents or negligence and to protect the public by suspending or revoking medical licenses for physicians who are found to be careless or negligent. The US spends between $100 billion and $200 billion a year on defensive medical tests and referrals out of fear of litigation, and these costs are passed on to health insurers and then to consumers in the form of higher health insurance premiums. This kind of meaningful tort reform would lower costs to insurers and in the context of the freer markets I described above would lower costs to consumers, making it possible for more people to be able to afford health insurance and making it cheaper for the government to provide financial aid to low income people and those with pre existing conditions that still can't afford it.

I don't think there's anyone who's going to argue against tort reform; however, I think the malpractice suits against doctors are also a side effect of lawsuit immunities provided to insurers.

I think your solutions would definitely have a positive effect, but I don't think it solves the problem of insurance companies making decisions about treatments that they have no business making. A public option with a universal standard of approval based on doctor recommendation, which this appears to be gearing toward, does more than than merely provide the plan. It also provides an incentive for the private insurers to start covering things they've slowly dropped, merely because they could due to stranglehold they have on healthcare in this country. And it further provides a backup for when they try to pull the "we don't cover that" garbage on things they contractually do cover. Because then the consumer submits to the government program, and that ends up functioning as de facto oversight.

Insurance companies are not immune to lawsuits. Insurance policies are legal contracts that can be enforced in court just as any other legal contracts can be, and all the states already highly regulate insurance companies so that any policy sold in any state has been approved by that state's insurance commission. When Obama suggests that his health insurance overhaul will keep private insurance companies "honest" beyond what the courts and state insurance commissions already do, he is simply lying and trying to frighten people into supporting his plan. The notion that insurance companies are able to make any decisions that are not consistent with the terms of the policy they sold is without any basis in fact or logic, and is just another myth intended to frighten people into supporting the Dem's health insurance overhaul. Do you actually believe all of our courts and all of our state insurance commissions are so corrupt or so incompetent that insurance companies don't have to live up to the terms of the policies they sell?

As for the public option, there is no reason to believe it has anything to offer us unless it is intended to be a first step towards a single payer system. If it is not subsidized by tax payer dollars, it will just be another non profit insurance company like all the others we already have, and if it is subsidized, rather than offering us more choices, it will sell its policies below cost and drive all other health insurance companies out of business, giving us no choices rather than more choices.

Rather than the loose talk, empty promises and false accusations we are getting from Obama, Pelosi & Co. as they try to ram a health insurance bill through Congress before the 2010 campaign season begins, our national and individual interests would be best served by an extended national discussion led by a blue ribbon panel of medical, legal and insurance experts that will examine the facts instead of spreading rumors, define our goals instead of making empty promises and examine all of our options instead of claiming mystical powers of national redemption for a public option.

 

[txlonghorn]

The "death panels" are already here | Salon News

Long before anyone started talking about government "death panels" or warning that Obama would have the government ration care, 17-year-old Nataline Sarkisyan, a leukemia patient from Glendale, Calif., died in December 2007, after her parents battled their insurance company, Cigna, over the surgery. Cigna initially refused to pay for it because the company's analysis showed Sarkisyan was already too sick from her leukemia; the liver transplant wouldn't have saved her life.

That kind of utilitarian rationing, of course, is exactly what Palin and other opponents of the healthcare reform proposals pending before Congress say they want to protect the country from. "Such a system is downright evil," Palin wrote, in the same message posted on Facebook where she raised the "death panel" specter. "Health care by definition involves life and death decisions."

The biggest difference I see here is that in 2007 Nataline wasn't required to have counceling as to how she wanted to die because she was too sick for the government to offer her assistance. The insurance company made that very unfortunate dicision without any counceling at all. What you are using as an example, while very disturbing, isnt' the same as what is being proposed in the reform bill.

You see the difference lies within the Government's involvement. Not a decision by a private insurance company. Under Obamacare, the government would require Nataline to attend counceling sessions to discuss the fact that she's too sick to get certain treatments. So in reality, she gets to sit on a couch and listen to a "specially trained expert" give her reasons why she should consider "early retirement". How cruel is that?

 

[txlonghorn]

The "death panels" are already here | Salon News

When Obama says the fact that different doctors prescribe different treatments for the same conditions means the federal government must decide on the comparative effectiveness and cost effectiveness of the various treatments, he is talking about how much money we should spend to keep this girl alive, not just whether a treatment will actually keep her alive.

When the House votes to increase Medicare spending for end of life counseling, they are intending this as a soft sell approach to persuading seniors with terminal illnesses to choose less expensive palliative care in a hospice rather than more expensive intensive care in a hospital.

One can argue that since Medicare is a government run program it is appropriate for politicians to try to influence life and death decisions in order to save money, but the question we should all be considering now is whether we want these same politicians to try to influence life and death decisions for us before we go on Medicare?

My representative, Congressman Earl Bluamanuar put in the provision. And it does not say anything like you claim. What it does do, is allow Medicare to pay for end of life counseling once every five years for those that request it. You must request it, it is not mandatory. My mother-in-law paid for such counseling years ago. What this does is just relieve our seniors of one more expense as they approach the end of their life.

I am 65 years old and totally approve of this provision.

I'm afraid you aren't right here. It isn't a request by the patient. It's required by the government as part of your coverage plan. What your mother did years ago isn't the same as what is being proposed.

I'm glad you are at peace with this provision. I just hope you are a VERY HEALTHY 65 years old. But then again, I know you LOVE Obama so you're not going to be against anything he puts out there. Good luck sir...good luck.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The "death panels" are already here | Salon News

When Obama says the fact that different doctors prescribe different treatments for the same conditions means the federal government must decide on the comparative effectiveness and cost effectiveness of the various treatments, he is talking about how much money we should spend to keep this girl alive, not just whether a treatment will actually keep her alive.

When the House votes to increase Medicare spending for end of life counseling, they are intending this as a soft sell approach to persuading seniors with terminal illnesses to choose less expensive palliative care in a hospice rather than more expensive intensive care in a hospital.

One can argue that since Medicare is a government run program it is appropriate for politicians to try to influence life and death decisions in order to save money, but the question we should all be considering now is whether we want these same politicians to try to influence life and death decisions for us before we go on Medicare?

My representative, Congressman Earl Bluamanuar put in the provision. And it does not say anything like you claim. What it does do, is allow Medicare to pay for end of life counseling once every five years for those that request it. You must request it, it is not mandatory. My mother-in-law paid for such counseling years ago. What this does is just relieve our seniors of one more expense as they approach the end of their life.

I am 65 years old and totally approve of this provision.

Well, your interpretation of this provision and mine are different. I've got to ask myself why Congress would decide to increase Medicare costs with this provision in the same bill in which it is cutting Medicare funding by hundreds of billions of dollars. The answer, imo, is that a series of studies recently have cited evidence that 25% of Medicare expenses are the result of care in the last year of life, and several of these studies suggested that if terminal patients were to choose palliative care in a hospice instead of intensive care in a hospital, Medicare's costs would be dramatically cut.

Now, normally if you are terminally ill, your doctor or the hospital social worker will discuss your options with you, including hospice care or nursing home care, at no extra charge, so there is no need for Congress to include an additional benefit for such counseling at this point in your life. You might want to have an advance directive/living will drawn up while you are healthy and you might want to talk it over with your doctor before you go to see the lawyer, and while it is likely your doctor would discuss these things with you without an act of Congress, why does the bill insist that the counseling include a discussion of hospice care if you are not yet ill?

Why does the bill insist that the counseling, if you choose to have it, must include a discussion of hospice care every five years if Medicare is to pay for it? To me it is plain that the intent is to make you more comfortable with choosing less expensive palliative care in a hospice rather than more expensive intensive care in a hospital if you should become terminally ill.

 

[Gudrid]

Insurance companies are not immune to lawsuits. Insurance policies are legal contracts that can be enforced in court just as any other legal contracts can be

Sorry, but that is not the case. Do some research on ERISA.

When Obama suggests that his health insurance overhaul will keep private insurance companies "honest" beyond what the courts and state insurance commissions already do, he is simply lying and trying to frighten people into supporting his plan.

I think his main claim is that it will provide an affordable option for people who can't afford the employer plan or a private plan. And it will.

The notion that insurance companies are able to make any decisions that are not consistent with the terms of the policy they sold is without any basis in fact or logic, and is just another myth intended to frighten people into supporting the Dem's health insurance overhaul.

You're fooling yourself. Not only was that article full of examples, but I've lived it. I've lost someone I loved to it. And Google will be happy to find example after example. Unfortunately, your facts are simply wrong on that one. Wish you were right, quite frankly.

Do you actually believe all of our courts and all of our state insurance commissions are so corrupt or so incompetent that insurance companies don't have to live up to the terms of the policies they sell?

Again, research it yourself. Start with ERISA. You're assuming things are as they should be. That's not the case, and that's the problem.

As for the public option, there is no reason to believe it has anything to offer us unless it is intended to be a first step towards a single payer system.

It has nothing to offer me directly. I have very good insurance. But it has a lot to offer people who can't get insurance for one reason or another, and it has a lot to offer people who need treatment quickly and are given the run-around by their own insurance companies.

If it is not subsidized by tax payer dollars, it will just be another non profit insurance company like all the others we already have, and if it is subsidized, rather than offering us more choices, it will sell its policies below cost and drive all other health insurance companies out of business, giving us no choices rather than more choices.

Insurance companies are not non-profit. And the public plan is subsidized based on income. It provides an option for those who can't afford private insurance, and for those who are denied coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

Rather than the loose talk, empty promises and false accusations we are getting from Obama, Pelosi & Co...

Based on the mistaken beliefs expressed in your post, I think you need to do more research before you decide whether it's all loose talk and false accusations. I don't think you have a clue what people go through in our current system. That's not to be mean - you come across as a fairly logical person who is naturally assuming that the system works logically. It doesn't.

 

[Gudrid]

[
The biggest difference I see here is that in 2007 Nataline wasn't required to have counceling as to how she wanted to die because she was too sick for the government to offer her assistance. The insurance company made that very unfortunate dicision without any counceling at all. What you are using as an example, while very disturbing, isnt' the same as what is being proposed in the reform bill.

You see the difference lies within the Government's involvement. Not a decision by a private insurance company. Under Obamacare, the government would require Nataline to attend counceling sessions to discuss the fact that she's too sick to get certain treatments. So in reality, she gets to sit on a couch and listen to a "specially trained expert" give her reasons why she should consider "early retirement". How cruel is that?

Well, I haven't read the whole bill, but I've read a lot of it. I have seen no such requirement. The only thing I've seen is that the government plan must provide the option for such counseling, if the patient wants it. So, if it's somehow required, please quote the part of the bill that enumerates that requirement.

 

[garyd]

First off the main reason health insurance costs as much as it does is that the State and federal government have established mandates that have already made it essentailly impossible to tailor your health insurance coverage to your needs at a reasonable price.

2nd as I pointed out previously and as your article clearly indicates you can seek legal redress if your insurance company wrongs you. However if the government screws you over you are screwed and there is no way to redress the wrong done you.