A possible way the Death Panels might work ?

[NYcarbineer]

[
We only need to look at how school vouchers are denied to poor kids to go to the very same school that the President's children go, to see this will not be the case.

You want to use tax dollars to fund high priced private schooling for poor Americans? What kind of free market principle is that based on?

Don't you believe that the richest should get the best education, and the poorest the worst? That is purest outcome of the purest exercise of a free market in education.

 

[Murf76]

[
We only need to look at how school vouchers are denied to poor kids to go to the very same school that the President's children go, to see this will not be the case.

You want to use tax dollars to fund high priced private schooling for poor Americans? What kind of free market principle is that based on?

Don't you believe that the richest should get the best education, and the poorest the worst? That is purest outcome of the purest exercise of a free market in education.

In DC, they're paying about $15,000 per child in public school. The vouchers were half the price. Hmmmm.... saving taxpayer money *AND* creating a competitive market which raises the QUALITY of education as schools compete for students.

Yeah... that just soooooo wrong.

 

[Neotrotsky]

[
We only need to look at how school vouchers are denied to poor kids to go to the very same school that the President's children go, to see this will not be the case.

You want to use tax dollars to fund high priced private schooling for poor Americans? What kind of free market principle is that based on?

Don't you believe that the richest should get the best education, and the poorest the worst? That is purest outcome of the purest exercise of a free market in education.

Needless to say your concept of what the "free market" means is limited
You do now that true 'laissez faire" is different?


If education is going to be defined as a public good then the most efficient means to
distribute those resources is by the people acting in the market place

Then again, you may feel that a state run system would be better and more efficient
Of course, we can't have people making decisions about how to educate their children.


You may be correct; look at what a good job the gov't has done with Social Security










__________________________________________________ ____

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."

Hitler Speech of May 1, 1927

 

[Murf76]

Really, you silly ass, we have rationing now. It is called pre-existing conditions. It is called losing one's job, and, automatically, one's insurance.

Last time I had my general check up, they noted a precancerous condition. Said to continue taking my medicine, drink less coffee, and, by the way, we don't need to look at this as often as we have been. Translation, you are getting old, and we don't need to keep you healthy now. That was a private health care plan, one my employer pays a premium price for.

There are death panels operating right now in the US. They are operated by Health Care Insurers to find ways to avoid paying for health care that the working man has been paying premiums for. And you sure don't have to look very far to find case after case of this.

Ever think that maybe the reason your doctor didn't want to see you quite so often might have something to do with your scintillating personality? ....

You didn't say that it was a payment or insurance issue. Unless someone told you specifically that it was, it's more likely that your doctor just didn't feel it was a medical necessity to see you as frequently. Primary care doctors typically follow up annually, semi-annually, or quarterly depending upon one's condition. For patients who are very ill, they follow-up more closely.

Either way... isn't it nice that we're free to change doctors or change insurance when we feel under-served? Oh yeah... that's something that people like you don't support.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
We only need to look at how school vouchers are denied to poor kids to go to the very same school that the President's children go, to see this will not be the case.

You want to use tax dollars to fund high priced private schooling for poor Americans? What kind of free market principle is that based on?

Don't you believe that the richest should get the best education, and the poorest the worst? That is purest outcome of the purest exercise of a free market in education.

Needless to say your concept of what the "free market" means is limited
You do now that true 'laissez faire" is different?


If education is going to be defined as a public good then the most efficient means to
distribute those resources is by the people acting in the market place

Then again, you may feel that a state run system would be better and more efficient
Of course, we can't have people making decisions about how to educate their children.


You may be correct; look at what a good job the gov't has done with Social Security

You don't want state run education, fine. Abolish public schools. Then everyone will pay for private run education based on what they can afford, free market style. The richest will get the best, the poorest will get the least, or none.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
We only need to look at how school vouchers are denied to poor kids to go to the very same school that the President's children go, to see this will not be the case.

You want to use tax dollars to fund high priced private schooling for poor Americans? What kind of free market principle is that based on?

Don't you believe that the richest should get the best education, and the poorest the worst? That is purest outcome of the purest exercise of a free market in education.

In DC, they're paying about $15,000 per child in public school. The vouchers were half the price. Hmmmm.... saving taxpayer money *AND* creating a competitive market which raises the QUALITY of education as schools compete for students.

Yeah... that just soooooo wrong.

Wrong. Just because you're paying 15,000 per student in a public school does not mean you save 15,000 for each child that leaves the school.

 

[Neotrotsky]

You want to use tax dollars to fund high priced private schooling for poor Americans? What kind of free market principle is that based on?

Don't you believe that the richest should get the best education, and the poorest the worst? That is purest outcome of the purest exercise of a free market in education.

Needless to say your concept of what the "free market" means is limited
You do now that true 'laissez faire" is different?


If education is going to be defined as a public good then the most efficient means to
distribute those resources is by the people acting in the market place

Then again, you may feel that a state run system would be better and more efficient
Of course, we can't have people making decisions about how to educate their children.


You may be correct; look at what a good job the gov't has done with Social Security

You don't want state run education, fine. Abolish public schools. Then everyone will pay for private run education based on what they can afford, free market style. The richest will get the best, the poorest will get the least, or none.

Why not give the money to the people in school vouchers and let them use as they see fit?



Do you think Papa Obama care is going to be different?

Again

I am trying to show that "sales pitch" the left tries to use to sell health care is false and disingenuous.

All kind of markets have to make decisions about scarce resources. Nothing the gov't has ever done convinces me they will do it better

The left tries to create the illusion that we will get ALL the care we need unlike the "nasty" free market system which makes allocation decisions about your healthcare. Of course the left neglects to talk about that these are same decisions the gov't will have to do


Fair, equal doubtful
Does anyone really believe that the President (any) and politicians are going to get the same care as the masses?

We only need to look at how school vouchers are denied to poor kids to go to the very same school that the President's children go, to see this will not be the case.

Socialism does not make it better; it only spreads misery equally, except for the "inner party " members. The proletariat has no way to improve their situation

At least with a free market, one has the opportunity to improves one's "lot in life"


What will happen....

The best medical resources are drawn to the private sector and become even more out the reach of the middle class- Sort of what you see in the US with public and private schools

Remember,

Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams chose to travel to the United States for heart surgery. He said "This was my heart, my choice and my health,"

Something that a lot of Canadians could not afford to do




"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."

Hitler Speech of May 1, 1927

 

[NYcarbineer]

[Why not give the money to the people in school vouchers and let them use as they see fit?



Do you think Papa Obama care is going to be different?

The healthcare bill is giving vouchers for some people to use as they see fit in buying health insurance. In principle, then, you should support it.

 

[Oldandtired]

Congress needs to simply be honest about the healthcare dilemma and maybe the people will be for it.

Truth is, and this is coming from a true conservative, if we are going to eliminate pre-existing clauses, then there MUST BE a public option OR there MUST BE a government mandate that all need to purchase insurance under penalty of law.

If there is no pre-existing clause, many will capitalize on it by not buying insurance until they need it.....which was the reason for the clauses to begin with. This will result in a serious "risk management" issue that is the basis of insurance...so premiums will skyrocket. Not rocket science...but if risk increases, but not length of policy, premiums will need to go up dramatically.

Thus the reason for the mandate to purchase insurance.

However, if not the mandate (and I am not so sure it will pass a SCOTUS ruling) then there must be a public option as the premiums will be out of reach for most, and most will opt for a cheaper public option....and most iunusrers will wind up OOB.

However, the public option, without the mandate mentioned above will ALSO be expensive...and that will create a deficit...and thus higher taxes for all.

You see, as much as I hate it, the particulars of the proposals make sense....but what really gets under my skin is I have been watching every speech by Obamaq, Pelosi and Reid.....and none have attempted to explain it this way. Instead they use double talk.

Why arent they out there explaining WHY the mandate to own insurance and WHY the need for a public option.

Honesty may actually work you know.

 

[Murf76]

Congress needs to simply be honest about the healthcare dilemma and maybe the people will be for it.

Truth is, and this is coming from a true conservative, if we are going to eliminate pre-existing clauses, then there MUST BE a public option OR there MUST BE a government mandate that all need to purchase insurance under penalty of law.

If there is no pre-existing clause, many will capitalize on it by not buying insurance until they need it.....which was the reason for the clauses to begin with. This will result in a serious "risk management" issue that is the basis of insurance...so premiums will skyrocket. Not rocket science...but if risk increases, but not length of policy, premiums will need to go up dramatically.

Thus the reason for the mandate to purchase insurance.

However, if not the mandate (and I am not so sure it will pass a SCOTUS ruling) then there must be a public option as the premiums will be out of reach for most, and most will opt for a cheaper public option....and most iunusrers will wind up OOB.

However, the public option, without the mandate mentioned above will ALSO be expensive...and that will create a deficit...and thus higher taxes for all.

You see, as much as I hate it, the particulars of the proposals make sense....but what really gets under my skin is I have been watching every speech by Obamaq, Pelosi and Reid.....and none have attempted to explain it this way. Instead they use double talk.

Why arent they out there explaining WHY the mandate to own insurance and WHY the need for a public option.

Honesty may actually work you know.

Don't let these "preexisting condition" sob-stories that Democrats trot out with such consistency fool you. Almost all of us have some sort of "preexisting condition". Human DNA is full of inconsistencies. What's more, we're fairly fragile beings, prone to injury and disease. And yet 85% of us are insured anyway.

The States should see to their aged and infirm citizens. The point is NOT expediency. It's too much power to be placed centrally, allowing for even MORE corruption than what we have now. That's the REASON our framers chose a federalist system, to keep the power close to the citizen.

These people want some sort of utopian cookie-cutter model that will NOT work. It doesn't decrease the actual costs of treatment. It doesn't decrease the costs of insurance. It doesn't increase quality. It undermines our relationship with central government, dilutes our citizen sovereignty. It builds a power structure upon a foundation of arbitrary law, rife with opportunities for corruption.

 

[beowolfe]

Congress needs to simply be honest about the healthcare dilemma and maybe the people will be for it.

Truth is, and this is coming from a true conservative, if we are going to eliminate pre-existing clauses, then there MUST BE a public option OR there MUST BE a government mandate that all need to purchase insurance under penalty of law.

This is the problem when one side intentionally lies about whats in a bill. You can't get a system in place that will actually work. Doctors being reimbursed for end of life counseling would have eliminated the Terry Schiavos of the world. But when someone calls it death panels and it's removed because some Americans are too dumb to figure it out or too lazy to look it up for themselve, it's really difficult to end up with something that will actually work. Couple that with Cornhusker kickbacks, Louisiana purchases, and whatever they're calling the deal in Florida and you have a process that is unmistakably ugly and a turnoff to the thinner skinned citizens.

 

[beowolfe]

Congress needs to simply be honest about the healthcare dilemma and maybe the people will be for it.

Truth is, and this is coming from a true conservative, if we are going to eliminate pre-existing clauses, then there MUST BE a public option OR there MUST BE a government mandate that all need to purchase insurance under penalty of law.

If there is no pre-existing clause, many will capitalize on it by not buying insurance until they need it.....which was the reason for the clauses to begin with. This will result in a serious "risk management" issue that is the basis of insurance...so premiums will skyrocket. Not rocket science...but if risk increases, but not length of policy, premiums will need to go up dramatically.

Thus the reason for the mandate to purchase insurance.

However, if not the mandate (and I am not so sure it will pass a SCOTUS ruling) then there must be a public option as the premiums will be out of reach for most, and most will opt for a cheaper public option....and most iunusrers will wind up OOB.

However, the public option, without the mandate mentioned above will ALSO be expensive...and that will create a deficit...and thus higher taxes for all.

You see, as much as I hate it, the particulars of the proposals make sense....but what really gets under my skin is I have been watching every speech by Obamaq, Pelosi and Reid.....and none have attempted to explain it this way. Instead they use double talk.

Why arent they out there explaining WHY the mandate to own insurance and WHY the need for a public option.

Honesty may actually work you know.

Don't let these "preexisting condition" sob-stories that Democrats trot out with such consistency fool you. Almost all of us have some sort of "preexisting condition". Human DNA is full of inconsistencies. What's more, we're fairly fragile beings, prone to injury and disease. And yet 85% of us are insured anyway.

The States should see to their aged and infirm citizens. The point is NOT expediency. It's too much power to be placed centrally, allowing for even MORE corruption than what we have now. That's the REASON our framers chose a federalist system, to keep the power close to the citizen.

These people want some sort of utopian cookie-cutter model that will NOT work. It doesn't decrease the actual costs of treatment. It doesn't decrease the costs of insurance. It doesn't increase quality. It undermines our relationship with central government, dilutes our citizen sovereignty. It builds a power structure upon a foundation of arbitrary law, rife with opportunities for corruption.

This is a prime example of a post from an 'uninformed' citizen. As citizens, we've got to do better on keeping informed as to what the 'reality' of the situation. Insurance companies are already trying to get people's genomes so they can exercise their 'pre-existing condition' rights to not sell insurance to people who will succumb to some sort of genetic condition.

 

[Oldandtired]

Congress needs to simply be honest about the healthcare dilemma and maybe the people will be for it.

Truth is, and this is coming from a true conservative, if we are going to eliminate pre-existing clauses, then there MUST BE a public option OR there MUST BE a government mandate that all need to purchase insurance under penalty of law.

This is the problem when one side intentionally lies about whats in a bill. You can't get a system in place that will actually work. Doctors being reimbursed for end of life counseling would have eliminated the Terry Schiavos of the world. But when someone calls it death panels and it's removed because some Americans are too dumb to figure it out or too lazy to look it up for themselve, it's really difficult to end up with something that will actually work. Couple that with Cornhusker kickbacks, Louisiana purchases, and whatever they're calling the deal in Florida and you have a process that is unmistakably ugly and a turnoff to the thinner skinned citizens.

They should have made the issue "pre-exisitng conditions".....and debate from there.

As a conservative, I have analyzed it a dozen different ways...and the truth is, if we are to eliminate pre-existing conditions, there is no choice but a public option as all insurers will go oob or premiums will skyrocket......unless the madate to buy insurance...but I think we all agree that will never make it past the SCOTUS when someone presents it.

Dems are gulty of dishonesty as well....they are not telling us what the dilemma is....maybe if they did, we would be talking about jobs instead at this point.

 

[Oldandtired]

Congress needs to simply be honest about the healthcare dilemma and maybe the people will be for it.

Truth is, and this is coming from a true conservative, if we are going to eliminate pre-existing clauses, then there MUST BE a public option OR there MUST BE a government mandate that all need to purchase insurance under penalty of law.

If there is no pre-existing clause, many will capitalize on it by not buying insurance until they need it.....which was the reason for the clauses to begin with. This will result in a serious "risk management" issue that is the basis of insurance...so premiums will skyrocket. Not rocket science...but if risk increases, but not length of policy, premiums will need to go up dramatically.

Thus the reason for the mandate to purchase insurance.

However, if not the mandate (and I am not so sure it will pass a SCOTUS ruling) then there must be a public option as the premiums will be out of reach for most, and most will opt for a cheaper public option....and most iunusrers will wind up OOB.

However, the public option, without the mandate mentioned above will ALSO be expensive...and that will create a deficit...and thus higher taxes for all.

You see, as much as I hate it, the particulars of the proposals make sense....but what really gets under my skin is I have been watching every speech by Obamaq, Pelosi and Reid.....and none have attempted to explain it this way. Instead they use double talk.

Why arent they out there explaining WHY the mandate to own insurance and WHY the need for a public option.

Honesty may actually work you know.

Don't let these "preexisting condition" sob-stories that Democrats trot out with such consistency fool you. Almost all of us have some sort of "preexisting condition". Human DNA is full of inconsistencies. What's more, we're fairly fragile beings, prone to injury and disease. And yet 85% of us are insured anyway.

The States should see to their aged and infirm citizens. The point is NOT expediency. It's too much power to be placed centrally, allowing for even MORE corruption than what we have now. That's the REASON our framers chose a federalist system, to keep the power close to the citizen.

These people want some sort of utopian cookie-cutter model that will NOT work. It doesn't decrease the actual costs of treatment. It doesn't decrease the costs of insurance. It doesn't increase quality. It undermines our relationship with central government, dilutes our citizen sovereignty. It builds a power structure upon a foundation of arbitrary law, rife with opportunities for corruption.

Pre-exisitng conditions is a serious issue...as if we eliminate the clause, many will decide to not spend 15K a year and wait until they need to.

That is why Dental has a "1 year" clause...and flood insurance has a "30 day" clause.

Pre-existing conditions must remain in affect or a public option is necessary, as insurers will either go oob or hike premiums dramatically....

 

[Neotrotsky]

[Why not give the money to the people in school vouchers and let them use as they see fit?



Do you think Papa Obama care is going to be different?

The healthcare bill is giving vouchers for some people to use as they see fit in buying health insurance. In principle, then, you should support it.

Oh really, where did you get that idea?

Plus, creates a large new gov't agency; mandates everyone has to buy etc

A real voucher system could help
but you would have to have some more things

tort reform
competition across state line
etc

None of which Papa Obama care does


________________________________________________________________

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."

Hitler Speech of May 1, 1927

 

[Murf76]

This is a prime example of a post from an 'uninformed' citizen. As citizens, we've got to do better on keeping informed as to what the 'reality' of the situation. Insurance companies are already trying to get people's genomes so they can exercise their 'pre-existing condition' rights to not sell insurance to people who will succumb to some sort of genetic condition.

Total bullshit. HIPPA already has protections built in for group plans, and no doubt more laws will follow regarding "preexisting conditions". We don't need a Sherman Tank when a flyswatter will do. But what more can we expect from socialist pinheads who'll tolerate any sort of deceit and graft in order to spread their faulty agenda?

Only 10-15% of our population is without coverage. And then, only a fraction are having a "preexisting condition" problem. Medicaid addresses most of that already.

This "preexisting condition" drama is all about trying to scare people into looking the other way while Progressive Fascists make their power-grab.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[Why not give the money to the people in school vouchers and let them use as they see fit?



Do you think Papa Obama care is going to be different?

The healthcare bill is giving vouchers for some people to use as they see fit in buying health insurance. In principle, then, you should support it.

Oh really, where did you get that idea?

Plus, creates a large new gov't agency; mandates everyone has to buy etc

A real voucher system could help
but you would have to have some more things

tort reform
competition across state line
etc

None of which Papa Obama care does


________________________________________________________________
]

School is compulsory too.

 

[Toro]

A possible way the Death er,,,,, Medical Review Boards might work ??

YouTube - Obsolete

Hahaha.

This is a funny troll thread.

 

[Murf76]

Pre-exisitng conditions is a serious issue...as if we eliminate the clause, many will decide to not spend 15K a year and wait until they need to.

That is why Dental has a "1 year" clause...and flood insurance has a "30 day" clause.

Pre-existing conditions must remain in affect or a public option is necessary, as insurers will either go oob or hike premiums dramatically....

We already have a "public option"... Medicaid.

 

[Rinata]

There is no such thing as death panels. And people that persist in saying there are are making complete fools of themselves. I'm embarrassed for you.

Feel anyway you want but realize you ain't important enough to matter.

You would not have the slightest idea how important I am, or anybody else for that matter. I'm even more embarrassed for you. That's two dumb statements you've made now. Knowing you, I'm sure you'll shoot for three.