VA health care sucks?

You might want to read this

Are you "where's the plan, Obama has no plan, it's all bullshit" guys just too lazy to actually read the bill? Easier to say "there's no plan" than to look at the plan, I suppose. I know, it's long. Downright un-American to ask you to read 1000 pages, I know. :rolleyes:

sounds like a good fluff piece from time. i've spent time in a VA hospital, wouldn't want to do it again. A friend of mine has to go alot due to his MS difficulties, he hates it when a 2 hour doctors visit takes 8 hours. horribly inefficient.

And to which bill are you referring to? Isn't there like 3 in the House and 2 in the Senate? Or is it the other way around, damn I don't remember and I'm to lazy to look it up this morning. You would think with something this important and life changing the Democrats would come up with ONE plan, READ the bill, KNOW it well and get everyone on the same page before all this hurry up and vote crap started. When the people got pissed that they was going to vote on something they hadn't read, much like the stimulus bill that made the rich richer and the poor poorer and buried deeper in tax debt than they ever have been in their lifetimes, they decided to wait until after the summer recess and a few bullshit televised "town hall" meetings for the President to sell the fact that something needs to be done before voting. And for the record I'm equally pissed at both sides that neither side of the aisle seems to think it's important to read and understand what the hell they are voting on before they vote. That's why the fuck they are making the big bucks, to read and understand the bills they vote for and what ramifications they will have on all Americans whether they be rich or poor.

Yeah lots of fluff pieces make statements like-

Yep, total fluff.

I think the point was independent studies found things are improving and in some areas the VA beats private hospitals and HMO's-

Unless you think the University of Michigan and Harvard are in some conspiracy to make the VA look good.

Personally, though I am a Vet, I don't think I can use that system unless I have no other option. I had a major injury and subsequent related health issues. I spent 3yrs of my life battling my insurance, bouncing from one Dr. to another, waiting 5-6 hrs at a time in waiting rooms, sometimes I showed up (after driving two+ hours) only to be told the doctor was "out" that day. In the end it cost me 30k out of pocket and I had to hire an attorney to keep it from costing me several hundred K.

I think this comes down to people who think the government can't do anything right and people who see the current system as completely screwed up and are willing to let the government take a shot at it. Personally I think the government does some things right, wouldn't have a hwy system without them. The military seems like a professional group of people. And I like that the FBI is out there tracking down serial killers, ID thieves and terrorist. Are they prefect at these things? Hell no. Do I think a private organization could or would be better? Absolutely not.

Things like this amuse me-

It was awful... no It's the best anywhere!



---------- Post added at 09:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:39 AM ----------

I'm interested in this position. I hear it often and it may have some merit. But many of the people I hear expressing this view were completely 100% for the tax cuts. What your personal position was I have no idea. But people thought, even though we were having to borrow huge amounts of cash to fund two wars, the tax cuts were the right move because they'd improve the economy and thus create new tax revenue simply due to increased economic activity. I'm not 100% sure but I don't think that trickle down theory has ever worked the way it's been sold. In fact I think it just made the debt grow faster.

But right now we have a large number of people who are not working due to health issues and people who are under employed because they have a pre-existing condition(s.) I personally know three people (Ok, one lady is a person my ex used to work with, I know of her and her story- but don't really personally know her) who can not find work in their fields because employers will not hire them. Their medical history makes them uninsurable or the employer would have to pay millions more for their group plan just for that one person. What if we made these people insurable? Move them from the min. wage jobs they're currently struggling to survive on back to careers they used to have. What if we helped sick people move from sick to healthy productive members of society? How much tax revenue would this create?


I'm betting more then the trickle down tax cuts ever did.


Heck, what would the impact be of just removing uninsured people from using the ER as their only health care option? I've been to the ER in the US and I've taken people to ER's here in Mexico. In the US if the wait time is less then several hours you're lucky. Here the place is near empty and you're seen right away. ER's aren't full here because it isn't a treatment of last resorts. Maybe if everyone wasn't using the ER this way in the states then if you did have to go there, say for a auto accident, you're wait time wouldn't be hours and the aspirin they give you wouldn't cost $50.

In any insurance system, private or public, people ARE responsible for the medical welfare of others. The only way they wouldn't be was if they didn't have any insurance and were solely responsible for paying their medical bills. Insurance, public or private, is basically a transfer of resources from the healthy to the sick.

Yep, as long as you're covered you're either paying for someone elses major health care cost or dependent on other's to pay the major portion of your major costs. Only difference is the government doesn't pay any CEO's millions of dollars a years. I wonder how much could be saved just cutting that cost out of health care? It's no wonder these CEO's are willing fund the lobby groups fighting the public option.

I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion. In a private system you are not responsible in any way for anyone elses health status or medical bills. If someone is uninsured and goes to the ER. someone with healthinsurance doesn't pay for their visit. They are billed directly. A public plan is a transfer of resources via taxes paying for premiums.

Do you not understand what an insurance is? Health insurance is by definition a transfer of resources from the healthy to the sick.

Really so in a private system you are not paying for any one elses treatment? Ok, who pays for it? I mean if I have private insurance and I see a oncologist who pays for that? Do I have to pay for that? Or is my insurance company suppose to pay for that? If my insurance company pays for it where do they get the money to pay for it? From money accumulated and collected from other policy holders? Or do they have some magical money pixie who farts cash?

Since I'm an insurance agent i understand the meaning of insurance very well. The point powerclown was trying to make is that there are people who don't want to pay for your insurance. Which is what a public plan would mean. In a private system nobody pay's for your insurance or medical care but you.
The definition of insurance by the way is: coverage by contract in which one party agrees to indemnify or reimburse another for loss that occurs under the terms of the contract.

and that reimbursement comes from thin air, right? Or maybe they print the money in the basement?

The difference between private and public insurance is merely administrative. You might claim that one system is more efficient than the other, but at its basis they are the same. A redistribution of income from the healthy to the sick.

And, again, where does the money "to indemnify or reimburse" come from?

you both are missing the point. Obviously the money for indemnity comes from a pool of insurance premiums. But if you don't have insurance you don't get the coverage. If you don't pay into it you don't get it. that is the point other people are trying to make. They don't want to pay for YOUR care. I'm not totally against a public OPTION as long as it isn't single payer.

No you're avoiding (or at least you were) the point and omitting the facts we agree upon. See when dippin said-

And I said-

Neither one of us were talking about uncovered persons. We were simply pointing out that people in a plan health care costs are paid by other people in the plan.

That's an incredibly simplistic outlook. By your way of thinking everything I have has come from someone else. My house my car my groceries etc. PC was not talking about the pool of money that everyone pay's into. He's talking about paying for people who do not contribute to that pool

Some things really are that simple. Who do you think pays your salary? The company(ies) you work for or the people who pay premiums? I used to work in Law Enforcement. Who do you think paid me? The agency I worked for or the tax payers? I have a friend who works for the Tillammok Cheese Factory (man, I miss that cheese) Do you think the factory pays him or is it the people that buys the cheese?

Follow the money and I believe you'll find the answer.

Let's look at what PC said-
Sounds to me like he's flat out saying I don't want to pay for anyone else's medical care. I don't see any mention of uninsured people, I see him mention "strangers." I assume he doesn't know all the other people in his plan.

The most awesome thing since the invention of awesome.

99% of the outrage over health-care reform is built on the rhetoric and out right lies and deception of Beck and his ilk.

I'm not going to argue with you. He doesn't want to pay for people other than himself to have coverage period. Thats the way alot of people feel who oppose this bill. I understand what your saying about a pool of money, but it has absolutely nothing to do with his point.

it may be that one of the things which informs more conservative viewpoints in general is either a refusal or inability (hard to say which) to think in terms of system.
it is self-evident that salaries are transfers of money from one place to another. it is self evident, then, that what you own is possible because you participate in a particular network of transfers. you sell your labor power in exchange for access to that network. what you do within that network is expend your energy for a wage or a salary.

i think conservative viewpoints like to imagine that there is no system, but rather value originates with their activity. this leads to all kinds of strange consquences logically and analytically when seen from the other, general perspective.

Again, I get it. I don't have his particular viewpoint, but I understand his point. others were trying to side step his concern by saying he already pays for uninsured people.

Saying he already pays for uninsured people? No, again, no one is saying he is paying for uninsured people. No one said that. Do I need to use caps or smaller words? Cause I keep correcting your error and you keep ignoring it. People, including myself, were and are saying he's already paying for other peoples care. That isn't sidestepping anything... it's pointing out the obvious.

His point was that he didnt want to pay for the "health welfare" of others. In a very narrow sense, he already is when he signs up for insurance.

In a broader sense, we all already pay for a significant number of medical discoveries, regulation, and so on.

Not only that, we already pay for the uninsured. Indirectly, as when someone without insurance doesn't get treatment for an infectious disease and spreads it around. And quite directly, when hospitals have to stabilize even those without insurance. And when it comes to that, we end up spending a lot more than if the problem was treated early in the first place. Now, Im sure some will say that the solution would be to simply let those uninsured die without care (even the children, who make up a lot of the uninsured), but I would love to see anyone defend that option publicly.

Since I don't pay for anyone else's medical bills with my insurance, then it's perfectly reasonable for me to get a refund on all of the money I paid into my insurance this year that I didn't have to use on my own procedures, right?

Are you serious?

No. But it proves the point that the money that I'm putting in as a healthy person is being used to pay for procedures for less healthy policy holders.

which has nothing to do with PC's point of not wanting to pay for someone elses Health Coverage public or private. He only wants to pay for his own.

How about this- You stop telling me what you think PC meant and I'll stop telling you what I think he meant. PC can come explain his post if he feels like.

You express your opinion on the town halls and I'll express mine.

Deal?

never said it did. I was commenting on your assertion that I'm not paying for someone else's healthcare

Deal. Guess I shouldn't have put words in his post...for that I apoligize.

No worries, I figured out after doing it myself a couple times it was fairly pointless... and kind of dumb.

So agreed- PC's a big boy, he can speak for himself and we'll express our own opinions.

I guess the only way to avoid paying for someone elses health coverage is to not join an insurance pool but go it alone and pay cash but even then you can't avoid it. The last time I checked the local hospital charged cash payers more than twice as much as those who belonged to an insurance pool. Something to do with agreements and discounts given to insurance companies for being listed as an acceptable provider. I guess it is similar to what they do with people on Medicare or Medicaid.

Also I don't think there is a way to avoid paying for the uninsured since everyone's charges are jacked up to cover the ER costs.

OK, here's my honest take... least as of right now.

In my opinion this issue, like many, get broken down into such a narrow focus in the public arena that solutions often end up being problems. Right now the divide and conquer rule is leading the pack. Which sucks because it just means instead of find solutions people are just yelling at each other. That solves nothing, though it does help folks who have a vested interest in the keeping things the same. Currently staying the course, in my opinion, is not an option. Health care costs are, I think, the number one reason people file bankruptcy. I know that just about busted me. And I HAD insurance, hell I worked for the government. People used to give me shit because my benefits were suppose to be so great. So I don't think doing nothing is an option. I don't think it's good for the individual tax payer or the nation as a whole. When people go bankrupt everyone pays a little. Kind of like shop lifting, every item has a built in cost to cover theft. There's a reason a .03 anti-inflammatory in the ER costs $50. Actually that should read there are reasons it cost $50. People can't pay their bills, little bit more for the pill. Someone sues the hospital and wins big, little bit more for that pill. CEO's need to make millions, little more for that pill. And on and on and on.

Here are the main issues that I think need to be addressed (not necessarily in this order, or any order)-

Everyone should be able to obtain health care. Seems like a basic human right to me. Letting people die because they can't afford Tx seems , well, asinine.

Insurance companies shouldn't be allowed to turn people down for coverage or cancel policies so easily.

Insurance companies should be held better accountable for paying claims. There should be a penalty for dicking people around instead of just paying what they know they should. Better oversight.

There should be a public option. That public option should be on a sliding scale. It should also be designed to reward healthy habits. Eat crap, smoke and drink 24/7 don't expect to get 30 MRI's a years or one for every time you have gas. If you end up killing yourself, well, that's your fault. If you end up with a undiagnosed tumor see Boy V. Wolf.

The public option, as well as other coverages, should focus more (then they do now) on preventive care and promoting healthy living habits. Kind of a "put down the remote and get off your ass, you'll feel better" campaign.

There needs to be some sort of tort reform. People who sue because they woke up to loud music in the OR shouldn't be rewarded with big cash, they should get a shift kick in the ass for trying to sue for such silly reasons.

Pharmaceutical companies shouldn't be allowed to sell medicine in the US for 100 times what it can be purchased elsewhere.

That's my current thoughts, they're likely to changes or be an addendum as I think and read more about this issue.

I think a reasonable solution would be to cover anyone who can prove they can't afford health insurance, meaning, if you are working two jobs trying to raise a family living on the bare essential and have to choose between food or medicine then you should be covered. But all too often I see(know) people who are on some form of welfare(food stamps, medicaid, etc) who have 2 big screen tv's a playstation3, xbox 360 and a wii. Digital cable with every package offered, and a dvr for every tv. These people are taking advantage of the system and waisting money on luxuries instead of being responsible and providing for their families first.

Finding a way to break through the barriers Doctors and patients have with insurance companies.
More education for people about their policies ex. don't go to ER for a runny nose, go to your PCP. or atleast an urgent care. ER's should be reserved for life or death emergencies as they were intended. I have several friends who are medics, the vast majority of their runs are for people calling the squad to give them a ride to the er to score some narcotics because they are so far under the influence they can't drive themselves. Systems need to be in place to track prescriptions each person has filled in a given month, often times people bounce from hospital to hospital receiving multiple Rx's for narcotics that the doctors don't know they already have had 120 filled.

these are just a few ways imo that would help

This was kind of what I was getting at with my sliding scale comment.

Not sure how you're going to enforce this, it's a good idea, IMO. But unless you start going through people homes to inspect TV sizes or game console price tags it's not very feasible. Every system has someone working it. I have little doubt they are people scamming your company right now.

Not sure what you mean here.


People should be arrested and charged for this, it's misuse of the emergency system.

Maybe it depends on the state but in Oregon there is a system for this, has been for while. I know when I crushed my leg and was taking pain killers my doctor would have to either call or enter into a system that would verify I had an Rx for X number of tablets. I think anything schedule II. If he didn't when I got to the pharmacy they'd call him to verify. Once it was filled it would show a person with my name and date of birth was given that Rx on that date. Twice this messed me up. Once a person on the other side of the state picked up a similar Rx the day before I went to fill mine. The system kicked it out. After a few questions from the pharmacist we both noticed the middle name didn't match and I assured him I hadn't done any traveling. So he filled it, but he questioned it first. The other time I'd gone into one pharmacy, waited 20 mins and was told "sorry we only have half of this and we need to either fill it completely or not fill it at all." They asked if I wanted to come back in the morning or go elsewhere. I told them I'd check elsewhere. so off to another pharmacy. When I got there they told me "you just filled this at another pharmacy." "Umm, no I didn't, please call them.

Both cases left me feeling like some drug addict. The second time the lady at the counter announced loud enough for everyone in the waiting area hear"These are pain killer, you just filled this Rx... WE"RE NOT FILLING THIS!" There was a sign that read "Please stand behind this line to wait your turn, This is for the privacy of others." I guess privacy only mattered if they didn't think you were and addict. Not all people seeking pain killers are addicts, some happen to be in actual pain.



Yes these could help.

Alot of times doctors will do one of two things. They will treat a patient and bill an insurance company then the patient receives a statement that the insurance company has denied the claim for whatever reason(miscoded or not covered) and the patient is stuck with the bill. Or the doctor will have to waste time delaying treatment by contacting the insurance company to see if said treatment is covered. A little more education done by insurers to policyholders would eliviate some of these problems, but the doctor would still not know what said patient is covered for or not.

K, I just finished the bill. It's not perfect by any means, but it has potential. Based on what I've seen of the town hall crashers, they've not read the resolution. I don't see this as being any more complicated than they are puppets, which is ironic because they think they're fighting for freedom.

I cannot imagine a more perfect allegory for this movement; the stings of puppets being pulled, "freedom" escaping from their wooden lips.

Make health insurance mandatory (like auto insurance). Subsidize it for those who can't afford it. If you show up to the ER without health insurance, you're fined.

I am beginning to believe that the way the health care industry and insurance works it's almost as if we decided to design a system to be as complicated as we could make it. The reform bills now before congress seem to reflect this thinking.

As I understand it health care insurance is cheaper the bigger the insured pool is because the risk is spread out to a greater degree than individual or small groups. That's why large companies or groups get better rates than small companies for similar coverage.

I wonder if the mayor of my town could get us a lower cost deal if he could join us together as a group for health insurance purposes? Maybe he could get together with other mayors and convince the governor to group the whole state for an even better deal. Maybe the governors could get together and convince the president to group the whole country together for an even better deal. Maybe the president could get together with other world leaders and..... Uh Oh, I think I am going too far.:)

Not bad. But then also regulate it so they can't rescind coverage, and so rates are reasonable (which they're currently not). Enforce a maximum profit margin--something reasonable, but not (as is the current situation) excessive. Do away with the state regulations, so the policy you get in Nebraska is the same as the policy you get in Oregon. Simplify, de-complexify, un-obfuscate.

I know that second-to-last sentence sent a few of you Libertarians into conniptions. I'll just say this: if the individual states could have solved this, they would have by now. It's time for a broader, bigger-picture approach.

It's a shame we've backed down from single-payer, IMO. I guess it's politically impossible right now, but it's a shame. In My Humble Opinion, having a healthy populace is a perfectly valid way to spend my tax dollar. Every bit as valid as having working roads and police and firetrucks.

Nothing we do with insurance will keep us from going bankrupt if health care provider costs keep rising out of control.

I dunno, sounds rather big brotherish to me. Plus what are you going to do if a homeless person shows up in the ER? Going to fine them? How are they going to pay the fine?

I certainly agree with "de-complexify, un-obfuscate." I find it interesting the one person (least the one person I know of) in the insurance business in this thread stated-

Which I read as saying, correct me if I'm wrong rahl, more education from the insurance company directed at the insured and doctors would help. How about making the system less complicated? Wouldn't that be easier on everyone? From my personal experience I firmly believe the system is complicated and convoluted intentionally. I can't remember the number of times I heard "Oh, I see what the problem is here, form 27FJ was incomplete or filled out incorrectly. This claim will have to be be resubmitted." (yeah, I pulled that form number out of my ass... just can't remember details like this) Often I was told this several times on the same claim and by several I mean like 20+ sometimes. I'd call the Dr's office, they'd swear they resubmitted, I'd get a bill, call the Dr again, they'd swear... well you get the idea. It got to where I knew that once a claim was denied I had 90-110 days before a call and letter from a collection agency would be arriving. also had a dam good understanding of my rights regarding collection agencies and tactics. Oregon has a law where as long as one person in a conversation knows it's being recorded if it is recorded no law is being broken. I informed many people of this law half way through a phone conversation that became hostile. I don't respond nicely to statements like "look you dead beat son of a bitch..." Don't quote me but I think it's ORS 133.721. When you inform a person who's been yelling at you for 5mins. of this law the result is often dead silence, "umm... really?" or just "click, dial tone."

This is why I think there should be more over sight on policy issuers. This whole "form 27FJ wasn't submitted correctly" is pure crap. I think they just try to wear you down until you're so sick and worn out if you have the means you'll just pay it yourself.

Edit-

Think that should read ORS 165.540.-

It's that "unless consent is given by at least one participant." that's relevant.

Alot of insurance companies are trying to educate better. They have a rep from the Insurer go to a company and do a group meeting explaining their policies and proper place to go for treatment, this is a step in the right direction. I know it seems easy to say make insurance easier and less complex but it's not that easy, and it's not done intentionally, of course I'm in the industry so I guess I may take for granted how hard it is. It's like the financial market, I don't understand stocks and such at all, I've taken CE courses on it but I just don't get it, Insurance I do. Also I stated this in one of the threads but if your having trouble with the insurance company either go to your HR director or contact your insurance broker yourself. It's in the best interest of the broker to make sure your claim is paid because it's his account and he wants repeat business when it comes time for your companies renewal

I think you'd have to have provisions for that.

"Keep your laws off my body" has been a rallying cry of liberals, and the pro-choice movement in particular, for decades. The concept is that medical procedures are so intensely personal that government, regardless of its intent, should not be involved in the decisions.

Yet when it comes to the Democrats' health care plans, liberal supporters of keeping the law off their bodies now are saying, "put your laws all over my body." Government will make medical decisions not only as to the womb, but every other body part; and not just that, government policies as to which procedures and medicines are cost-effective will decide life and death. Imagine what will happen if/when a pro-life, evangelical fundamentalist ever gets into power. Corporations (and their ideologies) will be in charge of your body.

Are we able to think beyond today? Do we really want the government all over our bodies just because we like the current President and Congress? Then be prepared to live with the consequences when you have a President and Congress you don't like.

I don't see how you can make the claim that it's not done intentionally. Maybe to your knowledge or in your company it's not but the company I dealt with was doing it intentionally. One of their reps flat out told me so... "the more of these we successfully deny the larger our bonus." How is that not intentional?

As for contacting your HR rep. that didn't work for me. They just referred me back to the insurance company, the same one dicking me around. I tried to find a broker, a VP of sales, a customer service manager... anyone who'd listen to reason. None of that got me out of a seriously uncomfortable ramming feeling sans reach around.

I finally started getting somewhere when I filed a complaint with the State of Oregon Insurance Board (think they might be a "division" now.) Though even that didn't stop me from having to get an attorney. He wrote three letters and filed one motion, they caved. Suddenly they were in fact responsible for the unpaid claims.

I often wonder how many people out there don't have the means to hire an attorney... and what happens to them.

---------- Post added at 12:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:09 PM ----------

I lived with the consequences of having a President and congress I didn't like for a solid eight years.

I don't see how any of this will have the government "all over" anyone's body. I never hear my parents complain about that with medicaid. I know Vet's who get VA care, never hear them make this compliant either.

powerclown

the reality of the current situation is that our choices are a) Let private, for-profit insurance companies make decisions about what procedures/medications I can have or b) Let the government handle it. Neither is ideal.

But since you brought it up, can you tell me how often countries like France or Japan or England see their government run health care plans altered by who is in power?

None of the proposals currently in place put coverage decisions solely at the hands of the government, and in any case something is always better than nothing, and they can't stop anyone from getting any procedure through supplemental insurance or anything like that. And in any case, minimal standards of benefits and so on are already regulated.

corporations are already "in charge of our bodies" in the context of the existing health care system.
corporations are also not accountable directly to anyone except shareholders and sometimes organized pressure groups, which typically either use pr to force change out of a desire to protect a brand, or they use the state to change the legal rules of the game.

i've never really understood the source of american conservative paranoia about the state, which if anything makes the spaces it acts upon *more* open to democratic processes by making it accountable through elections. in principle anyway.

corporate power is not accountable to anyone. the present configuration of the american health care system is a result of this unaccountable corporate power, in the context of which profit-seeking gets tangled up with providing health care.
one result of this entanglement is the entire problem of the uninsured that's one of the drivers of the debate.
another is the explosion of hospital bureaucracies, which are a fundamental problem for accessing health care.
another is the way "managed care" operates, which already does much of what conservative disinformation has persuaded them that they should worry about.

this is a surreal situation, the "debate" about health care, the "august revolt" of the incoherent right.

o yeah--it's always interesting to follow the money when the conservative apparatus gets going.
have a look at the organizations listed in this article: it's the usual suspects.

GOP seeks its revival in the revolt against Obama's healthcare plan -- latimes.com

The problem is what is the GOP's health care plan (and why didn't they implement it)? If it's things like HSAs that have horrible interest rates and lots of fees, or HRAs (that I have now) where my employer puts money in, but if I quit or get laid off, that goes away. They haven't proposed a simple thing like the Flexible savings accounts that are tax-free, NEVER EXPIRE (you lose all your money if you don't spend it that year now), and will give you at least a decent savings rate if you are young. I don't trust them to come up with a good plan for every American, not just the top 5% and the people who like to dream of getting to that level.

Then go after things like frivolous lawsuits, expand the good samaritan laws to cover unintentional and possibly avoidable minor medical mistakes (if they perform surgery on the wrong leg, then the patient should sue them, but the lawyers should be limited in the amount they can charge).

I'm not opposed to all of the GOP's ideas on health care reform, just how they try and make them benefit the banks and insurance companies. I'm also hoping that the Democrats will put limits on the health insurance companies though.

And I agree with Obama that the current state of health insurance in this country will only get worse in the next 10-20 years if nothing is done.

As a small C conservative Canadian who very much supports Universal Health Care, I have 1 question.....

Where are these townhall meetings and how do I get to go?

I'd love to see the BS that being hurled around by those on the right first hand. "Death Panels" (did Sarah Palin really come up with that term?) and how you'll all surely die if any sort of Health Care Reform was put into place.

As a goofy Canadian watching all the BS down south flow large, I have to say you yankees are pretty riled up about all of this. Watching Granny on the news getting into a shoving match with some reporter and how my country is constantly under attack where we are all dying in the Streets in Toronto. :eek:

In reading about what Obama is proposing, he's not going nearly far enough to be sucessful. All he's talking about is establishing a government run Insurance plan. He isn't even dreaming about regulating the industry (taking over the hospitals, and eliminating private health care clinics as they did in the Great White north back in the days of Tommy Douglas.

Unless Obama figures that once he establishes a gov't run insurance company that everyone will eventually end up there, he really isn't talking about UHC now is he.

I guess if he ever suggested nationalizing the Health Care Industry in order to cut profit out of the equation (and the fat cats that go with it) people would just plan start burning the joint down.

Palin takes Control of the Debate
 

Obama has had three town hall meeting in the past week, to sell his plan.
He has had nationally televised press conferences on health care to sell his plan.
He has written an op. ed. piece, to sell his plan.
He makes national radio addresses, to sell his plan.
He has a party in control of Congress, to sell his plan (and to pass it).
He has a WH press secretary to sell his plan.
He has a Health and Human Resources Secretary to sell his plan.
He spent about two years campaigning, including selling his health care plan.
He has the majority of Americans wanting heath care reform.
And what happened last week?

Basically, Sara Palin dominated the debate with a one paragraph tweet, with two words that shaped the debate! Using two words she crystalized the underlying concern of many Americans. In one tweet she got every political talk show in a tizzy. Using two words she will shape what the final bill will be, and she wasn't even really trying or was she? Wow, this woman is impressive.

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h2...rah_palin1.jpg

Yep, two words "death panel." Which was and is a lie.

Yeah, and all it took was a gross distortion of what is really taking place, and millions of gullible people who are ready to check their brains at the door in order to follow party directions...

How can anyone think this is a positive thing is beyond me

Ah...such is the circus of American politics.

Can one really win debates in American politics using mythology?

The only thing this accomplishes is that now the Obama administration needs to be more clear about what the bill aims to do. Palin is only impressive by accident and ignorance in this case. What's really impressive is the media's continued stock in her.

We all know Palin couldn't shape a debate with Michelangelo's chisel.

Besides, she didn't even write it. She has a ghostwriter twittering for her.

Let's run Palin's Ghostwriter for president in 2012!

An aside:

Welcome back, Baraka_Guru. I do hope you didn't become too much of a krispy kritter.

The death panel thing is bizarre. I find it hard to fathom that people could be so ignorant as to believe that type of rhetoric.

Mythology and circus certainly are good terms to describe the current state of affairs.

This is exactly why individualism is bullshit.

People have been saying it was a lie from the time it came out. If it was simply a lie, why did it get so much traction? Why, is the provision regarding living wills being changed? Why is the "public option" all of a sudden being reconsidered, clarified or whatever Obama's spokes people are doing and did over the weekend?

---------- Post added at 05:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:42 PM ----------

I still have not received an answer to my concern about how government is going to allocate care given limited resources? It seems the left has made a false argument concerning living wills, that is not really the point.

---------- Post added at 05:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:44 PM ----------

Is it "mythology" that we currently have panels that arbitrate what is "medically necessary"? Is it "mythology" that standards of care are established and would be expanded?

Are you saying Obama's planning, strategy, execution, evaluation, modification abilities are a failure? I am.

---------- Post added at 05:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:48 PM ----------

It could be a good contest against Obama's teleprompter.:eek:

These last few posts have me convinced that ace has been messing with us all along. Grade A trolling if it's true. I believed you for awhile

Again, we can pretend people are ignorant or we can address the issue. Obama so far has been ignoring the issue, it is clearly not going away, or is it? If there is no public option, the issue of government control of how medical resources does go away, at least for those who have the choice of non-government controlled health care.

---------- Post added at 05:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:52 PM ----------

Could you elaborate?

Nah, I'm with Derwood. Let's not feed the troll.

No. The mythology is in the words you correctly pointed out as powerful and moving: "death panel." In a sense, in Canada we have panels that arbitrate what is medically necessary and we have standards of care that are constantly being corrected and expanded. Where is Canada's "death panel"? Britain's? Australia's? (Or any other industrialized nation's besides the U.S. that happens to have some form of universal health care.) What's the myth here?

I'm calling the Palin effect a good thing and a bad thing. It's good in that it forces Obama to be even more clear than before about the bill. It's a bad thing in that he now has an even greater challenge: he has to cut through the sensationalized bullshit that Palin has stirred up to do it. I'm not sure if this is a result of Obama's failure to do a good job of formulating and executing the bill, or if it's more because there are too many people creating distortion.

again, the conservatives aren't debating in the same context as other folk. again conservatives are interested in news cycles. they want to win news cycle conflicts and one device for doing that is memes.
"death panel" is a meme. it sounds ominous. it's short. it refers to itself and not the world.
conservatives like repeating it.
conservatives like short statements.
news programmers like short statements. it's hard to give the illusion of having a handle on a world that's very complicated and moves around all the time. short statements and pithy camerawork are good for that.
if you provide a consistent illusion of having a handle on the world, consumers may well stay in their chairs until the vital advertising begins.

in that advertising, you see some of the effects of the fact that news outlets get quite alot of money from the insurance industry.
conservative organizations right now are getting quite alot of money from the insurance industry.



scary scary bad: something's happening out there but i don't know what it is. o look, here are some products that i desire. scary scary bad world. nice shiny consumer dreamscape.

death panel.
great stuff.

Jayzus Christ, this thread went from entertaining to bat shit crazy.

I stated several times that the terms "death panel" are probably not appropriate. My point here is more regarding how the underlying issue was crystallized by Palin to spite the best efforts of the administration and the media to frame the debate. There is something here. It is surprising to me why there has been no legitimate response to this real concern.

From what you suggest it seems Canadian's are o.k. with how government allocates limited health care resources.

It is never bad for people to have their fears addressed in an open and honest manner. I don't understand why people don't think this is an honest fear.

---------- Post added at 06:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:07 PM ----------

Either you need conservatives or you don't. If you need them, you have to address their needs and concerns. If you don't, screw 'em. How is that for a short statement.

---------- Post added at 06:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:09 PM ----------

Could you elaborate?

I don't deny the concern is real. Palin's quaint centerpiece is what I take issue with.

We work with representatives in the government. If enough of us want change, we pressure our respective parties to foster it. Many of us would like to see improvements to the system, but few of us would want it taken away.

It's not an honest fear when people cling to the idea of "death panels." I agree that people's fears should be addressed openly, but it's not all that cut and dry when they're based on propaganda.

we've been elaborating for pages and pages across several threads and you either don't get it or are the most purposely obtuse person on the planet. it's not worth the effort anymore

Ace,
So your point is there has been no "legitimate response" to Palin's lie beyond calling it a lie?

Don Imus captured the same attention when he used the words "nappy-headed ho's" But that didn't make him a genius. The reason this made so much news is because the media loves sensationalism and her comments were definitely sensational. The facts that 1) there are no death panels, 2) the language that she is talking about was written and placed in the bill by a republican just goes to show how empty her statement was.

The media has long given up on reporting truth and facts and has now moved into the realm of tabloids. It is quite sad actually.

Just for clarity, those of us who oppose the bill (in its current form) don't care who wrote it. The words on their own merits are objectionable, regardless of whether a Retardican or a Dumbocrat wrote it.

You continue to reinforce my point. You ( and everyone else) are basically saying my concern is based on propaganda. Whatever a fear is based on, if it is a fear it will affect everything that follows from it.

And don't you think it is fanciful to suggest that a one paragraph tweet from a non-credible, unemployed politician can shape a national debate on health care?

Palin didn't crystalize. She LIED. And you appear to APPROVE of that.

People's fears aren't being addressed, they're being manipulated. This isn't discourse, it's a cage match. It's not politics, it's the WWF.

ALL that stands between America and a workable, modern health system is the vastly wealthy corporations that oppose it, the mouthpieces willing to tell lies about the proposals, and the gullible people willing to believe those lies.

You stated I am trolling. This is a new charge against me. I was just wondering what you meant by that. Given your response I am going to assume that rather than a thoughtful engagement of ideas, you prefer a personal attack. whatever you think about me the choice to ignore me is yours. If the powers that be want to ban my participation here, that choice is theirs.

Is there a national debate on health care anymore? What Palin did was dangerous. Do you honestly think her effect had a rational impact on the discourse?

Palin used the terms "death panel", I don't. What her point was, and what my point is - how is the government going to allocate limited health care resources. I stated that I do not trust Washington bureaucrats. This is my number one concern regarding the "public option". If someone has addressed that, please direct me to it - I have not seen it.

how often does that work out for people that can't afford auto insurance?

please, that policy idea is all wrong.

no, you lauded Palin for "addressing a legitimate fear", when said fear was completely fabricated by the opposition party

When Bush had US Attorney Generals fired, it was clearly political. When the Mayor of Chicago makes sure that the street he lives on gets cleared of snow first, it is clearly political. This nation has a history of political abuse or things that gives one pause. The issue of "medical necessity" or "standards of treatment" can easily mean one thing to one group of people and another to a different group of people. Our government has a history of not putting in controls to make sure that stuff does not happen. I have no interest in turning over the complete and total medical care of my family to people in Washington. You can call that irrational, it may be irrational, I don't care - it simply is how I feel. I will never support a public option if this issue is not addressed.

You know.... I was just sitting here thinking about this...

I'm for health reform. But it just occurred to me that somebody could pretty easily construct an argument against public-option or single-payer health care (which I'm for, in principle), based on an assertion that costs will spiral out of control and we won't be able to afford it. I'm quite sure numbers could be found that would support that view. I'd be willing to be convinced of such a view. If you were actually interested in changing my mind about health reform, that would be one way it could be accomplished.

Why, then, is the big anti-health-care-reform argument "Socialism!!"? Screaming "Socialism!!" won't change my mind. I'll just pity you, you poor deluded middle-class-white-guy who's out campaigning for the ongoing paycheck of your corporate overlords. "Death panels!!" "Euthenizing the elderly!!" "Rationing!!".... None of these hold ANY damn water, and they're ALL scare tactics.

Why doesn't the opposition actually look at the plan and evaluate it on its merit? Why does it have to be scare tactics and flag-wrapped polemic? I don't understand. It just seems counter-productive.

---------- Post added at 03:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:10 PM ----------

"Public Option" is an OPTION. If you'd read the HR, you'd see this.

The idea is, when shopping for insurance you can pick from all sorts of plans, including commercial plans, and including the one provided by the government. It's cheaper, with fewer perks. But it's INSURANCE, just like any other insurance, just cheaper and easier for people to get access to. But you pay for it, if you opt for it. OPTION, see. Among other options.

So the idea is, it pays for itself just like any other insurance would. So there's no scarcity. It pays for itself, so there's no limitation of resource to dole out. So there's no need for death panels or rationing or euthanasia. See? If you actually see what it IS, it's a pretty good idea.

Under Medicare, a real government single payer plan for seniors, if a person has a problem with a coverage issue a panel will make a final determination regarding what is "medically necessary", have you ever given any thought to this?

---------- Post added at 07:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:16 PM ----------

Sorry for not connecting all the dots for you. I think the long-term plan is to have a single payer system.

If I felt we could put adequate controls in place I could actually support a single payer system for base health care for everyone with supplemental plan options for those wanting more. If people actually took some time discussing my concerns (rather than attacking them), I could easily be converted - I do see the many problems with our current system and I support 100% health care for children and I support all senior citizens and disabled people having single payer health care - so for me it is a small leap to address the issue for those between 18-65.

My apologies. I answered your QUESTION instead of reading your mind about what you really were asking. You asked about the public option proposal--silly me for answering about the public option proposal. You wonder why people feel they can't get anywhere in conversations with you? Bob. Weave.

Since I did answer your question, you got anything to say about my answer (post 281)?

Well, me too. What controls would you need to see?

Here is a link to a report discussing "medical necessity" in Medicare. In the fourth paragraph of the Executive Summary they indicate that most of the rules are not found in the statute or even the regulations.

http://www.partnershipforsolutions.o...MedNec1202.pdf

I don't know what the answer is, but are we at least at a point where a discussion can be had on the issue on this topic?

{added} Here is another perspective on the issue:

http://www.physiciansnews.com/law/802.miller.html

Wow. You're actually concerned about death panels.

Okay, I'm game. Here's your fourth paragraph:

(note--I hand-typed that because copying from the PDF was locked. Typos mine.)

So, taking that just at face value, there's a problem if the policies don't match the statute. One of them needs to be updated. For chronic care, improvement (measured in terms of "cure") is obviously an inappropriate standard. But I don't work there--I'm not going to presume I know more than the people making that assessment. I also don't think I know, just from reading this, what "improvement" means in this case. A subjective improvement in the quality of life could be seen with palliative care, and that might very well be an appropriate means to measure the necessity of medical treatment, in terminal cases.

I will say, whatever they do needs to comply with the laws defining Medicare, and if that's not happening, that's a problem. Either the law needs to be clarified, or the policy needs to be redefined.

Will, you've read the bill. Does it say anything about how treatment will be deemed appropriate/necessary?

It's being changed? How so? It's nothing more then the end of life counseling already widely available. That's like saying "it cover MRI's! MRI's are gonna kill your parents! Fear, fear and fear some more. Newt was singing the praises of end of life counseling just a few months ago... now it's "gonna kill grandma." Give me a break.


This shit gains traction for the same reasons some folks inhale Rush, O'Rielly, Malkin, Coutler et el lies... because they're saying what people want to hear. They rally the base. Anything the Dems do is bad. Anything the GOP does is good.

The guy who said the famous thing about "pulling the plug on Grandma", Senator Chuck Grassley, just retracted it, by the way:

Grassley Retracts Claim That Government Could “Pull The Plug On Grandma” | The Plum Line

Assuming for a moment this "panel" exists. Then tell me what is better, a panel deciding what to cover, or an individual who won't get their promotion/bonus unless they deny enough procedures?

this is absurd. the way in which this "death panel" nonsense and other such conservative horseshit gets traction is a simple function of two things: repetition and exposure.
there persists this kinda ridiculous idea that the right has something to say worth hearing on this question. why, i have no idea. but it's out there. one result of this is that folk give exposure to the nonsense that's being repeated from the right and worse allow the debates, such as they are in this degenerate entertainment environment, to be framed by conservative nonsense. when conservatives are dismissed for obviously saying nothing about the actual issues at hand because, typically, they haven't read the bill and/or rely on geniuses like limbaugh to read it for them, they then can whine about how theyre being marginalized. which itself gets repeated and that repetition gets exposure.

this is how news cycle conflict works. it isn't about anything except getting the meme exposed. its not about a coherent alternative, it's not even about the debate except insofar as stopping the debate is about the debate. it's about grinding the conversation to a halt and hoping to appear powerful for having done it.

ace has played the same tiresom game in this thread, and the thread's gone the same way as the larger debate.
you can't refute his arguments because they're all just floated to see which one sticks.
dippin's demolished ace's claims again and again, but it doesn't matter, he just makes up another claim.

this isn't rocket science, what's happening.

what's mystifying--still---is the apparent assumption that there's some political gain to be had for conservatives by playing this odious little game, disabling a debate about a quite important topic.

i hope the insurance companies that are funnelling money into rightwing populist organizations in order to support their disabling of the debate are happy. because they're the only imaginable beneficiaries of the tactic.

this is about as depressing a demonstration of just how fucked up american "democracy" had become as i've ever seen, this "national debate" that's turned into a display of nativist lunacy, turned into noise.
the thread's just a tiresome mirror image of all that.

Ace
Throwing every possible argument out there and seeing what sticks might be a good media strategy, but it is not really honest.

In this very thread you have said that you believe that the "death panels" theme is BS but that Obama should be clearer in his response to it, and then proceeded to act actually concerned about "death panels." You have at the same time questioned the statistics that show that Americans die earlier and etc. and embraced it claiming that you would rather die earlier. With each page your positions shift, with the only consistent theme that obama=bad.

Dude if you can't afford state minimum coverage then you can't afford a car. You can't drive without liability insurance, if you have a wreck and hurt someone or damage someone elses property how are you going to come up with the thousands of dollars to reimburse them without insurance?

I am almost finished because it is getting to easy to take what has been written, mix and match them to make them seem absurd.

I am not naive neither are you. We both know that there is an element, or a group of people that are against Obama period. Their goal is to discredit him no matter what the issue or what the cost. They have a strategy. That strategy includes a "blitz" of information, misinformation, or whatever it takes. You know it, I know it, Obama knows it, anyone paying attention knows it. Bush also faced people like this. It is a part of the political game.

That is very different than the people who have legitimate disagreements with Obama. When I joke around and take pokes at Obama and his supporters, I will admit when I am doing it if it is not obvious. When I have a serious disagreement I respond to questions and back up my position even if it is simply to say my position is emotionally based.

To suggest that the people with legitimate concerns are being dishonest, seems to me to be dishonest.

I have said the use of the terms was inappropriate, the concept is not. Obama does need to clearly address the concern, if he wants expanded support of his plan.

I am concerned about vague, il defined concepts - what is "medically necessary"? If a person is in pain when does one pill too many become medically unnecessary and who makes that decision? If you are comfortable with a panel making that decision for you, so be it, I am not.

I questioned something specific in the WHO report. I questioned how people arrived at certain conclusions based on the data in the WHO including life expectancy. I showed how something like homicides can have an impact on life expectancy, is not related to quality of health care, is cultural and asked if WHO and others take factors like that into consideration before making health care value judgments.

This is a personal value judgment. On a larger scale it could also affect life expectancy. Some one made a point about days in the hospital, my point is that spending my last days in a hospital is something I won't do if I have any control over it. It is a personal choice. Everyone should be free to make that choice to the degree that they can.

I have not shifted positions at all. I conclude that given the number of points that I respond to that you don't keep them straight.

And oh, Obama=bad - I don't trust him, I think he will say one thing to one audience and another thing to a different audience. I think he is purposefully vague in his statements to claim he was correct regardless of the out come. I don't think he has strong convictions. I think he uses people when he needs them and then discards them the way he did with Rev. Wright. I think he is overly apologetic to the rest of the world and comes across as weak. And a few other things, but I am betting you have gotten the point. But this is totally separate from me disagreeing with his policies, when I have a problem with his policies I clearly state what my concern is and why.

rahl, do you have an opinion of what will happen to insurance rates if the bill passes with the requirements that insurance companies must cover all pre-conditions with no maximum limit of benefits and no cancellations when one loses their job? Or put another way how much would this add to the average persons insurance premiums if these rules were implemented today? I believe the current estimate of health insurance for a basic family plan is about $1400 per month.

If some people are afraid that the government option may contain a death panel can't they just pay a little more and get a private plan? Those who would rather have a group of insurance adjusters deciding what is medically necessary rather than a government appointed panel may be willing to pay more. This may be a way for private insurers to compete, something like " Blue Cross will never pull the plug on grandma".

Insurance companies don't have "death panels" and neither does the bill in question. I can't believe this concept even caught on when it was proven otherwise. As for what my opinion on premiums will be, I think they will skyrocket. Having to cover pre-exes is going to seriously drain the pool of reserve funds insurers have to pay claims. There's no way that a maximum benefit will be done away with, it just can't happen. Even a govn't plan will have maximums. As far as keeping coverage if and when you loose employment I think this is a good thing, COBRA sucks. Congress did pass legislation expanding COBRA but it's still a very expensive alternative.

I'm all for "Death Panels"

My mother died of cancer. She should have been put to sleep a week before she died. It was just needless suffering. She asked me to kill her. I didn't have the balls. It haunts me to this day.

Fuckers.

Death Panel. If I was on my mother's "Death Panel" I would have opted for death for her. It would have been humane. Instead she spent the last week of her life in the hospital in diapers struggling for every breath in some disease and pain killer induced horror show.

That fucking Sarah Palin has no fucking clue.

What I find fascinating about the death panel myth is how incoherent and how little sense it makes. It at the same time accuses the public option of being far too much and not enough. The position claims that the public option will not spend enough to provide adequate care for everyone, and so we shouldn't spend anything on it - "it can't cover everything, therefore it shouldn't cover anything at all."
How can anyone reconcile those two positions without some serious flaw in judgment is beyond me.

My grandmother went much the same way. But religious beliefs kept her and my parents from ever considering this option.

No shit. Yet people listen to her like she the smartest person around.

Well, it's a justification for objecting to something that the "opposite" party proposed. It wouldn't matter if Obama called for candy bars and ponies for all Americans, the Republicans would figure out some way to be against that.

It's a fascinating strategy to watch unfold, though.

1) Oppose whatever the Democrats are proposing
2) Sabotage all efforts for Democrats to champion proposal
3) Declare victory
4) Rinse, repeat


You can see that they're trying to set up for 2010, hoping to reclaim some seats in Congress. What will be interesting to see is if they'll succeed do to the anti-Obama backlash they've manufactured, or if they've struck too early, resulting in a backlash against the backlash come voting time

It's one thing to disagree with someone's position; it's another to have to ask, "wtf?"