ratbastid

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.

aceventura3

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.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

ratbastid

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?

aceventura3

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

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

ratbastid

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?

Tully Mars

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.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

ratbastid

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

Rekna

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?

roachboy

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.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dippin

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.

rahl

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?

aceventura3

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.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

flstf

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".

rahl

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.

james t kirk

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.

dippin

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.

Tully Mars

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.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

ratbastid

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.

Derwood

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

Baraka_Guru

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

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

ratbastid

Well, I think the thing to remember is the echo-chamber-ness of it all. This is a small little cross-section of people, mostly talking to themselves. There's a quiet majority that is either not involved in daily politics, or is so resigned they don't speak. Either way, that majority came out in 2008 and had their say, and I suspect they can be counted on again in '10 and '12.

dksuddeth

this is why people get priorities totally jacked up. It's also telling that so many people are oblivious to how insurance corporations have hijacked our country.

in suburban and rural areas of this country, a car is pretty much an absolute necessity. that does not mean that an extra cost of 'state minimum' coverage can be afforded by everybody. You're talking as if one shouldn't be allowed out of bed unless they have an insurance policy for some sort of damage or harm they might do to another. Should there be a mandatory policy to buy for everyday personal business?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

rahl

I'm sorry but owning a car is a luxury, and with that luxory comes a seperate responsibility. If you drive a car you are probably going to get into an accident eventually. If it is your fault you are responsible for medical payments to others as well as property damage, that is why it is a requirement.

---------- Post added at 11:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:26 AM ----------


Probably. Most people have one already, It's called home owners insurance. In your policy you have personal Liability that covers you wherever you are. Alot of people want additional coverage so they buy whats called an "umbrella" policy which extends their limit of liability. The only way you wouldn't want any insurance is if you are rich enough to self insure, which 99.9% of the population isn't.

ratbastid

Well, there pretty much is. Not legally mandatory, but in practice, it comes down to the same thing.

One of my first jobs out of college was in the marketing department of a local gourmet food store, with a restaurant and deli and bakery as well as international grocery, housewares, wine/beer etc. You got ANY idea how much product liability insurance a place like that carries?

When I was working there, a woman contacted us who had broken a tooth on a bit of olive pit that had been in her tapenade she'd bought fresh-made from the deli. The company's insurance covered her dental work, plus several hundred thousand bonus dollars. If insurance hadn't been there to go between, such a case could easily put a company like that out of business. This sort of thing is a function of the (insurance-cartel-enabled) litigiousness of American society, but it works out to be just as mandatory as if there was a law requiring it.

On the flip-side... A friend of mine went white water rafting during a trip to New Zealand. At one point, the river forks. No signs or anything. You just have to know that if you go left, you go over a 100-foot waterfall and die. This isn't a problem for New Zealanders, they are willing to take care of themselves. It's downright shocking for an American, who's used to being babied and coddled at the threat of massive lawsuits.

We're a little far afield of the health reform debate, now, but I think the insurance business has broader tentacles than just health insurance.

dksuddeth

wrong. everyone has a RIGHT to own property, including a car. You might not have the money to buy one, which might make it a luxury, but there is nothing that any government entity in this nation can do to prevent you from buying a car.


I'll refer back to my original statement as to the obliviousness of people nowadays.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Derwood

Right to own, privilege to drive

Baraka_Guru

Especially when driving on public property.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dksuddeth

we've discussed that in another thread.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

rahl

The government can stop you from driving by revoking your license, and failure to produce proof of insurance

dksuddeth

yeah, nobody ever drives without a license or no insurance.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Derwood

that's like saying "yeah, nobody every murders people." but you knew that

rahl

I'm not even sure what your point is anymore

FoolThemAll

Sure, go ahead and starve half the forum.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Tully Mars

Half the forum are not trolls.

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

filtherton

Says the fella just poppin' in to call troll.

dksuddeth

the point is that all too often people get this silly idea that all they have to do to fix something is write a new law. It never works that way though, but they never give up trying.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

aceventura3

I don't want to offend anyone by diverting attention from the serious discussion that has been going since I was called a troll, but I have the need to point out that 45% in an NBC poll think Obama's plan will lead to "death Panels". In the British National Health Care Service they have what they call "Quality-adjusted life year" to help determine when or if a medical treatment will be paid for. For those of you who know the truth about Obama's plan are you guaranteeing the rest of us that we will never use such things as a "Quality-adjusted life year"?

I looked for a short definition of what a "quality-adjusted life year" is:

Quality-adjusted life year - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh yea, and for those that need this - the concept of "death panel" and QALY are related in regards to both attempt to provide a means to allocate limited health care resources.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

roachboy

ace--you continue to indulge in entirely circular logic....so there are many people who are either uninformed about the realities that once upon a time were the subject of the debate or who are politically motivated to be as obtuse as yourself or who simply believe what they hear repeated alot of times. or all the above.

so knowing the meme is false, and knowing--assuming you retain *something* of what you read even if you don't like what it says---what it's supposed to do--which is capture attention at the news cycle level entirely independently of whether it means shit or not---you're trying now to argue that because alot of people believe it's the case then it follows that this "death panel" idiocy must be taken seriously.

bullshit.

basically, you have nothing to argue.
you enjoy recycling the memes of the moment and imagine yourself performing some Heroic Thing by standing up to people who think you're positions are goofy here, and so you persist.

it's time for a tactical rethink.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

filtherton

ace

It's not a death panel, though. It's an quantitative method used to help ensure that money isn't being disproportionately spent on ineffective medical care. And in any case, the status quo is already heavily focused on denying care to the sick.

BTW, did you happen to see the op-ed in your favorite, the IBD, claiming that Stephen Hawking would be dead had he been cared for by the British system? The dumbshits weren't aware that Hawking had been treated by the British system for his whole life. This right here is a microcosm of opposition to British-type systems. I wonder how well Hawking would have fared under the American system?

flstf

I'll ask you the same question I posed to rahl earlier. It would seem that those opposed to a government option should have little to fear from it since they surely wouldn't buy a plan with a government death panel in it.