Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on March 29, 2010, 06:18:15 PM
-
Sarah was 100% correct and you left wing goons couldnt bring yourselves to admit it.
They are not called "death panels" per se, but medical advisory boards who will ration care to old people so that they are not given certain procedures.
Well looky here, Krugman is admitting exactly what I told you people months ago.
-
Sarah was 100% correct and you left wing goons couldnt bring yourselves to admit it.
They are not called "death panels" per se, but medical advisory boards who will ration care to old people so that they are not given certain procedures.
Well looky here, Krugman is admitting exactly what I told you people months ago.
Imagine that!!!
A death panel, by any other name, still lets the government put old people out to pasture.....JUST as Baby Girl stated MONTHS AGO!!!
-
Palin was dead right about it and I said so at the time. Krugman now admits it.
240, Nicky, Straw, Lurker, mons, blacken, and the rest of team obama can fuck off with bashing Sarah over this.
-
Quote from Krugman about advisory panel.
"This particular expensive treatment actually doesn't do any good medically and so we're not going to pay for it"
how do you watch that and think he's saying their are death panels?
Whoever Baby Girl is she was wrong months ago and you're both wrong now
-
Quote from Krugman about advisory panel.
"This particular expensive treatment actually doesn't do any good medically and so we're not going to pay for it"
how do you watch that and think he's saying their are death panels?
Whoever Baby Girl is she was wrong months ago and you're both wrong now
Yeah, when the program is broke and bleeding cash, guess what those decissions will be based upon Straw?
-
Quote from Krugman about advisory panel.
"This particular expensive treatment actually doesn't do any good medically and so we're not going to pay for it"
how do you watch that and think he's saying their are death panels?
Whoever Baby Girl is she was wrong months ago and you're both wrong now
First, she was hardly WRONG!! And second, as far as "Whoever Baby Girl is", take a WIIIIIIIIIILD guess (Hint: How do you like your moose? Rare, Medium, or Well Done?).
-
Sarah was 100% correct and you left wing goons couldnt bring yourselves to admit it.
They are not called "death panels" per se, but medical advisory boards who will ration care to old people so that they are not given certain procedures.
Well looky here, Krugman is admitting exactly what I told you people months ago.
Sounds like a death panel to me. Outrageous. Decisions on treatment should be made by doctor and patient, not some "advisory panel."
Sounds like the "panel" can determine that things like life sustaining treatment will not "do any good"?
-
so you're saying you're in favor of expensive treatsment that don't do any good medically?
well I'm sure your current insurance company is all in favor of paying for expensive treatments with no medical value so you'll be fine
-
so you're saying you're in favor of expensive treatsment that don't do any good medically?
well I'm sure your current insurance company is all in favor of paying for expensive treatments with no medical value so you'll be fine
Again - this goes exactly to what i have been saying for a year, while your brain-dead self was to stubborn to listen to.
The govt is going to dictate your care and get between you and your doctor. I said it from day one and and now krugman admitted it to.
You and the other sheep on this site called me all sorts of names and guess what straw, in the end Sarah and I and others were proven correct.
So now that the icon economist of the left admits what we all say you are left to silly nonense . Good job bro.
-
Again - this goes exactly to what i have been saying for a year, while your brain-dead self was to stubborn to listen to.
The govt is going to dictate your care and get between you and your doctor. I said it from day one and and now krugman admitted it to.
You and the other sheep on this site called me all sorts of names and guess what straw, in the end Sarah and I and others were proven correct.
So now that the icon economist of the left admits what we all say you are left to silly nonense . Good job bro.
so you're saying you're also in favor of expensive treatments with no medical value?
Since when do insurance companies pay for expensive treatments with no medical value
Right now they refuse to pay legitimate claim with proven medical value
btw counselor you and Sarah haven't been proven correct about anything........ yet
I'm sure if you think about it for 3 seconds you'll agree
-
Rewatch the clip. Krugman is admitting is going to be done to save money. Again, who makes these decisions - you and the doctor?
or?
an unelected board of hacks whom you have no redress to?
-
Rewatch the clip. Krugman is admitting is going to be done to save money. Again, who makes these decisions - you and the doctor?
or?
an unelected board of hacks whom you have no redress to?
I not only watched the clip but I listened to it too and then I transcribed the words he spoke on this thread
Krugman didn't speculate that these panels were going to make decisions only to save money but to not waste money on treatments that don't work.
I didn't hear him give any specifics such as we're not going to pay for Grandma's hip replacement because she's too old or we're not going to pay for your electric shock therapy because we have to given an illegal alien an abortion
I heard him speculate that we're not going to waste money on expensive treatement that has no medical value
your insurance company does the same thing and I never hear you calling them a death panel
your insurance company also decides not to pay for legitimate medical care and you have zero recourse (actually you might have some recourse because you have access to an attorney for free - provided you're healthy enough to work)
-
Rewatch the clip. Krugman is admitting is going to be done to save money. Again, who makes these decisions - you and the doctor?
or?
an unelected board of hacks whom you have no redress to?
I've watched the clip 3 time (all 36 seconds of it)
Krugman said that savings will be generated because we won't be spending money on expensive treatments that don't work
that's literally what he said
he doesn't use the word "death panel" or "rationing" or say that "legitimate care will be denied in order to save money"
he says none of those things but still you're sure that's what you heard
this is the crux of the matter on why you and I will always have a hard time agreeing on things
-
I've watched the clip 3 time (all 36 seconds of it)
Krugman said that savings will be generated because we won't be spending money on expensive treatments that don't work
that's literally what he said
he doesn't use the word "death panel" or "rationing" or say that "legitimate care will be denied in order to save money"
he says none of those things but still you're sure that's what you heard
this is the crux of the matter on why you and I will always have a hard time agreeing on things
Straw - he says very clearly that its based on "expensive treatments" that the medical advisory board deems effective. Just a few months ago we had one of these boards telling women not to get mamograms until 50 y/o. This will be all too common once this disaster of a plan, just like everything else, goes deeply broke and into the red.
Do you really think they are stupid enough to call it a "death panel"?
-
333386 lying again to protect his girl palin :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
333386 lying again to protect his girl palin :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
How am I lying? Krugman admits the purpose fo the medical advosory board is to ration care and tell a doct that he cant do certain procedures the govt deems too expensive. Other people call that a "Death Panel"
BTW - did you ever see this gem?
-
How am I lying? Krugman admits the purpose fo the medical advosory board is to ration care and tell a doct that he cant do certain procedures the govt deems too expensive. Other people call that a "Death Panel"
BTW - did you ever see this gem?
What the heck?? Unbelievable. The federal government will tell grandma whether she will get the medical treatment she and her doctor believe are necessary.
-
Oh the wingnuts going crazy misinterpreting everything. Palin is was and will continue to be as dumb as you all.
have a nice day ;D
-
Beach, you never saw that clip before?
-
Beach, you never saw that clip before?
Nope. Pretty alarming stuff.
-
Nope. Pretty alarming stuff.
I have been posting that gem for awhile. The usual gang just says I'm making shit up. i hope they face the death panel first.
-
I have been posting that gem for awhile. The usual gang just says I'm making shit up. i hope they face the death panel first.
What you'll probably find, most often, is people will attack you instead of addressing what Obama said in that clip. The clip caption is right: "Hey, take a pill." ::)
-
These idiots lached on to the obama-train and refuse to realize anything other than their msm fed bs. I have called HCR deathcare from day 1 and that is what it is.
-
Straw - he says very clearly that its based on "expensive treatments" that the medical advisory board deems effective. Just a few months ago we had one of these boards telling women not to get mamograms until 50 y/o. This will be all too common once this disaster of a plan, just like everything else, goes deeply broke and into the red.
Do you really think they are stupid enough to call it a "death panel"?
that's not what he said at all.
Seriously man, is there something wrong with your ability to hear and comprehend words?
"This particular expensive treatment actually doesn't do any good medically and so we're not going to pay for it"
Jesus man this is exactly what I was talking about in the post above. You and I can watch the exact same clip and you literally seem to hear different words than what is being said.
-
that's not what he said at all.
Seriously man, is there something wrong with your ability to hear and comprehend words?
"This particular expensive treatment actually doesn't do any good medically and so we're not going to pay for it"
Jesus man this is exactly what I was talking about in the post above. You and I can watch the exact same clip and you literally seem to hear different words than what is being said.
This is the same board that said women should not get moamograms until 50 y/o Straw. Did you agree with that?
Again, you want to put unelected govt hacks between people and their doctor. Isnt that what obama said wouldnt happen?
-
I've watched the clip 3 time (all 36 seconds of it)
Krugman said that savings will be generated because we won't be spending money on expensive treatments that don't work
that's literally what he said
he doesn't use the word "death panel" or "rationing" or say that "legitimate care will be denied in order to save money"
he says none of those things but still you're sure that's what you heard
this is the crux of the matter on why you and I will always have a hard time agreeing on things
bump for 333
seriously man - how is it you can listen to this 30 second clip and seem to literally hear different words than what is actually spoken.
-
This is the same board that said women should not get moamograms until 50 y/o Straw. Did you agree with that?
Again, you want to put unelected govt hacks between people and their doctor. Isnt that what obama said wouldnt happen?
I wasn't aware that any board actually existed yet
Aren't you the one who kept saying none of this stuff would go into effect for years and now you're trying to tell me that since Obama signed the bill the "board" is in place and already denying care?
Maybe you're just completely confused and thinking of some medical study or some other panel or some such thing but as usual if you had bothered to provide a link to your claim I could check it out.
Providing links are crucial because you have a tendency to hear different words than are actually being spoken
-
Because you are not looking at the stituation as a whole whatsoever. Who exactly is going to make up a "medical advisory board"? Did you not read the whole hoopla a few months ago when the govt board said women should not get mamograms until 50 y/o or later? What do you think this is?
Second, what if your doc says he thinks the treatment will help you and they say it wont? Then what? guess what Straw? The govt is dictating your care and medical choices, just like we said it would.
Third, when this plan goes broke and we all know it will like Medcare and SS, are you so naive as to not believe that cost alone will not be the primary factor in these decisions as opposed to effectiveness?
Fourth, what is the appeals process? Oh thats right, these are unelected people no one knows or has redress against.
Fifth, if GWB were president and the board was made up of Delay, Lott, Frist, Cobyrn, and Newt, would you feel different about this?
Sixth, Zeke Emanuel, who helped craft this thing, already weighed in on this and I and other exposed his Dr. Jack like theories.
-
Because you are not looking at the stituation as a whole whatsoever. Who exactly is going to make up a "medical advisory board"? Did you not read the whole hoopla a few months ago when the govt board said women should not get mamograms until 50 y/o or later? What do you think this is?
Second, what if your doc says he thinks the treatment will help you and they say it wont? Then what? guess what Straw? The govt is dictating your care and medical choices, just like we said it would.
Third, when this plan goes broke and we all know it will like Medcare and SS, are you so naive as to not believe that cost alone will not be the primary factor in these decisions as opposed to effectiveness?
Fourth, what is the appeals process? Oh thats right, these are unelected people no one knows or has redress against.
Fifth, if GWB were president and the board was made up of Delay, Lott, Frist, Cobyrn, and Newt, would you feel different about this?
Sixth, Zeke Emanuel, who helped craft this thing, already weighed in on this and I and other exposed his Dr. Jack like theories.
Aren't I looking at the exact same 36 second clip that you're looking at
Isn't the clip and the words spoken what we're talking about?
-
ObamaCare Is All About Rationing
Overspending is far preferable to artificially limiting the availability of new procedures and technologies..
www.wsj.com
By MARTIN FELDSTEIN
________________________ ________________________ ____________
Although administration officials are eager to deny it, rationing health care is central to President Barack Obama's health plan. The Obama strategy is to reduce health costs by rationing the services that we and future generations of patients will receive.
The White House Council of Economic Advisers issued a report in June explaining the Obama administration's goal of reducing projected health spending by 30% over the next two decades. That reduction would be achieved by eliminating "high cost, low-value treatments," by "implementing a set of performance measures that all providers would adopt," and by "directly targeting individual providers . . . (and other) high-end outliers."
The president has emphasized the importance of limiting services to "health care that works." To identify such care, he provided more than $1 billion in the fiscal stimulus package to jump-start Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) and to finance a federal CER advisory council to implement that idea. That could morph over time into a cost-control mechanism of the sort proposed by former Sen. Tom Daschle, Mr. Obama's original choice for White House health czar. Comparative effectiveness could become the vehicle for deciding whether each method of treatment provides enough of an improvement in health care to justify its cost.
In the British national health service, a government agency approves only those expensive treatments that add at least one Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) per £30,000 (about $49,685) of additional health-care spending. If a treatment costs more per QALY, the health service will not pay for it. The existence of such a program in the United States would not only deny lifesaving care but would also cast a pall over medical researchers who would fear that government experts might reject their discoveries as "too expensive."
One reason the Obama administration is prepared to use rationing to limit health care is to rein in the government's exploding health-care budget. Government now pays for nearly half of all health care in the U.S., primarily through the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The White House predicts that the aging of the population and the current trend in health-care spending per beneficiary would cause government outlays for Medicare and Medicaid to rise to 15% of GDP by 2040 from 6% now. Paying those bills without raising taxes would require cutting other existing social spending programs and shelving the administration's plans for new government transfers and spending programs.
Chad Crowe
The rising cost of medical treatments would not be such a large burden on future budgets if the government reduced its share in the financing of health services. Raising the existing Medicare and Medicaid deductibles and coinsurance would slow the growth of these programs without resorting to rationing. Physicians and their patients would continue to decide which tests and other services they believe are worth the cost.
There is, of course, no reason why limiting outlays on Medicare and Medicaid requires cutting health services for the rest of the population. The idea that they must be cut in parallel is just an example of misplaced medical egalitarianism.
But budget considerations aside, health-economics experts agree that private health spending is too high because our tax rules lead to the wrong kind of insurance. Under existing law, employer payments for health insurance are deductible by the employer but are not included in the taxable income of the employee. While an extra $100 paid to someone who earns $45,000 a year will provide only about $60 of after-tax spendable cash, the employer could instead use that $100 to pay $100 of health-insurance premiums for that same individual. It is therefore not surprising that employers and employees have opted for very generous health insurance with very low copayment rates.
Since a typical 20% copayment rate means that an extra dollar of health services costs the patient only 20 cents at the time of care, patients and their doctors opt for excessive tests and other inappropriately expensive forms of care. The evidence on health-care demand implies that the current tax rules raise private health-care spending by as much as 35%.
The best solution to this problem of private overconsumption of health services would be to eliminate the tax rule that is causing the excessive insurance and the resulting rise in health spending. Alternatively, Congress could strengthen the incentives in the existing law for health savings accounts with high insurance copayments. Either way, the result would be more cost-conscious behavior that would lower health-care spending.
But unlike reductions in care achieved by government rationing, individuals with different preferences about health and about risk could buy the care that best suits their preferences. While we all want better health, the different choices that people make about such things as smoking, weight and exercise show that there are substantial differences in the priority that different people attach to health.
Although there has been some talk in Congress about limiting the current health-insurance exclusion, the administration has not supported the idea. The unions are particularly vehement in their opposition to any reduction in the tax subsidy for health insurance, since they regard their ability to negotiate comprehensive health insurance for their members as a major part of their raison d'être.
If changing the tax rule that leads to excessive health insurance is not going to happen, the relevant political choice is between government rationing and continued high levels of health-care spending. Rationing is bad policy. It forces individuals with different preferences to accept the same care. It also imposes an arbitrary cap on the future growth of spending instead of letting it evolve in response to changes in technology, tastes and income. In my judgment, rationing would be much worse than excessive care.
Those who worry about too much health care cite the Congressional Budget Office's prediction that health-care spending could rise to 30% of GDP in 2035 from 16% now. But during that 25-year period, GDP will rise to about $24 trillion from $14 trillion, implying that the GDP not spent on health will rise to $17 billion in 2035 from $12 billion now. So even if nothing else comes along to slow the growth of health spending during the next 25 years, there would still be a nearly 50% rise in income to spend on other things.
Like virtually every economist I know, I believe the right approach to limiting health spending is by reforming the tax rules. But if that is not going to happen, let's not destroy the high quality of the best of American health care by government rationing and misplaced egalitarianism.
Mr. Feldstein, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Ronald Reagan, is a professor at Harvard and a member of The Wall Street Journal's board of contributors.
________________________ ________________________ ______
Straw you really need to wake the hell up. obamaCare is all about taxing and rationing.
-
Its called having the ability to think and analyze a situation based on logic, history, and all available data.
I'm sure you were probably one of the "Bill never did anything with Monica because he said so" cheerleaders until the blue dress came out to.
-
It's impossible for Palin to be right about anything, LOL! One of her handlers being right is all I'll believe.
Advisory panels would be similar to what insurance companies are doing now. "Death panel" has more political power because our aging population knows them and welfare cases will bankrupt this new plan.
One question on these advisory boards: To who will people appeal decisions they feel are unjust?
-
It's impossible for Palin to be right about anything, LOL! One of her handlers being right is all I'll believe.
Advisory panels would be similar to what insurance companies are doing now. "Death panel" has more political power because our aging population knows them and welfare cases will bankrupt this new plan.
One question on these advisory boards: To who will people appeal decisions they feel are unjust?
Yes however, most older people go on Medicare and dont carry private insurance primarily. Like you said, what is the appeals process? Of that rights right, there wont be one.
So the govt will dictate care and treatment and it will only get far worse as the plan goes bankrupt as we all know it will.
Its only the obamabots who cant see the writing on the wall with this nonsense.
-
ObamaCare Is All About Rationing
________________________ ________________________ ______
Straw you really need to wake the hell up. obamaCare is all about taxing and rationing.
333 - I know you think there death panels (Sister Sarah would never lie to you)
but what does an Op Ed in the WSJ have to do with a 36 second clip that we're talking about?
Krugman said that savings will be generated because we won't be spending money on expensive treatments that don't work
he doesn't use the word "death panel" or "rationing" or say that "legitimate care will be denied in order to save money"
he says none of those things but still you're sure that's what you heard
weird
you might want to consider getting your hearing checked
-
Who determines what is "legitimate"? You and the doctor or the govt?
-
Rewatch the clip. Krugman is admitting is going to be done to save money. Again, who makes these decisions - you and the doctor?
or?
an unelected board of hacks whom you have no redress to?
that sounds a lot like the health Insurance Industry before this reform took place? NO?
-
that sounds a lot like the health Insurance Industry before this reform took place? NO?
Here is the main difference. You can always go to a different carrier and sue for redress under your contract or via arbitration.
When the govt is the only provider or payor left, what option do you have left? Nothing. You are done. the govt dictates what happens, not you or the doc.
-
333 is out of his league here. You're fishing for anything in the words to fit your piss poor logic.
What you fail to mention is there already are 'death panels' and they deny coverage to those in need who then die because they did not have coverage. This bill will eliminate that as well as eliminate the waste that goes from useless testing.
Somehow that means we should keep the status quo in the Palinite warped world of things, but in the REAL world it means we save money on useless tests and provide coverage to previously uncovered people. If that means death then what does the status quo mean? Obliteration? Mega-death?
-
that sounds a lot like the health Insurance Industry before this reform took place? NO?
exactly - the only difference is the board at the insurance company has a personal financial incentive to deny care
Every dollar they don't pay out is a dollar that goes to their bottom line ( so more profits, more bonuses, stock options, deferred comp, etc..)
-
exactly - the only difference is the board at the insurance company has a personal financial incentive to deny care
Every dollar they don't pay out is a dollar that goes to their bottom line ( so more profits, more bonuses, stock options, deferred comp, etc..)
And a govt massively in hock and over budget has no incentive to curtail spending?
-
Here is the main difference. You can always go to a different carrier and sue for redress under your contract or via arbitration.
When the govt is the only provider or payor left, what option do you have left? Nothing. You are done. the govt dictates what happens, not you or the doc.
you better than anyone should no that most people can't afford to sue to fight their HMO.
They simply can't afford it so they don't do it
my neighbor is a perfect example, she's got a condition that is causing her to lose bone mass in her jaw which will eventually cause her to lose all her teeth and cause additional medical problems and her insurance company refuses to pay for surgery because they say it's cosmetice even though she's got multiple letters from multiple doctors, x-rays, etc.. (all in the insurance companies plan) that say this is absolutely a medical necessity and there is nothing cosmetic about it at all yet her claim is simply denied.
She's got ~ 30k in savings (I know her pretty well and we have discussed her situation at lenght) and she can either take that money and try to hire an attorney and hope she can last long enough agaisnt the deep pockets of her insurance company or she can take the money and pay for the surgery out of pocket. And of course the longer she waits the worse her condition gets and the more expensive and extensive the surgery will be.
Guess which course of action she decided to take?
-
Here is the main difference. You can always go to a different carrier and sue for redress under your contract or via arbitration.
When the govt is the only provider or payor left, what option do you have left? Nothing. You are done. the govt dictates what happens, not you or the doc.
btw - you know damn well that almost no one can go to another carrier, especially with a pre-existing condition
the person in my example is a school teacher and she has ONE CHOICE and that's it.
She can't switch carries. She can't go out and buy private coverage (due to pre-existing status) and she can't afford to fight the insurance company lawyers. You also know damn well that the insurance company will decide if it's going to cost them less in lawyer fees to fight the claim then that is exactly what they will do. There decision will be based soley on money with no consideration to the actual health of the patient
-
btw - you know damn well that almost no one can go to another carrier, especially with a pre-existing condition
the person in my example is a school teacher and she has ONE CHOICE and that's it.
She can't switch carries. She can't go out and buy private coverage (due to pre-existing status) and she can't afford to fight the insurance company lawyers. You also know damn well that the insurance company will decide if it's going to cost them less in lawyer fees to fight the claim then that is exactly what they will do. There decision will be based soley on money with no consideration to the actual health of the patient
Tell her to call the State Insurance Department and AG's office. They usually have people to handle that.
If she switched carriers now, isnt any carrier now barred from exclusing her?
-
Tell her to call the State Insurance Department and AG's office. They usually have people to handle that.
If she switched carriers now, isnt any carrier now barred from exclusing her?
she can't switch
she has one choice of a group plan provided by her school district
what would the AG do if no laws were broken?
she's already gone to the HMO board or whatever we have in this state (don't know - this happened 2 years ago and she's already paid for the surgery). she ran out of options other than to spend her saving to sue the company pr take the money and pay for the surgery which she desperately needed ASAP
-
she can't switch
she has one choice of a group plan provided by her school district
what would the AG do if no laws were broken?
she's already gone to the HMO board or whatever we have in this state (don't know - this happened 2 years ago and she's already paid for the surgery). she ran out of options other than to spend her saving to sue the company pr take the money and pay for the surgery which she desperately needed ASAP
If she paid already she could sue the carrier on what is know as a "bad faith" lawsuit for denying coverage in bad faith. If she has all that info that you say, she might be able to sue for what is known as treble damages (3x) and she could find someone on contingency at 33-40%
-
Straw: Check this out:
http://insurance.lawyers.com/Insurance-Bad-Faith-Claims-FAQs.html
-
This is one aspect of the bill that I think is just a push - the decision is simply moving from a panel at the insurance company to panel at the government. Neither is elected, nor does anybody have a choice of who sits on those panels.
And you can't just jump to another carrier. Most places of employment offer you one choice of provider and that's what you get. If you work with the Federal government, you get multiple choices, but you can't just jump whenever it suits you. There is a specific time of year for choosing a plan.
I really don't see anything changing about healthcare from this aspect.
-
Straw: Check this out:
http://insurance.lawyers.com/Insurance-Bad-Faith-Claims-FAQs.html
I'll forward this to my friend.
Thanks
-
Here is the main difference. You can always go to a different carrier and sue for redress under your contract or via arbitration.
When the govt is the only provider or payor left, what option do you have left? Nothing. You are done. the govt dictates what happens, not you or the doc.
Under the status quo, you cannot go to a different carrier.
You would be denied coverage due to it being a "pre-existing condition"
-
This is one aspect of the bill that I think is just a push - the decision is simply moving from a panel at the insurance company to panel at the government. Neither is elected, nor does anybody have a choice of who sits on those panels.
And you can't just jump to another carrier. Most places of employment offer you one choice of provider and that's what you get. If you work with the Federal government, you get multiple choices, but you can't just jump whenever it suits you. There is a specific time of year for choosing a plan.
I really don't see anything changing about healthcare from this aspect.
The difference is that decisions will be made by physician advisors based on medical capabilities, rather than on financial incentives. yOu won't have a situation where peopleget to pocket whatever is not spent.
-
The difference is that decisions will be made by physician advisors based on medical capabilities, rather than on financial incentives. yOu won't have a situation where peopleget to pocket whatever is not spent.
::) ::) Right.
There is a fool born every second.
-
Under the status quo, you cannot go to a different carrier.
You would be denied coverage due to it being a "pre-existing condition"
Exactly
-
The difference is that decisions will be made by physician advisors based on medical capabilities, rather than on financial incentives. yOu won't have a situation where peopleget to pocket whatever is not spent.
Fucking clueless idiot. Try reading the damn bill so you know what the fuck you're talking about.
9 Presidential appointees - non-federal employees (as political as it gets)
9 Comptroller General appointees
and up to 8 Presidential appointees who are federal employees (as political as it gets)
It's required by the act that those members consist of insurance issuers, employers, finance people, ...and on.
It only requires ONE practicing physician and ONE expert on children.
-
BUMP
-
where are all the idiots now who said that america would never ration healthcare and there was no way that was in the bill???
-
Now - they are:
1) Saying its ok even though they earlier denied it.
2) Denying what the Medicare nominee has said along with Krugman and Obama "tell your mother to take a pain pill" are saying.
They are cultists and will follow this communist lying shitbag off a cliff no questions asked.
-
glad you found it - I didn't want to search for it
from page 1:
I have a serious question for you.
Why do you bother to even post clips when you're just going to make up your own definitions for what is actually being said
Can't you just do what you usually do and pull stuff out of thin air and skip the clip?
I've watched the clip 3 time (all 36 seconds of it)
Krugman said that savings will be generated because we won't be spending money on expensive treatments that don't work
that's literally what he said
he doesn't use the word "death panel" or "rationing" or say that "legitimate care will be denied in order to save money"
he says none of those things but still you're sure that's what you heard
this is the crux of the matter on why you and I will always have a hard time agreeing on things
-
Straw- bar none you are the dumbest poster on this site.
They are not going to call it a death panel per se and even Krugman says so. They are calling it a "medical advisory panel' who will say what you can get based on their recommendation, not what you and your doctor says.
This is exactly the opposite of what Obama and the other fools like yourself said prior to the passage of this mess.
-
Straw- bar none you are the dumbest poster on this site.
They are not going to call it a death panel per se and even Krugman says so. They are calling it a "medical advisory panel' who will say what you can get based on their recommendation, not what you and your doctor says. This is exactly the opposite of what Obama and the other fools like yourself said prior to the passage of this mess.
given the fact that you can read and watch the same thing as everyone else and then make up your own conclusion on what was said you'll understand why I need a reference for anything you claim.
Please show me where Krugman says the "death panels" will be call Medical Advisory Panel and that those panels will be the only ones making medical decisions
I'm not saying you're wrong but I'd like to read it or watch it for myself
btw - who makes those decisions now?
Is it you and your doctor or is it your insurance company?
I'm leaving now but I'll check back later
-
Watch the damn clip again. BTW - what the insurance company does or does not do is a straw man argument and irrelevent to ObamaCare sincwe Obama and others who shilled for it said NO ONE WOULD GET BETWEEN A PATIENT AND THE DOCTOR.
-
bet straw hasnt read the healthcare bill. so how can he defend it
-
Imagine that!!!
A death panel, by any other name, still lets the government put old people out to pasture.....JUST as Baby Girl stated MONTHS AGO!!!
Baby girl ? Baby girl??????????????????????? are you serious??? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. That's all I have yo say..... ;D
-
bet straw hasnt read the healthcare bill. so how can he defend it
I have zero doubt about that.
-
Worrying about what the panels are called is stupid. Ignore whatever semantics people put out there and read the bill.... then use some common sense and ask yourself if panels, pink elephants, or whatever people want to call them will save taxpayers money.
-
Maybe its me, but i really think its freaking bullshit to ration care for people who paid taxes their whole lives all to fund health care for democrat deadbeat voters who are parasites of society.
-
Here's the full unedited video in context. Shitty editing to make him sound like he was just telling her to take a pill instead.
-
great clip
I hope everyone on this board watches it in full before they respond
-
great clip
I hope everyone on this board watches it in full before they respond
Oh please, like that clarified anything. on the one hand he says he doesnt want a govt beuracracy making decisions, yet on the other hand there is a medical advisory board who will be making decisions. Dont you see the utter double speak this lying thief engages in?
How anyone can believe a word this POFS says is beyond me.
-
Another one admitting the reality of this horrific bill.
-
Krugman: U.S. Needs Death Panels, Sales Taxes
Breitbart ^ | Joel Griffith
Posted on Tuesday, February 05, 2013 4:47:44 PM by JohnPDuncan
Nobel Prize winning “economist” Paul Krugman spoke at Sixth & I Historic Synagogue in Washington, D.C. last week. During the Q&A session following the lecture, an audience member asked him about the rising national debt.
Earlier in the evening, Krugman had already vocalized his satisfaction at President Obama’s apparent lack of concern over the exploding cumulative deficit. However, in a moment of brutal honesty, the esteemed Princeton professor revealed his long term prognosis. According to the professor:
Eventually we do have a problem. That the population is getting older, health care costs are rising…there is this question of how we’re going to pay for the programs. The year 2025, the year 2030, something is going to have to give…. …. We’re going to need more revenue…Surely it will require some sort of middle class taxes as well.. We won’t be able to pay for the kind of government the society will want without some increase in taxes… on the middle class, maybe a value added tax…And we’re also going to have to make decisions about health care, doc pay for health care that has no demonstrated medical benefits . So the snarky version…which I shouldn’t even say because it will get me in trouble is death panels and sales taxes is how we do this.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
-
Hey 333
Sarah Palin is still wrong and you're still a liar
-
Hey 333
Sarah Palin is still wrong and you're still a liar
So Krugman is lying too?
-
So Krugman is lying too?
nope
just you and Bible Spice
-
Palin was dead right about it and I said so at the time. Krugman now admits it.
240, Nicky, Straw, Lurker, mons, blacken, and the rest of team obama can fuck off with bashing Sarah over this.
By Nicky...I hope you havent mistaken me for an Obama supporter? I fucking despise liberal idiots. If its someone else then sorry.
-
By Nicky...I hope you havent mistaken me for an Obama supporter? I fucking despise liberal idiots. If its someone else then sorry.
How did you get in that post? I ust have been drink or so,ething ;D
-
Once the GOVERNMENT starts making HEALTH CARE decisions you know you are in trouble. How can anyone not grasp this? Just stick their heads in the sand I guess.
(http://momontherange.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Head-in-sand.jpg)
-
Once the GOVERNMENT starts making HEALTH CARE decisions you know you are in trouble. How can anyone not grasp this? Just stick their heads in the sand I guess.
(http://momontherange.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Head-in-sand.jpg)
Yup its much better done at the hands of private insurance corp who's goal is to get max profit NOT to keep you healthy ::)
-
Yup its much better done at the hands of private insurance corp who's goal is to get max profit NOT to keep you healthy ::)
That I what thugcare does.
-
That I what thugcare does.
Thats the system.
-
Insurance gives you WHAT YOU PAYED FOR, what is in the contract. Sounds like you have never even had private insurance... You are confusing health insurance with GOVT CARE. With govt you get what you get, take it or leave it.
Yup its much better done at the hands of private insurance corp who's goal is to get max profit NOT to keep you healthy ::)
-
Insurance gives you WHAT YOU PAYED FOR, what is in the contract. Sounds like you have never even had private insurance... You are confusing health insurance with GOVT CARE. With govt you get what you get, take it or leave it.
Yep you get only whats in the contract.
So lets hope you are covered.
-
Yep you get only whats in the contract.
So lets hope you are covered.
There is no "lets hope" - you just read the contract first. If you have good private health cover it will give you a lot more than any public scheme ever will.
I find it interesting that you are anti private health insurance, when you have obviously never had it.
-
There is no "lets hope" - you just read the contract first. If you have good private health cover it will give you a lot more than any public scheme ever will.
I find it interesting that you are anti private health insurance, when you have obviously never had it.
Im not anti anything if it works.
-
There is no "lets hope" - you just read the contract first. If you have good private health cover it will give you a lot more than any public scheme ever will.
I find it interesting that you are anti private health insurance, when you have obviously never had it.
Have you ever had private health coverage?? Claim denials happen all the time and one of the biggest parts of "Obamacare" was making the appeals process more transparent and consumer-friendly. Insurers drop customers or roll back coverage of customers all the time if they are deemed potentially too expensive. Some insurers deny customers first claim almost as a matter of course. I can't speak for whork's position, but if he's making the argument that the big insurance is already rife with every single problem the right is screeching about, then he's right.
-
Have you ever had private health coverage?? Claim denials happen all the time and one of the biggest parts of "Obamacare" was making the appeals process more transparent and consumer-friendly. Insurers drop customers or roll back coverage of customers all the time if they are deemed potentially too expensive. Some insurers deny customers first claim almost as a matter of course. I can't speak for whork's position, but if he's making the argument that the big insurance is already rife with every single problem the right is screeching about, then he's right.
Who gives a shit now since millions wont have any isurance at all and just be paying the Fine cough cough cough I meant tax?
-
Who gives a shit now since millions wont have any isurance at all and just be paying the Fine cough cough cough I meant tax?
You do.