Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
December 19, 2014, 05:29:22 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Sarah Palin was right! Krugman admits there are "death panels" in HCR Bill  (Read 3236 times)
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 25616


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #25 on: March 30, 2010, 01:59:36 PM »

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.  
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 25616


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #26 on: March 30, 2010, 02:04:38 PM »

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
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10344


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #27 on: March 30, 2010, 02:09:19 PM »

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.    

 
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 25616


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #28 on: March 30, 2010, 02:17:10 PM »

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?
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10344


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #29 on: March 30, 2010, 02:19:26 PM »

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'Ítre.

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.  
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10344


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #30 on: March 30, 2010, 02:22:24 PM »

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. 
Report to moderator   Logged
drkaje
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 14349


Quiet, Err. I'm transmitting rage.


WWW
« Reply #31 on: March 30, 2010, 02:23:21 PM »

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?
Report to moderator   Logged

Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10344


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #32 on: March 30, 2010, 02:26:46 PM »

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.     
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 25616


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #33 on: March 30, 2010, 02:30:16 PM »

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
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10344


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #34 on: March 30, 2010, 02:43:46 PM »

Who determines what is "legitimate"?  You and the doctor or the govt? 
Report to moderator   Logged
Tito24
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20649

I'm a large man but.. one with a plan


« Reply #35 on: March 30, 2010, 02:55:34 PM »

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?
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10344


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #36 on: March 30, 2010, 02:58:11 PM »

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. 
Report to moderator   Logged
kcballer
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 4598


In you I feel so pretty, In you I taste God


« Reply #37 on: March 30, 2010, 03:07:16 PM »

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?
Report to moderator   Logged

Abandon every hope...
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 25616


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #38 on: March 30, 2010, 03:08:12 PM »

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..)
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10344


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #39 on: March 30, 2010, 03:10:03 PM »

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? 

Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 25616


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #40 on: March 30, 2010, 03:20:58 PM »


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?
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 25616


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #41 on: March 30, 2010, 03:26:50 PM »


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
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10344


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #42 on: March 30, 2010, 03:31:19 PM »

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?       
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 25616


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #43 on: March 30, 2010, 03:35:16 PM »

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
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10344


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #44 on: March 30, 2010, 03:39:20 PM »

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% 
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10344


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #45 on: March 30, 2010, 03:43:58 PM »

Straw:  Check this out:

http://insurance.lawyers.com/Insurance-Bad-Faith-Claims-FAQs.html

Report to moderator   Logged
Skip8282
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6484



« Reply #46 on: March 30, 2010, 03:45:51 PM »

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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 25616


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #47 on: March 30, 2010, 07:17:46 PM »


I'll forward this to my friend.

Thanks
Report to moderator   Logged
24KT
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Female
Posts: 24462


Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244


WWW
« Reply #48 on: April 01, 2010, 12:21:16 PM »


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"
Report to moderator   Logged

w
24KT
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Female
Posts: 24462


Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244


WWW
« Reply #49 on: April 01, 2010, 12:25:49 PM »

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.
Report to moderator   Logged

w
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!