View Full Version : Texas Has Death Panel and Its In Use
The Judge
09-23-2009, 10:12 AM
Signed into law by Republican George W. Bush when he was Governor, its called the Advance Directives Act. read on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance_Directives_Act, http://www.jimhightower.com/node/6934
Where is the outrage? Here is a real "Death Panel " signed into law by a Republican not an imaginary one thats seen in health care reform.
Two things -
It is not the government making the decision, it is medical people.
Granny was not denied the "plug" in the first place.
Far cry form telling an old person to go home and take a pain killer instead of a VIABLE procedure that could do medical good.
Apples and oranges here, Judge......not the same thing at all.
The Judge
09-23-2009, 10:56 AM
What are you comparing it to one exits and the other doesn't. One is a death panel run by doctors that exists and the other is imaginary.
But by your statement I can only assume that a Doctor run death panel is O.K while and imaginary one isn't.
Read my post - you are NOT comparing the same thing.
Under Obama's plan, granny never would have been put on the machine, she would be denied surgery.
What you describe is a medical decision made by medical professionals, after treatment options have been exhausted, not before they were tried.
One is telling you that there is nothing else they CAN do, the other is telling you there is nothing else they WILL do.
The Judge
09-23-2009, 11:20 AM
I read your post and you are setting up invalid arguments its not about what treatment may or may not be given its about real day to day functioning death panels that already exist in Texas.
You say Granny would have been denied surgery under health care reform I say she would received it even if she had no insurance under health care reform. That's been argued into the ground on other threads.
Here the question is a "death panel" that is up and running instituted by a Republican governor. Is this O.K with you, let each state decide, O.K if doctors are involve or what.
It all seems a bit hypocritical to me.
46zilzal
09-23-2009, 11:23 AM
The insurers of today, in order to keep their profits UP, HAVE to deny a substantial number of claims and DO according to Dr. Linda Peeno who worked for Humana for years and now exposes the sham for what it is: GREED.
boxcar
09-23-2009, 11:32 AM
The insurers of today, in order to keep their profits UP, HAVE to deny a substantial number of claims...
As will the state-run plan tomorrow in order to keep their costs DOWN.
Got it now?
Boxcar
GameTheory
09-23-2009, 11:45 AM
The law you are referring to was enacted to give patients MORE rights, not less, and concerns treatment that ISN'T WORKING and is a waste of resources. Who determines what is and isn't working are medical people and the hospital, not the government. And then they just transfer those resources to another patient who has a chance at recovery -- it is not about saving money. The law forces the hospital to give the patient and family notice (among other things) -- notice which was not previously required -- before withdrawing treatment and takes the money issue off the table (rich and poor are treated the same).
Has nothing to do with so called "death panels", fictional or not, as Tom points out would deny VIABLE treatment to people that can be saved, whereas the Texas law situation is about stopping treatments that aren't working/won't work in order to free up a bed for someone that can hopefully be viably treated.
The Judge
09-23-2009, 12:08 PM
More rights or you kidding YOU and YOUR family say continue treatment and the doctors meet and say no YOU LOSE. I read the article before I posted it, what you can't get around is the fact that a panel of doctors can decide who is to die and who is to continue too live, by deciding who will continue to receive treatment and who will not. Its great that the family gets notice, of course I never thought that receiving notice that you or your love one is about to die was what it was all about.
Oh and good luck getting a lawyer to take the case if you are a working stiff with living on a working mans salary.
Silly me I thought the whole idea of death panels was so horrid as to be unthinkable now I see its O.K as long as its Republican in nature, gives notice and has doctors making the decision.
Having a little trouble with your statement " its takes the money issue off the table" then in the next breath you say "its frees up a bed for someone that treatment may work on". It seem that the money issue is still very much "on the table" . As a matter of fact it puts another issue "on the table" and thats whose in the bed. Is it little Johnny Average or little Johnny My Dads a Big In Oil.
GameTheory
09-23-2009, 12:36 PM
More rights or you kidding YOU and YOUR family say continue treatment and the doctors meet and say no YOU LOSE.The law in question gives the patient more rights than they had previously. That's just a fact, not an opinion.
I read the article before I posted it, what you can't get around is the fact that a panel of doctors can decide who is to die and who is to continue too live, by deciding who will continue to receive treatment and who will not.And I looked up the law to see what it was about before posting. It is not about deciding who will live and who will die -- it is about stopping treatment that ISN'T WORKING -- that is not having an effect -- for people who are going to die anyway. No one is being denied viable treatment (in theory), only wasteful treatment that could be helping someone else. The law you cite makes sure those patients that are to have their treatment withdrawn must be given rigorous due process or the hospital with face liability. You wanted to blame Bush and Republicans for setting up a death panel when they in fact created a law to IMPROVE the situation for the dying patient, allowing them time to get into a hospice, etc. Sorry, your gambit failed -- get all the facts next time.
Silly me I thought the whole idea of death panels was so horrid as to be unthinkable now I see its O.K as long as its Republican in nature, gives notice and has doctors making the decision.Again, this has zero to due with death panels, and yes doctors and medical people making decisions rather than a government accountant is a huge difference. Beyond huge. Are doctors and hospitals all perfect angels always acting in your best interest? Hardly. But they will seem that way compared to what will happen if these decisions are ever in the government's sole discretion.
Having a little trouble with your statement " its takes the money issue off the table" then in the next breath you say "its frees up a bed for someone that treatment may work on". It seem that the money issue is still very much "on the table" . As a matter of fact it puts another issue "on the table" and thats whose in the bed. Is it little Johnny Average or little Johnny My Dads a Big In Oil.Again, go see what it actually in the law. It gives the poor the same rights as the rich. It is not "my statement" or opinion -- it a fact written into the law. My point in bringing it up was that it isn't like they are just kicking out people for the hell of it -- they want to use the resources where they can do some good, not on a patient where they aren't helping.
Now, are in interested in facts or just bashing Republicans?
Warren Henry
09-23-2009, 12:41 PM
There is a significant difference between telling a senior that they can't have a hip replacement because of their age and telling the family that your child will die (either this week without the intervention or next month if we continue treatment).
The bill signed by then Governor Bush improved the situation for the patients relative to what was in place before the bill.
If Obama style health care is enacted, you will have BOTH the Texas style ethics panel where there is a mechanism to discontinue FUTILE care and the OBAMA style panel which will deny helpful care because you no longer "contribute".
Why can't you libs understand that denial of care for non contributors will kill more of your disadvantaged folks than it will the folks from our side. Or do you realize this and plan to use this for future class warfare venom?
46zilzal
09-23-2009, 12:45 PM
Death is not the black and white it once was. I was on radiology one Friday afternoon just about to go home and one of the attendings grabbed me to help him monitor blood pressure on a patient undergoing an intravenous pyleogram (testing blood flow to the kidneys). A young, almost Adonis looking 19 year male was rolled in on a respirator. I took the pulse and BP and commented that it was awfully low for a healthy young person.
"Well that's because he is dead," was the response of the attending. "has been since Wednesday and we are harvesting the kidneys this evening."
Have the next of kin look at this situation and in the emotional firestorm of the moment, telling them the truth about this fellow would NOT be accepted too readily, however accurate that truth. With the number of machines now that can keep organs perfused, the line of living and the dead is becoming blurred to those outside of the medical community.
The rational physician is honest from day one not giving false hope to a bad situation. It is objective and emotionless as it can be.
The first time I pronounced someone dead, it was very difficult to talk to the family.
Judge, you really need to step up your game. When you degenerate into name calling and switching topics as soon as you are proven wrong, like your ridiculous johnny-oil-man comment, it makes you look foolish.
Time to stop wasting time on your closed mind. Buh bye.
So you harvested the organs of a LIVE person?
YOU agree with a doctor making a call like that on his own?
Wow. And I though Mengele was bad!
This part of that great Canadian health care?
GameTheory
09-23-2009, 01:01 PM
Don't let this happen to your transplant:
WzPDEirVTZk
46zilzal
09-23-2009, 01:05 PM
So you harvested the organs of a LIVE person?
FLAT brainwaves follow the Harvard criteria for death
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_death
The Judge
09-23-2009, 01:07 PM
Texas has a death panel composed of doctors. There is no way around it, if the doctors on the panel say no treatment for you, then no treatment for you and they expect you to die when treatment is stopped. It makes no difference what your living will says about giving or withholding treatment, it makes no difference what your family requests are. Treatment is stopping in Texas after the panel meets and make that decision. Unless you can and your lawyer can reverse it, you do have a lawyer don't you?
Tom, you need to stop the name calling and switching topics, you need to step up your game.
LottaKash
09-23-2009, 01:12 PM
(rich and poor are treated the same).
.
Do you really believe that ?......:D
best,
DJofSD
09-23-2009, 01:17 PM
Signed into law by Republican George W. Bush when he was Governor, its called the Advance Directives Act. read on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance_Directives_Act, http://www.jimhightower.com/node/6934
Where is the outrage? Here is a real "Death Panel " signed into law by a Republican not an imaginary one thats seen in health care reform.
Wow, yet another good reason not to move to Texas!
GameTheory
09-23-2009, 01:23 PM
Texas has a death panel composed of doctors. There is no way around it, if the doctors on the panel say no treatment for you, then no treatment for you and they expect you to die when treatment is stopped.The way around it is that it is not true, and you are making it up, despite being shown otherwise. Oh wait, you read it in an article, case closed.
46zilzal
09-23-2009, 01:25 PM
Wow, yet another good reason not to move to Texas!
It is akin to another country.....Couldn't get out of there fast enough in 1971.
Had to laugh when a few of the fellows in my class in San Francisco, FROM Texas, told me that the valves of Houston (in the rectum) were named after someone had lived in their state.
The law you are referring to was enacted to give patients MORE rights, not less, and concerns treatment that ISN'T WORKING and is a waste of resources. Who determines what is and isn't working are medical people and the hospital, not the government. And then they just transfer those resources to another patient who has a chance at recovery -- it is not about saving money. The law forces the hospital to give the patient and family notice (among other things) -- notice which was not previously required -- before withdrawing treatment and takes the money issue off the table (rich and poor are treated the same).
Has nothing to do with so called "death panels", fictional or not, as Tom points out would deny VIABLE treatment to people that can be saved, whereas the Texas law situation is about stopping treatments that aren't working/won't work in order to free up a bed for someone that can hopefully be viably treated.
"is about stopping treatments that aren't working/won't work in order to free up a bed for someone"
Dance all you want, that's exactly the situation that many on here and in the country have been fussing over.
It doesn't take 10 paragraphs, it's really simple when the truth is in front of you.
When is the treatment "not working"??? Who decides when that point has been reached? What is the "treatment" in the first place???
6 months out 3 months out 2 weeks out?
No allowance for "miracles"??? None?
If it's decided that a fetus is not viable without resources that could be better used on another is that abortion ok??
When, 2 weeks out - 3 months out 6 month out???
Do you really believe that ?......:D
best,
I would guess not but to be PC on here , weird things get posted!
GameTheory
09-23-2009, 01:29 PM
Do you really believe that ?......:D
best,Not necessarily -- I have no way of knowing what actually happens in practice. I'm just telling you what the law says -- the law which was the basis of the original criticism in this thread. Basically it has to due with the transition period to a new facility -- that can't just kick you out, etc.
Go read what the law says, people -- the Judge provided a link in the opening thread to a Wikipedia page that contradicts all his own arguments. I'm just repeating the stuff he linked to.
Not necessarily -- I have no way of knowing what actually happens in practice. I'm just telling you what the law says -- the law which was the basis of the original criticism in this thread. Basically it has to due with the transition period to a new facility -- that can't just kick you out, etc.
Go read what the law says, people -- the Judge provided a link in the opening thread to a Wikipedia page that contradicts all his own arguments. I'm just repeating the stuff he linked to.
"is about stopping treatments that aren't working/won't work in order to free up a bed for someone"
from your own words-maybe you should read them again.
Your understanding as expressed makes judge's point, exactly.
Bcar and others have railed against this for months in post after post.
GameTheory
09-23-2009, 01:45 PM
"is about stopping treatments that aren't working/won't work in order to free up a bed for someone"
Dance all you want, that's exactly the situation that many on here and in the country have been fussing over.Who's dancing? I'm not even taking a position, just stating facts. Judge keeps insisting this is a "death panel" as has been theorized will be enacted under a government-run Obama system. It is nothing of the sort, and that's fact. Whatever it is they have down in Texas, you may or may not approve of, but it is totally different in nature than a so-called "death panel". And about that, you think Texas is the only place with scarce resources for dying patients? There is some system or another EVERYWHERE ELSE as well. The law we're talking about just clarifies the rules in place in the state of Texas, and were in fact an *improvement* over the previous system in terms of patient rights, etc.
It really takes someone to "dance" in order to equate improving the patient's rights with creation of a death panel.
When is the treatment "not working"??? Who decides when that point has been reached? What is the "treatment" in the first place???
6 months out 3 months out 2 weeks out?
No allowance for "miracles"??? None?
If it's decided that a fetus is not viable without resources that could be better used on another is that abortion ok??
When, 2 weeks out - 3 months out 6 month out???Life and death is tough. Tough decisions to be made by someone. Scarce resources, life is unfair, people get screwed, any system will be flawed. What is your point? What is your answer? Should these decisions be made by doctors (possibly with greed in mind), by patients (which means no choice for the poor), the government (which means long waits & real death panels), by lottery (which means wasted resources), what?
DJofSD
09-23-2009, 01:46 PM
It is akin to another country.....Couldn't get out of there fast enough in 1971.
Had to laugh when a few of the fellows in my class in San Francisco, FROM Texas, told me that the valves of Houston (in the rectum) were named after someone had lived in their state.
I've been to Houston once. That was enough.
46zilzal
09-23-2009, 01:48 PM
I've been to Houston once. That was enough.
on Buffalo Bayou where the streets sink regularly.
GameTheory
09-23-2009, 01:58 PM
"is about stopping treatments that aren't working/won't work in order to free up a bed for someone"
from your own words-maybe you should read them again.
Your understanding as expressed makes judge's point, exactly.
Bcar and others have railed against this for months in post after post.I know what I said, and again it is just stating what is in the law. I'm not giving an opinion. That is the intention of the law -- to determine the rules whereby wasted resources can be transferred to somewhere they can do some good, and to do so fairly.
What do I care about what Boxcar rails about? Boxcar is a fanatic that rails about all sorts of things. So is 46. World's full of 'em.
The more general point is that you guys keep ignoring the distinction between someone who can be saved and someone who can't. Under an Obama-type system, people (me included) are worried that even those that the doctors AGREE ARE TREATABLE AND CAN BE SAVED will be denied treatment for a non-medical reason (they are too old or whatever).
That is completely different from treating someone just for the hell of it when it is accomplishing nothing and not prolonging their life. When someone comes in the ER and their heart stops beating, they give CPR, they zap 'em with the paddles, but if they don't respond they eventually give up and declare them dead, right? (Why aren't they accounting for "miracles"?) It is a MEDICAL decision. It is a tough decision, it may be the wrong decision, but it is nothing like having the government decide you just aren't worth the trouble.
FLAT brainwaves follow the Harvard criteria for death
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_death
People go to jail for the legal criteria.
I suspect you guys broke the law.
Who gives you the right to make that call?
46zilzal
09-23-2009, 02:23 PM
People go to jail for the legal criteria.
I suspect you guys broke the law.
Who gives you the right to make that call?
Hofsteader was indeed correct, as was Jacoby and many other authors
Right about making decision you have right to make?
Are these some of those smart people at the helm?
Sound like nazis to me. Act like them,too.
You discredit your profession and my species.
boxcar
09-23-2009, 02:54 PM
Right about making decision you have right to make?
Are these some of those smart people at the helm?
Sound like nazis to me. Act like them,too.
You discredit your profession and my species.
He's even an insult to the canine community.
Boxcar
The Judge
09-23-2009, 05:09 PM
Maybe in the other 49 States its still a tough decision as what to do . In Texas the decision is turned over to a panel of Doctors and they decide one can only hope that its still difficult.
Now we see what matters is the composition of the panel, a panel of Doctors is O.K. What about a panel of hospital administrators,a panel of Government Agents, a insurance panel (wait! they already have a death panel), a panel clergy, or a panel of loving mothers and grandmothers.
46zilzal
09-23-2009, 05:51 PM
Both Oregon and Washington have the humane point of view of euthanasia for those who qualify under strict guidelines. You wouldn't believe the number of requests doctors get from the elderly in the painful throes of the slow incremental steps to their death, pleading for some help. It is really awful. It keeps you up at night hearing those pleas.
What we would gladly do to help out in an old pet's end point, we are not allowed to do in the case of people? NUTS
GameTheory
09-23-2009, 05:54 PM
Maybe in the other 49 States its still a tough decision as what to do . In Texas the decision is turned over to a panel of Doctors and they decide one can only hope that its still difficult.
Now we see what matters is the composition of the panel, a panel of Doctors is O.K. What about a panel of hospital administrators,a panel of Government Agents, a insurance panel (wait! they already have a death panel), a panel clergy, or a panel of loving mothers and grandmothers.Ok, so you don't approve of the law in Texas. Good for you. And we've established that it has nothing to do with the Obamacare debate, except in the general sense (i.e. it is a health care debate).
Nevertheless, since this entire concept in any form is so offensive to you, I can only assume you are REALLY against these Obama proposals which would inevitability lead to panels and committees determining the fate of more and more people -- these panels that you are so opposed to? So your argument is really that all these conservatives trying to defeat Obamacare are exactly correct, but just that George Bush goofed up by signing this one bill years ago in Texas, eh?
chickenhead
09-23-2009, 06:12 PM
Under an Obama-type system, people (me included) are worried that even those that the doctors AGREE ARE TREATABLE AND CAN BE SAVED will be denied treatment for a non-medical reason (they are too old or whatever).
Don't you mean fear that people that can't pay for themselves, will be denied government funding for treatment? Most all old people are on Medicare (a government run system) currently, they already don't get to decide. I have never been aware of the government making it illegal for a doctor to provide treatment to a paying customer however, except when it specifically hurts the patient.
Are any proposed Medicare provisions harder on old people than no Medicare would be?
GameTheory
09-23-2009, 06:38 PM
Don't you mean fear that people that can't pay for themselves, will be denied government funding for treatment?No. I mean the fear that treatment will simply not be available to them regardless of their ability to pay, period. Within our borders, anyway. Recently in Canada it took a court case for people to be granted the right to pay for their own treatment. The people that want a single-payer system actually do want to outlaw private treatment. They are quite clear about that. And if the system is overloaded, the ability to pay is not necessarily the determinant of who gets what treatment, but rather who is worth saving (or prolonging) according to some committee whose criteria might be age, but may well be something else.
chickenhead
09-23-2009, 06:54 PM
No. I mean the fear that treatment will simply not be available to them regardless of their ability to pay, period. Within our borders, anyway. Recently in Canada it took a court case for people to be granted the right to pay for their own treatment. The people that want a single-payer system actually do want to outlaw private treatment. They are quite clear about that. And if the system is overloaded, the ability to pay is not necessarily the determinant of who gets what treatment, but rather who is worth saving (or prolonging) according to some committee whose criteria might be age, but may well be something else.
Well I guess my point is Medicare is single payer -- granny has been under single payer for decades now, and she hasn't been put in the wood chipper just yet. And she can still get a boob job at 95 if she wants.
I was asking more if you believed that Obama has endorsed a bill that includes the outlawing of private treatment, apparently many do, I've just never seen it or heard it -- but 100% of the discussion seems to take that as a given for it make any sense. And while some who favor single payer might be quite clear about no private treatment -- I don't think its accurate to describe it quite that way.
I found it interesting that the quotes relating to "Dr. Death" Rahm Emmanuels brother that everyone found so frightening, within the context of the articles they were taken from (at least the ones I read), were specifically pertaining to the need to limit public coverage in order to, wait for it -- allow for the continued existence of private coverage, as well as to keep the public costs down. Of course if you eliminate that context, and assume private coverage and treatment would be outlawed instead - you'd get a very different take away.
GameTheory
09-23-2009, 07:47 PM
Well I guess my point is Medicare is single payer -- granny has been under single payer for decades now, and she hasn't been put in the wood chipper just yet.Not yet. But it is still an option, not a mandate. And many doctors don't take Medicare patients, because they lose money on them, or just treat them for free because it is less hassle and they can give them better care that way.
I was asking more if you believed that Obama has endorsed a bill that includes the outlawing of private treatment, apparently many do, I've just never seen it or heard it -- but 100% of the discussion seems to take that as a given for it make any sense.Again, not yet. But it is certainly a step in that direction, and there ARE members of the current congress that are pushing for that and many liberal groups pushing for the same.
And while some who favor single payer might be quite clear about no private treatment -- I don't think its accurate to describe it quite that way.To those that do, any overhaul involving a public option is merely a first step -- a successful step if achieved. Any government plan is undesirable to me and a step in the wrong direction. It is not necessary to go there to be opposed to the government plan, but I'm not going to pretend that's not what they ultimately want either since they aren't even trying to hide it. I don't think this debate, or any of the proposed legislation (in any form so far proposed) has much to do with health care at all. It is about power, and health care is the arena of battle.
chickenhead
09-23-2009, 08:06 PM
Any government plan is undesirable to me and a step in the wrong direction.
Including Medicare itself, correct?
It is not necessary to go there to be opposed to the government plan, but I'm not going to pretend that's not what they ultimately want either since they aren't even trying to hide it. I don't think this debate, or any of the proposed legislation (in any form so far proposed) has much to do with health care at all. It is about power, and health care is the arena of battle.
I agree it's not required to believe that to be opposed to this plan, or any plan, but I also think that particular fear is far from the most useful -- its just the easiest and the scariest and the most politically potent. But it dominates the debate, I'm not even sure dominate is a strong enough word.
Personally I think its quite easy to do the universal coverage part without doing either single payer or screwing up health care, but I also don't have the first clue about what the policy needs to be to really bring costs down -- which is the fundamental problem that needs to get addressed one way or the other, at some point. At it's root I think there are some very tough decisions that need to get made, regardless of what anyone wants. Tax dollars are scarce resources.
If any future Medicare reform is going to be met with the same scare tactics (my opinion) about grannies getting turned into dogfood, we are doomed anyway, and realistically, I believe they will be. That doesn't put me in favor of this plan or any other plan, of course. But if the Democrats can't cut Medicare costs, the Republicans certainly won't be able to either. Because while you may make the correct distinction about the difference between private treatment and public coverage -- I really do not, based on a whole bunch of conversations, think most people really do -- conservative and liberal alike.
GameTheory
09-23-2009, 08:15 PM
The other thing that needs to be mentioned is that private insurance doesn't need to be outlawed for it to (essentially) go away -- just the existence of a government plan is going to instantly cause oodles of employers to drop their current plans and tell their employees to go get that "free" government plan. Right? Which is the first step. You can't have a market and not have a market at the same time by having one of the options not have to compete by the same rules.
EVERYBODY favors health care reform. Like I said, I don't think the current debate is even about health care -- it about grabbing as much power as possible while it is possible to grab it.
GameTheory
09-23-2009, 08:32 PM
Including Medicare itself, correct?Yes. Medicare is unsustainable and will bankrupt us by itself, and an expansion of it to everyone one will prove it, only quicker.
I agree it's not required to believe that to be opposed to this plan, or any plan, but I also think that particular fear is far from the most useful -- its just the easiest and the scariest and the most politically potent. But it dominates the debate, I'm not even sure dominate is a strong enough word.I actually think the wrong proposal at the wrong time, if enacted, could utterly destroy the country. I don't think people are scared enough. People on the pro-side have a (deliberately in many cases) myopic view that puts all the arguments in a very limited context that doesn't consider their true, extremely wide-reaching effects. In my view we are chipping away at the foundations of our economy, our freedom, and our sustainability in far too casual a way. I repeat, I don't this is about health care at all.
chickenhead
09-23-2009, 08:39 PM
The other thing that needs to be mentioned is that private insurance doesn't need to be outlawed for it to (essentially) go away -- just the existence of a government plan is going to instantly cause oodles of employers to drop their current plans and tell their employees to go get that "free" government plan. Right? Which is the first step. You can't have a market and not have a market at the same time by having one of the options not have to compete by the same rules.
Well that's why you'd have to be certain to limit the scope of the public plan. Which while you may be correct that "their" intentions may not be at all to limit it's scope -- my only point is that the line of argument from the right, in my opinion, as it is put forth by most people -- is specifically arguing against limiting it's scope.
All the complaints are about how the public plan wouldn't be good enough. Not being good enough would be my entire goal if I had to create a public plan -- that is the only thing that allows for private plans to exist, as you correctly point out. The public plan should be something nobody wants to be on -- so they (or their employer, to keep them) will buy private insurance as a result.
I get it that people don't want a public plan, it's just people arguing both those things at the same time makes my head hurt, because they're contradictory, barring some other law that as of yet doesn't exist. A shitty public plan is what makes private insurance remain viable. A really good, cadillac public plan is what kills private health care.
GameTheory
09-23-2009, 08:51 PM
I get it that people don't want a public plan, it's just people arguing both those things at the same time makes my head hurt, because they're contradictory, barring some other law that as of yet doesn't exist. A shitty public plan is what makes private insurance remain viable. A really good, cadillac public plan is what kills private health care.It doesn't have to be a good plan -- it only has to be available. Then employers will drop their private plans that they have to pay for because the other one is "free". Then what happens? The private insurers have lost all those people in the risk pool and become more restrictive. Prices go up. More people drop out. Before you know, the private insurers are out of business or only affordable for the rich (the actually rich, not what the left calls the rich).
And oh yeah, come to think of it, there WAS a provision in the first main bill proposed -- the line that said no new private sign-ups after the first year the bill was enacted. In other words, if you need to drop your current insurance for any reason, you must go to the public option. Being insured for the first time? Public option, no choice. That would put private insurance out of business in a decade. Is that still in the current bills?
riskman
09-23-2009, 09:20 PM
Lots of questions answered:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/aug/13/heath-care-fact-checks-greatest-hits-vol-1/
chickenhead
09-23-2009, 09:48 PM
It doesn't have to be a good plan -- it only has to be available. Then employers will drop their private plans that they have to pay for because the other one is "free". Then what happens? The private insurers have lost all those people in the risk pool and become more restrictive. Prices go up. More people drop out. Before you know, the private insurers are out of business or only affordable for the rich (the actually rich, not what the left calls the rich).
Says who? I propose my own public option -- Civil War Battlefield Surgery and Chinese Herbal Supplements for everyone. If you get sick, a civil war era doctor with a crosscut saw, and a chinese guy with some ginseng come to your house -- and they try to make you better. Or you or your employer can purchase private insurance.
There are actually places in the world that do have public options available to everyone, and mandated insurance -- and still have very heavily used private insurance -- Switzerland for one. You can design a policy that does anything. Deciding what "we" want is the issue, not fear of what some minority somewhere else may want. I'm sure you can find plenty of greens that would like to ban the use of private autos and make everyone use public transport -- but that isn't the central discussion when trying to figure out traffic issues. The central issue is what do we actually want.
Warren Henry
09-24-2009, 12:23 AM
You can design a policy that does anything. Deciding what "we" want is the issue, not fear of what some minority somewhere else may want. The central issue is what do we actually want.
But, therein lies the problem. WE aren't getting to choose. The powers that be are deciding for us whether or not we like it.
Expansion of government into more and more aspects of our private lives is undermining what made this country great. Limited government is what WE need.
ezrabrooks
09-24-2009, 05:34 AM
Says who? I propose my own public option -- Civil War Battlefield Surgery and Chinese Herbal Supplements for everyone. If you get sick, a civil war era doctor with a crosscut saw, and a chinese guy with some ginseng come to your house -- and they try to make you better. Or you or your employer can purchase private insurance.
There are actually places in the world that do have public options available to everyone, and mandated insurance -- and still have very heavily used private insurance -- Switzerland for one. You can design a policy that does anything. Deciding what "we" want is the issue, not fear of what some minority somewhere else may want. I'm sure you can find plenty of greens that would like to ban the use of private autos and make everyone use public transport -- but that isn't the central discussion when trying to figure out traffic issues. The central issue is what do we actually want.
Switzerland? That's nearly apples and oranges, with their 7 million population
chickenhead
09-24-2009, 11:24 AM
But, therein lies the problem. WE aren't getting to choose. The powers that be are deciding for us whether or not we like it.
Expansion of government into more and more aspects of our private lives is undermining what made this country great. Limited government is what WE need.
I'm not opposed to that at all Warren. Look, we have Medicare run health care for seniors. We have Medicaid run health care for poor people. And we have everyone in between with a kind of weird system where we get what our employers want, in general. And the costs for all 3 of those groups are going up very quickly.
I'd be quite happy to get the government out of health care, that is ideologically to my liking. What I'm missing are any proposals whatsoever on how to do it. What do we replace Medicare with? What do we replace Medicaid with?
Both Oregon and Washington have the humane point of view of euthanasia for those who qualify under strict guidelines. You wouldn't believe the number of requests doctors get from the elderly in the painful throes of the slow incremental steps to their death, pleading for some help. It is really awful. It keeps you up at night hearing those pleas.
What we would gladly do to help out in an old pet's end point, we are not allowed to do in the case of people? NUTS
I agree 100% that the decision to check out is up to the individual. But doctors making that choice without telling the family is murder.
Well I guess my point is Medicare is single payer -- granny has been under single payer for decades now, and she hasn't been put in the wood chipper just yet. And she can still get a boob job at 95 if she wants.
He has alluded to it. He told that woman whose mother just had some surgery - I forget what - that it might be that she would have to forget that and go take a pain pill. It was surgery to improve her quality of life, at like 92?
But read what his czars have said on the record. The people he is surrounding himself with and meeting with more than his cabinet are monsters! If those who are spending all the time ridiculing Beck would listen to the actual quotes of Obama's close advisers, they would sober up in a hurry. Killing off 20% of the population was bandied about by their mentors, and OBama is planning on raping Medicare for billions.
These are the dots the need to be connected. Remember the left telling us all how Bush did not do this? We have dangerous, sick minds close to the president.
When asked why not allow us to buy insurance from any state to increase competition, it was quickly dismissed by the administration, even though it would cut costs immediately. Chick, the goal is NOT improved health care or coverage. HC is the vehicle for their agenda, not a goal. You have to stop believing that the government represents us or wants to help us. It does not.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.