It's not true that insurance companies can deny you coverage?
You are an absolute, unmitigated dope.
Obamacare Edicts- include "death panels"
- Thread starter icedancer2theend
- Start date
It's not true that insurance companies can deny you coverage?
You are an absolute, unmitigated dope.
Bfgrn
New member
bfgrn- apologist in chief jumps into thread with dead link
Reagan did not pass a bill forcing people into a health care system... Obama did. Can you try to take your head out of the collective democrat ass and take a breath of air for a change?
Obama and the Democrats did NOT force anyone into a health care 'system'. The 'system' is the same 'system' that existed before Obama took office.
Are you really THAT stupid?
BTW, here is the title of the article. It did not ask me for a log in.
U.S. Task Force Leads the Way on Prevention Recommendations: Basing Public Health Decisions on Science
Last edited:
icedancer2theend
Verified User
No, you are the apologist airing your stupidity- Obamacare was not the system in place prior to his taking office...
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
It's like a freaking Chinese Resturant.
I'll take 1 from column A and two from column C
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
It's obvious your wife has overcome her gag reflex, or else she wouldn't be able to look at you.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
nice vulgarities you fucking whiny hypocrite
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
on some level? it is true....but you just have to mince words
Bfgrn
New member
REALLY? Did Obama hire his own doctors? Did Obama build his own hospitals?? Did Obama start his own insurance company???
What we got from Obama and the Democrats was the 'free market' solution. NO single payer, NO public option. As a matter of FACT, the bill Obama signed is almost identical to the bill Republicans proposed in 1993. Including the BIG Republican idea: THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE
icedancer2theend
Verified User
This is patently stupid- Did Obama sign a health care bill that is now the law, in which were created panels to deny coverage? YES
You and other Obama apologists desire to ignore the foundation of this argument- namely Obama has set up a system that will be denying coverage based on type of illness and age of patients is EXACTLY what Palin accused him of. This is what you and others derided her for as being lies.
Bfgrn
New member
Absolutely NOT. Palin LIED.
2009 Lie of the Year: 'Death panels'
2010 Lie of the Year: 'A government takeover of health care'
christiefan915
Catalyst
Absolutely NOT. Palin LIED.
2009 Lie of the Year: 'Death panels'
2010 Lie of the Year: 'A government takeover of health care'
How quickly they forget...
icedancer2theend
Verified User
Just because other Obama apologists claimed what Palin said was a lie does not make it so...especially in light of the original OP inb this thread mr obamabot apologist.
Bfgrn
New member
I always thought you were just a right wing hack. I was wrong. You are just dumber than dogshit.
What Palin called 'death panels' is actually what is called advanced directives.
It’s hard to imagine how a compassionate, family-friendly measure — a measure that ultimately respects individual rights — could be twisted so grossly into the erroneous phrase “death panels.”
But, prepare yourself for more lies and more nonsense, because President Barack Obama has decided to do the right thing — and his critics already have resorted to fear-mongering and name-calling.
The concept of advanced directives was pioneered in La Crosse, thanks to our two first-class health care institutions.
It’s a simple concept: An individual, with the help of family, should have the ultimate say in the type of end-of-life care the individual receives. The best way to do that is through a careful consultation, with family and physician, before there is a health crisis — while the individual is still capable of having a rational voice in the decision.
Too often, those decisions are made when it’s too late for the individual to make the decisions. Instead, grieving family members are left to make the decision — and at times it’s nothing more than a guess.
Would the individual want extraordinary measures taken when the end is near? Why wouldn’t we trust the individual — in advance and when thinking clearly — to make that decision?
For those who crusade for the rights of the individual, here’s the question: Why are you so opposed to the individual being able to set down on paper, with help from family and physician, the standards and wishes for end-of-life care?
The issue of death panels became so hot during this year’s debate on health-care reform legislation that Democrats decided to pull that provision from the bill.
Read more: http://lacrossetribune.com/news/opi...50c-11e0-9443-001cc4c002e0.html#ixzz1mmHQVcxI
apple0154
MEOW
Years ago, my elderly aunt suffered an internal hemorrhage and there were subsequent complications. She was in her late 80s, never married and was a "woman's libber" before there were such creatures.
She always lived alone and made the family promise we would never put her in an old folk's home. That was her dread. Anyway, the doctors informed us that if she recovered she would never be able to live alone again. She would have to go to a convalescent home to live out the rest of her life. My brother and I were faced with the decision of what to do. It was a quick conversation. We both knew there was no good reason for her to spend the last days or weeks or, God forbid, years living in a "home". We decided to stop life support and she passed peacefully.
Both my wife and I have notarized directives that no medical care is to be administered if it will result in a major decrease in our quality of life. As you noted it is a decision everyone should make.
As a footnote my father-in-law, knowing he had cancer and was going to die, not only pre-arranged his funeral but made arrangements at his favorite restaurant for the guests to gather after the ceremony. Also, his will was up to date.
Critics of ObamaCare refuse to take into consideration it was the best deal he could get under the circumstances. The first step has been taken. My bet is he will fine tune the plan over the next four years. As for death panels and all associated nonsense there is not ONE country that has reverted to a pay-or-suffer system once a government system was implemented. Dozens of countries and in every country the citizens have fought to keep their respective government plans. The evidence is overwhelming government involvement in medical care is far superior to anything that has been tried over the centuries.
icedancer2theend
Verified User
You are so full of shit-or else a liar. That was just one of the things Palin pointed out hidden within that POS legislation shoved down the throats of American's- something no Dr should be forced to do or encouraged to do btw.
Just one quip by Palin regarding what you all accused her of lying about and that we now have proof was true.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
For once in your life, are you capable of dumping your ideological baggage and try to address the real issues? You are now entering a period of your life when healthcare becomes much more important, are you happy to be worried that you may not be covered because of pre-existing conditions?
(Source)
At the end of 2011, the remarkable innovator Donald Berwick was forced to resign as the recess-appointed head of Medicare and Medicaid, a casualty of Republican-led opposition to his confirmation. An outspoken fan of the United Kingdom’s single-payer system, Berwick was portrayed by critics as a socialist who once about whether he “still distrusted the free market” and made it his goal to “make health care rationing the new normal.”
The furore over Berwick reflects a broader, fundamental disagreement over the nature of health insurance. Should it be “social” insurance, with which financial risk is leveled between those who are ill and healthy, so the carefree twentysomething and diabetic elderly man pay equally into the system? Or would it be better structured as “actuarial” insurance, where those expected to consume more shell out more, just as those who drive flashy, expensive cars or rack up speeding tickets pay higher auto insurance rates? If your view is the former, you generally support the notion of a single-payer system, as Berwick and many Democrats do. On the other hand, if you see health insurance as actuarial, you favor tiered premiums depending on age and pre-existing conditions, and tend to like health savings accounts, as many Republicans do. This dispute is central to continuing political wrangling over the 2010 health reform legislation, the main provisions of which are scheduled to take effect in a few years.
But Americans made their choice clear long before Barack Obama ever signed the law—and they picked social insurance. The issue today isn’t whether we should redistribute health care dollars. We do, arguably to the same degree that every other country does. Systems with national health insurance systems explicitly redistribute money before patients get in car accidents, discover cancer, or develop heart disease. Here we do it in secret after illness occurs. We create the illusion of actuarial insurance, when the truth is that all major American health care institutions have been socialized for decades.
Consider the following simple question: How much does it cost to stay in the hospital when someone is sick? Until 1983, the answer was simple: You, your insurer, or Medicare paid the hospital on a “per diem” basis, meaning that the hospital charged roughly the expense they incurred, plus a small administrative fee. You paid for what you got. In 1983, however, Medicare suddenly changed everything. The agency adopted the “prospective payment system,” which decoupled payments from the actual cost of care in the hospital. In other words, they suddenly paid a fixed price that had nothing to do with what happened in the hospital. In the beginning, administrators loved this since the fixed prices were so high that hospitals had an average 13-percent margin on Medicare patients. Soon enough, however, the payments had fallen behind inflation, and by 1991, hospitals faced an average margin of minus 2.4 percent. They responded rationally to this crisis by jacking up list prices for private insurers like Blue Cross or Aetna in a redistributive practice known as “cost shifting.” In 1997, the Balanced Budget Act further lowered Medicare payments, and soon private insurers were paying 20 to 30 percent higher rates than Medicare.* In effect, this practice amounts to an annual tax of about $922 per privately insured family, which defrays the cost of those on public insurance. (A strange corollary: Uninsured or “self-pay” patients get charged two- to threefold higher sticker prices than insurers pay, because no one’s negotiated lower rates for them.)
But that’s only the first form of redistribution. In many cities, certain hospitals may bear a larger share of caring for those with poorly paying insurance or very expensive and complicated conditions. The result, recently made clear in a series of Boston Globe articles and an attorney general’s report in Massachusetts, is a baffling landscape of prices. Take a brain MRI: Medicare now pays about $500 for one, wherever it’s delivered. Due to strong-arm negotiating, Massachusetts General Hospital commands $1,153 for the same service from private insurers, while the outlying Brockton Hospital only managed to wrangle $590. The same type of disparity exists for dozens of other procedures. In other words, the top flight medical care enjoyed at major academic medical centers results from massive virtual tax on smaller hospitals.
In addition to these ways to spread around money—from private to public insurers and from small hospitals to major medical centers—hospitals themselves redistribute from wealthy clinical divisions that pull in buckets of cash, such as cardiac surgery or intensive care, to poorer ones that are regularly in the red, like psychiatry or endocrinology. An artifact of the arcane manner in which Medicare rewards “procedural” care like fancy scans and surgeries over “cognitive” care like face-to-face conversation and exams using cheap stethoscopes or reflex hammers, these discrepancies force hospital administrators to steal from the rich clinicians in order to fund the poor. These cross-subsidies are so important that the federal government once banned the construction of “specialty hospitals” that siphon away profitable medical procedures, since their existence would threaten general hospitals’ solvency.
Almost nothing that politicians are currently debating is likely to change the overall costs of care. What’s merely at stake is the shell game about who appears to be paying. Want to cut Medicaid rolls to save money for your state? Private plans would see their costs escalate as hospitals shift costs. Want to defund mental health services for the poor? Major centers will likely cross-subsidize their care by more aggressively marketing other, expensive services like cardiac catheterization and weight-loss surgery to make up the gap. To be sure, some people will be hurt with the cuts, but like a complex organism, the American health care system has developed homeostatic mechanisms to ensure its nourishment and survival. It’s very hard to starve the beast.
Hiding the redistribution inherent in American health care has a corrosive effect on our national dialogue. It’s wrongly believed that our system prizes individualism and financial responsibility, when nothing could be further from the truth. Arguably, our system is just as redistributive as those of Europe, Canada, or Australia. We just do it in the dark and pretend to be exceptional.
Correction, Feb. 1, 2012: This article originally misidentified the 1997 Balanced Budget Act as a Balanced Budget Amendment. (Return to the corrected sentence.)
Last edited:
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
SHOOT GRIND
icedancer2theend
Verified User
You're a stupid jackass- I am not nearly as old as you tom- I have always had health care. I don' have pre-existing conditions. But I digress, obamacare was not the best solution for our health care needs and you being a foreigner have not a clue about it. You pipe in with agreement for those in our country who think your system is good- that's all you know. Obamacare is an expensive piece of shit legislation that will likely be tossed out as unconstitutional!
Bfgrn
New member
When has a down syndrome child ever been euthanized? Palin is lying. She is a chronic liar. As a matter of FACT, Palin supported advanced directives when she was Governor of Alaska.
On April 16th 2008, then Gov. Sarah Palin in a proclamation announcing “Healthcare Decisions Day,” urged public facilities to provide better information about advance directives, and made it clear that it is critical for seniors to be informed of such options:
WHEREAS, Healthcare Decisions Day is designed to raise public awareness of the need to plan ahead for healthcare decisions, related to end of life care and medical decision-making whenever patients are unable to speak for themselves and to encourage the specific use of advance directives to communicate these important healthcare decisions. [...]
WHEREAS, one of the principal goals of Healthcare Decisions Day is to encourage hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, continuing care retirement communities, and hospices to participate in a statewide effort to provide clear and consistent information to the public about advance directives, as well as to encourage medical professionals and lawyers to volunteer their time and efforts to improve public knowledge and increase the number of Alaska’s citizens with advance directives.
WHEREAS, the Foundation for End of Life Care in Juneau, Alaska, and other organizations throughout the United States have endorsed this event and are committed to educating the public about the importance of discussing healthcare choices and executing advance directives.
Palin’s Happy Healthcare Decisions Day!