Seriously though, wait until the true weight of the demographic shift is felt. You have an increasingly impaired, yet longer-lived, explosion of elderly…And a shrinking population of youthful workers/taxpayers, who will already be worse of socio-economically.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Well we do know that Massachusets care, whatever the name is, has a higher rejection rate than private companies and pays more per patient than them.
This does not bode well.
[/quote]
I actually don’t know that. Do you have evidence I could see?[/quote]
Among large insurers, government coverage (medicare/medicade) have the highest claim rejection rates. I posted a whole report on it a while back.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]kevinm1 wrote:
Are death panels real? Not in the joking way the progressives are trying to make them but yes they are. My family went through it last year with my mother, we had people telling us quality of life cost and everything else, in the end we had to decide to either turn off life support and watch my mother, the person who gave me life slowly die of dehydration/starvation. If you think government style won’t be worse oh my friend have I got a bridge to sell you.[/quote]
So you prefer private death panels to public ones? Isn’t that the way it should be? IMO government healthcare should be “bottom of the barrel.” If people can afford healthcare, they should buy it.
That being said, my experiences with “private death panels” have been pretty bad. Growing up I can’t recall a time when we went to the hospital (my sister had a variety of illnesses and “issues”) and DIDN’T have to fight with the insurance companies over it. [/quote]
In a private system the beauty is that you can sign up for any contract to cover anything you want (some of this is no longer allowed by law). And if a company doesn’t cover what you want, you can go find coverage somewhere else (once again the federal government has screwed this up with regulation). [/quote]
I guess my experiences have been different than this, so I’m not sure if its true. For example, my college roommate has had a back problem for about a decade. As a young lawyer he was unable to obtain private health insurance because of the pre-existing conditions when he was taken off his parent’s plan. Could you elaborate on what you mean?
I guess this is a hypothetical that could be true. Do the elderly people that have been on government healthcare have a harder time with their disputes than with the current private health agencies? Given the problems that the other poster talked about as well as the ones I experienced, I guess I’m not convinced this is true yet. [/quote]
We don’t have a free market system right now though, it’s a mix. The bottom line is that he could have bought coverage, he just couldn’t have afforded it. Pre-existing conditions cost more money. Period. If you grant someone like that coverage it is going to cost money that has to be taken from someone. If not the person receiving the coverage, than from either the pocket or the coverage (denied claims) of healthier people. Granting them coverage does not increase the number of services available.
There already are “death panels”. They consist of the patients family and doctors discussing matters of care. The doctors typically present the insurance companies point of view. There is no question that as government becomes more and more involved that it will interject itself into these discussions in one form or another.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Kevorkian[/quote]
There is a reason why he went to jail so many times. Euthanasia is unethical in dealing with people.
Yesterday, on ABC’s “This Week,” New York Times columnist Paul Krugman addressed the subject of escalating health care costs. He said, “Some years down the pike, we’re going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes.”
Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments as follows:
It was not necessary for Paul Krugman to “clarify” what he meant yesterday, but he took the opportunity to do so anyway on his blog. He wrote that “health care costs will have to be controlled, which will surely require having Medicare and Medicaid decide what they’re willing to pay forâ??not really death panels, of course, but consideration of medical effectiveness and, at some point, how much we’re willing to spend for extreme care.” Indeed, he is calling for death panels. In fact, he even characterized his comments on “This Week” by saying that “the eventual resolution of the deficit problem both will and should rely on ‘death panels and sales taxes.’” (My emphasis.)
Krugman has written 19 columns mentioning “death panels,” almost all of them in a mocking tone. He has spoken of the “death panel smear”; the “death panel lie”; and the “death panel people” as being part of “the lunatic fringe.” Similarly, there was a New York Times editorial in September that took to task “the cynical demagoguing about ‘death panels.’” Two weeks ago Times columnist Maureen Dowd blasted those who engaged in “their loopy rants on death panels,” and one week ago Times columnist Frank Rich talked about “fictions like ‘death panels.’”
So it turns out that all along Krugman’s ridicule was just a smoke screen: he’s wanted death panels from the get-go. Whether he speaks for the editorial board, Dowd and Rich is not certain, but it’s time for them to stop the antics and tell the public what they really believe. Krugman has. Catholics, especially the bishops, would love to see them all come clean.
Catholic League.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
There already are “death panels”. They consist of the patients family and doctors discussing matters of care. The doctors typically present the insurance companies point of view. There is no question that as government becomes more and more involved that it will interject itself into these discussions in one form or another.[/quote]
That is what I and my family had to deal with and it’s pretty easy to see that if government fully takes over as Obama, Pelosi, and Frank all have talked single payer it will be similar to what you see in war movies this one we work on this one too far gone he dies. Doesn’t anyone remember Obama discussing instead of getting a hip replacement the person should take the pain pill? Yes that’s great turn grandma into a junkie that will work. If we had what Mccain had proposed a tax refund and real insurance competition medical cost will go down. As far as the elderly whom have already paid their money into medicare and medicaid the answer is they get to keep it but if anyone thinks the sytstem can stay as is or if healthcare reform can be deficit neutral you are sorely mistaken.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Well we do know that Massachusets care, whatever the name is, has a higher rejection rate than private companies and pays more per patient than them.
This does not bode well.
[/quote]
I actually don’t know that. Do you have evidence I could see?[/quote]
Among large insurers, government coverage (medicare/medicade) have the highest claim rejection rates. I posted a whole report on it a while back. [/quote]
So Massachusettscare, medicare and medicate all have the highest claim rejection rates? Further, you believe that MassCare pays more per patient than private companies?
Sorry I missed your earlier postings, but these seem like interesting figures. If you are able to find any evidence to back these claims, I would like to read it.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]kevinm1 wrote:
Are death panels real? Not in the joking way the progressives are trying to make them but yes they are. My family went through it last year with my mother, we had people telling us quality of life cost and everything else, in the end we had to decide to either turn off life support and watch my mother, the person who gave me life slowly die of dehydration/starvation. If you think government style won’t be worse oh my friend have I got a bridge to sell you.[/quote]
So you prefer private death panels to public ones? Isn’t that the way it should be? IMO government healthcare should be “bottom of the barrel.” If people can afford healthcare, they should buy it.
That being said, my experiences with “private death panels” have been pretty bad. Growing up I can’t recall a time when we went to the hospital (my sister had a variety of illnesses and “issues”) and DIDN’T have to fight with the insurance companies over it. [/quote]
In a private system the beauty is that you can sign up for any contract to cover anything you want (some of this is no longer allowed by law). And if a company doesn’t cover what you want, you can go find coverage somewhere else (once again the federal government has screwed this up with regulation). [/quote]
I guess my experiences have been different than this, so I’m not sure if its true. For example, my college roommate has had a back problem for about a decade. As a young lawyer he was unable to obtain private health insurance because of the pre-existing conditions when he was taken off his parent’s plan. Could you elaborate on what you mean?
I guess this is a hypothetical that could be true. Do the elderly people that have been on government healthcare have a harder time with their disputes than with the current private health agencies? Given the problems that the other poster talked about as well as the ones I experienced, I guess I’m not convinced this is true yet. [/quote]
We don’t have a free market system right now though, it’s a mix. The bottom line is that he could have bought coverage, he just couldn’t have afforded it. Pre-existing conditions cost more money. Period. If you grant someone like that coverage it is going to cost money that has to be taken from someone. If not the person receiving the coverage, than from either the pocket or the coverage (denied claims) of healthier people. Granting them coverage does not increase the number of services available.[/quote]
I’m not sure I understand how this post relates to my response to you. Could you elaborate?
Death panels exist now , the Insurance companies run them
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Death panels exist now , the Insurance companies run them [/quote]
Maybe, but you can opt out of insurance now. When we get to a one payer system, which is all out govt run health care, we will have no choice.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Kevorkian[/quote]
There is a reason why he went to jail so many times. Euthanasia is unethical in dealing with people. [/quote]
But forcing people to stay alive when they are suffering greatly, have no quality of life and no chance of a recovery so someone can milk the insurance system is ethical?
He wasn’t helping people die who were repairable. Those people had no hope of survival, they just wanted to end their suffering. Don’t try to characterize what he did as something it wasn’t.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Death panels exist now , the Insurance companies run them [/quote]
Not quite. Insurance companies do have a say but doctors still have ways around it.
Death is inevitable, cost of care at end of life is always a factor in decisions, just as the comfort of the patient is considered. As it should be.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Kevorkian[/quote]
There is a reason why he went to jail so many times. Euthanasia is unethical in dealing with people. [/quote]
But forcing people to stay alive when they are suffering greatly, have no quality of life and no chance of a recovery so someone can milk the insurance system is ethical?
He wasn’t helping people die who were repairable. Those people had no hope of survival, they just wanted to end their suffering. Don’t try to characterize what he did as something it wasn’t.[/quote]
Not true. He killed at least one that was not terminally ill but merely sffered from extreme depression.
I believe in the right to choose death but he stepped WAY over the line.
It is really very simple,
private insurance is a voluntary act, you can chose to participate or not. But either way you have the right to whatever procedures YOU CAN AFFORD. Who the Hell do you think you are are to think you have the right to demand other people to give up their life for yours, that is what healthcare through taxes is.
People give up their time, energy, health sometimes, to work and make money to support their families. But people have the audacity to believe they are better than that person who earned the money, and it should be taken from them to be used towards the one with out the money.
Government Health Care in all senses is flat out Stealing. not only from tax payers, but from providers (doctors, nurses, hospital, drug companies). They have to work for far less from the government and in turn have to charge more to the ones paying for it.
The only just and fair method for healthcare is actually paying for services or private insurance. It does not infringe upon your rights or others rights,
Government healthcare along with all other entitlement programs are a direct violation of the 5th amendment.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
It is really very simple,
private insurance is a voluntary act, you can chose to participate or not. But either way you have the right to whatever procedures YOU CAN AFFORD. Who the Hell do you think you are are to think you have the right to demand other people to give up their life for yours, that is what healthcare through taxes is.
People give up their time, energy, health sometimes, to work and make money to support their families. But people have the audacity to believe they are better than that person who earned the money, and it should be taken from them to be used towards the one with out the money.
Government Health Care in all senses is flat out Stealing. not only from tax payers, but from providers (doctors, nurses, hospital, drug companies). They have to work for far less from the government and in turn have to charge more to the ones paying for it.
The only just and fair method for healthcare is actually paying for services or private insurance. It does not infringe upon your rights or others rights,
Government healthcare along with all other entitlement programs are a direct violation of the 5th amendment. [/quote]
No.
You steal once from a person and thats it.
If you come by every month to collect, that is a protection racket.
If you have the force of the government behind you, it is called servitude.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
It is really very simple,
private insurance is a voluntary act, you can chose to participate or not. But either way you have the right to whatever procedures YOU CAN AFFORD. Who the Hell do you think you are are to think you have the right to demand other people to give up their life for yours, that is what healthcare through taxes is.
People give up their time, energy, health sometimes, to work and make money to support their families. But people have the audacity to believe they are better than that person who earned the money, and it should be taken from them to be used towards the one with out the money.
Government Health Care in all senses is flat out Stealing. not only from tax payers, but from providers (doctors, nurses, hospital, drug companies). They have to work for far less from the government and in turn have to charge more to the ones paying for it.
The only just and fair method for healthcare is actually paying for services or private insurance. It does not infringe upon your rights or others rights,
Government healthcare along with all other entitlement programs are a direct violation of the 5th amendment. [/quote]
No.
You steal once from a person and thats it.
If you come by every month to collect, that is a protection racket.
If you have the force of the government behind you, it is called servitude.
[/quote]
I thought we eliminated indentured servitude in this country. Which is essentually what entitlements are. Those who work and pay taxes are now the endentured servants of the gonernment and it’s entitled slaves.
Throw in the non right to property through property tax and eminant domain and we have some real freedom from these progressive movements.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Kevorkian[/quote]
There is a reason why he went to jail so many times. Euthanasia is unethical in dealing with people. [/quote]
But forcing people to stay alive when they are suffering greatly, have no quality of life and no chance of a recovery so someone can milk the insurance system is ethical?
He wasn’t helping people die who were repairable. Those people had no hope of survival, they just wanted to end their suffering. Don’t try to characterize what he did as something it wasn’t.[/quote]
Not true. He killed at least one that was not terminally ill but merely sffered from extreme depression.
I believe in the right to choose death but he stepped WAY over the line.[/quote]
Wow…one person in how many? At least that person wanted to die and could do it in a safe environment. At least that person knew it would work. When you attempt suicide you don’t know if it’s going to work or not (depending on the method).
Sifu, thank you for commenting. I was going to say the same thing. I don’t get why, if I’m in constant pain from a terminal illness, I have to stay alive and whither away. Give me something that will put me out of my misery and allow my family to go on.
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Kevorkian[/quote]
There is a reason why he went to jail so many times. Euthanasia is unethical in dealing with people. [/quote]
But forcing people to stay alive when they are suffering greatly, have no quality of life and no chance of a recovery so someone can milk the insurance system is ethical?
He wasn’t helping people die who were repairable. Those people had no hope of survival, they just wanted to end their suffering. Don’t try to characterize what he did as something it wasn’t.[/quote]
Not true. He killed at least one that was not terminally ill but merely sffered from extreme depression.
I believe in the right to choose death but he stepped WAY over the line.[/quote]
Wow…one person in how many? At least that person wanted to die and could do it in a safe environment. At least that person knew it would work. When you attempt suicide you don’t know if it’s going to work or not (depending on the method).
Sifu, thank you for commenting. I was going to say the same thing. I don’t get why, if I’m in constant pain from a terminal illness, I have to stay alive and whither away. Give me something that will put me out of my misery and allow my family to go on.
[/quote]
Wow, he murdered at least one. Grant him sainthood!
[quote]SUPER-T wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Death panels exist now , the Insurance companies run them [/quote]
Maybe, but you can opt out of insurance now. When we get to a one payer system, which is all out govt run health care, we will have no choice.[/quote]
OK so you need a very expensive procedure , your Insurance company refuses to cover it , so you quit paying your premium , Who wins , I say the Insurance company