Republicans take the House.

[HarryPotter]

I love how obama gave obama motors a massive tax break, they wont have to pay taxes for a couple of years if an effort to make his bailout (buyout) of the company seem to have worked. The guys such a sketch wad it isnt even funny.

Everyones riding marco rubios dick like hes god, the douche voted to pass cap and trade and voted for a known communist to be head of the florida dept of energy.

[z31maniac]

^Try like 20 years, with up to $50 billion in lost taxes.

I'm completely against the corporate income tax usually but.....

[z31maniac]

Death Panels are already here.

And have been for decades.

Dying from lack of insurance vs being covered and having a gov't panel decide you are no longer "viable" seems to be just a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison.

[Mr Two]

"Advance directives do not signal the patient wants to die in pain, without any care at all. They are legal documents that specify the kind of treatment a patient would like if he is unable to speak for himself."

Straight from AARP.

http://www.aarp.org/relationships/grief-loss/info-08-2009/end_of_life_counseling_why_it_really_matters.3.html

[mar1t1me]

Dying from lack of insurance vs being covered and having a gov't panel decide you are no longer "viable" seems to be just a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison.

But it isn't a "lack" of insurance in many cases. It's policy holders who were denied coverage on technicalities, or simply because the insurance company felt they were getting too expensive. And when a committee in a remote building somewhere gathers to decide who will receive life-saving treatments and who will not, how can it be called anything but a Death Panel? Maybe even worse, a Suffering Panel? Having some corporation's fiscal concerns be what makes it OK to allowed to be eaten alive by cancer doesn't sound very American, or very Christian, for that matter.

It really is a failure that our capitalist society hasn't figured out a simple and efficient way to distribute health care among all its citizens.

There was a time in my life that I had no insurance. There had been a gap in coverage and until I paid for a full physical by an approved Doctor, I would have to pay for everything. At that time, I had a chicken pox scar which began to change. I wanted to get it checked out, and saved up the $60 necessary for an office visit. The doc took a look and told me "it needs to be removed, but I don't think it is a metastatic melanoma. Probably either precancerous, or a type of cancer that doesn't spread." Only the $450 lab test would confirm this. He even stated that I shouldn't send it to the lab, because even if it came back as a basal or squamous cancer, which do not generally spread, it would give the insurance company an excuse to deny coverage. So I saved up again, and paid the doc $150 to cut it out. That was 20 years ago. Never any problem, but what might I have faced by having even the word "cancer" anywhere in my medical history?

I'd love to see our reps in DC have to deal with paying for their own health care. They might actually become interested in health care reform if it sufficiently inconvenienced them and their families.

It will be interesting to see what the GOP's alternative to Obamacare looks like. I am absolutely opposed to the bloated "thing" the Dems came up with. But we've seen the GOP use healthcare reform as a campaign promise before. Will they really do anything but repeal Obamacare while being "too busy" to effect any other changes?

[z31maniac]

But it isn't a "lack" of insurance in many cases. It's policy holders who were denied coverage on technicalities, or simply because the insurance company felt they were getting too expensive. And when a committee in a remote building somewhere gathers to decide who will receive life-saving treatments and who will not, how can it be called anything but a Death Panel? Maybe even worse, a Suffering Panel? Having some corporation's fiscal concerns be what makes it OK to allowed to be eaten alive by cancer doesn't sound very American, or very Christian, for that matter.

Ummmm, well, if you are business........you can't keep the doors open and continue to operate if you always spend more money than you generate. Why is this such a foreign concept to everyone?

But why is it any different than a government deciding, "Hey you're already like 70, why should we spend tens of thousands on fighting your breast cancer, when we could spend the money on someone economically viable?"


So you're OK with gov't making those decisions, but not the private sector. I fail to see how the same decision coming from a different place is anymore desireable.

[mar1t1me]

Ummmm, well, if you are business........you can't keep the doors open and continue to operate if you always spend more money than you generate. Why is this such a foreign concept to everyone?

There are, of course, matters of degree. But there's a lot of evidence to suggest that if a company thinks it can get away with using a technicality to avoid providing care, they will. That's what I find objectionable, along with Palin's contention that this does not somehow happen in private sector insurance.

But why is it any different than a government deciding, "Hey you're already like 70, why should we spend tens of thousands on fighting your breast cancer, when we could spend the money on someone economically viable?"

Again, matters of degree. Maybe at 70, you no longer qualify for reconstructive, aesthetic-driven, breast reconstruction, and instead are given the option of simple mastectomy thereby drastically cutting costs while providing necessary care. Then again, my father was a strong, productive man into his mid-80's because his prostate cancer was caught early and dealt with in his late 60s....

What if the 70 year old person says "this is the first time in my life I've needed major medical care and I've paid a lifetime of premiums! I have paid for my treatment many times over!" What then?

So you're OK with gov't making those decisions, but not the private sector. I fail to see how the same decision coming from a different place is anymore desireable.

I certainly acknowledge that decisions regarding the appropriateness of treatment need to be made. And they need to be made by doctors, not accountants. But the contention that somehow the private system as it stands is just and fair, but under Obamacare we would have death panels is just disingenuous.

[ck_taft325is]

There are, of course, matters of degree. But there's a lot of evidence to suggest that if a company thinks it can get away with using a technicality to avoid providing care, they will. That's what I find objectionable, along with Palin's contention that this does not somehow happen in private sector insurance.



Again, matters of degree. Maybe at 70, you no longer qualify for reconstructive, aesthetic-driven, breast reconstruction, and instead are given the option of simple mastectomy thereby drastically cutting costs while providing necessary care. Then again, my father was a strong, productive man into his mid-80's because his prostate cancer was caught early and dealt with in his late 60s....

What if the 70 year old person says "this is the first time in my life I've needed major medical care and I've paid a lifetime of premiums! I have paid for my treatment many times over!" What then?



I certainly acknowledge that decisions regarding the appropriateness of treatment need to be made. And they need to be made by doctors, not accountants. But the contention that somehow the private system as it stands is just and fair, but under Obamacare we would have death panels is just disingenuous.

But, saying that under ObamaCare the already faulty system will dramatically improve is incredibly naive. The same problems confront different people. The Government's track record, I would say, is just as soiled if not more so than Private Sector providers.

My wife's baby sister of 5 got sick. 3 weeks later she's in the hospital with a massive brain tumor in her Ponds. That's the area of the brain they cannot operate on. 4 weeks after that she passed. Her Private Sector Care Provider covered everything, despite the fact it was inoperable and in the face of everything, never sent a bill to my in-laws. Just updates that everything was taken care of. 6 months later, my mother in-law is diagnosed with Stage 3 breast cancer. They again, cover everything with the exception of one elective CT Scan that my in-laws got just to "make sure".

Do you honestly, reasonably or logically believe this will occure with ObamaCare?

We're in total agreement that accountants are the last people to hold the keys of treatment to the terminally or perpetually ill, sick, and/or needy. But, is that not what the Government has done to some degree?

[z31maniac]

There are, of course, matters of degree. But there's a lot of evidence to suggest that if a company thinks it can get away with using a technicality to avoid providing care, they will. That's what I find objectionable, along with Palin's contention that this does not somehow happen in private sector insurance.

Legalese/loopholes and such are the by-product of an overly legitious society, brought to us by..............the gubmint!

Whether we all want to play the "nuh-uh prove it game" gov't is notorius for being ineffecient and wasteful. It's become accepted that it is the norm and there isn't much we can do about it. Again, I don't see why trading one set of shmucks for another really solves anything.

Again, matters of degree. Maybe at 70, you no longer qualify for reconstructive, aesthetic-driven, breast reconstruction, and instead are given the option of simple mastectomy thereby drastically cutting costs while providing necessary care. Then again, my father was a strong, productive man into his mid-80's because his prostate cancer was caught early and dealt with in his late 60s....

Not talking about reconstructive surgery, talking about not allowing the use of expensive drugs to continue one's life.

What if the 70 year old person says "this is the first time in my life I've needed major medical care and I've paid a lifetime of premiums! I have paid for my treatment many times over!" What then?

That's precisely what will happen under a gov't run system.


I certainly acknowledge that decisions regarding the appropriateness of treatment need to be made. And they need to be made by doctors, not accountants. But the contention that somehow the private system as it stands is just and fair, but under Obamacare we would have death panels is just disingenuous.

No one said the private system was perfect, it needs A TON of work done. I just can't put my faith in gov't to do things better.

[mar1t1me]

Do you honestly, reasonably or logically believe this will occure with ObamaCare?

Never said it would or would not. Only said that "managed care" already occurs, in spite of Palin's rather successful attempt to scare old voters into thinking it doesn't.

[mar1t1me]

Z31: all anecdotes aside, I am not a fan of O'care, or of government mandated purchase of insurance. Any health coverage provided by the gov't should not end up as a handout to for-profit insurance companies. My point was simply that there has been a concerted effort by the right to instill fear in something-something that already exists-as a central tenet of their opposition to O'care. They don't mention, or likely are even aware of all the other ridiculous horseshit in that bill, but they sure are scared of death panels.

[ck_taft325is]

Never said it would or would not. Only said that "managed care" already occurs, in spite of Palin's rather successful attempt to scare old voters into thinking it doesn't.

Totally agree. Sorry for the assumption ;)

[KenC]

well guess what
there are death panels in obamacare

I'm trying not to get involved in this, but that is 100% complete and utter BULLSHIT.
Within the bill is specified compensation for physicians and other providers to assist patients with end-of-life planning, making sure their wishes are fulfilled and that their POLST form is completed correctly. Many times, expressing your wishes verbally isn't legally sufficient. Unless you've seen CPR and/or defibrilation performed on a frail 95-year-old, it's hard to grasp the importance of this planning process. For many seniors without much social support, this planning doesn't occur. Hospital care during the final year of life is often more expensive than care provided for all other years of life combined.

Find me one physician that isn't in favor of explicit planning for end-of-life care.

[CorvallisBMW]

Dying from lack of insurance vs being covered and having a gov't panel decide you are no longer "viable" seems to be just a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Is it really? In the end, you're still dying from lack of care.

And as Maritime pointed out, it's usually not lack of insurance but an insurance company denying a claim that results in the death or acceleration of disease.

Seems pretty much the same to me, aside from the fact that the private death panels actually exist and the gov't ones don't.

[z31maniac]

Is it really? In the end, you're still dying from lack of care.

And as Maritime pointed out, it's usually not lack of insurance but an insurance company denying a claim that results in the death or acceleration of disease.

Then he needs figures to back up that assumption.

ONe of the the numbers I heard tossed around last year was that of 40-45 million uninsured citizens, approaching half were young and/or healthy people who just choose not to buy it. And nearly 10 million illegals were being counted to inflate the numbers as well.

My wife and I were two such people all through 2008 while I was working as a contractor for MerCruiser.

And to back myself up:

http://reason.com/blog/2010/02/10/obama-cuts-the-number-of-unins

"But it is not true that all 37 million "cannot get coverage." More than one-fifth of the uninsured have annual household incomes of $50,000 or more, and another quarter or so are either already covered by existing government programs (but misreported their status) or could be (but failed to apply). Most of the uninsured are 18-to-34-year-olds, many of whom may decide to go without medical coverage because they think that, being young and healthy, they won't need it. "

So 45% of the people who are uninsured are simply choosing not to buy it.

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/03/20/the-myth-of-the-46-million

"For starters, the statistic does not mean that there are "46 million uninsured Americans," as the New York Times reported in a recent story on health care, and as is echoed throughout the media. Just a quick look inside the Census Bureau data shows that 9.7 million of the uninsured are not citizens of the United States. Liberals can argue that we still have a moral duty to cover non-citizens, but this doesn't change the fact that as a matter of accuracy, the Census data only tells us that 36 million Americans are uninsured."


Then as the previous article states, 45% of the 36 million can either afford it or are eligible for current programs but are too lazy to enroll.

So out of 310+ million people, the real number is more like 18 million people who are uninsured.

The price tag for Obamacare looks a bit excessive now.........to put those 18 million on my employers plan (which is pretty good) would cost $72 billion per year.