another right wing lunatic prattling on about "death panels"

[i_am_the_swammi]

My wife is a tiny woman.When we learned she was pregnant we had some concerns due to her size(4'9" and 95 pounds).We went to my sister's OBGYN;they handled her last two pregnancies,both of which had some very serious complications and are excellent.Everything was going smoothly until our doc ran a 32 week ultrasound(her third) and spotted something that gave him some concern.He was worried about blood flow to the baby.He sent us to a specialist who saw us two days later,and he ran a much more in depth ultrasound.He told us the blood flow was fine,but he wanted us back in two week for a baseline.Two weeks later,another ultrasound.He took us into the office afterwards and told the baby's AFI (Amniotic Fluid Index) was low at 7.0. He wanted us back in ten days to check it again and if it continued to drop it would probably be time to deliver the baby.(Chargerz knows the story,we discussed this via PM back in FEB).Ten days later her AFI was at 5.0.He told us it was time to deliver the baby;the low AFI was increasing the risk too much.It was time.On Feb 22 Jason was born,three weeks early,but healthy.

 

1:My concerns;My health plan permitted me to choose my doctor.Would the government plan do the same? For folks like you with insurance, nothing would change. For people currently without insurance, they would get a government-mandated physician, verusu nothing. Which do you think is better?

 

2:Our doc performed an extra ultrasound,just to be safe due to Jeanette's age and size.Would the government plan allow this?Or would it have been classified as "unnecessary". Again, why would you need to be on the government program when you are currenlty insured? The question is moot.

 

3:The potential problem being spotted,we we referred and sent to a specialist just two days later.Would the government plan allow this?Or would some pencil pusher determine that most babies are ok,so no need?Would we have been allowed all three visits without government red tape holding us up while the risk to our baby increased by the day? Same moot questions.

 

There's a very good chance none of these tests would have ever been performed under a government health plan

There is a 100% chance these tests would not be performed if the mother was uninsured.

Edited August 20, 2009 by i_am_the_swammi

[Perchoutofwater]

Again I ask... who would take you seriously?

 

Here's a high number

Your number is completely made up

Here's another lower number

You're misquoting it, it's much lower

Whatever... this is nitpicking

 

I guess this is how you win an election though.

 

I've yet to see you link any numbers. I admit I was going off memory, but when I went back and looked it up and provided a link, it was actually higher than I quoted, thus even doing more to prove my point. I also provided links not emotional attacks backed up with nothing for every point I put forward.

[Azazello1313]

Since the government is so grotesquely inefficient and private business is always incredibly efficient, they should be able to beat the government plan into the ground, right? At least, that's always been the right wing creed........why wouldn't it apply in this arena?

 

the government doesn't compete, except with other governments. the government controls. only the government can dictate its own price, and force you to accept that price (think eminent domain). only government has access to taxpayer subsidies (unless the government itself decides to beneficently dole them out to curry allegiance).

[Perchoutofwater]

This reform doesn't cover illegal aliens.

 

And that is part of the problem, it does nothing to address illegals. It is talking about making the public option like medicare which more and more doctors are not accepting because they do not pay fair compensation for services rendered. Since medicare doesn't pay fair compensation, doctors and hospitals are forced to make up the difference somewhere (in this litigious society we can sue everyone but the government) so they make up that cost by over charging private insurance carriers and the self insured. Hospitals and doctors are also forced to treat illegals and pass that cost on to private insurers since the government is no longer interested in providing one of the few services it is constitutionally mandated to provide. So this program does noting to address the burden private insurance is having to pick up for the illegals, it also will increase the burden on private insurance when it fails to pay fair compensation to hospitals and doctors. This is a step toward complete socialized medicine.

 

Now I've said before, that while I'm against socialized medicine on principle, as a practical matter, our country is too far gone, and wandered to far from it's principles for this to be practical. Too many are irresponsible and unwilling to be self sufficient. So I would actually embrace a form of socialized medicine if it was funded by a sales tax, and if something was done to address illegal immigration in a meaningful way, and if medical malpractice awards were limited to real damages.

[Perchoutofwater]

Swammi,

 

You do know that under the current bill, that if you change jobs you are not allowed private insurance through your employer don't you? That you must join the public "option". So yes as long as you are with your current employer you are right, your insurance will not change, but once you change employers, that employer will be force to put you in the public "option" or to pay an additional 8% payroll tax. So guess what, those companies that have a majority of high income earners will provide insurance through the government "option" even though more than likely it will not be as good as what they currently have as many doctors may not accept it as many currently refuse to take new medicare patients because the government doesn't pay a fair compensation for services rendered. Guess what happens to the people who work for a company where the average salary is less than $50,000? 8% is sounding pretty cheap to those employers, and with unemployment as high as it is now, do you think they are worried about finding new employees if some leave because they dropped insurance?

[Boilerduff]

Swammi,

 

I think that you are being too general in that if they have health insurance, nothing will change. What if their company decides to cut out healthcare due to the fact that there is a public option? It's not their choice at that point, and they are stuck with the government plan, or paying out the nose for a private plan. What if they lose their job? Public plan here I come.

 

It is too general a statement to say that nothing will change with your current plan, because that may or may not be true depending on your situation, the situation of your company, and your personal financial situation. So with that in mind, and all due respect, I say his questions weren't moot, but valid real concerns that have not been addressed. Concerns that I share as well.

 

I am all for helathcare for everyone, but the reality is that we can't afford it.

[i_am_the_swammi]

I am all for helathcare for everyone, but the reality is that we can't afford it.

 

Who is "we"? the millions and millions of Americans that currently have no health care (who I am already paying for with increased premiums)?

[Perchoutofwater]

Who is "we"? the millions and millions of Americans that currently have no health care (who I am already paying for with increased premiums)?

 

You mean the 1.5% of Americans who really can't afford it and don't already qualify for either medicare or medicaid? I'm all for helping them, I'm just don't think the current proposal is the best way to do it, and while noble in though, it is wrought with unintended (or at least I'd like to believe unintended) consequences.

[Boilerduff]

Well said Perch. I agree.

 

No one wants deny anyone healthcare. The proposals currently in the house cost to much money and personal freedom. I just think we should be a lot more fiscally responsible than the current administration, and now is not the time to add another entitlement. We already can't fund medicare medicaid and social security, how are we supposed to float obamacare?

 

Just my opinion,

[whomper]

Without knowing the facts behind these proposals I ofetn wonder why any of you argue this. What President Obama is proposing is never , ever going to pass. The second I heard about this I just said "Never happen why bother looking in to it " Ill bet the first 5 comers my 100 bukcs to your 50 bucks that we dont have govt controlled health care or whatever he is calling it. Dont waste your energy

[Boilerduff]

Makes for fun posts....??? I hope you are right....

[bushwacked]

Without knowing the facts behind these proposals I ofetn wonder why any of you argue this. What President Obama is proposing is never , ever going to pass. The second I heard about this I just said "Never happen why bother looking in to it " Ill bet the first 5 comers my 100 bukcs to your 50 bucks that we dont have govt controlled health care or whatever he is calling it. Dont waste your energy

 

Govt. controlling the entire US health care system is not what is being proposed.

 

There is no doubt that the reform lost some momentum; but I don't agree with what you are saying. Health-care reform may not get passed in 2009, but there is a very real probability it happens in the near future.

Edited August 20, 2009 by bushwacked

[whomper]

Govt. controlling the entire US health care system is not what is being proposed.

 

There is no doubt that the reform lost some momentum; but I don't agree with what you are saying. Health-care reform may not get passed in 2009, but there is a very real probability it happens in the near future.

 

 

You are much more well versed on this then me so I will say maybe you are right and some changes are on the way but I feel they will be minor in comparison to whatever his is proposing now that has everyones knickers in a snit

[untateve]

Swammi,

 

I think that you are being too general in that if they have health insurance, nothing will change. What if their company decides to cut out healthcare due to the fact that there is a public option? It's not their choice at that point, and they are stuck with the government plan, or paying out the nose for a private plan. What if they lose their job? Public plan here I come.

 

It is too general a statement to say that nothing will change with your current plan, because that may or may not be true depending on your situation, the situation of your company, and your personal financial situation. So with that in mind, and all due respect, I say his questions weren't moot, but valid real concerns that have not been addressed. Concerns that I share as well.

 

I am all for helathcare for everyone, but the reality is that we can't afford it.

 

I am in agreement. It is easier (and more intelligent) if we let people die who don't have health insurance. In some ways, it's like natural selection. Us smart people have jobs that enable us to access care. The stupid and the lazy don't have health care. Fk em. Our nation will be stronger without these losers.

[TimC]

I am in agreement. It is easier (and more intelligent) if we let people die who don't have health insurance. In some ways, it's like natural selection. Us smart people have jobs that enable us to access care. The stupid and the lazy don't have health care. Fk em. Our nation will be stronger without these losers.

 

That's all fine and I support it except for the fact that the State rewards those same losers who keeps pumping out children. Heck, the more you have, the more you get. The cycle ends when the right people that only have 1 child because that's all they can support and still support these multi-baby losers can no longer afford to support the welfare Moms. Then you end up with nothing but children that no one can afford.

 

The answer, of course, is if you're on Government assistance, Obama should perform the abortion himself in between killing the old and not-so-old-sick people.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

The GOP has become a party of nihilists. Edited August 20, 2009 by CaP'N GRuNGe

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Swammi,

 

You do know that under the current bill, that if you change jobs you are not allowed private insurance through your employer don't you? That you must join the public "option". So yes as long as you are with your current employer you are right, your insurance will not change, but once you change employers, that employer will be force to put you in the public "option" or to pay an additional 8% payroll tax. So guess what, those companies that have a majority of high income earners will provide insurance through the government "option" even though more than likely it will not be as good as what they currently have as many doctors may not accept it as many currently refuse to take new medicare patients because the government doesn't pay a fair compensation for services rendered. Guess what happens to the people who work for a company where the average salary is less than $50,000? 8% is sounding pretty cheap to those employers, and with unemployment as high as it is now, do you think they are worried about finding new employees if some leave because they dropped insurance?

 

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf

 

Please point out in the bill where it says this. I do not believe you are correct but am ready for you to prove me wrong.

[Perchoutofwater]

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf

 

Please point out in the bill where it says this. I do not believe you are correct but am ready for you to prove me wrong.

 

Page 16, though that is only one of many reasons this bill sucks.

[Azazello1313]

Swammi,

 

You do know that under the current bill, that if you change jobs you are not allowed private insurance through your employer don't you? That you must join the public "option". So yes as long as you are with your current employer you are right, your insurance will not change, but once you change employers, that employer will be force to put you in the public "option" or to pay an additional 8% payroll tax. So guess what, those companies that have a majority of high income earners will provide insurance through the government "option" even though more than likely it will not be as good as what they currently have as many doctors may not accept it as many currently refuse to take new medicare patients because the government doesn't pay a fair compensation for services rendered. Guess what happens to the people who work for a company where the average salary is less than $50,000? 8% is sounding pretty cheap to those employers, and with unemployment as high as it is now, do you think they are worried about finding new employees if some leave because they dropped insurance?

 

I don't believe the bold statements are correct. I mean, I'm pretty sure that if you change jobs and your new employer has a private plan for its employees, it can enroll you in that plan. and the choice the new employer has is not put you in the public option OR pay an additional fine...the choice is provide you with private coverage, or pay the fine (which is essentially paying the government to enroll you into the public plan).

 

so the problem is, the government can set that fine wherever they want. if it's significantly cheaper than buying your employees insurance, then a lot of employers are going to notice that the prudent thing for them to do is stop paying for their employees' coverage directly, and instead to pay the smaller fine and have them enrolled in the public plan. saves them a bunch of money, and their employees are still covered. so a lot of people (estimates range from 11 to 80-something million people, depending on exactly how the government frames the incentives) are going to be forced out of their existing covereage into the government plan based on the whim of their employer. and down the line, all the government has to do if it wants to create a de facto single payer system is manipulate the legal incentives a little more.

[bushwacked]

Perch is Facebook friends with Sarah Palin.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Page 16, though that is only one of many reasons this bill sucks.

 

X

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

I don't believe the bold statements are correct. I mean, I'm pretty sure that if you change jobs and your new employer has a private plan for its employees, it can enroll you in that plan. and the choice the new employer has is not put you in the public option OR pay an additional fine...the choice is provide you with private coverage, or pay the fine (which is essentially paying the government to enroll you into the public plan).

 

so the problem is, the government can set that fine wherever they want. if it's significantly cheaper than buying your employees insurance, then a lot of employers are going to notice that the prudent thing for them to do is stop paying for their employees' coverage directly, and instead to pay the smaller fine and have them enrolled in the public plan. saves them a bunch of money, and their employees are still covered. so a lot of people (estimates range from 11 to 80-something million people, depending on exactly how the government frames the incentives) are going to be forced out of their existing covereage into the government plan based on the whim of their employer. and down the line, all the government has to do if it wants to create a de facto single payer system is manipulate the legal incentives a little more.

 

IIRC the "fine" is something like 8% of payroll. So if the public option sucks so bad, employees will be drawn to employers that offer private insurance in their benefits package.

[Yukon Cornelius]

It's been said,but I don't believe them.How does a private insurer that has to make a profit as a business compete with a government plan that doesn't?

 

um they are not supposed to make a profit.

I am in agreement. It is easier (and more intelligent) if we let people die who don't have health insurance. In some ways, it's like natural selection. Us smart people have jobs that enable us to access care. The stupid and the lazy don't have health care. Fk em. Our nation will be stronger without these losers.

I like naZi 's 2

[Chavez]

Tort reform is not a silver bullet, but it would help curb medical cost significantly as defensive medicine and malpractice coverage is estimated to account for up to 10% of our medical bills.

That means the insurance companies are gouging the doctors just like the gouge the rest of us. Yay capitalism.

[Chavez]

well that is just rephrasing the point people like perch would make...that litigation makes doctors do things (that cost money) that they as doctors wouldn't otherwise do simply to prevent lawsuits. "defensive medicine", and those costs likely aren't counted in your half of a percent stat.

 

the American Society of Anesthesiologists launched a project to analyze every claim ever brought against its members and develop new ways to reduce medical error. By 2002, the specialty had one of the highest safety ratings in the profession, and its average insurance premium plummeted to its 1985 level, bucking nationwide trends. Similarly, feeling embattled by a high rate of malpractice claims, the University of Michigan Medical System in 2002 analyzed all adverse claims and used the data to restructure procedures to guard against error. Since instituting the program, the number of suits has dropped by half, and the university's annual spending on malpractice litigation is down two-thirds. And at the Lexington, Ky., Veterans Affairs Medical Center, a program of early disclosure and settlement of malpractice claims lowered average settlement costs to $15,000, compared with $83,000 for other VA hospitals.

Yep, MUCH more costly. You are correct.