|
Posted by Ed Huntress on December 27, 2009, 1:15 pm
Please log in for more thread options
>>wrote:
>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977953779
>>>>>> "Sarah Palin Tells 'Lie of the Year'; Glenn Beck Takes Second"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Pulitzer Prize-winning political fact-checking project PolitiFact has
>>>>>>announced
>>>>>>their first-ever Lie of the Year: Death panels
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/health/23ucla.html
>>>>>"If you come into this hospital, we're not going to let you die," said
>>>>>Dr. David T. Feinberg, the hospital system's chief executive.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yet that ethos has made the medical center a prime target for critics
>>>>>in the Obama administration
>>>>
>>>> I have no idea
>>>
>>>THAT I can accept as the truth.
>>
>> How did saving the old guy's life at fairly low cost rather
>>than putting him on a wating list for a *possible* heart transplant
>>become something to blame Obama for?
>
> Simply whether or not 0bama's death panels (under another name of
> course since they don't exist) get to say what procedures are allowed
> and which are denied with a heart felt "Tough luck, Charlie. Here's a
> pamphlet on dying".
This is a myth. Show us where you get the wacky idea that the bill creates
panels that "allow" or "disallow" specific procedures.
>
>> Logical minds want to know.
There's no logic to it. It's just a lot of crap.
>
> No one has ever accused you of having a logical mind.
Let's see the premise on which you base this "logic."
--
Ed Huntress
|
|
Posted by Winston_Smith on December 27, 2009, 1:31 pm
Please log in for more thread options
>>>On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 15:50:49 -0700, Winston_Smithwrote:
>>>>>On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 14:02:50 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977953779
>>>>>>> "Sarah Palin Tells 'Lie of the Year'; Glenn Beck Takes Second"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Pulitzer Prize-winning political fact-checking project PolitiFact has
>>>>>>>announced
>>>>>>>their first-ever Lie of the Year: Death panels
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/health/23ucla.html
>>>>>>"If you come into this hospital, we're not going to let you die," said
>>>>>>Dr. David T. Feinberg, the hospital system's chief executive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yet that ethos has made the medical center a prime target for critics
>>>>>>in the Obama administration
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no idea
>>>>
>>>>THAT I can accept as the truth.
>>>
>>> How did saving the old guy's life at fairly low cost rather
>>>than putting him on a wating list for a *possible* heart transplant
>>>become something to blame Obama for?
>>
>> Simply whether or not 0bama's death panels (under another name of
>> course since they don't exist) get to say what procedures are allowed
>> and which are denied with a heart felt "Tough luck, Charlie. Here's a
>> pamphlet on dying".
>
>This is a myth. Show us where you get the wacky idea that the bill creates
>panels that "allow" or "disallow" specific procedures.
Where do you think the decision for Medicare to "allow" one procedure
and deny another comes from? I hope it's not made by politicians or
throwing darts.
No, the bill doesn't "create" them. They are have been in place for
decades.
I find it interesting that, just as this ball got rolling, a lot of
non-existent panels decided to reverse themselves on a lot of
procedures.
Government used to be - supposedly - the guardian of what insurance
companies can do to us. Now they have taken on the very same
interests that for-profit companies have of maximizing income and
minimizing expenses.
|
|
Posted by Ed Huntress on December 27, 2009, 1:44 pm
Please log in for more thread options
>>>>On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 15:50:49 -0700, Winston_Smithwrote:
>>>>>>On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 14:02:50 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977953779
>>>>>>>> "Sarah Palin Tells 'Lie of the Year'; Glenn Beck Takes Second"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Pulitzer Prize-winning political fact-checking project PolitiFact
>>>>>>>>has
>>>>>>>>announced
>>>>>>>>their first-ever Lie of the Year: Death panels
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/health/23ucla.html
>>>>>>>"If you come into this hospital, we're not going to let you die,"
>>>>>>>said
>>>>>>>Dr. David T. Feinberg, the hospital system's chief executive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yet that ethos has made the medical center a prime target for critics
>>>>>>>in the Obama administration
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have no idea
>>>>>
>>>>>THAT I can accept as the truth.
>>>>
>>>> How did saving the old guy's life at fairly low cost rather
>>>>than putting him on a wating list for a *possible* heart transplant
>>>>become something to blame Obama for?
>>>
>>> Simply whether or not 0bama's death panels (under another name of
>>> course since they don't exist) get to say what procedures are allowed
>>> and which are denied with a heart felt "Tough luck, Charlie. Here's a
>>> pamphlet on dying".
>>
>>This is a myth. Show us where you get the wacky idea that the bill creates
>>panels that "allow" or "disallow" specific procedures.
>
> Where do you think the decision for Medicare to "allow" one procedure
> and deny another comes from? I hope it's not made by politicians or
> throwing darts.
There is no such provision. I worked with Medicare, Medicaid, and private
insurance for four years. Tell us what you're talking about.
>
> No, the bill doesn't "create" them. They are have been in place for
> decades.
They have not.
>
> I find it interesting that, just as this ball got rolling, a lot of
> non-existent panels decided to reverse themselves on a lot of
> procedures.
Tell us about those, too.
>
> Government used to be - supposedly - the guardian of what insurance
> companies can do to us. Now they have taken on the very same
> interests that for-profit companies have of maximizing income and
> minimizing expenses.
No they have not. Government "guards" very little about insurance companies,
although there are big variations among the states. And there are no limits
on what health care you can buy. Nor will there be any if either of the
current bills pass.
Cites for your claims, please.
--
Ed Huntress
|
|
Posted by Winston_Smith on December 27, 2009, 3:01 pm
Please log in for more thread options
An 0bama apology too far into lala land to even address seriously.
Get back to us when you have something other than hope and denial.
|
|
Posted by Ed Huntress on December 27, 2009, 3:44 pm
Please log in for more thread options
>
> An 0bama apology too far into lala land to even address seriously.
> Get back to us when you have something other than hope and denial.
No. What you're hearing is the voice of someone who actually *worked* in the
industry, and knows how it works. I don't know what cranks you're listening
to (one of the Palinistas?) but they're full of crap.
There is no limit on what healthcare you can buy. Nor will there be, if one
of these bills pass. What they're talking about is that there will be review
boards to determine which procedures, drugs, and medical devices will be
*covered*. Just like it is now, you can pay for any available procedure that
won't be covered by insurance -- or you can buy extra insurance to cover it.
I've done that myself. Having multiple policies saved me thousands a few
years ago. I could have paid it myself, but I got lucky with my secondary
coverage. There probably will be more such secondary plans available with
universal care, just as there are for Medicare and private insurance now.
"Rationing" is exactly what private insurers do now. I wrote and edited drug
dossiers. Those are the multi-hundred-page documents that are written to
convince private insurers to cover a drug. Sometimes they would, and
sometimes they wouldn't. The same procedure is used for devices. For medical
procedures, the insurers have panels who make a herculean effort to
determine which ones are worth it. They don't decide what you can have; they
decide what they'll pay for.
Private insurance medical boards are made up of serious people, just like
their opposite numbers at Medicare (and Medicaid, in most cases). They're
not evil; they really want to help people.
But there are issues that confound the issue. One is that the chief medical
officers of private companies are compensated partly by how much money they
save. You can see where the incentives are. I'm not saying that they deny a
lot of procedures just to boost their bonuses, but the incentives are there
for them to do so. Occasionally the press gets their hands on one and all
hell breaks loose.
As I've explained before, doctors in many fields spend a great deal of their
time arguing with insurers about coverage; the doctors have to go to bat for
their patients. That's true both with private insurance and with Medicare.
There is almost no difference between what Medicare covers and what typical
private insurance covers. In fact, Medicare sets the standard in many
fields. If Medicare will cover it and private insurers won't, the latter is
in the sights of the press, and their PR departments know it.
The medical field is loaded with legal, medical, and regulatory review
boards; everything I wrote had to pass all three types. They also have
ethics review committees. Most Fortune 500 companies actually are
self-insured; the card may say Blue Cross, but the payments are all made by
the insured company. They have their *own* review boards, often quite good
ones, but no better than those of Medicare. The difference is that company
review boards look at almost everything, first, in terms of how much
productivity loss it will prevent for the company. I wrote those pitches,
among others.
Medicare and Medicaid pay roughly 30% of the health care bills in this
country, so they're a big part of what we have now. They work quite well,
despite what the private-insurers' mouthpieces say. In many areas, they're
more efficient than private insurance.
The new bills will have similar systems. No one with be "disallowed" from
any coverage they want. But, just like it is now with private insurance, if
the drug, procedure, or device isn't covered, they'll have to pay it
themselves.
There are no "death panels." There ARE institutions that determine what care
will be covered by insurance. We call them private insurance companies.
Read up. Get your head out of the right-wing bullshit. You might be
surprised at what you find.
--
Ed Huntress
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Re: Lie of the Year | December 20, 2009, 8:19 am |
| Re: Lie of the Year | December 20, 2009, 8:42 am |
| Re: Lie of the Year | December 20, 2009, 8:44 am |
| Re: Lie of the Year | December 22, 2009, 2:09 pm |
| Re: Lie of the Year | December 23, 2009, 1:05 pm |
| Re: Lie of the Year | December 25, 2009, 11:45 am |
| Re: Lie of the Year | December 28, 2009, 12:19 pm |
| Re: First Buzzword of the new year... | December 30, 2007, 1:01 pm |
| It's That Time of Year Again | July 16, 2008, 10:01 am |
| Next year, 11% unimployment!!!! | October 5, 2008, 4:20 pm |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap