What "death panel" would you prefer ?

[jclalor 12]

It seems with all this talk of "Death panels" going on lately that some people forget that it is private insurance companys that often make the decisions on who lives and who dies. Even if there WAS a goverment panel that decided very complicated cases I would much rather take my chances with the goverment than a corporation that has a profit motive for denying my care.

[Andy9o8 3]

I'd want the death panel that would declare Obama's birth certificate to be bogus.

[skydiverbry 0]

I'd take the feds too.Hell they screw everything else up...they'd more then likely screw up my death schedule


Bry

--------------------------------------------------
Growing old is mandatory.Growing up is optional!!

D.S.#13(Dudeist Skdiver)

[lawrocket 3]

Any left wing individual out there, please consider the following:

Let's say you have Blue Cross. Karl Rove is named as an officer or the corp in charge of selecting who dies. You switch in a hurry.

Now, let's say Karl Rove is in charge of the government death panel. You really cannot opt out of it. Are you happy with a government death panel?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 3]

Jesus H. Christ, please don't tell me you've drunk the Kool-Aid and actually believe that there could/would be "death panels" in the first place.

Oh, and - "left wing"? You really use that phrase? Never woulda thunk it.

[lawrocket 3]

No I haven't. I don't believe the "death panel" talk.

And "left-wing" or "pinko" are terms that I use. I fit them half the time on police issues, etc.

However, I DO like to point out that for every government program, one side's antichrist will be in charge.

"Imagine if we had Dubya in charge of National Health.

"Imagine Hillary Clinton exercising powers under the Patriot Act. Better reregister."

People always like when their guy/gal is in charge and fear when the other is. I think, "Bush couldn't have fucked up the economy had the Feds not taken such control."

I go with the hypotheticals given and mock them.

And the Kool-Aid thong has gotten outta hand.

To the tune of "Downtown" by Petula Clark

"When you are broke
And your religion's a joke
There's only one man to see
Jim Jones.
When life's incomplete
There's only one man to meet
So won't you come and see
Jim Jones
Watch him as he stirs a vat of koolaid that's so lethal
Listen to the anguished cries of all the dying people
No one survived
Their deaths were both painful and slow
But if to live is to die it's a great way to go
We're at Jonestown
Drinking with Rev. Jim
Jonestown
Chances are mighty slim
Jonestown
People are dropping like flies...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

I would much rather take my chances with the goverment than a corporation that has a profit motive for denying my care.

The profit motives are predictable. Political motives are not.

Just somthing to consider.

[likearock 2]

Quote

Any left wing individual out there, please consider the following:

Let's say you have Blue Cross. Karl Rove is named as an officer or the corp in charge of selecting who dies. You switch in a hurry.

Now, let's say Karl Rove is in charge of the government death panel. You really cannot opt out of it. Are you happy with a government death panel?

What is the basis of your assumption: "You really can't opt out of it"? If you are able to switch from a private health plan, you should just as well be able to switch from a government health plan.

[tbrown 26]

There are no government "death panels", this is just another Palin/Limbaugh LIE. It should make another chapter in SENATOR Al Franken's book, "Lying Liars and the Lies They Tell".

The insurance companies have had their own death panels in place for years. Every time they've denied a drug, denied a therapy, or cancelled coverage on someone being treated for cancer, they've passed a death sentence.

I'd actually like to see some public hangings for the insurance executives who have passed these death sentences. I really would.

That "lefty" enough for y'all out there ???

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[lawrocket 3]

Because you are paying for the govt program whether you opt in or not. Let's say you are taxed an extra $10k per year for the "free" program, whether you participate of not. You want to switch to a private plan thatll cost you $10k per year.

Congrats - you are paying $20k per year for healthcare.

I know I can't swing it. I am effectively priced out of private care because I don't have the money for it because I am paying for the other option.

It's how they work.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[likearock 2]

First of all, I haven't seen any proposals for raising taxes attached to any of the healthcare bills. Besides which:

Quote

Let's say you have Blue Cross. Karl Rove is named as an officer or the corp in charge of selecting who dies. You switch in a hurry.

Right, you do that. Just how easy do you think it would be to find a private insurer who will take you on immediately and pay for something your former insurer refused? Perhaps you haven't heard about their policy regarding pre-existing conditions?

[billvon 3,179]

>Because you are paying for the govt program whether you opt in or not.

Just as you are now for the unofficial GOP "just don't pay" plan. In 2004 that cost was $125 billion. The costs for the House version of the healthcare plan will be around $65 billion a year.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

I would much rather take my chances with the goverment than a corporation that has a profit motive for denying my care.

The profit motives are predictable. Political motives are not.

Just somthing to consider.

Also corporations have greater interest in keeping you alive so you can keep paying them.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

>Because you are paying for the govt program whether you opt in or not.

Just as you are now for the unofficial GOP "just don't pay" plan. In 2004 that cost was $125 billion. The costs for the House version of the healthcare plan will be around $65 billion a year.

It'd be interesting to see what the source of those numbers are:
* Was the total cost $125 billion or was that just the feds portion?
* Is the $65 billion the total cost or only the feds portion?
* Are they factoring in the increase in usage now that there is an established system vs. a pseudo one?

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[billvon 3,179]

>Also corporations have greater interest in keeping you alive so you can
>keep paying them.

?? Uh, no, they absolutely don't. That's why they compile tables to determine who is worth paying for and who isn't.

A 21 year old male who doesn't smoke and who runs regularly? They're going to be all over insuring him! He's going to pay them for years, and his costs will likely be minimal for a long time.

A 70 year old grandmother who needs a liver transplant? They're going to do whatever they can to deny her care - because at best she'll be paying premiums for a few more years and cost them hundreds of thousands in the meantime.

A 10 year old with spina bifida or Down syndrome? Even worse! She's going to cost them far more than she will ever pay. And if the insurance company has the 'misfortune' of seeing her survive until she's 70, that's 60 years of losses for them.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

First of all, I haven't seen any proposals for raising taxes attached to any of the healthcare bills. Besides which:

When I see things like costs must be held under a trillion dollars, I tend to think that the program loses a trillion dollars that are made up with taxpayer dollars.

It is inescapeable.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>Because you are paying for the govt program whether you opt in or not.

Just as you are now for the unofficial GOP "just don't pay" plan. In 2004 that cost was $125 billion. The costs for the House version of the healthcare plan will be around $65 billion a year.

Actually, I'm against that as well, bill. Just because I'm against paying for it with my tax money doesn't mean I am for paying for it with my tax money.

And, yeah, A GOP POTUS and GOP Senate passed EMTALA, which made this uncompensated care possible. There's plenty of blame for the GOP in this.

You suggest a fix that says, "The engine keeps blowing out. Let's just go ahead and budget for replacement engines." My thought is, "Get outta the fucking car. You keep blowing up the engine."

I don;'t like creating a problem and then saying that the problem is real and we've gotta pay up for it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[dks13827 3]

I want the dumb folks working at DMV to be my death panel.

[billvon 3,179]

>You suggest a fix that says, "The engine keeps blowing out. Let's just go
>ahead and budget for replacement engines." My thought is, "Get outta
>the fucking car. You keep blowing up the engine."

Yep. And if we could just keep people from getting sick (or "blowing their engines") this wouldn't be much of an issue. However, that remains an elusive goal.

To extend your analogy, though, if blowing engines is a problem, making preventative maintenance more affordable might be a better solution than just replacing them after they break - especially since some people get that done and then refuse to pay for the work.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Just how easy do you think it would be to find a private insurer who will take you on immediately and pay for something your former insurer refused? Perhaps you haven't heard about their policy regarding pre-existing conditions?

Having switched carriers six times in the last ten years (including buying individual insurance) I am well acquainted with "pre-existing conditions" coverage. I had a sinus surgery in 03 fiur months into new coverage that was initially denied as pre-existing. I merely provided a certificate of credible coverage.

See, insuarance companies cover pre-existing conditions if you had insurance at the time. They DON'T (and shouldn't have to, in my opinion) cover people who are uninsured until they get sick.

Think of a person who had no insurance and is dx'd with leukemia. treatment will cost $100k. So they pay $800 month for insurance. Easy way to save loads by making others pay for it.

But if they've been covered within 60 days, the insurance company will cover it.

Methinks that you've bought the versions from Sarah Palin's opposite.

And, let's say you have no insurance and wrecj your car. Would you expect to buy insurance and say "fix it?". Nobody would. Yet, they think that health insurance should.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

And, let's say you have no insurance and wrecj your car. Would you expect to buy insurance and say "fix it?". Nobody would. Yet, they think that health insurance should.

cars are inanimate objects - people are real
(ask stephen hawking)

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

And, let's say you have no insurance and wrecj your car. Would you expect to buy insurance and say "fix it?". Nobody would. Yet, they think that health insurance should.

cars are inanimate objects - people are real
(ask stephen hawking)

But the people who will pay for leach are not inanimate, now are they?

I still have yet to see you post of anything that you have done for others by yourself. Instead, you favor making others to pay for those you won't. Like John Lennon kicking homeless off of his land.

Tell me, how much do you break so others can fix it? Ever take a lead pipe to a scab and demand that society help out the poor guy?

How about giving a shit about ALL of the animate objects? Oh, no. Can't do that. I choose to take from nobody. You choose to take from people.

The difference between us.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jgoose71 0]

I, for one, really like this "Death Panel" bit. We all there is no "Death Panels" so to speak. The term came from mandatory living wills and the expectation of rationed health care when money and doctors start running low.

It doesn't matter though, everyone knows the health care system needs reform and this bill does not cover any of the key issues that need addressed, so I don't care what they call it, it needs to die.

I do like the poetic justice of a false label though. After Democrats coming up with terms like "bridge to nowhere" and "stimulus bill" to get the publics attention and get their way, to hear that the Republicans are taking a page out of the Democratic play book is poetic. Is it right? No. But it is poetic.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[billvon 3,179]

>After Democrats coming up with terms like "bridge to nowhere" . . .

Dude, Sarah Palin was photographed holding up a "nowhere, alaska" shirt long before it became a campaign issue. No doubt the democrats capitalized on it, but she was one of the creators of it.

If you don't want it talked about, don't bring it up.

[riddler 0]

Quote

making preventative maintenance more affordable might be a better solution than just replacing them after they break

I only went to this doctor to get an annual (required) physical to teach scuba - he's a diver, and seemed to be a good doctor (G.P., with solid western-medicine credentials). A few months later, I got a letter from him stating that he was changing the format of his practice; he was going to charge a flat rate annually for all medical services he performed, but everyone was going to get monthly checkups, and all recommended annual care items (cancer screening, bloodwork, etc). His rationale was that he would be able to find and fix most problems early if everyone was scheduled to come in on a routine basis, and he might catch a few lifethreating diseases while they were in the early-treatable stages. He had a family plan that was affordable as well.

I read his letter, thought it was a good price he was charging, decided it wasn't for me and my young family, but a great idea for people that are a bit older and have more medical problems and higher risk for aging diseases (heart, cancer). Two months later, I got a second letter from him. It stated that the insurance companies had found out about his obviously detestable practice idea, and sent him threatening legal letters that stated if he moved forward, not only would they cancel their insurance carrier coverage with him, but they would sue him for ... what? Trying to make people healthier with preventative maintenance? The letter didn't specify the legalese, but there must be certain laws in place that prevent such atrocious foresight on the part of a medical doctor.

The insurance companies don't want preventative medicine - at least not the type he was proposing. I'm sure they've had experience with it, and somehow it costs them more money. Or maybe they are hoping that people that are sick, but don't know it yet get off their policy before they find out? I have no idea why they were so afraid of such a concept. Maybe someone wiser than me knows the answer.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD