Comments on: Why Sarah Palin is right on the issue of “death panels”

By: Carlos

Carlos — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 19:58:42 +0000

Years ago there was a show on T.V. about a dinosaur society. In one of the episodes I remember it was time for the ritual of “hurling”. No it wasn’t about tossing your cookies, it was about the practice (many centuries old in the show) of hurling the old folks off a high cliff.

The teenage boy objected to the practice because he loved his grandma and wanted her to stay around, even though she had reached “the age”.

I can’t remember how it turned out, I just remember that’s what it was about. And now, with the age language looming so large in the proposed legislation, and knowing the direction Zero and his health program advisers are prone to, the reality looms in our society.

The only meaning life has for them (other than their own, of course) is how much can be gained for them from another life? That’s why lives at the beginning (birth) and lives after productivity (old age) have no meaning for them. They are, truly, the party of death.

By: Steve Skubinna

Steve Skubinna — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 03:22:44 +0000

Nice analogy, Sev, but rest assured that if the government took over distribution of sand, it would in short order become a) hideously expensive and b) difficult to obtain.

By: Carlos

Carlos — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 00:39:52 +0000

What “well-intentioned altruistic power broker”? I was totally unaware the government had any such animal in its employ, starting at the top down to the local nazis running “land planning”.

By: Severian

Severian — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 18:57:22 +0000

Ah, the “astroturf” brigade are out in force, hitting the blogs to support Dear Leader and his plans.

No kidding, everything is “rationed” that is worth having. About the only thing we have so much of that it doesn’t need rationing is sand. But, the question isn’t so much whether something will be rationed, but who will do the rationing and make the decisions. Back when Clintoncare was about to be inflicted in the 90′s, a good friend, another physicist, whom I respect deeply had what I think was the best comment yet on this.

Everything is rationed and sold, the only question is what is the “coin of the realm” to get said item? With Capitalism, the coin of the realm is money. With government in charge, the coin of the realm is influence, who you know, or who you are. Which do you think is really more egalitarian? If you are poor, you can get health care by borrowing money, working for money, from charity, from other people’s generosity, going in debt offering your future labor for something you need now, there are a lot of options. With govt run care, if you need something that’s “rationed” or restricted, you have to count on either being important enough or knowing someone important enough to influence the decision in your favor.

So, which sounds like a fairer approach to you? Evil money, or that well intentioned altruistic power broker who wants to decide for you?

By: Brontefan

Brontefan — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 18:15:53 +0000

Congrats! Steve Skubinna
Once again you have taken the Liberal spin and decoded the data! I have relatives in England and can tell you that they are not all elated about their National Health System. An 82-year-old mother of a friend in Essex was on a waiting list for a shoulder operation and at last count, she had waited in excess of 14 months. All insurance policies have limits based on what you select; however, NOW we can choose to seek alternative treatment at our own expense–not the American taxpayer’s–and presently my medical files are not on some government bureaucrat’s computer. Frankly, with all the broken promises from the campaign trail–and all the special interest groups OB is playing to… I don’t trust my government to manage my dog’s health care!

By: Steve Skubinna

Steve Skubinna — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:00:25 +0000

I see we have a drive by Axelturfer. We won’t see “Steve” again, but I’d address the ridiculous point he made about rationing.

No, we do not have it now. I already know what my medical insurance will and will not cover, and nothing prevents me from obtaining treatment beyond that. I do not have a “right” to goods and services extorted form anyone, but I do have a right to obtain what I choose and can afford.

But again, that isn’t the real argument, nor is the asinine claim that “the vast majority” of those in othe rnations love their national health care. Absolute BS, in fact a staggering falsehood. Shame on you.

The real issue is that I am not, and will not be a serf. You cannot make me a chattel. You can only make me dead. The real point is that I will fight to the death to be free. Steve, are you prepeared to use deadly force to compel me to surrender my freedom? Are you prepared to kill fellow citizens refusing your offer of benevolent bondage? Am I just one of those “eggs” you socialists love to prattle about breaking to make your utopian omelets? Obama’s old friends Ayers and Dohrn were prepared to murder 25 million American citizens to install their workers’ paradise – what’s your ballpark figure?

By: Sister Toldjah

Sister Toldjah — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:41:12 +0000

No problem, Bronte – I took care of the other one for you.

By: Brontefan

Brontefan — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:34:16 +0000

apologies for duplication!

By: Brontefan

Brontefan — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:33:05 +0000

The idea that we need reform at the speed of light by people who admittedly do not even READ the bills they sign–is absurd. No one with any common sense would operate on this plateau and the fact that the current admiinstration insists on it—generally means there is something to hide. Serious Tort reform should be the first step but most of our politicians are lawyers.

By: Lorica

Lorica — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:47:41 +0000

Unless Congress rejects IMAC’s recommendations within 30 days, they would become law. The administration would have license to implement them “notwithstanding any provisions of this Act or any other provisions governing the Medicare program.”

We already have one government agency that has this sort of power, we call it the IRS, we definately don’t need another. If you want to see what an “all controlling” government agency is like read the book “The Power to Destroy”. Freeking amazing some of the things the IRS has done. John Stossel made a video of parts of the book, that might be on YouTube. Raiding people’s homes with sub machine guns, causing people to kill themselves, all sorts of horrendous things have been done by the IRS, and this is the sort of stuff you are going to get with this government health care.

Example, most insurance companies limit the number of days that a woman can spend in the hospital following a non-complicated delivery to over-night. That means that women are discharged from the hospital the next day after giving birth. That is rationing.

Most states say that the insurance companies have to pay up to 3 days in this example. Also, this example isn’t industry wide, unlike most edicts from a NHC plan.

Another example, most insurance companies demand that generic drugs be dispensed and that if a name brand drug is prescribed there is a significantly larger co-pay even is studies have shown that the name drug works better than the generic version. Again, that is rationing. These are just a couple of examples.

This is not altogether correct either Steve. I have been with 4 insurance companies in the last 10 years, and all of them paid for the name brand in my meds, not just the generic. Yes I have to pay a larger co-pay, which I pay 15.00 or the lowest price for generic, and I pay 30.00 for name brand not such a huge difference, but since most Doctors push the latest meds, it doesn’t really matter, you will always pay for the name brands.

Steve, your rational is confused at best, and deluded at worst. We do have the best health care in the world, bar none. How many of the latest and greatest developments in HC were created here in the US?? The latest drugs?? How many Nations around the world have the Research and Development expenditures that the US has?? Most of these other countries have little to none, and thus they have less HC costs. If you start to ration this, eventually we will have cheaper HC costs yes. But you will not have the advancements that we are having now. Trust me, I would rather have the profits go to a US company who will turn 1 Dollar into 7, than a government agency, who will turn 1 Dollar into 1.5 Dollars.

Now if you want to control costs, the easiest way to do this, is to have Tort Reform. How many multi-million dollar payouts over the last 15 years have there been?? John Edwards is a multi-millionaire from what?? 12 cases and junk science?? Since his junk science has been revealed, as he even practiced Law?? Change how and who punitive damages are given to, and you will change HC. If the majority of punitive damages went into a pool to pay HC issues related to that problem then you would not have mulitiple cases for the same problem, which in turn causes prices to rise due to insurance, legal fees, multiple punitive payouts, so forth and so on. Then Doctors might not want to do a million tests for a fever, just to cover themselves. Why not cap a lawyers payout to 10 percent of the real damages in these cases. Not 30% of both real and punitive damages. How much money would that save over the years considering the number of cases?? Haven’t we seen the incredible waste that has gone on with these punitive damages payouts?? Look at the big tobacco payout of 10 years ago. The law firm that won that, won over a billion dollars for it’s legal fees. BULLS**T!! Did they have a billion dollars in expenses in this case?? Hell No!!! Most of these states have wasted their payouts, and some have outright sold them for half or less of what they are worth. That money was intended for helping cancer victims, and now it is all wasted. Give me a frickin’ break Steve.

Yeah we need reform alright, but not by a group of people who are owned by the very people that should be reformed.

Sorry this post is so long, just had alot of things on my mind regarding this issue, and the blind foolishness of those who are defending it. – Lorica

By: omapian

omapian — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:33:36 +0000

Why should the choice be limited to “profit hungry insurance companies” and “our elected representatives?” We currently have a third option. If the insurance company denies a claim we can still pay for the procedure out of our own pocket, or we can appeal the decision.
As a matter of choice, I put more trust in profit motivated insurance companies than the members of the 111th congress who pass legislation without reading it and have demonstrated no concern about costs to future generations. Profit motivated insurance companies pay taxes and employ individuals who pay taxes. Our current system does have room for improvement — but abolishing it is not the answer.
As to the issue of “Death Panels,” there is some confusion over ‘end of life’ counseling. Some see it as setting up living wills and trusts, others would prepare to meet their maker. If the language is ambiguous it will be left to a 5-4 Supreme Court to decide, not our elected representatives. Now is the time to remove ambiguous language so our representatives will not need two lawyers to explain 1,000 plus pages of legislation to them.

By: Kate

Kate — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 12:17:07 +0000

Once the single payer system is in place, this will be the norm. The telling thing is the speed at which their “boards” decision would be law. This has to be the back door to socialized everything not just health care.

Unless Congress rejects IMAC’s recommendations within 30 days, they would become law. The administration would have license to implement them “notwithstanding any provisions of this Act or any other provisions governing the Medicare program.”

By: Carlos

Carlos — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 05:24:00 +0000

If E. Emanuel isn’t reason enough to oppose any provision giving guvmint the right to choose services, then nothing is.

And Steve, the natural extension of that is that anyone who supports it is a traitor to the country, also. Never have so few bogused so many for so little that means so much.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 03:41:00 +0000

RAtioning already exists. All rationing means is that we don’t get all the service that we would like.
Example, most insurance companies limit the number of days that a woman can spend in the hospital following a non-complicated delivery to over-night. That means that women are discharged from the hospital the next day after giving birth. That is rationing.
Another example, most insurance companies demand that generic drugs be dispensed and that if a name brand drug is prescribed there is a significantly larger co-pay even is studies have shown that the name drug works better than the generic version. Again, that is rationing. These are just a couple of examples.
By definition this is rationing. Therefore any discussion that says that health reform will lead to rationing is nonsense. There is already rationing and there has to be. Our appetite for health care is so insatiable that without rationing we would soon spend all our money on it. We would have 110 year olds getting organ transplants and people going to the doctor every day demanding million dollar tests.
The only question is who decides, the government or the profit hungry insurance companies.
The reality is that in every single other developed country they have government run health care, and in every single one of those countries, the vast majority of people love it. While there are clearly some people who don’t like it, there is absolutely no call to go back to any other system.
Every change means that there are some people who will lose and others who will win. Ifwe raise taxes some love it and some hate it, and exactly the same thing would happen if we lowered taxes, some would benefit and some would not.
Lets not talk nonsense. If you don’t like the current suggestion, make a new suggestion.
You think that a trillion dollars is a lot to spend on health care? What will be spent if we do nothing?
We are already spending about 17% of our GNR on health care. This is roughly twice what every other country spends.
The best health care in this country is the best in the world, but the average health care, what you and I get, ranks far down the list.
So don’t talk nonsense. Cost control is what is important, I totally agree. The only question is, who is going to control the cost, our elected representatives, or the profit hungry insurance companies.

By: Steve Skubinna

Steve Skubinna — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 02:36:40 +0000

If the government assumes control of any commodity or service, it inevitably has to ration it. They won’t use that word for osmething as volatile as health care, expect to see it described as something like “management.” But it will amount to the same thing – that’s because the government, unlike the free market, cannot create new resources.

The real reason to oppose nationalized health care, however, is not on grounds of cost control, efficiency, or resource allocation, all of which play into the socialists’ hands. Oppose it because it fundamentally changes the relationship between citizens and their government. It will make us all wards fo the state, dependents upon the govenrment for our very lives.

As such it is an immoral concept, and anyone who supports it is a traitor to human freedom.