Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

They're baaaack!Follow

#1 Nov 09 2009 at 1:25 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,049 posts
Death Panels, that is!
Facebook wrote:
We’ve got to hold on to hope, and we’ve got to fight hard because Congressional action tonight just put America on a path toward an unrecognizable country.

The same government leaders that got us into the mortgage business and the car business are now getting us into the health care business.

Despite Americans’ decisive message last Tuesday that they reject the troubling path this country has been taking, Speaker Pelosi has broken her own promises of transparency to ram a health “care” bill through the House of Representatives just before midnight. Why did she push the 2,000 page bill this weekend? Was she perhaps afraid to give her peers and the constituents for whom she works the chance to actually read this monstrous bill carefully, if at all? Was she concerned that Americans might really digest the details of a bill that the Wall Street Journal has called “the worst piece of post-New Deal legislation ever introduced”?

This out-of-control bureaucratic mess will be disastrous for our economy, our small businesses, and our personal liberty. It will slam businesses at a time when we are at double-digit unemployment rates – the highest we’ve seen in a quarter of a century. This massive new bureaucracy will cost us and our children money we don’t have. It will rob Americans of more of our freedom and further hamper the free market.

Make no mistake: we’re on course to have government commandeer one-sixth of our economy. The people who gave us Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac now want to run our health care. Think about that.

All of us who value the sanctity of life are grateful for the success of the pro-life majority in the House this evening in its battle against federal funding of abortion in this bill, but it’s ironic because we were promised that abortion wasn’t covered in the bill to begin with. Our healthy distrust of these government leaders made us look deeper into the bill because unfortunately we knew better than to trust what they were saying. The victory tonight to amend the bill and eliminate that federal funding for abortion was great – because abortion is not health care. Now we can only hope that Rep. Stupak’s amendment will hold in the final bill, though the Democratic leadership has already refused to promise that it won’t be scrapped later.

We had been told there were no “death panels” in the bill either. But look closely at the provision mandating bureaucratic panels that will be calling the shots regarding who will receive government health care.

Look closely at provisions addressing illegal aliens’ health care coverage too.

Those of us who love freedom and believe in open and transparent government can only be dismayed by midnight action on a Saturday. Speaker Pelosi’s promise that Americans would have 72 hours to read the final bill before the vote was just another one of the D.C. establishment’s too-common political ploys. It’s broken promises like this that turn people off to politics and leave them disillusioned about the future of their country.

But despite this late-night maneuvering, many of us were paying close attention tonight. We’ll keep paying close attention. We need to let our legislators in Washington know that they still represent us, and that the majority of Americans are not in favor of the “reform” they are pushing. After all, this is still a country “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” We will make our voices heard. It’s on to the Senate now. Our legislators can listen now, or they can hear us in 2010. It’s their choice.

- Sarah Palin


Thinly veiled threats, no statistics, no citations, and a lot of fear-mongering and buzzwords. Didn't say maverick though, so kudos on that.

On a related note,
Virginia Foxx (R-NC) wrote:
Everywhere I go in my district, people tell me they are frightened. … I share that fear, and I believe they should be fearful. And I believe the greatest fear that we all should have to our freedom comes from this room — this very room — and what may happen later this week in terms of a tax increase bill masquerading as a health care bill. I believe we have more to fear from the potential of that bill passing than we do from any terrorist right now in any country.


On a final related note, a friend of mine got choked up when I mentioned being glad healthcare reform was going through. "You realize," she said, "If this goes through my mother will die?" I asked her to explain, and she said the medication her mother needs won't be available through the government, and without it she will die. If reform passes, private healthcare premiums will be too high for them to afford; even for the past year her family had been barely able to afford the costs, so any increase from this point would be too much. I felt bad for her, but I wondered to myself how they were coping with the huge increase (before any reform legislation went through) already approved for this year. I also wondered what her mother suffered, and how she knew that it wasn't to be covered under a public plan.

I suppose we'll see.
#2 Nov 09 2009 at 1:31 PM Rating: Decent
LockeColeMA wrote:
On a related note,
Virginia Foxx (R-NC) wrote:
Everywhere I go in my district, people tell me they are frightened. … I share that fear, and I believe they should be fearful. And I believe the greatest fear that we all should have to our freedom comes from this room — this very room — and what may happen later this week in terms of a tax increase bill masquerading as a health care bill. I believe we have more to fear from the potential of that bill passing than we do from any terrorist right now in any country.


Am I too harsh in saying now would be the perfect time for another 9/11?

Edit: In two days, it'll be veterans' day. How does 11/11 sound?

Edited, Nov 9th 2009 1:40pm by BrownDuck
#3 Nov 09 2009 at 1:33 PM Rating: Good
I hope abortions are free with the new healthcare bill.

Ok, maybe I'm not that zealous. But I hope that what Palin says is true and they will be covered under the public option.

LockeColeMA wrote:
On a final related note, a friend of mine got choked up when I mentioned being glad healthcare reform was going through. "You realize," she said, "If this goes through my mother will die?" I asked her to explain, and she said the medication her mother needs won't be available through the government, and without it she will die. If reform passes, private healthcare premiums will be too high for them to afford; even for the past year her family had been barely able to afford the costs, so any increase from this point would be too much. I felt bad for her, but I wondered to myself how they were coping with the huge increase (before any reform legislation went through) already approved for this year. I also wondered what her mother suffered, and how she knew that it wasn't to be covered under a public plan.

I suppose we'll see.


I imagine your friend has been fed a **** and bull story and ate it hook, line, and sinker.
#4 Nov 09 2009 at 1:35 PM Rating: Decent
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
I hope abortions are free with the new healthcare bill.

Ok, maybe I'm not that zealous. But I hope that what Palin says is true and they will be covered under the public option.


I'm fairly sure the bill contains a provision to deny elective abortion coverage.
#5 Nov 09 2009 at 1:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
I've sat on these so-called "Death Panels" (where I was one of the few non-medics) deciding how a finite budget of public money can be spent - e.g. 5% chance of extending a terminal child's life by 6 months, or a 90% chance of saving 25 children from going blind. It's bloody horrible, but the concept that 'rationing' is evil is just la-di-da, and the resort of people who never have to live with the consequences of their decisions.

At no stage was any patient or family prevented from using health insurance or self-funding alternatives.

People who don't have responsibility for taking such decisions should either have the balls to:
a) step forward and take the decisions themselves (and advise those who don't get the answer they want)
b) pay for the care that's been deemed ineffective or
c) Bugger off.

I am aware of not one, single decision where care that has any statistical likelihood of saving life has been withheld.

I am aware of many press campaigns where patients have claimed a 'life saving drug' has been withheld, when the facts are that the drug has hardly any chance of working, if successful would offer a brief delay to inevitable death, and would use divert money from genuinely effective care.

The 'public' budget is finite - if people choose to commit cash to ineffective treatment, I'm happy for shareholders to shoulder the burden - not the public at large.
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#6 Nov 09 2009 at 1:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
Oh - another perspective -

I work with US HMOs and Healthcare providers who convene 'panels' regularly to confirm or deny whether treatment is covered by individuals' health insurance policies.

If "Death Panels" exist - they're alive and well and living in the current US Healthcare system where profit is the motivation.

Christ this makes me seethe.
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#7 Nov 09 2009 at 1:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
I imagine your friend has been fed a **** and bull story and ate it hook, line, and sinker.


Needs moar cliches.
#8 Nov 09 2009 at 1:57 PM Rating: Decent
Nobby wrote:
Oh - another perspective -

I work with US HMOs and Healthcare providers who convene 'panels' regularly to confirm or deny whether treatment is covered by individuals' health insurance policies.

If "Death Panels" exist - they're alive and well and living in the current US Healthcare system where profit is the motivation.

Christ this makes me seethe.


This is a good point, and I honestly wonder why the health care reform machine hasn't regurgitated it more often.
#9 Nov 09 2009 at 2:39 PM Rating: Decent
BrownDuck wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
I hope abortions are free with the new healthcare bill.

Ok, maybe I'm not that zealous. But I hope that what Palin says is true and they will be covered under the public option.


I'm fairly sure the bill contains a provision to deny elective abortion coverage.


For both the public option AND private insurers as well, which really infuriates me.

Stupak Amendment

Quote:
The Stupak-Pitts amendment makes it virtually impossible for private insurance companies that participate in the new system to offer abortion coverage to women. This would have the effect of denying women the right to use their own personal private funds to purchase an insurance plan with abortion coverage in the new health system — a radical departure from the status quo. Presently, more than 85 percent of private-insurance plans cover abortion services.


And

Quote:
* The Stupak-Pitts amendment forbids any plan offering abortion coverage in the new system from accepting even one subsidized customer. Since more than 80 percent of the participants in the exchange will be subsidized, it seems certain that all health plans will seek and accept these individuals. In other words, the Stupak-Pitts amendment forces plans in the exchange to make a difficult choice: either offer their product to 80 percent of consumers in the marketplace or offer abortion services in their benefits package. It seems clear which choice they will make.
* Stupak-Pitts supporters claim that women who require subsidies to help pay for their insurance plan will have abortion access through the option of purchasing a "rider," but this is a false promise. According to the respected National Women's Law Center, the five states that require a separate rider for abortion coverage, there is no evidence that plans offer these riders. In fact, in North Dakota, which has this policy, the private plan that holds the state's overwhelming share of the health-insurance market (91 percent) does not offer such a rider. Furthermore, the state insurance department has no record of abortion riders from any of the five leading individual insurance plans from at least the past decade. Nothing in this amendment would ensure that rider policies are available or affordable to the more than 80 percent of individuals who will receive federal subsidies in order to help purchase coverage in the new exchange.


There's still a chance that the Stupak-Pitts amendment will not be included in the final bill that goes to the Senate. I really hope that it is removed, but I'm also pretty concerned that it won't.
#10 Nov 09 2009 at 2:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
Nobby wrote:
Christ this makes me seethe.
But a distant, slight nagging kind of seethe, right? I mean, you're nestled safely on your little island several thousand miles away. Smiley: glare

Edited, Nov 9th 2009 2:49pm by AshOnMyTomatoes
#11 Nov 09 2009 at 2:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
PigtailsOfDoom the Eccentric wrote:
For both the public option AND private insurers as well, which really infuriates me.

Private insurers only if you're using government vouchers to pay for them. If you have a typical "I get my insurance through my job" plan, they can cover all the abortions they want.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#12 Nov 09 2009 at 3:04 PM Rating: Good
Jophiel wrote:
PigtailsOfDoom the Eccentric wrote:
For both the public option AND private insurers as well, which really infuriates me.

Private insurers only if you're using government vouchers to pay for them. If you have a typical "I get my insurance through my job" plan, they can cover all the abortions they want.


Personally, if elective abortions aren't covered, then I want to see that penile implants and ED drugs aren't covered, either. Fair's fair.
#13 Nov 09 2009 at 3:04 PM Rating: Decent
Do you have a source for that Joph? Nothing I've read has said anything about this only being included with vouchers.
#14 Nov 09 2009 at 3:06 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
I'm a little confused as to why abortions should be included. I can see if the mothers life is in danger, or if there is psychological trauma from say a rape, but in any other circumstance, isn't it just an optional medical procedure?

Perhaps you feel that it should be covered, but even from that perspective, it seems like it's a fairly reasonable sacrifice to get the bill through, given that the majority of cases are not required.

Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Personally, if elective abortions aren't covered, then I want to see that penile implants and ED drugs aren't covered, either. Fair's fair.
They would be?

Edited, Nov 9th 2009 3:08pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#15REDACTED, Posted: Nov 09 2009 at 3:08 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Brown,
#16 Nov 09 2009 at 3:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
Professor AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
Nobby wrote:
Christ this makes me seethe.
But a distant, slight nagging kind of seethe, right? I mean, you're nestled safely on your little island several thousand miles away. Smiley: glare
Because I hate seeing people being shepherded into deeper disadvantage by Big Business wherever it happens.

And for Varrus -

So what happens when someone claims for healthcare? Is it automatically paid out? Or is there, perchance, a panel that assesses whether to pay or not?

Enlighten me, Oh King of teh Okrah!
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#17 Nov 09 2009 at 3:13 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Quote:
This is a good point, and I honestly wonder why the health care reform machine hasn't regurgitated it more often.


Because it's not true. The most simple answer if often the correct one.
No this is definitely true. There are many many examples of insurance companies deciding that a certain procedure is suddenly experimental, or choosing which doctors you can and cannot visit. It's SOP for an insurance company to pick hospitals they like better, (usually because they're cheaper) and not permit people to get care anywhere else.

Quote:
Because this is a liberal bill pushing a liberal agenda. Do you actually think these people care about healthcare?
This bill is not covering abortions. I was also specifically asking the poster, not making a general inquiry. Seriously, take the time to read a few posts before responding.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#18 Nov 09 2009 at 3:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
PigtailsOfDoom the Eccentric wrote:
Do you have a source for that Joph? Nothing I've read has said anything about this only being included with vouchers.

Nope, I was wrong. At least according to the info quoted here. I had heard it talked about as "plans" (i.e. individuals) where your info says that programs may not offer it if anyone in the group used vouchers or other federal insurance assistance.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#19 Nov 09 2009 at 3:27 PM Rating: Decent
publiusvarus wrote:
Brown,

Quote:
This is a good point, and I honestly wonder why the health care reform machine hasn't regurgitated it more often.


Because it's not true. The most simple answer if often the correct one.


Once again, you declare publicly your idiocy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22357873/ wrote:
Nataline had been battling leukemia and received a bone marrow transplant from her brother. She developed a complication that caused her liver to fail.

Doctors at UCLA determined she needed a transplant and sent a letter to Cigna Corp.’s Cigna HealthCare on Dec. 11. The Philadelphia-based health insurance company denied payment for the transplant, saying the procedure was experimental and outside the scope of coverage.

The insurer reversed the decision Thursday as about 150 teenagers and nurses rallied outside of its office. But Nataline died hours later.


http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_wires/2008May02/0,4675,MedicalMarijuanaDeath,00.html wrote:
A man who was denied a liver transplant largely because he used marijuana with medical approval to ease the symptoms of hepatitis C has died.

Timothy Garon, 56, died Thursday at Bailey-Boushay House, an intensive care nursing center, said his lawyer, Douglas Hiatt, and Alisha Mark, a spokeswoman for Virginia Mason Medical Center, which operates Bailey-Boushay.

His death came a week after a doctor told him a University of Washington Medical Center committee had again denied him a spot on the liver transplant list



And just for ***** and giggles

Girl with no ears denied hearing aid.

There are thousands more published cases just like these. Denial of the truth does not invalidate it.
#20 Nov 09 2009 at 3:30 PM Rating: Good
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I'm a little confused as to why abortions should be included. I can see if the mothers life is in danger, or if there is psychological trauma from say a rape, but in any other circumstance, isn't it just an optional medical procedure?

Perhaps you feel that it should be covered, but even from that perspective, it seems like it's a fairly reasonable sacrifice to get the bill through, given that the majority of cases are not required.


Why shouldn't they be included?

Xsarus wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Personally, if elective abortions aren't covered, then I want to see that penile implants and ED drugs aren't covered, either. Fair's fair.
They would be?


They are now, and I see nothing to indicate that they wouldn't be in a public plan. Only abortion gets a special shout out.

ETA: I wonder if the abortion clauses also include the morning after pill or birth control.

Edited, Nov 9th 2009 3:32pm by Belkira
#21 Nov 09 2009 at 3:44 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I'm a little confused as to why abortions should be included. I can see if the mothers life is in danger, or if there is psychological trauma from say a rape, but in any other circumstance, isn't it just an optional medical procedure?

Perhaps you feel that it should be covered, but even from that perspective, it seems like it's a fairly reasonable sacrifice to get the bill through, given that the majority of cases are not required.


Why shouldn't they be included?
For the same reason that other optional procedures aren't covered. If there is a health risk, or damage then they should be covered otherwise not. A burn victim should have the reconstructive surgery and plastic surgery covered, someone looking to get their nose straightened should not be covered.

Now I'm going to assume that the bill is talking about all abortions? Are cases where the mothers life is threatened also exempt? That would be a problem.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#22 Nov 09 2009 at 3:47 PM Rating: Decent
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I'm a little confused as to why abortions should be included. I can see if the mothers life is in danger, or if there is psychological trauma from say a rape, but in any other circumstance, isn't it just an optional medical procedure?

Perhaps you feel that it should be covered, but even from that perspective, it seems like it's a fairly reasonable sacrifice to get the bill through, given that the majority of cases are not required.


If private insurers were still given the option to cover the cost of abortions, then yes, I would view it as a reasonable sacrifice (although I'd still be irked).

The thing is, if abortions are not covered in some manner, you are completely removing the concept of choice from the equation, for most women. If a woman has an unwanted pregnancy, but she cannot afford to get an abortion then she doesn't have the choice of getting an abortion. This is especially true of lower class women who statistically, have the highest number of abortions iirc. If the concept of choice is removed, then basically what you are saying is: "Oh, you can't afford an abortion? Oh well, too bad. Guess you'll just have to carry that unwanted child to term then." The women who cannot afford to get an abortion are being treated like incubators at that point, which is incredibly dehumanizing.

Not only that, abortions are much less expensive than prenatal care and birth are. Abortions typically run between 400-600 dollars I believe. According to this website, prenatal care is approximately $2000, with delivery costing anywhere from $6k to over 15k depending upon the type of birth and different complications that can happen. The only reason people want to prevent abortion from being covered is because they don't like abortion in the first place. If you look at it from a cost effective stand point, it makes much more fiscal sense to cover abortions for women who want them, then to not cover them because it's an elective procedure, and then pay for at least $8k worth of medical bills just to bring the child into the world.

Edit: I've read the actual text of the amendment, and there are exclusions for women whose health is in danger, and women whose pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. That does make things slightly better, but this is still a big issue.

Edited, Nov 9th 2009 1:58pm by PigtailsOfDoom
#23 Nov 09 2009 at 3:53 PM Rating: Good
Sir Xsarus wrote:
For the same reason that other optional procedures aren't covered. If there is a health risk, or damage then they should be covered otherwise not. A burn victim should have the reconstructive surgery and plastic surgery covered, someone looking to get their nose straightened should not be covered.

Now I'm going to assume that the bill is talking about all abortions? Are cases where the mothers life is threatened also exempt? That would be a problem.


I find it bothersome that you would liken an abortion to a nose job. But aside from that, there are excellent reasons for a woman to get an abortion that may not have to do with the life of the mother being threatened. For instance, a pregnancy resulting from rape, or a pregnancy that threatens the mother's mental well being or a woman not being able to fiscally take maternal leave.

All that having been said, I have never heard of a drug being prescribed to a man for ED that was prescribed to save his life. I don't hear anyone ******** about that being covered, though.

Edited, Nov 9th 2009 4:02pm by Belkira
#24 Nov 09 2009 at 3:53 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
PigtailsOfDoom the Eccentric wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I'm a little confused as to why abortions should be included. I can see if the mothers life is in danger, or if there is psychological trauma from say a rape, but in any other circumstance, isn't it just an optional medical procedure?

Perhaps you feel that it should be covered, but even from that perspective, it seems like it's a fairly reasonable sacrifice to get the bill through, given that the majority of cases are not required.


If private insurers were still given the option to cover the cost of abortions, then yes, I would view it as a reasonable sacrifice (although I'd still be irked).

The thing is, if abortions are not covered in some manner, you are completely removing the concept of choice from the equation, for most women. If a woman has an unwanted pregnancy, but she cannot afford to get an abortion then she doesn't have the choice of getting an abortion. This is especially true of lower class women who statistically, have the highest number of abortions iirc. If the concept of choice is removed, then basically what you are saying is: "Oh, you can't afford an abortion? Oh well, too bad. Guess you'll just have to carry that unwanted child to term then." The women who cannot afford to get an abortion are being treated like incubators at that point, which is incredibly dehumanizing.

Not only that, abortions are much less expensive than prenatal care and birth are. Abortions typically run between 400-600 dollars I believe. According to this website, prenatal care is approximately $2000, with delivery costing anywhere from $6k to over 15k depending upon the type of birth and different complications that can happen. The only reason people want to prevent abortion from being covered is because they don't like abortion in the first place. If you look at it from a cost effective stand point, it makes much more fiscal sense to cover abortions for women who want them, then to not cover them because it's an elective procedure, and then pay for at least $8k worth of medical bills just to bring the child into the world.

Edit: I've read the actual text of the amendment, and there are exclusions for women whose health is in danger, and women whose pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. That does make things slightly better, but this is still a big issue.
That's a reasonable point, and I'm not going to pretend that my personal views don't affect the way I approach the subject, although I'm trying to be objective.

Paying for abortions because otherwise you'll inevitably pay for a birth does make sense from a financial standpoint.


Quote:
I find it bothersome that you would liken an abortion to a nose job. But aside from that, there are excellent reasons for a woman to get an abortion that may not have to do with the life of the mother being threatened. For instance, a pregnancy resulting from rape, or a pregnancy that threatens the mother's mental well being.

All that having been said, I have never heard of a drug being prescribed to a man for ED that was prescribed to save his life. I don't hear anyone ******** about that being covered, though.
haha, yeah, I wasn't trying to equate them at all don't worry. And you'll note that I made it very clear that I see rape and trauma as a health problem that should be covered. I am surprised that an ED drug would be covered. I don't see any reason it should be.

Edited, Nov 9th 2009 3:57pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#25REDACTED, Posted: Nov 09 2009 at 3:56 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Brown,
#26REDACTED, Posted: Nov 09 2009 at 3:58 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Tulip,
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 352 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (352)