"Death Panel"

[daniel green]

http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/08/death-panel-architect-a-pro-life-republican-from-georgia.html

[Susan43]

http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/08/death-panel-architect-a-pro-life-republican-from-georgia.html

What a shame that Sen. Johnny Isakson doesn't seem to have the nerve to speak up and tell those idiots how horrible they are acting. He's up for re-election in 2010 but it would be much better for his party if at least one of them had the nerve to speak up and stop the lies.

Thanks for the good article Daniel. I knew that at least one GOP Senator was promoting this good policy. It's just a darn shame that he hasn't spoken up.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

The "good article" came from Southern Studies which is, as I'm sure you're aware, an extreme Left Wing Groupl

You really can't trust anything coming out of Extremist groups such as these, can you?

:confused::confused:


If one bothers to delve a bit deeper they would see at least Southern Studies used a question mark and DID NOT make a statement as the OP does here. They read like so:

"Death panel" architect a pro-life Republican from Georgia?"

http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/08/death-panel-architect-a-pro-life-republican-from-georgia.html

then Daniel Green changes it to read like this:

"Pro-Life Republican Behind So-Called "Death Panels"

Big difference!

I would think that the sponsor of the bills would be the Architect of the bill or so called "death panels" not a co-sponsor, given that Sen. John Rockefeller was the sponsor of both bills and Sen. Johnny Isakson lent his name for support would be different than the title the OP has.

At least the OP’s article’s title has a question mark after it and not a statement of fact as Daniel Green does here.

[Susan43]

The senator has finally spoken up.

Yesterday, the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein spoke with Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA), a member of the Senate’s Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Isakson “co-sponsored 2007’s Medicare End-of-Life Planning Act and proposed an amendment similar to the House bill’s Section 1233 during the Senate HELP Committee’s mark-up of its health care bill.” He told Klein that the “death panel” talk is “nuts”:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/11/sen-johnny

And here is the original interview from WaPo.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/08/is_the_government_going_to_eut.html

Good for him! :thumbsup:

[snookums1]

No ‘death panel’ in health care bill

Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin says the health care overhaul bill would set up a “death panel.” Federal bureaucrats would play God, ruling on whether ailing seniors are worth enough to society to deserve life-sustaining medical care. Palin and other critics are wrong.

http://www.sharonherald.com/local/local_story_222190606.html

[theal3]

No ‘death panel’ in health care bill

Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin says the health care overhaul bill would set up a “death panel.” Federal bureaucrats would play God, ruling on whether ailing seniors are worth enough to society to deserve life-sustaining medical care. Palin and other critics are wrong.

http://www.sharonherald.com/local/local_story_222190606.html

Ah, the gift that keeps giving, former Gov. Palin. Guess she had to "clarify" the next day, really didn't mean it. Bad choice of words. yeah, right. But it grabs the headlines. I'm a senior and it doesn't scare me. The healthcare plans proposed do not affect seniors or medicare.

[Susan43]

Ah, the gift that keeps giving, former Gov. Palin. Guess she had to "clarify" the next day, really didn't mean it. Bad choice of words. yeah, right. But it grabs the headlines. I'm a senior and it doesn't scare me. The healthcare plans proposed do not affect seniors or medicare.

You know something that really baffles me. It appears that quite a few people have believed those lies. And I can't help but wonder what in the world they think of their fellow Americans? I don't know many of my neighbors but I can't imagine a one of them that would sit on a "death panel" or even consider the issue.

[MercedesV]

You know something that really baffles me. It appears that quite a few people have believed those lies. And I can't help but wonder what in the world they think of their fellow Americans? I don't know many of my neighbors but I can't imagine a one of them that would sit on a "death panel" or even consider the issue.

I think the scare tactics being employed are beyond disgraceful. It is one thing to disagree about health care reform, but that isn't what is happening. You have Rush making his Hitler comparisons and you have Palin spouting off about death panels, and now people showing up at town meetings with other Nazi type signs or symbols. The propaganda machine is going full tilt, and some are buying into it. At what cost to many Americans who desperately need health care reform.

[Details]

Ah, the gift that keeps giving, former Gov. Palin. Guess she had to "clarify" the next day, really didn't mean it. Bad choice of words. yeah, right. But it grabs the headlines. I'm a senior and it doesn't scare me. The healthcare plans proposed do not affect seniors or medicare.Bad choice of words? How dumb does she think we are? She said it outright, that she'd be fighting for her baby's life, that the new plan would be looking to kill him - and she says this was a mere 'choice of words' issue? Nope - that wasn't one word out of place - that was an entire concept presented quite clearly. Change one word - and you've still got the same concept.

[snookums1]

Experts Debunk Health Care Reform Bill's 'Death Panel' Rule

But health care experts – even those who do not support the version of the health care reform bill now being discussed – note that these accusations are shocking, inflammatory and incorrect.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/story?id=8295708&page=1

[emdragon]

You know something that really baffles me. It appears that quite a few people have believed those lies. And I can't help but wonder what in the world they think of their fellow Americans? I don't know many of my neighbors but I can't imagine a one of them that would sit on a "death panel" or even consider the issue.

What gets me is the fact that only 2 states have a death with dignity law in place yet the GOP wing nuts expect people to believe the government will decide life and death.. No logic in their argument at all.

[Susan43]

What gets me is the fact that only 2 states have a death with dignity law in place yet the GOP wing nuts expect people to believe the government will decide life and death.. No logic in their argument at all.

Theal and I are two of the lucky people that live in states with a "death with dignity" law. It's a comfort to me to know that I will be the one making the choice when the time comes.

And OR had to pass the law twice because the religious people in the federal government tried to overturn a duly passed law. And once again those same type of people are trying to interfere into one of the most private times of our lives. They have no logic.

[snookums1]

What I really find amazing is with today's health care system in this country, people allow insurance companies, who's only agenda is making money to make life or death decisions for them and consider that all right. Now a health care bill is in the making and a group of politicians are claiming wrongly that it will make life or death decisions for people and a certain group of people not only believe them but are all upset about it. They think it is perfectly ok for insurance executives to decide what tests or treatment they receive and many times, when those tests or treatment are denied, the patients die. But gee, that is the American way, the best way, the number one way. No wonder we rank so low when it comes to health care.

[Susan43]

What I really find amazing is with today's health care system in this country, people allow insurance companies, who's only agenda is making money to make life or death decisions for them and consider that all right. Now a health care bill is in the making and a group of politicians are claiming wrongly that it will make life or death decisions for people and a certain group of people not only believe them but are all upset about it. They think it is perfectly ok for insurance executives to decide what tests or treatment they receive and many times, when those tests or treatment are denied, the patients die. But gee, that is the American way, the best way, the number one way. No wonder we rank so low when it comes to health care.

Yep, and just check out these CEO's.

http://sickforprofit.com/ceos/

These are the very people that the right is trying to protect. It's sickening.

[Brentwood]

I think that Isakson (R), the “death panel” architect is doing a great wrong, by not speaking up to explain that the “death panels” rumor is a lie…It is about living wills, advanced planning, etc and he has championed this cause for years.

In 2007, for example, he co-sponsored two bills to encourage such planning.

If you want to know what a death panel really is…. the shareholders of corporate insurance companies who are currently the cause of Americans being denied the health care they need.

[Brentwood]

I kind of wondered why you wrote this post, but now I see why. There might be some adult language at this site. Please do not open the link if you get offended. TIA

Afraid of the Base



http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=25280

That is just sad. I can't imagine giving up all my principles for a job.

This is priceless. Isakson said on the floor...

I will talk about what we need to do in terms of Medicare eligibility. When somebody signs up for Medicare when they are 65 years old--you are supposed to go in 90 days before your 65th birthday; I am getting close, so I am looking at these things--I think you ought to be required to execute a durable power of attorney when you become eligible. Eighty percent of the cost of health care to me, to you, and to anybody else happens in the last 60 days of life. More often than not, people are not in a condition to make a decision for themselves. Because of laws, and because we are a compassionate nation, the physician will keep you alive as long as he can. If you had a chance, you might rather say if I am being hydrated and given nutrition but will never become conscious again, I give the doctors the authority to make the appropriate medical decision. The money that would save is in the ``gazillions'' of dollars--if there is such a number. It would help us to manage that cost.


And this is what they are calling a death panel and he has been promoting it for years. Unbelievable!

YEPPERS...Afraid of base, imo.

[Susan43]

This is priceless. Isakson said on the floor...




And this is what they are calling a death panel and he has been promoting it for years. Unbelievable!

YEPPERS...Afraid of base, imo.

Yeppers, he's been promoting this for years. I guess I'm not surprised he didn't stand up for his principles, but dang Brentwood, he out and out lied in his latest press release. That just shows that the right will no longer allow moderates, even when they are doing a good thing.

I feel like sending an email just saying "shame on you."

[watcher2005]

Copyright ©2009 Salon Media Group, Inc.

"Obama's healthcare horror"

By Camille Paglia

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/08/12/town_halls/

Outstanding.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

Excellent piece, simply amazing!

I just don't get it. Why the insane rush to pass a bill, any bill, in three weeks? And why such an abject failure by the Obama administration to present the issues to the public in a rational, detailed, informational way? The U.S. is gigantic; many of our states are bigger than whole European nations. The bureaucracy required to institute and manage a nationalized health system here would be Byzantine beyond belief and would vampirically absorb whatever savings Obama thinks could be made. And the transition period would be a nightmare of red tape and mammoth screw-ups, which we can ill afford with a faltering economy.

She makes so many great points I wish I could list each paragraph!!

[snookums1]

Excellent piece, simply amazing!



She makes so many great points I wish I could list each paragraph!! Gee, the information is out there. Wonder why she can't find it. Can't read? Computor illiterate? Or does she only watch FOX, the channel that went to court to get permission to lie?

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

Gee, the information is out there. Wonder why she can't find it. Can't read? Computor illiterate? Or does she only watch FOX, the channel that went to court to get permission to lie?

She can read and comprehend just fine IMO.


Tell me why the rush? Tell me why we needed this to pass in about a month? Tell me how are we going to pay for this. Obama allowed pork, far too much into the stimulus pakage, it was far from 'focused" as she points out. "So it is possible that possible that Democrats, through their own clumsiness and arrogance, have sabotaged healthcare reform yet again? Blaming obstructionist Republicans is nonsensical because Democrats control all three branches of government."

It isn't conservative rumors or lies that are stopping healthcare legislation; it's the justifiable alarm of an electorate that has been cut out of the loop and is watching its representatives construct a tangled labyrinth for others but not for themselves. No, the airheads of Congress will keep their own plush healthcare plan -- it's the rest of us guinea pigs who will be thrown to the wolves.

[watcher2005]

What did you think of paragraphs 9-11?

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

What did you think of paragraphs 9-11?

Just as good as the first ones. Especially the "defaming" of concerned citizens as "mobs" and how her party was supposed to be sensitive to the people’s needs-- especially as a products of the sixties---- the era of demonstrations to include those which were very violent.

[watcher2005]

Just as good as the first ones. Especially the "defaming" of concerned citizens as "mobs" and how her party was supposed to be sensitive to the people’s needs-- especially as a products of the sixties---- the era of demonstrations to include those which were very violent.

Sums it up.

[justaguy]

You know something that really baffles me. It appears that quite a few people have believed those lies. And I can't help but wonder what in the world they think of their fellow Americans? I don't know many of my neighbors but I can't imagine a one of them that would sit on a "death panel" or even consider the issue.

i think ms palin is simply misunderstood. isn't she pro- private sector jobs? think how many people could be gainfully employed ...we would need many panels..at least 2 for each state. IMO she is just thinking ahead..outside the box for solutions.bein all mavericky ..creating jobs that have been lost under this president that MAY be from hawaii.


right susan?

[Lady_Jean_La]

More like 2 per ZIP Code. imo

[fiver]

http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/08/death-panel-architect-a-pro-life-republican-from-georgia.html

What Isakson proposed is nothing at all like what is in the "proposals". You sure don't see any "cost benefit analysis" or any outside-input-into-end-of-life-decisions language in any of his bills!

The provision was dropped by the Finance Committee anyway due to the public outcry of the Govt interjecting itself into end-of-life decisions based on cost analysis.

[daniel green]

"Do you want to go through that again?" the 42nd President asked the crowd of bloggers, online activists, and a slew of Democratic lawmakers at the Netroots Nation convention in Pittsburgh. "Of course you don't. I'm telling you no matter how low they drive support for this with misinformation, the minute the president signs a health care reform bill his approval will go up. Secondly, within a year, when all those bad things they say will happen don't happen, and all the good things happen, approval will explode."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/clinton-urges-progressive_n_259298.html

[Brentwood]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/clinton-urges-progressive_n_259298.html

I am glad that he is speaking out about how low the repubs will stoop with misinformation.

[February]

You can't really blame the Repub's. What would you do if you ship was sinking fast?
I don't agree with their tactics, but I understand their desperation.
I'm just surprised at the short term memory of their followers.

[daniel green]

Right now, the charge that’s gaining the most traction is the claim that health care reform will create “death panels” (in Sarah Palin’s words) that will shuffle the elderly and others off to an early grave. It’s a complete fabrication, of course. The provision requiring that Medicare pay for voluntary end-of-life counseling was introduced by Senator Johnny Isakson, Republican — yes, Republican — of Georgia, who says that it’s “nuts” to claim that it has anything to do with euthanasia.
And not long ago, some of the most enthusiastic peddlers of the euthanasia smear, including Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, and Mrs. Palin herself, were all for “advance directives” for medical care in the event that you are incapacitated or comatose. That’s exactly what was being proposed — and has now, in the face of all the hysteria, been dropped from the bill. Yet the smear continues to spread. And as the example of Mr. Gingrich shows, it’s not a fringe phenomenon: Senior G.O.P. figures, including so-called moderates, have endorsed the lie.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/opinion/14krugman.html?_r=1

[Not Telling]

That's really funny.

:lol: Nobody ever stooped lower than Bill Clinton did! :laugh:

Thanks for the laugh.

I'd say terrorizing the elderly and the disabled with the threat that if a health care reform bill passes they will be subject to euthanasia is stooping far lower than Bill Clinton ever could....jmo

[theal3]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/opinion/14krugman.html?_r=1

Yes, good article. They are USERS bigtime: all for helping the elderly etc etal and declaring they support those end of life issues when when folks are paying to see them, or paying their salary; but when it doesn't fit their new agenda, they are against it. Democrats are consistent. So is their platform.....

[daniel green]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gDLG5JH9UXJoNpIbQ7X-U7namHnwD9A2DMQ85

AP

[lunchlady]

I'd say terrorizing the elderly and the disabled with the threat that if a health care reform bill passes they will be subject to euthanasia is stooping far lower than Bill Clinton ever could....jmo

ITA. And Clinton's "stooping" is seeming pretty mundane these days. I find the hypocrisy of the GOP stoopers even more galling. To get up on their high horse and then fall off is, well, a longer fall. Go ahead, talk about Edwards or some other naughty Dem. At least they didn't point their fingers at other guys and join Promisemakers and condemn gays and then get caught doing exactly what they condemned.

[watcher2005]

At least he didn't call protestors un-American, dangerous, racist, with us or again' us, or resort to similar tactics. I'll give him that.

[daniel green]

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090812_the_real_death_panels/

By Joe Conason

[watcher2005]

There's talk that the matter will be dropped from the bill.

[theal3]

ITA. And Clinton's "stooping" is seeming pretty mundane these days. I find the hypocrisy of the GOP stoopers even more galling. To get up on their high horse and then fall off is, well, a longer fall. Go ahead, talk about Edwards or some other naughty Dem. At least they didn't point their fingers at other guys and join Promisemakers and condemn gays and then get caught doing exactly what they condemned.

The GOP voters/posters or whatever they are really good at locker room humor. The holier than thous, always with the quip or joke. Guess they are all rich, never made a mistake, enjoy full health care benefits, and pensions, and raised 2.5 perfect children who worship the ground they walk on. And are all CEOs or own their own business and don't work for anyone. Perfect world. Nice!

[February]

The GOP voters/posters or whatever they are really good at locker room humor. The holier than thous, always with the quip or joke. Guess they are all rich, never made a mistake, enjoy full health care benefits, and pensions, and raised 2.5 perfect children who worship the ground they walk on. And are all CEOs or own their own business and don't work for anyone. Perfect world. Nice!


I have to bump this one. Too bad they are all probably asleep with their health care cards nearby.
My sister has worked for 22 years in corporate America, she lost her job and can't go to the doctor. She doesn't sleep well at night.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

Gee, the information is out there. Wonder why she can't find it. Can't read? Computor illiterate? Or does she only watch FOX, the channel that went to court to get permission to lie?

You know what we have senators who say that one needs 2 lawyers to explain the bill to them so they understand it.

[Not Telling]

Time Magazine's Amy Sullivan pointed out last night that, for all of his ardent demagoguery on the so-called "death panels," (or pulling the plug on grandma) Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) voted for just such a provision in 2003.

Remember the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill, the one that passed with the votes of 204 GOP House members and 42 GOP Senators? Anyone want to guess what it provided funding for? Did you say counseling for end-of-life issues and care? Ding ding ding!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/14/grassley-voted-for-socall_n_259750.html

[theal3]

Yes, when he was in charge it "sounded good to seniors." No that he's the minority, he uses as a scare tactic. Even Palin had a week or day or declaration for supporting legislation on her state for life ending issues.

All the legislation did (and a Republican put it in the bill) was to have life ending consultations with Drs. paid for by medicare. Keeps is nice for patient, and family, if one hasn't already made out will and filled out same forms which have to be notorized and witnessed. I already years ago went to lawyer and paid to have it done myself. Guess Grasslry wants it both way.... or doesn't remember what he was for before he was against it. Creepy.

[LisaM22]

Time Magazine's Amy Sullivan pointed out last night that, for all of his ardent demagoguery on the so-called "death panels," (or pulling the plug on grandma) Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) voted for just such a provision in 2003.

Remember the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill, the one that passed with the votes of 204 GOP House members and 42 GOP Senators? Anyone want to guess what it provided funding for? Did you say counseling for end-of-life issues and care? Ding ding ding!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/14/grassley-voted-for-socall_n_259750.html

just shows republicans could care less how good this bill is for the people, they are the party of "NO", they do not want to work for the people, they want to work against them, they want this country to fail

[drgnrtz]

just shows republicans could care less how good this bill is for the people, they are the party of "NO", they do not want to work for the people, they want to work against them, they want this country to fail

what i dont understand is the people complaining that they want congress to go for this plan when to my understanding that is what hes offering. a pool of insurance company plans to choose from based on group savings.

this is what federal employees have as options.

http://www.opm.gov/INSURE/HEALTH/

the only difference would be that the dems would like to give an additional choice of a medicare style public option.

[ortiga]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/212131

Welcome clarification from Newsweek

IMO

[barskin&co.]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/212131

Welcome clarification from Newsweek

IMO

Thanks, Ortiga. Great article.

On the "death panels," for example:

In fact, what the House bill does is require Medicare to cover appointments for elderly people who want to talk about end-of-life care with their doctor. If you have terminal, untreatable cancer and your heart stops, do you want chest compressions, which will likely break your ribs and cause excruciating pain? If you have a massive stroke and fall into a coma, do you want to be fed through a tube? As things now stand, the elderly have to pay for such consultations out-of-pocket unless they are covered by some Medicare Advantage plans. The House provision does not "compel seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years," as former New York lieutenant governor Betsy McCaughey wrote in the New York Post. But the idea of requiring Medicare to pay for the counseling (saving Grandma money!) morphed into Palin's Facebook post that people "will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgement of their 'level of productivity in society' whether they are worthy of health care."



And who has supported this? How about former Governor Sarah Palin:

On April 16, 2008, which was proclaimed “Healthcare Decisions Day” in Alaska, then-governor Palin endorsed “the need to plan ahead for healthcare decisions, related to end of life care and medical decision-making whenever patients are unable to speak for themselves ….”

http://www.allgov.com/ViewNews/Palin_Gingrich_Grassley_Supported_End_of_Life_Coun selin_AKA_Death_Panels_90815

And Newt Gingrich:

Across the Country, Some Systems Are Getting It Right
More than 20 percent of all Medicare spending occurs in the last two months of life. Gundersen Lutheran Health System in La Crosse, Wisconsin has developed a successful end-of-life, best practice that combines: 1) community-wide advance care planning, where 90 percent of patients have advance directives; 2) hospice and palliative care; and 3) coordination of services through an electronic medical record. The Gundersen approach empowers patients and families to control and direct their care. The Dartmouth Health Atlas has documented that Gundersen delivers care at a 30 percent lower rate than the national average ($18,359 versus $25,860). If Gundersen's approach was used to care for the approximately 4.5 million Medicare beneficiaries who die every year, Medicare could save more than $33 billion a year.
(from an Op Ed piece by Gingrich)


http://views.washingtonpost.com/healthcarerx/panelists/2009/07/right-gingrich.html

And Chuck Grassley

[I][ In 2003 he voted for the Medicare prescription bill that provided funding for “counseling the beneficiary with respect to end-of-life issues and care options.”/I]

http://www.allgov.com/ViewNews/Palin_Gingrich_Grassley_Supported_End_of_Life_Coun selin_AKA_Death_Panels_90815

[ortiga]

Newsweek and other liberal agenda " magazines and papers" are no longer on my reading list.

I read both extremes and the middle.

[ortiga]

Thanks, Ortiga. Great article.

snipped

A few months ago I paid 350 to visit a lawyer for about 20 minutes to come up with a (mostly canned) "advanced directive", ie living will. I wouldn't yet be covered under medicare for this, and this 350 didn't cover any counseling on end of life choices beyond the most elementary. Nothing about Hospice, what would be covered under medicare, etc.

The proposed, voluntary counseling has been previously approved by nearly all the prominent people now coming out against it.

What a crying shame to deny this service to older people, IMO. The 350 I paid will be roughly half of my SS check after the taxes and medicare premiums are substracted.

I hope the HR bill prevails, for the good of all.

IMO

[forensicpsy~]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08172009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/its_all_a_death_panel_184897.htm

"Even without a Federal Board voting on whom to kill, Obamacare will ration care extensively. leading to the same result. This follows inevitably from central features on the President's plan."

"Specifically, his descisions to (1) pay for health reform with vast cuts in the Medicare budget and (2) grant insurance coverage to 50 million new people, vastly boosing demand without increasing the supply of doctors, nurses and other care providers" :ohmy::angry:

See link for more.

[Lady_Jean_La]

http://news.aol.com/article/sarah-palins-death-panels-claim/610560

AP

Most people agree with Governor Sarah Palin.

[CANDYKISSES]

WOW Forensic, I see the PRESIDENT is not exempt from the same treatment the former Governor of Alaska got with the CAMERA LENS....:ohmy:

I am very dismayed with this plan as a whole (as I know it) and can see from that photo, there are others not so happy either.

Why not try the plan the libs are hoping for out on the House and Senate to get a reasonable look at it in action???? :thumbup: IF the value of life and health care is even, that should be a piece of cake as a test run for a year, right? JMO. :wink:

[IcyLogic]

Wall Street Journal has printed a totally chilling scenario of what a government death panel ('some independent group') could be like for us.

If you read nothing else about the health care issue, you really should read this one. It is a short, succinct portrayal and the phrasing at the end is what has a lot of Christians worried, imo.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204683204574356241709682828.html

Just THE worst kind of scare tactics.

[IcyLogic]

Wall Street Journal has printed a totally chilling scenario of what a government death panel ('some independent group') could be like for us.

If you read nothing else about the health care issue, you really should read this one. It is a short, succinct portrayal and the phrasing at the end is what has a lot of Christians worried, imo.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204683204574356241709682828.html

So let me get this straight, you think God should be deciding healthcare issues?

[desmom]

Just THE worst kind of scare tactics.

Bingo!

IMO, the title of this article could be "The Health Insurance Panel".

Health insurance companies make decisions about what they will and will not cover in treatments for their insureds every day. jmo

[IcyLogic]

Bingo!

IMO, the title of this article could be "The Health Insurance Panel".

Health insurance companies make decisions about what they will and will not cover in treatments for their insureds every day. jmo

Yup, most insurance plans have an upper limit on how much coverage you get. When that runs out, so does your healthcare.

[desmom]

Yup, most insurance plans have an upper limit on how much coverage you get. When that runs out, so does your healthcare.

You may not even be close to the upper limit and the insurance companies will deny and have denied coverage for a physician ordered medication, treatment or surgery.

I remember when health insurance companies did not cover mammograms...well they didn't until they were mandated by law.

jmo

[desmom]

Just in case this post got lost when it was moved, I'll post it again here:

Wall Street Journal has printed a totally chilling scenario of what a government death panel ('some independent group') could be like for us.

If you read nothing else about the health care issue, you really should read this one. It is a short, succinct portrayal and the phrasing at the end is what has a lot of Christians worried, imo.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...709682828.html

This link does not work. Your original post is still here. Post 75 page 2 http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?p=13373849#post13373849 The link in the original post works.

[desmom]

If Obama has his way, insurance companies are doomed in the near future. Regardless of what he says, his intention is to have all of us in national health care, death panels and all, imo.

It's obvious what the Dems plan - you can view it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ-6ebku3_E

IMO, the only way health insurance companies will go out of business is if they are not competitive.

Health insurance companies have the American public over a barrel.

March 2005 Health insurance markets out of whack
http://www.physiciansnews.com/commentary/305.html

April 2006: Health Insurance A Near-Monopoly, Study Finds
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/04/ama_insurance_study.html

May 2009: 2 health insurance companies have 'near-monopoly' in Florida, reform activists say
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/orl-bk-health-insurance-monopoly-052009,0,1410854.story

Health insurance premiums have jumped dramatically and health insurance companies have had record profits.

These increases cost the individual more than dollars out of their own personal paycheck, but also has an impact on their taxes.

i.e. premium increase for employees of tax supported agencies (i.e. school districts, library districts, local governments.....) are passed on to the taxpayer.

jmo

[desmom]

I think you should make the decisions about your own healthcare issues, not a panel of people who don't want to waste any more money on you.
IMO

Health insurance companies have a panel of people that deny claims daily. What is the difference? IMO, none.

jmo

[desmom]

wrong. the insured can appeal and or go with another health plan

there are no such options with a govt mandated plan. AND, what good is govt mandated coverage if it takes 16 months to see a doctor when you need one NOW???

Yes you can appeal to 'the panel' that denied your claim the first time.

Yes you can go with another plan, if you can find one you can afford. Chances are if your claim is denied, you are being treated for some type of condition, aka pre-existing condition, which will be exempt from coverage in most cases.

16 months to see a doctor? Link please.

jmo

[IcyLogic]

I think you should make the decisions about your own healthcare issues, not a panel of people who don't want to waste any more money on you.
IMO

Unless you own your own hospital or have literally millions stashed away, you will always have someone making decisions about your healthcare. Question is, would you rather have a company thats trying to make a profit, or a federally funded healthcare system making those choices?

[IcyLogic]

With all due respect, desmom, I don't understand how you can't see the difference. Right now, we have multiple insurance plans and options. We have 'sometimes too eager/greedy' lawyers just waiting to file claims. And we have doctors who benefit from providing care, NOT from denying care.

Under Obamacare, there will be NO options (eventually) except the government option. No one can sue the Government, so once you're denied, there is no recourse. And doctors will benefit from the government for NOT providing some care (care that the 'panel' decides is not worthwhile).

Did I forget anything? There's so many differences.

And please don't forget that Medicare and Medicaid are both in a mess. (Government run mess). So what are we going to do? Turn those failing programs into monolithic proportioned programs! (Nothing can go wrong). :sad:

I see no incentive built into the Obamacare system for personal incentive to not abuse it. Right now, Medicaid is abused on a daily basis, and not just with doctors, but with our 911 response system, too. So we're going to increase the quagmire?

As to 'end of life' decisions. Would you rather have a doctor fighting for you who is incentivized to provide care, or one who will be penalized if he doesn't give you 'the talk'?

Any time a big government agency is giving doctors an incentive to NOT provide care, I think all Americans should be wary, if not downright terrified. MO

Where do you get these ideas? You seem to assume any doctors working in a nationalised system are less motivated, professional or caring than those working for profit taking companies, right? Please explain why you think this?

[IcyLogic]

wrong. the insured can appeal and or go with another health plan

there are no such options with a govt mandated plan. AND, what good is govt mandated coverage if it takes 16 months to see a doctor when you need one NOW???

You have a link to proof that you cannot appeal a nationalised health service decision?

[desmom]

With all due respect, desmom, I don't understand how you can't see the difference. Right now, we have multiple insurance plans and options. We have 'sometimes too eager/greedy' lawyers just waiting to file claims. And we have doctors who benefit from providing care, NOT from denying care.

Under Obamacare, there will be NO options (eventually) except the government option. No one can sue the Government, so once you're denied, there is no recourse. And doctors will benefit from the government for NOT providing some care (care that the 'panel' decides is not worthwhile).

Did I forget anything? There's so many differences.

And please don't forget that Medicare and Medicaid are both in a mess. (Government run mess). So what are we going to do? Turn those failing programs into monolithic proportioned programs! (Nothing can go wrong). :sad:

I see no incentive built into the Obamacare system for personal incentive to not abuse it. Right now, Medicaid is abused on a daily basis, and not just with doctors, but with our 911 response system, too. So we're going to increase the quagmire?

As to 'end of life' decisions. Would you rather have a doctor fighting for you who is incentivized to provide care, or one who will be penalized if he doesn't give you 'the talk'?

Any time a big government agency is giving doctors an incentive to NOT provide care, I think all Americans should be wary, if not downright terrified. MO

Multiple insurance plans ran by very few companies IMO. See links in post #86 on this thread or http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?p=13373944#post13373944

In my experience, doctors do not deny care, insurance companies do.

I do not understand this "death panel" stuff I keep reading in posts. If you are referring to Sun, the little boy from Texas, IMO, there is a lot more to that story and it was not as cut and dried as it was presented in the stories posted on this board.

911 response system abusing medicaid? You mean the people insured in under the program and not the responders, correct? IL had had a problem several years ago with people on medicaid calling an ambulance for non life threatening emergencies until the state enforced the rule they would not pay for it. There will have to be rules and guidelines like under today's policies. No one's insurance is going to cover an ambulance ride for a hang nail.

I have not seen any reform bill that gives doctors an incentive to NOT provide care.

jmo

[IcyLogic]

How is the federally funded healthcare system going to pay for the huge amount of money it will require to insure everyone, even illegals, with no pre-existing condition clause and abortions thown in, too?

If you just think about it, there is no other way to pay for such a massive undertaking except to CUT somewhere, someone, somehow.

That brings into the picture the ethicists that Obama has hired, and when you read their plans for how to fund the System, you have to realize they are talking about rationing of health care. You will have no recourse from whatever they decide. No other option, no attorney, and your doctor will be getting pay incentives to NOT provide care to you.

Remove the profit element, ensure that every employed person pays his/her healthcare payments direct from wage packet, weekly or monthly.

There are many Universal healthcare systems that work within budgets, paid for by taxpayers. Why don't you think the US can afford it?

[desmom]

How is the federally funded healthcare system going to pay for the huge amount of money it will require to insure everyone, even illegals, with no pre-existing condition clause and abortions thown in, too?

--snipped--

The Hyde Amendment passed in 1976 forbids Medicaid from paying for abortions. All but 17 states banned the use of their funds also.

There are 3 committees in the House working on the reform bill. Nothing is a done deal.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1909178,00.html
While current versions of the legislation do not address the abortion issue at all, late last month, 19 antiabortion Democrats in the House sent a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, warning that they "cannot support any health-care-reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health-insurance plan......

Nearly 90% of insurers cover abortion procedures, according to a 2002 survey by the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit organization whose statistics are relied upon by both sides of the abortion debate.

jmo

[desmom]

Pre-existing conditions were eliminated thru HIPPA. So changing plans with no gap in coverage makes your argument moot.

My own experience. Do you want a link to my life?:rolleyes:

http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_consumer_hipaa.html
preexisting condition exclusion can be imposed on a condition only if medical advice, diagnosis, care, or treatment was recommended or received during the 6 months prior to your enrollment date in the plan.

IMO, that leaves a lot of people with health care coverage that includes a preexisting exclusion clause.

[IcyLogic]

I want the doctor I have been seeing for over 20 years to be part of the decision. Mine has already interacted with my ins. company regarding my surgery. I think federal health care would have given me a wheel chair and pain pills because I'm older.
In any case, I don't think money should be the first consideration when it comes to one's health. Anyway, don't we all know people who say they can't afford to go to the doctor or buy health insurance but they buy the latest plasma TV or new car?
IMO

You cannot assume anything here. Treatment would be given, based on a fully realised set of rules. The point being that all receive equal care, not limited care dependant on age or any other criteria.

That would be like saying hip replacements are limited to under 20's. Clearly age brings with it a different set of problems, but universal healthcare treats them regardless.

[beattherap]

Pre-existing conditions were eliminated thru HIPPA. So changing plans with no gap in coverage makes your argument moot.

My own experience. Do you want a link to my life?:rolleyes:hipaa doesn't stop insurers from imposing pre-existing condition restrictions---

"Can a plan deny benefits for chronic illnesses or injuries, like carpal tunnel syndrome, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer using a preexisting condition exclusion?

It depends on whether you received medical advice, care, diagnosis, or treatment within the 6 months prior to enrolling in a new employer’s plan. If you did, you can be subject to a preexisting condition exclusion."

http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_consumer_hipaa.html

[IcyLogic]

It is in Obama's Council of Economic Advisers (CEA):



http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Health_Care_Report.pdf

I see nothing wrong with rewarding "better quality and value".

[desmom]

It is in Obama's Council of Economic Advisers (CEA):


http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Health_Care_Report.pdf

Thank you for the link. From page 23: Payment systems should be modified to encourage more appropriate use of resources by providers, particularly in the outpatient setting. Systems should reward providers who deliver care that adheres to evidence-based guidelines and should not pay for preventable medical errors.

IMO, guidelines need to be imposed.

Last year I watched my father, a very healthy, very active 72 year old man, failing quickly. He went from riding a bicycle 3 miles every day to walking with a cane in less than a month. He could not get up and down from a chair, in or out of a car or maneuver the 3 steps to his front door without assistance. He saw 5 different doctors in less than 8 weeks....4 of them were specialists. Not one doctor spent more than 10 minutes with him. They checked his reflexes, handed him a Rx, told him it was part of getting old and sent him home.

Dad did what the doctors said and he would never consider questioning a doctor. Finally he agreed to let me call my doctor. I spoke to the nurse and she got Dad in the next day with a new doctor in their office. He listened to what Dad was saying. The doctor ran some tests, changed his meds and in a week, we saw major improvement in his condition. Within 3 months, he was back to his old self.

IMO, the last doctor he saw should be rewarded. The others should not have been paid. Oh and did I mention, Dad's insurance is medicare and a supplemental, and the meds that made him better were the cheapest of all the meds he had been prescribed during this period....less than $20.00.

IMO, there should be rewards for doctors that actually take the time to treat their patients and their symptoms and not the ones that throw a prescription at you and use the "revolving" door treatment method in their office.

[desmom]

ITA, and I'm glad your Dad got a happy ending.

We just don't agree on who should reward those doctors. I think it should be the consumer/patient, who decides to NOT use the doctors who are not giving them good care. I do not think the reward system should be left up to a 'panel' of bureaucrats in Washington who are looking at the deficit and trying desperately to save money. Their intentions would not be as inherently beneficial to the patient as would the patient himself (or, as in your case, their loved ones).

What would you have done IF there had been NO option for your Dad to see another doctor? What if the only doctor he could see was the one who handed him the pill and sent him away? What if your Dad had needed a more expensive solution to his medical problem, and the bureaucrats said, in essence, your Dad wasn't worth the expense to the System?



bolding mine....It looks like consumer satisfaction is a part of the reward system. page 19 http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Health_Care_Report.pdfExpanding performance measurement and provider feedback. Performance measurement includes collecting and summarizing information about clinical quality, consumer satisfaction, and resource use of provider practices.

Why would Dad not be able to see another doctor? The doctors he saw did do the more expensive treatment route via the prescriptions they gave him. I have not seen anywhere in any of the reform bills that I have read stating if it was too expensive or they were too old, they would not receive treatment. IMO, that is nothing more than a bunch of propaganda.

[desmom]

Where is Obama going to get the billions needed for his Plan? There will have to be rationing.

Under his 'health adviser's' health plan system, anyone after the age of 60+ would be literally falling off the graph of consideration for care. Your Dad might be all right as long as he doesn't need expensive care. If that happened, a guideline would be followed and there would be no other option than the one given by 'the panel', to the doctor. No recourse. No other doctor. No other plan. Ezekiel Emmanuel advises this:



Is that what you want? A doctor who would look beyond the needs of your Dad because social justice needs to be considered first, like 'whether the money could be better spent on someone else'.

Do you agree with the advisor on this?



http://www.nypost.com/seven/07242009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/deadly_doctors_180941.htm?page=0

That man is an advisor. It does not mean his opinion is what will be in a health reform bill.

As to where is the money going to come from...it sounds like it is still being worked out because it is still a bill in the process.

If we could get similar coverage from the government plan to what we have now through hubby's employer for the approximately the same amount, we would seriously look at the government program. His company has been cutting jobs right and left and that would be one less thing we would have to worry about in today's economy. jmo

[desmom]

Desmom, your post #110: What do you think 'performance measurement of . . . .resource use of provider practices' means?

The doctors will be judged on their 'resource use'. Resource Use means: The amount of health care services used. Doctors will be judged and measured, by a panel of some sort? (who will do this 'performance measurement'?) as to THE AMOUNT OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES USED. (That is encouraging rationing, imo) Definition of resource use at http://nyrxreport.ncqa.org/Glossary.aspx

And Emmanuel has given us the guidelines that he is advising Obama to use in the rationing. (See above link).

Resource use is one part of the performance measurement. It also includes clinical quality and consumer satisfaction.

From your link: Resource Use – The amount of health care services used; these measures may consider the relative intensity or cost of services in addition to the count of services, such as the difference in intensity between a major surgery and a 15-minute office visit.

IOW, if a doctor bills the same amount of hours to diagnosis an ear infection as he would to do major surgery, it is going to raise some red flags.

jmo

[FurthurBB]

IMO, the only way health insurance companies will go out of business is if they are not competitive.

Health insurance companies have the American public over a barrel.

March 2005 Health insurance markets out of whack
http://www.physiciansnews.com/commentary/305.html

April 2006: Health Insurance A Near-Monopoly, Study Finds
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/04/ama_insurance_study.html

May 2009: 2 health insurance companies have 'near-monopoly' in Florida, reform activists say
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/orl-bk-health-insurance-monopoly-052009,0,1410854.story

Health insurance premiums have jumped dramatically and health insurance companies have had record profits.

These increases cost the individual more than dollars out of their own personal paycheck, but also has an impact on their taxes.

i.e. premium increase for employees of tax supported agencies (i.e. school districts, library districts, local governments.....) are passed on to the taxpayer.

jmo

Insurance companies are alive and well in other countries that have universal health insurance programs. This is just more nonsense from under the bed. IMO

[FurthurBB]

Yes you can appeal to 'the panel' that denied your claim the first time.

Yes you can go with another plan, if you can find one you can afford. Chances are if your claim is denied, you are being treated for some type of condition, aka pre-existing condition, which will be exempt from coverage in most cases.

16 months to see a doctor? Link please.

jmo

France is a country with a Universal health insurance plan and has the most doctors per person and because of that the least wait times. Maybe that is why they are #1 and we are #37. IMO

[FurthurBB]

You cannot assume anything here. Treatment would be given, based on a fully realised set of rules. The point being that all receive equal care, not limited care dependant on age or any other criteria.

That would be like saying hip replacements are limited to under 20's. Clearly age brings with it a different set of problems, but universal healthcare treats them regardless.


Italy, a country that universal healthcare coverage, has the best record of joint replacements of any country on earth. The new joints and techniques we are seeing today, have been used there for over 10 years. IMO

[desmom]

According to Emmanuel, red flags will be raised if optimal care is given to someone not worthy of it, under the guideline or chart he has figured out. MO

He's been forcing this issue for at least ten years. He wrote this article in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1998: "What Are the Potential Cost Savings From Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide". If you read the article, you'll find his intent is to end the lives of senior citizens sooner, in order to save millions of dollars (he was speaking of Medicare at the time). http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/339/3/167

Obama new, full well, what Emmanuel visualized for American health care, or he should have known, since it has been obviously in print, over and over, for more than 10 years. Does Emmanuel still feel the same way? The last article he wrote on this subject was January 31, 2009.

And Obama chose him to help write the health reform bill. :sad:

JMO

He is one man with one opinion. There are 3 committees in the House working on this legislation.

Interview Emanuel did with Washington Post's Ezra Klein last week. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/health/6575664.html

[desmom]

If an insurance carrier denies my claim, I can borrow the money and get the treatment. When Obama care goes into effect, when that bureacracy says no....that means NO TREATMENT, not, "we won't pay for it". Why do you think Canadians come to the US for treatments they are denied in CA? Because they cannot (or could not for decades) personally pay for treatments if the government denied them.

That's the difference. Progressives are trying to paint insurance companies as evil, but they are nothing more than a business contracting with the public for a commodity. No one is MANDATED to have health insurance, which Obama care will demand, no one has to have health insurance to pay for their own heath care and trying to make it sound like that proves how disingenuous the progressives are and proves that this is about control by the government and NOT about getting the 15M people legally in this country who want health insurance and cannot obtain it in an affordable way.

IMO

Could you please provide a link to "bureaucracy says no....that means NO TREATMENT, not, "we won't pay for it"?

TIA

[FurthurBB]

If an insurance carrier denies my claim, I can borrow the money and get the treatment. When Obama care goes into effect, when that bureacracy says no....that means NO TREATMENT, not, "we won't pay for it". Why do you think Canadians come to the US for treatments they are denied in CA? Because they cannot (or could not for decades) personally pay for treatments if the government denied them.

That's the difference. Progressives are trying to paint insurance companies as evil, but they are nothing more than a business contracting with the public for a commodity. No one is MANDATED to have health insurance, which Obama care will demand, no one has to have health insurance to pay for their own heath care and trying to make it sound like that proves how disingenuous the progressives are and proves that this is about control by the government and NOT about getting the 15M people legally in this country who want health insurance and cannot obtain it in an affordable way.

IMO

Canada does not have a universal coverage plan, so that does not really apply here. In Italy, Japan, Germany, France, Israel, I could go on because universal coverage is the most common type of healthcare system, you can still pay for outside insurance if you feel you need it, it is common in Israel and offered as an incentive for employment and you can pay out of pocket for care. Since no one here is talking about a Canadian plan, this seems to be more revelant. IMO

[desmom]

Did you read the comments? The majority of Americans see through his twisting of the truth. He has put way too much in writing for us to not have good reason to believe his cost effective health plan might cost us more than money.
MO

We will have to agree to disagree. IMO, he is one of many advisers working on the health care reform. What he wrote in an article 13 years ago does not mean it will be in the healthcare bill.

ETA ~ Yes I did read the comments and I do not consider 53 comments a "majority of Americans". jmo

[FurthurBB]

Really? Would you like to provide links to those insurance companies alive and well in countries with universal health care? Are they just supplemental policies people have to pay for to get additional care that the government doesn't pay for, so people are taxed for their free health care and then they have to pay additional money for their insurance? Because that is not what happens here in America accept for Medicare receipients who purchase supplemental insurance for coverage of things their free government run insurance won't provide.

Well, if the government provides you with heath insurance, why would you need anything except supplemental? Are you now saying that you can get treatment the government denies you? IMO

[LizzieCat]

http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf


Read the reality.

[LizzieCat]

If an insurance carrier denies my claim, I can borrow the money and get the treatment. When Obama care goes into effect, when that bureacracy says no....that means NO TREATMENT, not, "we won't pay for it". Why do you think Canadians come to the US for treatments they are denied in CA? Because they cannot (or could not for decades) personally pay for treatments if the government denied them.

That's the difference. Progressives are trying to paint insurance companies as evil, but they are nothing more than a business contracting with the public for a commodity. No one is MANDATED to have health insurance, which Obama care will demand, no one has to have health insurance to pay for their own heath care and trying to make it sound like that proves how disingenuous the progressives are and proves that this is about control by the government and NOT about getting the 15M people legally in this country who want health insurance and cannot obtain it in an affordable way.

IMO



http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

[LizzieCat]

Did you read the comments? The majority of Americans see through his twisting of the truth. He has put way too much in writing for us to not have good reason to believe his cost effective health plan might cost us more than money.
MO

http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

[blueberri]

Canada does not have a universal coverage plan, so that does not really apply here. In Italy, Japan, Germany, France, Israel, I could go on because universal coverage is the most common type of healthcare system, you can still pay for outside insurance if you feel you need it, it is common in Israel and offered as an incentive for employment and you can pay out of pocket for care. Since no one here is talking about a Canadian plan, this seems to be more revelant. IMOPeople in Canada can and do pay for additional medical insurance, either through their work or through a private plan. It varies in price, but about $100.00 a month for a family plan, doesn't matter if you have a spouse, two children or ten. Obama's HC plan is a farce, it will never work. JMO

[blueberri]

Worse yet, under obamacare, if you choose to pay out of your own pocket, you pay a penalty and a new tax.BO wants total control and is trying to acquire it under the guise of healthcare. I just don't understand why he won't permit the people who want to purchase supplementary insurance to do so. Does anyone know at what age he plans to start his “end of life counseling sessions”? I read in one newspaper that it was forty, but I can’t find it now.

[Brentwood]

The news is focusing on this shrinking base...the ones that are calling people horrific names (w/no ammunition of knowledge). They are just spewing hate at town halls with no intelligent debate.

Lets recognize it for what it is, hate speech ........ Deathers…Birthers….Nazi…Fascist….Socialist… Heil Hitler…Obama w/hitler mustach….People carrying guns to intimidate…Threats against our 1st family....UNBELIEVABLE AND WRONG!!!

As Rachel Maddow said, they are living in their fact impaired mini-verse. It is not about what is true.....it is about their emotions. Feelings are apparently stronger than facts....they think "someone is taking their country away." (as said on Maddow show).

[blueberri]

Uh..........

I don't think he knows the answer to your question just yet.

I'm sure there will be an announcement as soon as it appears on the TelePrompter!!!

:biggrin::biggrin:

Bolding is totally my responsibility!LOL, of course, he has to wait for word from his best friend! Probably has it insured with Lloyds of London! No half assed coverage for Mr.TelePrompter! It will be interesting to see BO’s definition of “elderly”..

[desmom]

Go_People that you quoted had IMO in his/her post. IMO means In My Opinion. Acronyms are on the forum's main page.

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?t=338396

IMO - in my opinion

Oops, my bad! I am sorry Go_People.

Adalena, thank you.

[desmom]

As an ex-Marine, why wasn't he using the VA instead of private insurance?

http://www.military.com/benefits/veterans-health-care/va-health-care-eligibility
Eligibility for VA health care is dependent upon a number of variables, which may influence the final determination of the services for which you qualify. These factors include the nature of a veteran's discharge from military service (e.g., honorable, other than honorable, dishonorable), length of service, VA adjudicated disabilities (commonly referred to as service-connected disabilities), income level, and available VA resources among others.

[SeeksJustice]

What I really find amazing is with today's health care system in this country, people allow insurance companies, who's only agenda is making money to make life or death decisions for them and consider that all right. Now a health care bill is in the making and a group of politicians are claiming wrongly that it will make life or death decisions for people and a certain group of people not only believe them but are all upset about it. They think it is perfectly ok for insurance executives to decide what tests or treatment they receive and many times, when those tests or treatment are denied, the patients die. But gee, that is the American way, the best way, the number one way. No wonder we rank so low when it comes to health care.

Absolutely! Finally being said. I have friends that work in the healthcare industry...medical billing to be specific and it is amazing how most people don't realize that there is someone sitting there who is actually deciding if you will receive the care/meds that a doctor says that you need.

All this hoopla about "the government deciding my healthcare" is all just a pile of carp! PRIVATE INSURANCE decides NOW what healthcare you get or don't get. Sure, most of the time their isn't a problem but we all know of those horror stories....insurance won't pay for treatment or meds that are desperately needed.

Just more smoke and mirrors and people are buying and selling it. Some people need to take their heads out of their you-know-whats. :rolleyes: