Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 79

Thread: Bipartisan support against Obama Death panel

  1. #21
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4005436]i find it disingenuous that the right complains about gov't spending and it also complains about rationing healthcare paid for by the government.

    there's no law that says Bill Gates can't pay for unlimited healthcare treatments no matter how much of a longshot it is to work. If you want to avoid the death panel, get rich. Isn't that the right wing's answer to everything?[/QUOTE]

    Medicare and SS is not paid for by the Government. I have and my employers have paid in for my entire working life.

  2. #22
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Staten Island
    Posts
    8,930
    This will likely carry over to Medicaid (disabled) people as well. It's already started with the latest budget with the inclusion of Medicaid block grants.

    Since no one wants to put forth honest discussion here, I will. You know what would help in cost savings, especially when it comes to pharmaceuticals and medical devices? How about eliminating the reps throwing breakfast/lunch/dinners for the entire office/department when "pitching" their product? "That was some goooood chicken primavera. I think We'll go with your SSRI this month". Ethics, much? Eliminating that might make things more affordable and help in the decision-making process of whether a patient warrants the use of that product beyond the cost/worth treating consideration.

    Or maybe doctors could tell their unions to take a hike along with their hundreds of dollars in membership fees requirements, thereby allowing the physicians to roll that into their private practices instead? Seriously, why the hell does the medical community need unions (and no, they're not clubs or fraternal organizations, either)?

    If they really want to effect change, doctors could use their unions and demand better screening by the FDA when it comes to drugs that are put to market with inadequate testing, or maybe insist that the conflict of interest that is PDUFA be eliminated on ethical grounds. Both of these would drive up costs for safety and efficacy testing, but would pale in comparison to the amount of money spent on follow-up care and injury/death settlements that result from drugs that prove to be unsafe.

    There's plenty of good medical people out there, but there are a fair amount that are completely apathetic to what is best for their patient and that is a shame. I can honestly say that in my dealings with healthcare professionals I have been very fortunate, but there have been a few that were clearly nothing more than medical civil servants who made most of their decisions on what the bottom line would be, or worse, consensus.
    Last edited by Jetworks; 04-20-2011 at 04:53 PM.

  3. #23
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4005450]Medicare and SS is not paid for by the Government. I have and my employers have paid in for my entire working life.[/QUOTE]

    there should be a disclaimer on the Capital Dome "caveat emptor: past contributions do not guarantee future benefits."

  4. #24
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4005458]there should be a disclaimer on the Capital Dome "caveat emptor: past contributions do not guarantee future benefits."[/QUOTE]

    Except that would blow the Democrats cover for opposing portable privatization of SS and Medicare to protect future retirees who actuall vote.

  5. #25
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4005458]there should be a disclaimer on the Capital Dome "caveat emptor: past contributions do not guarantee future benefits."[/QUOTE]

    And about 30 second after that, the People would stop contributing. The program only exists because people (ignorantly) beleiev they are guaranteeing themselves retirment benefits and healthcare. You pull out that rug, and you'll find a vastly harder time getting folks to pay up for others, with no gaurantees they themselves will ever see a dime.

    Frankly, every penny they take nowadays pains me, as I almost guarantee I'll never see it. You know what thats called Bit, breach of the social contract.

    You just don't get it. There is a goodly portion of this Nation as yet not willing to buy into a Social Welfare State Utopia, where 85% tax rates and massive Govt. control over every facet of life will bring true happiness and properity to all the workers of the Nation. Give it time though, I never ever thought I'd see such an open and blantant cheerleading for Social Welfareism that we have today.

  6. #26
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4005458]there should be a disclaimer on the Capital Dome "caveat emptor: past contributions do not guarantee future benefits."[/QUOTE]

    Or how about what you put in is how much gets covered. How many people do you think have contributed $5 million. B/C i cant tell you how many people I have encountered that have individually cost Medicare that much money.

  7. #27
    [QUOTE=Jetworks;4005452]This will likely carry over to Medicaid (disabled) people as well. It's already started with the latest budget with the inclusion of Medicaid block grants.

    Since no one wants to put forth honest discussion here, I will. You know what would help in cost savings, especially when it comes to pharmaceuticals and medical devices? How about eliminating the reps throwing breakfast/lunch/dinners for the entire office/department when "pitching" their product? "That was some goooood chicken primavera. I think We'll go with your SSRI this month". Ethics, much? Eliminating that might make things more affordable and help in the decision-making process of whether a patient warrants the use of that product beyond the cost/worth treating consideration.

    Or maybe doctors could tell their unions to take a hike along with their hundreds of dollars in membership fees requirements, thereby allowing the physicians to roll that into their private practices instead? Seriously, why the hell does the medical community need unions (and no, they're not clubs or fraternal organizations, either)?

    If they really want to effect change, doctors could use their unions and demand better screening by the FDA when it comes to drugs that are put to market with inadequate testing, or maybe insist that the conflict of interest that is PDUFA be eliminated on ethical grounds. Both of these would drive up costs for safety and efficacy testing, but would pale in comparison to the amount of money spent on follow-up care and injury/death settlements that result from drugs that prove to be unsafe.

    There's plenty of good medical people out there, but there are a fair amount that are completely apathetic to what is best for their patient and that is a shame. I can honestly say that in my dealings with healthcare professionals I have been very fortunate, but there have been a few that were clearly nothing more than medical civil servants who made most of their decisions on what the bottom line would be, or worse, consensus.[/QUOTE]

    You make good points. I would add television advertising as well.
    Why cant Medicare directly negotiate with pharmaceutical companies the way the VA does? That would certainly cut down costs. This is one area Obama failed(sold out).

  8. #28
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4005447]Ken-I understand all of this and I'm willing to have an honest debate on it and I know you want that also. The President and the Democrats don't want to have an honest debate about it and I'm sure most Republicans don't want that either.

    Of course we need reasonable limits because we can only afford what we can afford and right now the country is in deep debt and the majority of Americans are getting sqeezed by food, energy inflation and health care inflation.

    [B]Stop telling us we can cover everyone from craddle to grave with no changes in how and what is delivered[/B].[/QUOTE]

    I never said that.

  9. #29
    [QUOTE=kennyo7;4005477]Or how about what you put in is how much gets covered.[/quote]

    Sounds like a Private Investment System to me. What I put in (invest) is what I get out?

    Sign me up!

  10. #30
    [QUOTE=kennyo7;4005480]I never said that.[/QUOTE]

    Sorry Ken I meant the President.

  11. #31
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Staten Island
    Posts
    8,930
    [QUOTE=kennyo7;4005478]You make good points. I would add television advertising as well.
    Why cant Medicare directly negotiate with pharmaceutical companies the way the VA does? That would certainly cut down costs. This is one area Obama failed(sold out).[/QUOTE]

    Very good points. Forgot about television, but that is a capitalism thing for the private companies, so it would be a tough sell. Medicare negotiating with Pharma might work, but it's a little scary to say the least. Let's face it, Medicare and Medicaid private sector work is always booming and has (almost) as much inflated costs as defense contracts.

    [QUOTE=kennyo7;4005477]Or how about what you put in is how much gets covered. How many people do you think have contributed $5 million. B/C i cant tell you how many people I have encountered that have individually cost Medicare that much money.[/QUOTE]

    So where is the line in the sand? A recent Harvard study concluded that to support an autistic to the grave will cost ~$3 million. And that's conservative when you figure in autistics like my daughter who has numerous concomitant medical problems (gut issues, connective tissue disorder and immunological problems). At what point do the disabled get thrown under the bus as well? I'd say fairly soon, in the way of budget and service cuts.

    Our most vulnerable populations will suffer the most, the aged and disabled.

    Prisoners will suffer as well. Somewhat ironic that the axiom “The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons” won't necessarily apply to those left in the cold by some of the medical establishment and the lawmakers that support their pennywise views.
    Last edited by Jetworks; 04-20-2011 at 05:40 PM.

  12. #32
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4005481]Sounds like a Private Investment System to me. What I put in (invest) is what I get out?

    Sign me up![/QUOTE]

    As soon as we get a Universal System we will sign you up. But I bet you will cost society more than what you put in, if you are as sick as you say.

  13. #33
    [QUOTE][QUOTE=Jetworks;4005486



    [B]So where is the line in the sand? A recent Harvard study concluded that to support an autistic to the grave will cost ~$3 million. And that's conservative when you figure in autistics like my daughter who has numerous concomitant medical problems (gut issues, connective tissue disorder and immunological problems). At what point do the disabled get thrown under the bus as well? I'd say fairly soon, in the way of budget and service cuts.

    Our most vulnerable populations will suffer the most, the aged and disabled.

    Prisoners will suffer as well. Somewhat ironic that the axiom “The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons” won't necessarily apply to those left in the cold by some of the medical establishment and the lawmakers that support their pennywise views.[/[/B]QUOTE][/QUOTE]

    Theres no "line in the sand". There is no absolute number. Its about making sound medical decisions that make sense.

    You dont put feeding tubes in advanced Alzheimers patients. Theres no medical data to support this, but its done all the time.

    You dont start dialysis on end stage cancer patients or place them on mechanical ventilation.
    Makes no medical sense. And the cost is extraordinary.
    Last edited by kennyo7; 04-20-2011 at 06:19 PM.

  14. #34
    [QUOTE=kennyo7;4005495]As soon as we get a Universal System we will sign you up. But I bet you will cost society more than what you put in, if you are as sick as you say.[/QUOTE]

    A. No. Move to Canada or the UK is it's so important to you. I will never, ever, support a UK style system, and will fight against it in every way possible. I maintain I (taxpayer) owe no one else their healthcare costs.

    B. Yes, I'm sure I cost my Insurer vastly more than I've paid in to-date. Yet never declined once....

    C. I'm not dead yet, so I must not be that sick, eh Doc?;) Good thing too, as your diagnosis for serious issues seesm to be "let them die". Ironic, thats my diagnosis for the able-bodied uninsured....

  15. #35
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4005501]A. No. Move to Canada or the UK is it's so important to you. I will never, ever, support a UK style system, and will fight against it in every way possible. I maintain I (taxpayer) owe no one else their healthcare costs.

    B. Yes, I'm sure I cost my Insurer vastly more than I've paid in to-date. Yet never declined once....

    C. I'm not dead yet, so I must not be that sick, eh Doc?;) Good thing too, as your diagnosis for serious issues seesm to be "let them die". Ironic, thats my diagnosis for the able-bodied uninsured....[/QUOTE]

    A. Actually I prefer the French, Norwegian and German systems. Why do you keep comparing to the UK and Canada, universal systems that clearly are not the best?

    B. Not yet. You have been lucky thus far.

    C. I dont know any dead people who are sick. My diagnosis for sick people? You must mean remedy. No i dont say "let them die". Nice try though. This is what I mean about not being able to have an honest debate. Try paying attention to what I say and dont make crap up.

  16. #36
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Staten Island
    Posts
    8,930
    [QUOTE=kennyo7;4005498]
    Theres no "line in the sand". There is no absolute number. Its about making sound medical decisions that make sense.

    You dont put feeding tubes in advanced Alzheimers patients. Theres no medical data to support this, but its done all the time.

    You dont start dialysis on end stage cancer patients or place them on mechanical ventilation.
    Makes no medical sense. And the cost is extraordinary.[/QUOTE]

    So you're talking a euthanasia-type approach? Or more hospice? Either way, no extraordinary means for those that are deemed to be 'living-dead' (not trying to be melodramatic) so to speak, right? Using the examples provided, I can't say I disagree (more humane IMHO), but shouldn't it be the patient or caregivers choice, especially where mental acuity isn't impaired?

    And what about my example? How would this apply to those who are disabled? I mean, what's the point of providing life-improving care to a self-injurious autistic with a seizure disorder who bangs their head against the wall all day? Sooner or later they are going to experience or cause irreparable damage, so why waste money on treatments that ultimately will be for naught? You're talking about a very large population of people that are just now becoming adults en masse, contribute very little if anything to society in the way of revenues and will need life-long care. Using the figures from my previous post and you are talking a whole lot of money. They can be, stretching your criteria, considered to be a societal burden, not just a medical one. That was the point I was making.

    You said you wanted honest debate and that is what I am trying to provide here. Don't think I am using the above as hyperbole, because I think we can both agree that what I just laid out isn't too far-fetched given the right push.
    Last edited by Jetworks; 04-20-2011 at 07:44 PM.

  17. #37
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4005338]Of course it's already happening. That's not the point the President is completely disingenuous on this issue. He attacks the other side for destroying Medicare when his own plan calls for a panel of 15 people with no oversight at all once in place to reduce benefits based on their say so.

    If a Republican propossed this the left would be going bat $hit.[/QUOTE]

    This whole argument seems to me to be frankly disingenuous. The panel has very straightforward oversight. It is operating according to "the law." Who's legislating that? I think the real fear is that the panel will not be beholding to special interests, particular the lobby for healthcare providers and systems, who have milked medicare dry with billing schemes that would make a tax account for Bill Gates confused. Medicine today can be incredibly redundant, stacking tests on tests simply because they are there and they can be billed creatively to cover costs and drive up the bang per patient. Why is a panel of experts in healthcare any different than a panel of experts on spaceflight or military operations? Do you want those to be elected officials only, because there would be no oversight? The whole argument is pretty shallow. The people that should be afraid of this are not the taxpayers, or patients; it's hospitals and doctors.

  18. #38
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4005645]This whole argument seems to me to be frankly disingenuous. The panel has very straightforward oversight. It is operating according to "the law." Who's legislating that? I think the real fear is that the panel will not be beholding to special interests, particular the lobby for healthcare providers and systems, who have milked medicare dry with billing schemes that would make a tax account for Bill Gates confused. Medicine today can be incredibly redundant, stacking tests on tests simply because they are there and they can be billed creatively to cover costs and drive up the bang per patient. Why is a panel of experts in healthcare any different than a panel of experts on spaceflight or military operations? Do you want those to be elected officials only, because there would be no oversight? The whole argument is pretty shallow. The people that should be afraid of this are not the taxpayers, or patients; it's hospitals and doctors.[/QUOTE]

    You may not like the mess of Democracy and certainly there are aspects of it that are distasteful but in our democracy Congress appropriates not the President or his appointed body. The same is true of Military expenditures and space flight under government control. Which is why most of our big defense weapons projects are built in multiple States and multiple Congressional districts.

    The law calls for the panel, to be known as the Independent Payment Advisory Board, to make recommendations to cut Medicare to Congress. [B]But if Congress fails to act, the Department of Health and Human Services secretary could make the cuts. [/B] Not only that they have a target to cut which is mandatory and very likely to be in direct conflict with the goals and priority of providing health care.

    At least Ryan's plan is telling everyone under 55 that funds are capped and you better prepare to supliment your care. The President is effectively telling the public don't worry be happy the Republicans are going to take away your Medicare when he is putting a panel in place to take away their medicare.

    Here's the reality Congress not only won't act they can't act and neither will the next President because the demographics of baby boomers will become a lobby of such a huge size that when they see the government taking away promissed benifits they paid into for 30, 40 and 50 years they are going to overwhelm the ballot box. Another words the savings ain't going to happen unless you're really ready to remove the Democratic process.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 04-21-2011 at 06:09 AM.

  19. #39
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4005731]You may not like the mess of Democracy and certainly there are aspects of it that are distasteful but in our democracy Congress appropriates not the President or his appointed body. The same is true of Military expenditures and space flight under government control. Which is why most of our big defense weapons projects are built in multiple States and multiple Congressional districts.

    The law calls for the panel, to be known as the Independent Payment Advisory Board, to make recommendations to cut Medicare to Congress. [B]But if Congress fails to act, the Department of Health and Human Services secretary could make the cuts. [/B]Not only that they have a target to cut which is mandatory and very likely to be in direct conflict with the goals and priority of providing health care.

    At least Ryan's plan is telling everyone under 55 that funds are capped and you better prepare to supliment your care. The President is effectively telling the public don't worry be happy the Republicans are going to take away your Medicare when he is putting a panel in place to take away their medicare.

    Here's the reality Congress not only won't act they can't act and neither will the next President because the demographics of baby boomers will become a lobby of such a huge size that when they see the government taking away promissed benifits they paid into for 30, 40 and 50 years they are going to overwhelm the ballot box. Another words the savings ain't going to happen unless you're really ready to remove the Democratic process.[/QUOTE]

    I'm sorry but this is so hypocritical of people like Ryan. He's arguing now that the panel would potentially cut care to seniors... while his plan would do far worse. Also, from what I read, any decision of the panel CAN be overturned by Congress. Also the panel may be appointed by the President but each member has to be approved by Congress. The ENTIRE drive against this is coming from the healthcare industry for obvious reasons - the panel is pretty much forced by law to look at costs since they can't do much of anything else. Per the NYT:

    "Under the law, the board cannot make recommendations to “ration health care,” raise revenues or increase beneficiaries’ premiums, deductibles or co-payments. This increases the likelihood that the board will try to save money by trimming Medicare payments to health care providers."

    For people who have been railing for government to be reined in and cut cost in programs that are massive but politically charged, it seems pretty lame to me that suddenly there is great worry about reduction in medicare costs. You are suddenly arguing for the same congress to solve the problem that is politically hamstrung from doing anything, as we see from this very debate. Do you want Medicare fixed or not? It seems you only want it if a conservative does it. Do you really expect the healthcare industry to voluntarily charge lower rates, or not charge for frivolous tests and procedures if they can?

  20. #40
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4005732]I'm sorry but this is so hypocritical of people like Ryan. He's arguing now that the panel would potentially cut care to seniors... while his plan would do far worse. Also, from what I read, any decision of the panel CAN be overturned by Congress. Also the panel may be appointed by the President but each member has to be approved by Congress. The ENTIRE drive against this is coming from the healthcare industry for obvious reasons - the panel is pretty much forced by law to look at costs since they can't do much of anything else. Per the NYT:

    "Under the law, the board cannot make recommendations to “ration health care,” raise revenues or increase beneficiaries’ premiums, deductibles or co-payments. This increases the likelihood that the board will try to save money by trimming Medicare payments to health care providers."

    For people who have been railing for government to be reined in and cut cost in programs that are massive but politically charged, it seems pretty lame to me that suddenly there is great worry about reduction in medicare costs. You are suddenly arguing for the same congress to solve the problem that is politically hamstrung from doing anything, as we see from this very debate. Do you want Medicare fixed or not? It seems you only want it if a conservative does it. Do you really expect the healthcare industry to voluntarily charge lower rates, or not charge for frivolous tests and procedures if they can?[/QUOTE]

    Reducing payments to providers doesn't cut cost.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us