I just can't understand her reasoning and personal logic when she makes a statement like this one;

“The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care.”

Thank God she was not given any new power, and has been stripped of the power she had. She doesn't have the ability to comprehend, and her reactions display her mind gravitates toward a sick and perverse conclusion for facts presented. She is a dangerous person.

The Hospice lobby loves Obamacare's death provision, since earlier mandated Do Not Resuscitate orders will add to Hospice use and their profits.

Sarah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Hospice lobby loves Obamacare's death
> provision, since earlier mandated Do Not
> Resuscitate orders will add to Hospice use and
> their profits.

It appears your logic is like a pinball dangerously out of control.

FYI, The American Medical Association endorsed the provision.

It's a good thing this woman is rich and can afford good health insurance, because Down's syndrome could be considered a "pre existing condition" under some providers.

Two weeks ago during her resignation speech she publicly called on the media to stop making stuff up.

Now she's inventing terms like "death panel" about the health care bills... HYPOCRA RLY?

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Now she's inventing terms like "death panel" about the health care bills... HYPOCRA RLY?


I think she has stupidity as a pre-existing condition

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pgens Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Now she's inventing terms like "death panel"
> about the health care bills... HYPOCRA RLY?
>
>
> I think she has stupidity as a pre-existing
> condition

That's stupid.

This is what she is talking about:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492&page=1

Now while Palin is saying things to pander to the religious base, when they then see things like this, it lends some weight to her statement.

She is still an idiot, and while there are some religious folks out there that may support her, you all seem to be obsessed with someone who will never get the nomination. You don't have to believe me, that is fine. I just know from the folks I talk to , who voted for McCain, she would have a hard time getting the nod, even if she had someone backing her up in the VP slot. Not unless she gets a HUGE shot of brains from somewhere in the next year or so.

I imagine Hillary will be running in 2012 if Obama keeps going the way he is - can you possibly believe that anyone would want Palin to get the nod if she has to go head to head with Hillary?

Lol.

Hillary actually has a good shot of getting elected this time if the Republicans can't find anyone better than Jindal, Pawlenty or Romney - she looks like a conservative compared to Obama.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is what she is talking about:
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492&page
> =1

What does that have to do with what Palin was screeching about? That link goes to a story about some lady's _current system_ private health insurance decision. How does that translate to Obama creating something called a "death panel"?

Step One: Institute 10% national sales tax to cover TRUE healthcare reform

Step Two: Allow any American to join Medicare, paid out of the sales tax, paying what seniors do now

Step Three: Rejoice as "health insurance" system is eliminated and everyone gets health care, doctors and hospitals bill Medicare as they do now

Just fix Medicare to cover all.

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This is what she is talking about:
> >
> >
> http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492&page
>
> > =1
>
> What does that have to do with what Palin was
> screeching about? That link goes to a story about
> some lady's _current system_ private health
> insurance decision. How does that translate to
> Obama creating something called a "death panel"?

The Oregon Health Plan (if you read the article) is the State insurance plan/coverage provided to the public. NOT private insurance.

The plan turned down her doctor's prescription for a drug that would help with pain management and extend her life, and instead when they sent the denial of coverage, indicated that instead they would pay the $50 for her to have assisted suicide performed.

As I also pointed out - what she says is designed to pander to the religious base, and she has zero chance of getting nominated.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Palin is like a bad nightmare, she just pops back up when ever you don't expect her to.

The media likes to keep her out there - they want to keep folks with short attention spans entertained :)

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Oregon Health Plan (if you read the article)
> is the State insurance plan/coverage provided to
> the public. NOT private insurance.

Ah, I stand corrected. I read "health insurance" and assumed private.

RV wrote:

"...and she has zero chance of getting nominated."

----------------------------

That all depends how crazy your base will be in 3 years from now. Right now, they are foaming at the mouth. In 3 years, they may all be Timothy McVeighs or Randy Weavers.

I don't think so. And it will really depend on moderates. While she may appeal to the far right folks, no way does she have any chance with the center-right folks other than the fact that she is nice to look at. Again, not unless she has a huge infusion of brains in the next 2 years. I for one, am not holding my breath.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Palin’s Health Care Priorities and Alaska’s Daughters
15

07

2009
Today, Lisa Demer of the Anchorage Daily News has broken a story that adds another scandal to the growing list of scandals that have plagued this administration, and shines the light on Alaska’s very own health care crisis. Demer’s story centers on the horrendous condition of the Alaska’s state programs that are designed to help its most vulnerable citizens, the elderly and disabled.

The situation is so bad the federal government has forbidden the state to sign up new people until the state makes necessary improvements. [snip]

The moratorium is expected to last four or five months. State officials estimate about 1,000 Alaskans will be affected.

A particularly alarming finding concerns deaths of adults in the programs. In one 2 1/2 year stretch, 227 adults already getting services died while waiting for a nurse to reassess their needs. Another 27 died waiting for their initial assessment, to see if they qualified for help.

No other state in the nation is under such a moratorium, according to a spokeswoman for the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

There are currently eight lawsuits pending against the state which also rang alarm bells on the federal level.

Doctors and other health care providers wrote to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid with concerns that the state wasn’t responsive. Some alleged that the lack of state controls “has resulted in the death(s) of the active clients,” the federal review said.

While the people served are frail and suffer from chronic health issues, the state never investigated to determine if any failure in service contributed to the deaths, the federal review found.

“Thus, if someone passed away because a (personal care assistant) did not show up, for example, there was no indication this would have been reported or investigated,” the report said.

The state plans to start doing fatality reviews.

The state plans to start doing fatality reviews?

So, it would appear, since we are the only state where the situation is bad enough to require federal intervention that the administration has had its mind on other things. We know, of course, that the governor has been busy with her farewell tour, flying all over the state and signing bills and doing little shout outs and quotes of the day on her twitter account, and getting ready to become a full-time celebrity.

But what about health? What have been, and what currently are the administrations top priorities on matters of health and human services? It’s obviously not the care and well-being of our vulnerable seniors, so what is it?

The administration is spending an awful lot of time on the upcoming ballot initiative that will address parental notice and consent for anyone under the age of 18 who is seeking to terminate a pregnancy. Here is the initiative language with recent changes in language underlined. parental20involvement20initiative1

Two years ago, the Alaska Supreme Court on a 3-2 ruling said that a parental consent law was unconstitutional because it transferred the right to make such an important decision to a parent or a judge. They also stated that a parental notification law, however, might be constitutional.

Although she stated she’d like to take this on personally, Palin, under the advice of her attorney, took a step back.

“I got a preliminary opinion from Law (Department) just giving me a heads up that critics would certainly file an ethics charge against me if I were to sponsor an initiative,” she said. “So though I maintain I have First Amendment rights just as any other citizen does, I won’t flirt with the notion of giving critics more ammunition to keep filing wasteful ethics charges against me, but instead I’ll volunteer to be the first signature.”

There go those critics again, demanding ethics. And there goes the governor again, not quite understanding the first amendment, or the ethics act.

Planned Parenthood, recognizing that a girl who doesn’t want to tell her parents she’s pregnant, or fill out paperwork to get time off from school to go stand before a judge in superior court and convince him or her that she is mature and intelligent enough to make decisions about her own reproductive health, might just take the situation in to her own hands.

Girls researching self-induced abortion on the Internet could find all kinds of bad advice, said Clover Simon, Executive Director of Planned Parenthood.

In the week prior to Sarah Palin’s hurried announcement that she’d be stepping down as the governor of the state, a new scandal was brewing on the horizon. It didn’t get as much publicity as some of the other numerous Palin scandals, in part because everyone became preoccupied with her resignation.

The fact that a frightened teen who doesn’t want to become a parent might do what others have done and just try to Google her way out of her predicament may have crossed the mind of Beverly Wooley, the state’s public health director, who was scheduled to appear before the legislature on this issue. She stated, earlier this month that she was forced out of her position, largely due to differences between her and the governor on the parental involvement issue.

Wooley said she also intended to answer questions from legislators and said she would rely on data, not anyone’s personal beliefs. Whether she personally agreed with the governor is beside the point, Wooley said.

She intended to refer to studies from states that already had passed similar legislation, she said. Some of the research shows that, with parental involvement requirements, girls tend to get abortions later in their pregnancy, which is riskier and more expensive, she said. Other research shows fewer girls get abortions, which abortion foes like Palin likely would applaud.

And while Palin says she “will not hesitate to speak up in support of Alaska’s daughers,” her concern does not seem to extend to Alaska’s daughters whose parents are literally dying from neglect because of budget cuts and mismanagement. The “culture of life” seems to have an expiration date that our seniors have passed. And left out are Alaska’s daughters who will choose not to talk to their parents, and take matters in to their own hands rather than submit to the emotional stress, embarrassment and legal wranglings of convincing a judge that they were abused, or the victim of incest, or just not ready to be a parent.

By all indications Lt. Governor Sean Parnell, who is set to take the helm of state on July 26th will have his work cut out for him. His predecessor has left him quite a mess. Where will his priorities lie?

Sarah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Hospice lobby loves Obamacare's death
> provision, since earlier mandated Do Not
> Resuscitate orders will add to Hospice use and
> their profits.


Hospice is a wonderful organization....

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pgens Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Registered Voter Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > This is what she is talking about:
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492&page
>
> >
> > > =1
> >
> > What does that have to do with what Palin was
> > screeching about? That link goes to a story
> about
> > some lady's _current system_ private health
> > insurance decision. How does that translate to
> > Obama creating something called a "death
> panel"?
>
> The Oregon Health Plan (if you read the article)
> is the State insurance plan/coverage provided to
> the public. NOT private insurance.
>
> The plan turned down her doctor's prescription for
> a drug that would help with pain management and
> extend her life, and instead when they sent the
> denial of coverage, indicated that instead they
> would pay the $50 for her to have assisted suicide
> performed.
>
> As I also pointed out - what she says is designed
> to pander to the religious base, and she has zero
> chance of getting nominated.


The one thing that does scare me about the govt plan is a case like this. It's not as if a private insurance company wouldnt have denied the women the expensive drug...they do things like that every day of the week. But when a govt run insurance company does it....everyone is up in arms...going to throw the bums out of office. Politicians being what they are will want to say yes to the women to try and get themselves re-elected. ANd the next thing you know costs are sky rocketing. The basic rule is...politicians dont get elected by saying no to constituents.

So..here's my bottomline...dems should drop the single payer option. Instead they should insist on competing the insurance business to lets say 6 different insurance companies.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

It's kind of an interesting case that the "conservatives" are making, I think. They are essentially arguing that everyone is entitled to health care by saying that nobody else should be able to determine whether you should be entitled to certain procedures or medication. I mean, isn't the "conservative" position basically "fuck you, you're on your own?" If you want the procedure, pay for it yourself. By arguing against so called "Death Panels", people like Sarah Palin are making the case that universal health care really is a right. Their defacto argument isn't that government-provided health care is wrong, they are saying they want more of it.


Vince(1) Wrote:
>
> The one thing that does scare me about the govt
> plan is a case like this. It's not as if a
> private insurance company wouldnt have denied the
> women the expensive drug...they do things like
> that every day of the week. But when a govt run
> insurance company does it....everyone is up in
> arms...going to throw the bums out of office.
> Politicians being what they are will want to say
> yes to the women to try and get themselves
> re-elected. ANd the next thing you know costs are
> sky rocketing. The basic rule is...politicians
> dont get elected by saying no to constituents.
>
> So..here's my bottomline...dems should drop the
> single payer option. Instead they should insist
> on competing the insurance business to lets say 6
> different insurance companies.

Ron Reagan weighs in on Palin's comment... pretty funny

Hey FUNd - just because the opinion you posted came from a bloggers site, doesn't mean you should NOT post a link and quote ONLY the pertinent sections.

Observations in summary (from linked documents below) - for those that want to scroll past the supporting facts:
It is amazing just how much a couple of bloggers in Alaska hate Palin so much, that they will attribute everything bad in the State to her. On the parental consent issue - the Supreme Court in Alaska only struck down the law because of a technicality in how the law was written. They still held that parents should be notified, Contrary to the arguments of Planned Parenthood. The blogger article posted is just another form of scare tactics, trying to tie about a dozen different issues to Plain, when in reality, she had little to do with any of them other than backing the legislature's plan to re-do a bill to deal with the Parental Notification issues.

Maybe its a good thing you all want to focus on Palin - I don't know. But it seems like a small group of people post something on a blog up in Alaska and that is the gospel as to reality on the ground up there. Like they have no skewed perceptions or anything. I just dig into this stuff to see what is truth or "expansive linkage stories" trying to throw everything up in the air that will allow something to stick. But I guess if you keep focusing on her it will be easy to make anyone else the Republicans might nominate look like a centrist. I guess the other reason is to scare folks into thinking she might win so they stay motivated in their hate of religions on the right.

*shrug*

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.themudflats.net/2009/07/15/palins-health-care-priorities-and-alaskas-daughters/

Here is the article noting the issues with Alaska Health Programs:
http://www.adn.com/life/health/story/864670.html

Note:

Quote

...
The programs at issue provide in-home help for thousands of Alaskans with the basics of life, from medication to meals. The goal is to help people stay in their own homes rather than go into nursing homes or other institutions.

The services are paid for by Medicaid, the state-federal health program for the poor and the disabled, and overseen by the state Division of Senior and Disabilities Services. Individuals qualify based on income and need. Private contractors do most of the work. The programs cost about $250 million this year, with the federal government currently paying 61 percent of the bill.

Two broad categories of programs are at issue: One, providing just personal care, serves 3,200 people and the other, with a broader range of services including home health care, helps about 3,800 through what are known as Medicaid waivers. Some clients get help through both types of program.

Division officials on Tuesday acknowledged serious problems, including a backlog of about 2,000 people waiting for a nurse assessment to determine what services they need. They said fixes are coming.
...

In March, the state told officials with the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services about the huge backlog of people waiting to be evaluated.

"That was the first red flag that went up for us, that something was going on there that was not meeting our expectations," said Mary Kahn, a spokeswoman for the federal agency.

"Rather than continue to let the state admit more and more people into what we believe has been a poorly managed system, we just said hold the phone, we're going to try to find other ways to serve these people," Kahn said. "And we're going to stop enrollment in this program because we are quite concerned."

State officials said some private agencies in Alaska provide similar services through grant funding. But advocates say those services are very limited.
...

So the State brought this to the attention of the Federal program managers for Medicaid and then it was decided to stop enrollments while they (the Feds) tried to find alternative methods to get assistance to these folks

Regarding the lawsuits:

Quote

...
Another sign of trouble for the feds: eight lawsuits against the state division.

Most were brought by the Northern Justice Project, a private civil rights firm created in 2006 to pursue class action suits and other big cases.

"I think the lawsuits reflect that these two programs are and have been run incompetently for some time," said Jim Davis, one of the partners and founders of the justice project.

The common thread in the suits is that seniors and disabled Alaskans aren't getting the services they are entitled to, under the law, Davis said. In one big win, the state Supreme Court ruled last year that the state had improperly cut off or reduced services to more than 1,000 needy people.

State officials say they are trying to settle those lawsuits.
...

http://touchngo.com/sp/html/sp-6381.htm

Quote

...
II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
A. Facts
In August 2005 the Northern Justice Project filed a
class action lawsuit against the State of Alaska on behalf of
Interim Assistance (IA) benefits applicants, alleging that an
internal policy the state adopted in 2003 to save costs violated
the Alaska Administrative Procedures Act (APA). IA benefits are
available to Alaskans who have applied for Supplemental Security
Income (SSI) benefits1 but who have not yet received a final
decision from the federal government on their SSI applications.2
To qualify for IA benefits, a state-approved physician or
psychiatrist must find the applicant disabled.3 If the federal
government finds the applicant qualifies for SSI benefits and
thus begins paying such benefits, the applicant must repay the
state for the IA benefits she received;4 if she does not qualify,
she is not required to repay the state.5 To reduce the number of
applicants who are not required to repay the state and thus save
costs, the state implemented an internal policy change in 2003
that added a secondary disability assessment. Under the 2003
policy, if the state-approved doctor found the applicant disabled
and eligible for IA benefits but a secondary medical screener
disagreed, the state denied the application. The state did not
follow the APA in promulgating this policy.
...

So a lot of these issues stemmed from policies (and lawsuits) in place LONG before Palin became Governor. The State was working on reforming the system before she came into office:

http://dpaweb.hss.state.ak.us/manuals/apa/transmittals/memo_mc__8.htm

Parental Notification:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003991974_webabortion03.html

Quote

...
In Friday's 3-2 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that the law infringes on a pregnant teen's rights to reproductive freedom. The decision backed a Superior Court ruling that found the law unconstitutional.

Chief Justice Dana Fabe wrote the majority opinion on behalf of herself and Justices Robert Eastaugh and Alexander Bryner:

"We decide today that the State has an undeniably compelling interest in protecting the health of minors and in fostering family involvement in a minor's decisions regarding her pregnancy," Fabe wrote.

"And contrary to the arguments of Planned Parenthood, we determine that the constitution permits a statutory scheme which ensures that parents are notified so that they can be engaged in their daughters' important decisions in these matters.

"But we ultimately conclude that the Act does not strike the proper constitutional balance between the State's compelling interests and a minor's fundamental right to privacy."
...

http://www.adn.com/news/politics/story/704234.html

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

FUNdamental Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> “The America I know and love is not one in which
> my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have
> to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his
> bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective
> judgment of their ‘level of productivity in
> society,’ whether they are worthy of health
> care.”


No, those bureaucratic decisions belong in the private sector. Free-market!

The decisions already ARE in the the free market. For the most part consumer choice will make it so folks will not go to companies that do not provide decent elderly care benefits in the long run.

Once it becomes managed by the government there will be NO recourse. It isn't like you can NOT pay taxes to make them change their decisions. You can't be thrown in jail or fined if you refuse to participate in a private run health plan (yet).

Train (and allow for) more doctors, specialists, which will help reduce the direct costs of Health Care (not insurance). Reform insurance to break it off employers and make it so there are national plans instead of employer based plans (so that everyone benefits from the plans instead of just if you happen to work for a large or small employer who can get better cost reductions), and make it so they have to cover you without pre-existing condition clauses. Remove all the loopholes for how they can deny you coverage. Put in place things like executive compensation caps similar to those on these companies that were under TARP so that companies that provide services for the public good can't be totally "for profit" enterprises to the exclusion of providing benefits. Make it so frivolous malpractice lawsuits will result in the plaintiff paying the defense costs if they are found to be such - and if they continue to bring such cases disbar the lawyer (nationally) and any practice he/she works with if they continue bringing cases in their name. Figure out a better way to deal with malpractice suits - to include having the doctor lose their license so they can no longer practice medicine, and having insurance responsible for paying wrongful death at a set limit per instance that would be the equivalent of a person making $X salary for so many years (figure out what X is to make sense), etc. Get the pharmaceutical companies to be required to disclose the total costs for making particular drugs, etc.

There are common sense answers to this so that folks have reduced costs, and are still protected by tort laws if necessary. With all the special interests on both sides arguing to lose none of their benefits under the current system, the only ones that lose are the people. And no, the Government is not a better answer as far as managing the system.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter do you have a job/

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Train (and allow for) more doctors, specialists,
> which will help reduce the direct costs of Health
> Care (not insurance). Reform insurance to break it
> off employers and make it so there are national
> plans instead of employer based plans (so that
> everyone benefits from the plans instead of just
> if you happen to work for a large or small
> employer who can get better cost reductions), and
> make it so they have to cover you without
> pre-existing condition clauses. Remove all the
> loopholes for how they can deny you coverage. Put
> in place things like executive compensation caps
> similar to those on these companies that were
> under TARP so that companies that provide services
> for the public good can't be totally "for profit"
> enterprises to the exclusion of providing
> benefits. Make it so frivolous malpractice
> lawsuits will result in the plaintiff paying the
> defense costs if they are found to be such - and
> if they continue to bring such cases disbar the
> lawyer (nationally) and any practice he/she works
> with if they continue bringing cases in their
> name. Figure out a better way to deal with
> malpractice suits - to include having the doctor
> lose their license so they can no longer practice
> medicine, and having insurance responsible for
> paying wrongful death at a set limit per instance
> that would be the equivalent of a person making $X
> salary for so many years (figure out what X is to
> make sense), etc. Get the pharmaceutical companies
> to be required to disclose the total costs for
> making particular drugs, etc.

Agreed.

And no, the
> Government is not a better answer as far as
> managing the system.

Except you just said the opposite.

Nah - I said the government should not manage it.

Regulate, make sure the providers play by the rules, sure.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Lippy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter do you have a job/

I can multitask like crazy.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lippy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Registered Voter do you have a job/
>
> I can multitask like crazy.

Running a nuclear power plant can get so boring at times... :)

NOT.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nah - I said the government should not manage it.
>
> Regulate, make sure the providers play by the
> rules, sure.


Fair enough. I again agree. I do think, like you appear to, that health insurance being employer-based for the vase majority of people is ridiculous, but to add to that point it forces people to stay at jobs they hate because of fear they'll lose coverage. I know I've done it.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Train (and allow for) more doctors, specialists,
> which will help reduce the direct costs of Health
> Care (not insurance). Reform insurance to break it



Doctor's salaries are relatively insignificant to the high costs of health care.

Million dollar MRIs, $60,000 - $100,000 ICU beds, $100 "patient hygiene kits" (a plastic bin with a small box of tissues, a shampoo, a skin cream and some napkins), $150 per dose pharmaceuticals (and with some chemo drugs $1,500 - 3,000 per dose), etc etc.

Most hospitals are actually losing money. The majority of doctors get paid around $60 - 200 k, from residents to attending physicians, with some specialties and surgeons getting over $300,000 (I saw a job listing in the vending machine area at Georgetown a few months ago for a pulmonary resident and the listed salary was $51,500).

The people who are driving up health care costs are the medical supply and pharmaceutical companies.

> Step One: Institute 10% national sales tax to
> cover TRUE healthcare reform
>
> Step Two: Allow any American to join Medicare,
> paid out of the sales tax, paying what seniors do
> now
>
> Step Three: Rejoice as "health insurance" system
> is eliminated and everyone gets health care,
> doctors and hospitals bill Medicare as they do now

Boo!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Being vague is almost as fun as that other thing.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The decisions already ARE in the the free market.
> For the most part consumer choice will make it so
> folks will not go to companies that do not provide
> decent elderly care benefits in the long run.
>
> Once it becomes managed by the government there
> will be NO recourse. It isn't like you can NOT pay
> taxes to make them change their decisions. You
> can't be thrown in jail or fined if you refuse to
> participate in a private run health plan (yet).
>
> Train (and allow for) more doctors, specialists,
> which will help reduce the direct costs of Health
> Care (not insurance). Reform insurance to break it
> off employers and make it so there are national
> plans instead of employer based plans (so that
> everyone benefits from the plans instead of just
> if you happen to work for a large or small
> employer who can get better cost reductions), and
> make it so they have to cover you without
> pre-existing condition clauses. Remove all the
> loopholes for how they can deny you coverage. Put
> in place things like executive compensation caps
> similar to those on these companies that were
> under TARP so that companies that provide services
> for the public good can't be totally "for profit"
> enterprises to the exclusion of providing
> benefits. Make it so frivolous malpractice
> lawsuits will result in the plaintiff paying the
> defense costs if they are found to be such - and
> if they continue to bring such cases disbar the
> lawyer (nationally) and any practice he/she works
> with if they continue bringing cases in their
> name. Figure out a better way to deal with
> malpractice suits - to include having the doctor
> lose their license so they can no longer practice
> medicine, and having insurance responsible for
> paying wrongful death at a set limit per instance
> that would be the equivalent of a person making $X
> salary for so many years (figure out what X is to
> make sense), etc. Get the pharmaceutical companies
> to be required to disclose the total costs for
> making particular drugs, etc.
>
> There are common sense answers to this so that
> folks have reduced costs, and are still protected
> by tort laws if necessary. With all the special
> interests on both sides arguing to lose none of
> their benefits under the current system, the only
> ones that lose are the people. And no, the
> Government is not a better answer as far as
> managing the system.


I like the way you think. ;o)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Being vague is almost as fun as that other thing.

Melissa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Step One: Institute 10% national sales tax to
> > cover TRUE healthcare reform

> > Step Three: Rejoice as "health insurance"
> system
> > is eliminated and everyone gets health care,
> > doctors and hospitals bill Medicare as they do
> now
>
> Boo!

Here here!

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The decisions already ARE in the the free market.
> For the most part consumer choice will make it so
> folks will not go to companies that do not provide
> decent elderly care benefits in the long run.


To plagerise a little..in the long run we are all dead. We need health care reform now. Id be interested to know how many people really feel market forces are at play when it comes to the selection and options that are available to them..especially when they are out of work. Remember...no one os proposing a change to the insurance options being provided working people. Unless of course you believe the loonies who see a single provider option as leading to the death of all private health insurance providers. And of course what would lead to that unlikely end state? The maket place as people find a govt provided health care system more responsive then a private one...or companies find private insurance too expensive (as they do today)..and just stop providing health insurance options.

The market place is the same place that has led us to our current economic situation..it is not always the complete answer.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/11/2009 08:45AM by Vince(1).

Do we need health care and insurance reform?

Yes

We need health care reform.

We need health insurance reform.


Should we train more doctors and specialists to ensure we have enough of them to also service under served areas?

Yes

Do we need to ensure that we get rid of no pre-existing condition clauses?

Yes

Do we need to make it so insurance plans are available to everyone, and no longer tied to employers?

Yes

Do we need to make it so insurers have limited profitability, and must conform to a standard that ensures for every health insurance dollar they collect, X dollars MUST be spent on the patients and patient care?

Yes (determine an X that makes sense)

Does that mean we need to move to a single payer system?

No.

Does that mean that only Democrats have a plan, and they can prove that by saying no one else has one?

No - especially not if they limit debate on the provisions of the bill, and then act like there are no other alternatives other than what they are proposing. To say anything else is totally disingenuous.

Should we continue to increase spending at a time when we are already $12T in debt and are still having to raise the debt ceiling even now?

No - how about we let things settle down a bit before we try to move any other extremely expensive legislation through Congress right now.

Should Congress be required to fully read and be able to truly understand a Bill before they vote on it?

Yes - if it is going to be a law that applies to everyone else in this country, they damn well better read it, or have someone that has read the whole thing give them good notes to better understand it so when someone asks a simple question they know how to answer it.

I am pretty sure most people would answer as I have above if you had a reasonable question and answer session.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's a good thing this woman is rich and can
> afford good health insurance, because Down's
> syndrome could be considered a "pre existing
> condition" under some providers.


Pre-existing conditions are an aspect of our current Health Insurance system which does need improvement, but the lumped bill which Obama and Pelosi wish to push for, is nothing more than a power tripping attempt at taking over yet another sizeable chunk of our society.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do we need health care and insurance reform?
>
> Yes
>
> We need health care reform.
>
> We need health insurance reform.
>
>

Actually, we need Health Insurance Reform, not Health Care reform. We already have the best Health Care in the world.

Well, we need better health care for under served areas. There are some areas where they may have a hospital many miles away, but not much in the way of local doctors or specialists.

Also the pharmaceutical companies are out of hand in how they charge for certain medications. Basic things like that need to be corrected on the provider end.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Obama's healthcare horror
Heads should roll -- beginning with Nancy Pelosi's!
By Camille Paglia
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/08/12/town_halls/

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

ThePackLeader Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> nothing more than a power tripping attempt at taking over yet another sizeable chunk of our society.
>
>
>
Attachments:

ThePackLeader Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Actually, we need Health Insurance Reform, not
> Health Care reform. We already have the best
> Health Care in the world.


Am I missing something? Health care insurance reform is essentially what Obama is proposing.

Here is the problem we have with health care in this country. We have huge holes in coverage. As an employer, I have had the opportunity to deal, first hand, with our fucked up system.

If you are an individual and you try to buy insurance for your family, that is $15K a year. In addition, insurance companies can deny you coverage for pre-existing conditions if you apply for individual coverage. In fact, I tried to get individual coverage when I strated my business and I was denied coverage (my family wasn't) because of a test I had had that needed further investigation. Fortunately, I was able to figure out how to do a group plan and stay within the insurance company guidelines. However, at one time I had to consider a HIPAA plan (which is required by Virginia if you are denied coverage) and my monthly premiums would have been $4K a month.

I have been on COBRA. I have had claims denied under COBRA. I have had to contact my member of Congress to fight COBRA. I have had my insurance company drop coverage without notice. I have had to pay claims out of my pocket that should have been covered under my policy but paid them anyways because the hospital threatened to send the bill to collections. I have had a Healthcare Savings Account, which provides zero benefit if you are an employer.

If you are an employee and get your insurance from your employer, you have no idea what happens behind the scenes. You also don't realize how easy it is for employers to drop coverage entirely once the premiums become too expensive. In fact, our company almost did it last year. It is very unusual for a company our size to even provide health care coverage anymore.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pgens Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Now she's inventing terms like "death panel"
> about the health care bills... HYPOCRA RLY?
>
>
> I think she has stupidity as a pre-existing
> condition

That's stupid.