The New York Times starts laying...

[Yonivore]

...the premise for accepting "Death Panels."

In Medicine, the Power of No (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/business/economy/07leonhardt.html?hp)

So, as we have been saying, all along, there will be "death panels" in Obamacare. They'll just be federal agencies with innocuous names and faceless bureaucrats.

On the same subject of Obamacare...

Remember those Detroit denizens that ran around demanding Obama money from Obama's "stash" back last year? Well, now we have them demanding Obama Health Care; a full 4 years before much of his plan goes into affect.


Health care overhaul spawns mass confusion for public (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/06/91696/health-care-overhaul-spawns-mass.html)

I wonder how this will play in the 2010 and 2012 elections.

Indeed, we are in the best of hands.

[ElNono]

...the premise for accepting "Death Panels."

In Medicine, the Power of No (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/business/economy/07leonhardt.html?hp)

So, as we have been saying, all along, there will be "death panels" in Obamacare. They'll just be federal agencies with innocuous names and faceless bureaucrats.

Did you actually read the article?

Small excerpts:
The health act requires Medicare and other agencies to help hospitals and doctors give patients more information — which is practically a no-lose proposition. In the course of receiving more control and more choice, two distinctly American values, patients will probably help hold down costs.

The final step is the bluntest. It involves changing the economics of medicine, to reward better care rather than simply more care. Health reform doesn’t go nearly far enough on this score, but it is a start.

“In the United States, I don’t know that we’re ever going to get to a point where we limit health care spending,” as Dr. Collins Vidal says. “But maybe we could get patients to the same place on their own.”

[George Gervin's Afro]

...the premise for accepting "Death Panels."

In Medicine, the Power of No (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/business/economy/07leonhardt.html?hp)

So, as we have been saying, all along, there will be "death panels" in Obamacare. They'll just be federal agencies with innocuous names and faceless bureaucrats.

On the same subject of Obamacare...

Remember those Detroit denizens that ran around demanding Obama money from Obama's "stash" back last year? Well, now we have them demanding Obama Health Care; a full 4 years before much of his plan goes into affect.


Health care overhaul spawns mass confusion for public (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/06/91696/health-care-overhaul-spawns-mass.html)

I wonder how this will play in the 2010 and 2012 elections.

Indeed, we are in the best of hands.

are you confused yoni? go ahead and explain to me how this confusion will lead to gains for the dead enders. what are they going to do? put confused people on tv ads? or are they going to use the confusion and then make up some lie and then run with it? great plan:toast

[Yonivore]

Did you actually read the article?

Small excerpts:
The health act requires Medicare and other agencies to help hospitals and doctors give patients more information — which is practically a no-lose proposition. In the course of receiving more control and more choice, two distinctly American values, patients will probably help hold down costs.

The final step is the bluntest. It involves changing the economics of medicine, to reward better care rather than simply more care. Health reform doesn’t go nearly far enough on this score, but it is a start.

“In the United States, I don’t know that we’re ever going to get to a point where we limit health care spending,” as Dr. Collins Vidal says. “But maybe we could get patients to the same place on their own.”
I did read the article.

Dr. Vidal's statement makes no sense. We're entering the game needing to control costs. The Health Care Reform Act has already established agencies that will ration care.

There's only so much money, we will get to the point where we limit health care spending pretty damn quick. And, the only way to do that is rationing care -- making decisions on who will be treated and what treatments will be available.

Just look at the other article I posted. People are already demanding their Obamacare!

[Yonivore]

are you confused yoni? go ahead and explain to me how this confusion will lead to gains for the dead enders. what are they going to do? put confused people on tv ads? or are they going to use the confusion and then make up some lie and then run with it? great plan:toast
I think the "confused" people will be sufficiently pissed come November, all on their own.

[coyotes_geek]

There's only so much money, we will get to the point where we limit health care spending pretty damn quick. And, the only way to do that is rationing care -- making decisions on who will be treated and what treatments will be available.

Quit worrying about the financial realities. Everything will work out just fine. Obama said so.

[ElNono]

I did read the article.

Dr. Vidal's statement makes no sense. We're entering the game needing to control costs. The Health Care Reform Act has already established agencies that will ration care.

There's only so much money, we will get to the point where we limit health care spending pretty damn quick. And, the only way to do that is rationing care -- making decisions on who will be treated and what treatments will be available.

Just look at the other article I posted. People are already demanding their Obamacare!

So we're back at these alleged 'Death Panels' being nothing but a construct of your imagination... there's no such authority in this Act that actually denies coverage... and the article states as much...

I actually find it hilarious you rather pander to this than actually criticize valid, real negative aspects about this Act. There's plenty of legitimate bad stuff on it. No need to make stuff up to get your point across.

[ElNono]

Quit worrying about the financial realities. Everything will work out just fine. Obama said so.

The thing is, bitching about financial realities is a very valid argument. It's just not as catchy or doomy-and-gloomy as 'the death panels, muhahahaha'

[coyotes_geek]

The thing is, bitching about financial realities is a very valid argument. It's just not as catchy or doomy-and-gloomy as 'the death panels, muhahahaha'

Touche'. :tu

[RandomGuy]

I did read the article.

Dr. Vidal's statement makes no sense. We're entering the game needing to control costs. The Health Care Reform Act has already established agencies that will ration care.

There's only so much money, we will get to the point where we limit health care spending pretty damn quick. And, the only way to do that is rationing care -- making decisions on who will be treated and what treatments will be available.

Just look at the other article I posted. People are already demanding their Obamacare!

Yes or no, is health care in this country currently rationed?

[Yonivore]

The thing is, bitching about financial realities is a very valid argument. It's just not as catchy or doomy-and-gloomy as 'the death panels, muhahahaha'
Where else do the financial realities lead but, to rationing?

Medicare and Medicaid are already the largest deniers of care. Why? Because, they are unsustainable, fiscally, unless you cut costs through denial of service and loss of quality (paying the providers less for treatments that cost more).

This is why some hospitals and pharmacies have already started refusing Medicare patients.

[Yonivore]

Yes or no, is health care in this country currently rationed?
No; just health care coverage. And, that's mostly by the government pretending to be the savior of the health care system.

[RandomGuy]

Is health care in our country currently rationed.


No; just health care coverage. And, that's mostly by the government pretending to be the savior of the health care system.

Wrong. Health care is rationed in this country.

Can you sit back and consider this for a second and take a guess as to how it is rationed?

You are smart enough to get the answer if you honestly try to think about it for a second.

[RandomGuy]

While you are thinking, and just in case you can't get to the right answer, here is a good article on it.

http://patients.about.com/od/patientempowermentissues/a/rationing.htm

[RandomGuy]

It is a fundamental concept in economics that any economy, be it free-market, communism, or somewhere in between or something else entirely (there are other rather unusual ideas out there), has methods of distrubuting scarce resources.

The amount of health care is finite, and much less than the overall need. It must, therefore be rationed.

In more managed economies distribution is done by who gets there first to stand in line for the subsidised goods.

When prices are allowed to float, demand and supply will be more balanced and closer to the intersection of the supply/demand curves.

Price then becomes the method of rationing the good, as opposed to giving it to the first people to stand in line.

Both are still rationing.

[RandomGuy]

Health Insurer Rationing

Health insurers ration care, but they don't call it rationing, and they don't even want you to realize that it is rationing. Dr. Rich Fogoros, the About.com Guide to Heart Disease gave this its own term. He calls it "covert rationing."

When insurance companies ration care, it's a money-saving measure, in part for the greater good, but also to preserve profits or raise salaries or other reasons that their customers disdain.

Rather than dwell on the reasons that frustrate us, suffice it to know that some of their rationing does keep premiums from getting any higher than they do, and does allow insurers to stay in business.

Health insurers ration your care by limiting the doctors you may visit because they negotiate fees with those doctors. They will only pay for you to visit the ones they have negotiated the lowest fees with.

Health insurers ration care through co-pays, deductibles and caps. In fact, what they are really doing is encouraging you to self-ration. Knowing that a certain amount of your care will have to be paid from your pocket, you may choose not to get the care or drug you need.

Health insurers deny services or reimbursements for services. Denial of care is perhaps the most understood form of rationing, because it causes outrage and frustration. What most patients don't understand is that this is also the aspect of rationing that is most affected by laws and regulations, too.

In many cases, those denials may be based on science or evidence that a treatment won't work, doesn't work well enough, or is too new. For example, many patients get frustrated that insurance won't reimburse for an alternative treatment. What the insurer will tell you is that there isn't enough evidence to prove that treatment will work.

In other cases, experimental, off-label drugs or new surgical approaches are too new to show enough evidence of success, so the insurance company will not reimburse for it.

In still other cases, a doctor may recommend a treatment that is shown to only benefit a small percentage of the people who have used it (usually in very difficult medical cases), and may also be very expensive, so the insurance company will decide it's not worth the high cost for so small a probability of success.

Remember, of course, the insurer isn't denying permission for the treatment. Rather, payment for the treatment is being denied. The patient can still participate in the treatment if she can pay for it herself.

I have to go, but here is a good quote from the link I provided earlier.

I would encourage anybody who wants to understand an important aspect of the health care debate to read it.

[ElNono]

Where else do the financial realities lead but, to rationing?

Exactly. Which is the number one factor for rationing today, be it from being unable to afford care to being unable to afford insurance.


Medicare and Medicaid are already the largest deniers of care. Why? Because, they are unsustainable, fiscally, unless you cut costs through denial of service and loss of quality (paying the providers less for treatments that cost more).

Actually, financial realities are the largest deniers of care, and the very reason for rationing. Something this act does nothing to address.

But keep singing your 'death panel' tunes if that's what makes you happy.

[boutons_deux]

Yoni never met a dead horse he could resist beating, and esp about the ankles.

End-of-life care is a huge money spinner for hospitals, oncologists, docs, that's why there is so much of it, NOT because end-of-life care delays end-of-life, and esp extends it while maintaining quality of life.

[boutons_deux]

Yoni never met a dead horse he could resist beating, and esp about the ankles.

End-of-life care is a huge money spinner for hospitals, oncologists, docs, that's why there is so much of it, NOT because end-of-life care delays end-of-life, and esp extends with quality of life.

Yoni's just parroting the brain-dead chatter of his girlfriend and his Mt Rushmore nominee pitbull bitch.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I hope the "confused" people will be sufficiently pissed come November, all on their own.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Is health care in our country currently rationed.



Wrong. Health care is rationed in this country.

Can you sit back and consider this for a second and take a guess as to how it is rationed?

You are smart enough to get the answer if you honestly try to think about it for a second.

It's ok if insurance companies do it..

[Yonivore]

Exactly. Which is the number one factor for rationing today, be it from being unable to afford care to being unable to afford insurance.

Actually, financial realities are the largest deniers of care, and the very reason for rationing. Something this act does nothing to address.

But keep singing your 'death panel' tunes if that's what makes you happy.
So, the next logical step is for government -- not economics -- to determine how all goods and services should be distributed?

I remain convinced that free enterprise and charity are the purview of the people, not the government.

[Yonivore]

It's ok if insurance companies do it..
Yes, and if they were allowed to compete, they'd provide coverage for a lot less than is now being experienced.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yes, and if they were allowed to compete, they'd provide coverage for a lot less than is now being experienced.

so what about those people who are priced out of the market? those with pre existing conditions that will prevent any insurance company from offering coverage?

those with cancer? what about those who are refused covg after limits are reached?

[boutons_deux]

"if they were allowed to compete"

who is blocking competition?

and who forced the health insurers to consolidate, an essential free-market strategy to make markets unfree, into a non-competitive cartel?

allowing health insurers to work across state lines will allow them follow the rules of the least restrictive state, just like usurious cc companies setup in the states where usury is not illegal.

[Yonivore]

so what about those people who are priced out of the market? those with pre existing conditions that will prevent any insurance company from offering coverage?

those with cancer? what about those who are refused covg after limits are reached?
There are a lot of charities and state, county, and local programs that provide free health care.

That unfortunate lady Obama used in his speeches, Ms. Canfield I believe was her name, received, in his words, "aggressive" treatment even though she had no insurance and no means to pay.

[George Gervin's Afro]

There are a lot of charities and state, county, and local programs that provide free health care.

That unfortunate lady Obama used in his speeches, Ms. Canfield I believe was her name, received, in his words, "aggressive" treatment even though she had no insurance and no means to pay.

so we, the tax payer, are going to fund the state and county programs right?

[JohnnyMarzetti]

You idiots are as stupid as Palin. There will be NO death panels.

[Yonivore]

so we, the tax payer, are going to fund the state and county programs right?
Well, I would actually rather government get out of the business of charity, all together but, as local, county, and state governments already own (by virtue of my tax dollars) all forms of health care provision, from clinics to Level III Trauma Centers, I don't much see the need for the federal government to come in and muck it up.

I would rather the local governments work towards divesting themselves of private enterprise.

[ElNono]

So, the next logical step is for government -- not economics -- to determine how all goods and services should be distributed?

What do you mean 'the next logical step'?
That's how government has been run since pretty much forever. It either controls the services and good it provides directly (security, education, etc, etc, etc) or creates distortions (some valid, some don't) on third party services and goods through regulation, taxation, subsidies, etc.


I remain convinced that free enterprise and charity are the purview of the people, not the government.

What you remain convinced of is irrelevant. There's certain cases where the generic solution doesn't work, for a number of different reasons, and we need to make it work. Take the subsidies to agriculture. We could easily not hand it to them but then we risk having to import massive amounts of food, and be captive to that market, much like we're captive to oil. Free enterprise doesn't work there, because free enterprise cannot compete with the rest of the world, but there's a legitimate interest to circumvent that and keep production in our country.

With healthcare we can debate all day the importance of having a healthy population overall or not. And at what cost.
This bill doesn't entirely address that point however. It also doesn't grants ability to deny coverage to any of these new government agencies. It actually does the opposite: It implements a bonus system for those that apply methods that the other agency determines to be good care.

[Wild Cobra]

The New York Times starts laying...
They start to lie? Didn't know they ever stopped, so they could start again....

[boutons_deux]

"charities and state, county, and local programs that provide free health care."

and, just like Fed, they can print FIAT money to cover their costs, and never use taxpayer funds. ignorant fucking assholes, every one of you. :lol

[Oh, Gee!!]

two of the most innocuous editorials ever written as your clarion call for Obama's defeat in 2012? Really, Yoni? You used to be better than this.

[FromWayDowntown]

They start to lie? Didn't know they ever stopped, so they could start again....

Laying, lying: it's all the same thing. . . .

[Wild Cobra]

Laying, lying: it's all the same thing. . . .
I thought it was a typo...

[RandomGuy]

So, the next logical step is for government -- not economics -- to determine how all goods and services should be distributed?

I remain convinced that free enterprise and charity are the purview of the people, not the government.

That is a logical fallacy. Your arguments would be much more effective if you would refrain from them. The statement/question "So, the next logical step is for government... to determine how all goods and services should be distributed?" is somewhat misleading, being something of a strawman.

People advocating for UHC and single payor systems are not saying that all goods and services should be distributed, because it is, by its nature different than say, pens or haircuts. Deny someone a pen, they might find something else to write with, but deny someone a medication that lowers their blood pressure, and they end up in the emergency room.

Let's start with some basic ethical questions so we can both find some common ground, and work from there.

Is it ethical to allow someone in the United States to starve to death if they cannot afford enough food?

I am not asking for any advanced arguments, just a simple premise, so don't make any more of this than it is on its face. We will diverge soon enough, but let's just get one basic thing/agreement made explicit. Please.

[boutons_deux]

"the next logical step is for government"

read that as: "the next Yoni-logical step is for government" :lol

that boy flatters himself with his impeccable logic, but is blinded by his vanity that his logic sucks.

[RandomGuy]

As for Death Panels:

http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Ftom-pantsonfire.gif

Palin Death panel remark sets Truth-o-meter fire (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/aug/10/palin-death-panel-remark-sets-truth-o-meter-fire/)


End-of-life care counseling would be voluntary
Provision calls for Medicare to cover voluntary end-of-life counseling sessions. Section 1233 of America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 -- the provision former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin cited -- amends the Social Security Act to ensure that advance care planning will be covered if a patient requests it from a qualified care provider [America's Affordable Health Choices Act, Sec. 1233]. According to an analysis of the bill produced by the three relevant House committees, the section "[p]rovides coverage for consultation between enrollees and practitioners to discuss orders for life-sustaining treatment. Instructs CMS to modify 'Medicare & You' handbook to incorporate information on end-of-life planning resources and to incorporate measures on advance care planning into the physician's quality reporting initiative." [waysandmeans.house.gov, accessed 8/13/09]

[Yonivore]

Is it ethical to allow someone in the United States to starve to death if they cannot afford enough food?
Ethical or moral? There's a difference.

It might be ethical if, say, they couldn't afford food because they blew their money on non-essentials. It would absolutely be ethical for me to keep my money and feed my own family for a longer period of time than it would be for me to spend a portion of my money to feed the irresponsible and run the risk of my family doing without somewhere down the road.

It still may not be moral but, that would depend on complex circumstances that you seem not to want to explore at the outset.

And, therein lies the rub. I don't expect my government to act on morality...that's the job of people. If government would stop confiscating the billions and trillions they mismanage to provide charity, the American people could feed, clothe, house, and medically treat all those that need it much better and more efficiently.

[Yonivore]

As for Death Panels:

http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Ftom-pantsonfire.gif

Palin Death panel remark sets Truth-o-meter fire (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/aug/10/palin-death-panel-remark-sets-truth-o-meter-fire/)
Any government bureaucracy that makes decisions on standards of care, what treatments will be covered, or which patients are to receive treatments is a death panel.

[FromWayDowntown]

Any government bureaucracy that makes decisions on standards of care, what treatments will be covered, or which patients are to receive treatments is a death panel.

Is an HMO/PPO bureaucracy that does the same equally a death panel?

[Yonivore]

Is an HMO/PPO bureaucracy that does the same equally a death panel?
No, it's a business.

That's my point. Health care isn't a right, it's a good or service that has value not because of what it offers customers but, due to the investments of doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, etc...and for what people are willing to pay to receive it. To treat it as a right, to be managed by the government, devalues the investment and degrades the service and availability for everyone.

At least with an HMO/PPO, a person has the opportunity to negotiate health care privately; either by applying for charity or a subsidy of some type. With government-managed health care, which will eventually be the only provider, you won't have that option.

[FromWayDowntown]

No, it's a business.

But fundamentally, it's still making the same decision.


That's my point. Health care isn't a right, it's a good or service that has value not because of what it offers customers but, due to the investments of doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, etc...and for what people are willing to pay to receive it. To treat it as a right, to be managed by the government, devalues the investment and degrades the service and availability for everyone.

At least with an HMO/PPO, a person has the opportunity to negotiate health care privately; either by applying for charity or a subsidy of some type. With government-managed health care, which will eventually be the only provider, you won't have that option.

Oh yes, the old "Capitalism can't fight the government" boogeyman.

[Yonivore]

But fundamentally, it's still making the same decision.
Because it's their money at risk, not yours and mine.


Oh yes, the old "Capitalism can't fight the government" boogeyman.
D'okie dokie.

[FromWayDowntown]

Because it's their money at risk, not yours and mine.

It's still a third party bureaucrat making a decision about whether a particular course of medical treatment is economically efficacious, which is a "rationing" of health care, which you seem to suggest is an inevitable result of the recent health care bill, and which you've characterized as being a decision made by a death panel.

The only difference is who's money is at stake, but ultimately, in each circumstance, detached third parties are making decisions about affording medical care to individuals who need it. Economically, the situations are different; morally or ethically, they certainly seem indistinguishable.

And, for the record, I'm not in favor of those practices under any circumstance.

[George Gervin's Afro]

It's still a third party bureaucrat making a decision about whether a particular course of medical treatment is economically efficacious, which is a "rationing" of health care, which you seem to suggest is an inevitable result of the recent health care bill, and which you've characterized as being a decision made by a death panel.

The only difference is who's money is at stake, but ultimately, in each circumstance, detached third parties are making decisions about affording medical care to individuals who need it. Economically, the situations are different; morally or ethically, they certainly seem indistinguishable.

And, for the record, I'm not in favor of those practices under any circumstance.

this dude is smart!

[Duff McCartney]

What is health care but life? I thought Republicans were pro-life. It seems only people with money are allowed to live.

[George Gervin's Afro]

What is health care but life? I thought Republicans were pro-life. It seems only people with money are allowed to live.

If your wealthy enough to afford healthcare.. or accoring to yoni you can go get charity

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I did read the article.

Dr. Vidal's statement makes no sense. We're entering the game needing to control costs. The Health Care Reform Act has already established agencies that will ration care.

There's only so much money, we will get to the point where we limit health care spending pretty damn quick. And, the only way to do that is rationing care -- making decisions on who will be treated and what treatments will be available.

Just look at the other article I posted. People are already demanding their Obamacare!

What agencies are they and what authority are they given to do this and how?

[boutons_deux]

"established agencies that will ration care"

Like a right-wing extremist, he has to make up magical shit to make his bogus case.

Like Breitbart doctoring the ACORN tapes to make a bogus case.

Like McLiar claming he was never a Maverick.

[Yonivore]

What agencies are they and what authority are they given to do this and how?
The article mentions three...


The federal government is now starting to build the institutions that will try to reduce the soaring growth of health care costs. There will be a group to compare the effectiveness of different treatments, a so-called Medicare innovation center and a Medicare oversight board that can set payment rates.

[LnGrrrR]

Any government bureaucracy that makes decisions on standards of care, what treatments will be covered, or which patients are to receive treatments is a death panel.

Using that same argument, couldn't they also be called "life panels"? :lol