The New York Times starts laying...

[Yonivore]

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

In Medicine, the Power of No

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

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

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

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

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

[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

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

Touche'.

[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, ing 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/patient.../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 .

[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 compe ion?

and who forced the health insurers to consolidate, an essential free-market strategy to make markets unfree, into a non-compe ive 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.