When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
35 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Herman
14 years ago
I’m sure we all can agree it was the ‘Death Panel’ that gave the order to run her over, not Obama.
Robert Kelly
14 years ago
@Herman: obama just gets other to do his dirty work, we can all agree on that.
Herman
14 years ago
sure, dirty work comes with many jobs, and most certainly, also, the presidency. dirty work is dolled out everywhere.
however, there’s a difference between ‘dirty work’ (which, sadly, goes with many political jobs) and unstable, loosely strapped identities and those so incapable of self-management their utterances retard their own goals: talk about health care ‘death panels’, and obama being ‘a racist’ and having ‘a deep seated hatred of white people’.
…at least the dirty work furthers a political end.
Is it your contention that ObamaCare will not ration care to the elderly and that the elderly will not be given mandatory “end of life” counseling?
Is it also your contention that Obama is not a racist?
trizzlor
14 years ago
@Aye Chihuahua: Here we go again, last week the bill was banning private health-care … this week it’s requiring counseling. Please quote the passage from the bill that requires mandatory “end of life” counseling. From my understanding, and perhaps I’m wrong here, the bill offers coverage for counseling if you so choose to have it. As someone who recently had to make this kind of decision in the midst of an emergency, I don’t see how incentivising such counseling can be interpreted in a negative light.
Likewise, “ObamaCare will not ration care” because you will always have the option to pay for care out of pocket, just like you do now … thanks for playing.
Robert Kelly
14 years ago
@Herman: obama has shown himself to be prejudiced against white folks when he prejudged the cop in mass. without knowing the facts. Or he is prejudiced against cops. What is your take on this?
Cool song…I found it while seeing whether my version of this same song (didn’t know so many others had written one!) was making any kind of splash yet.
Here are the lyrics to my verson:
“Grandma got run over by Obama
bought into the whole “Messiah” vibe
If she hadn’t listened to his nonsense
Dear old Grandma might still be alive
She’d been drinking too much kool-aid
and we begged her not to vote
But she got caught up in the frenzy
Barry left her up a creek without a boat.
Still we’re all so proud of Grandpa
Stays busy since he lost his job
He’s one of those ‘un-American Nazis’
At town hall he leads an octogenarian mob!
Grandma got run over by Obama
She didn’t know his ‘change’ was all a lie
He took away her precious medication
and left my dear old Grandma out to die
Now we’re fearful of Obama
as his union goons attack
Our only hope is that the birthers
can find a way to make the Kenyans take him back
(TAKE HIM BACK!)
Grandma got run over by Obama
Cash-for-Geezers wasn’t very wise
He can say it isn’t euthanasia
but Gramps and I can see right through his lies
We’ve all been run over by Obama
We left our country to this socialist
If they could all come back to life tomorrow
I bet the founding fathers would be PISSED!
Download it here:
[audio src="http://fayettepatriots.homestead.com/grandmagotrunoverbyobama.mp3" /]
Feel free to distribute it amongst friends if you like. Let me know what you think!
@Herman: Who is it that flinging around the racist charge?]
Perhaps you would like to scan down the front page of this blog and learn.
Seems to me that’s standard operatring procedure for the left.
Unless of course you think that the people protesting at these Town Hall meetings really are the modern day equivalent of Nazis, or the Ku Klux Klan.
Robert Kelly
14 years ago
@trizzlor: If there is the option to pay out of your pocket, then why do we need obamacare?
trizzlor
14 years ago
@Robert Kelly: If you can’t pay out of pocket, national health-care can cover some or all of your medical procedures – that’s not rationing. Unless you’re proposing a system of universal health-care where everyone is covered for everything, there will be some people who can’t afford and are not covered for something they want – again, that’s not rationing. You might as well be criticizing national health-care because it doesn’t bring people back from the dead.
@trizzlor: Are you seriously trying to suggest that socialized health care won’t be rationed?
Walter M. Clark
14 years ago
Let’s see–He’s going to add 47 million uninsured residents to the pool of insured we already have, with no provision for increasing the number of doctors, nurses, clinics and hospital. Sounds like rationing will have to be used, just to keep the old law of supply and demand from increasing costs even more than the Congressional Budget Office has said.
Hard Right
14 years ago
Yes Mike, he wants us to believe we will be the only ones to avoid rationing. I predict he will respond that rationing has already been occuring. That seems to be one of the canned answers the left is pushing.
trizzlor
14 years ago
@Mike’s America: I thought I was pretty clear, but let’s break it down since “rationing” has now become some voodoo catch-all just like “death-boards”. Likewise, I don’t know what “socialized health care” is (unless every government service is “socialized” in your world) but I do know about the national health-care coverage plan that Congress is proposing. If by rationing you mean that certain people will be forbidden from getting certain care then this will not happen – the bill allows for both private coverage and, as always, out-of-pocket payments. If, on the other hand, rationing is to mean that certain people will not be covered for whatever treatments they desire, then this will be present in some degree under any system that is not universal; and arguing about it is moot.
Philly_PA
14 years ago
Re: Look what you’re missing in the U.K.:
I have relatives in the the U.K. one an elderly lady relative waited six months for an appointment for a hearing aid. After several visits to the hospital ear nose and throat clinic for tests to determine she really needed a hearing aid four months later she was fitted for and got one, it didn’t work properly and she had to wait five weeks for an appointment to have it “looked at”…..almost year down the road and she still doesn’t have a satisfactory comfortable working hearing aid.
With socialized/government controlled health care no matter which way it gets presented the simple truth is you join the queue and wait your turn.
.
Missy
14 years ago
@Philly_PA: Exactly Philly. The other day I read an article about GB’s healthcare. Even if you have private insurance, you can’t slide ahead of anyone. With private insurance you still are on these waiting lists, when calling for an appointment they tell you they will call back when an appointment is available.
Obama claims to have found $300,000 billion in Medicare cuts, wants to add 47 million people, we don’t have enough doctors and nurses as it is, before they even get a chance to ration care, appointments will be rationed. Downhill from then on.
@trizzlor: You’re living in a fools paradise if you think that the government can do a better job of delivering health care than the private sector. And let’s not kid ourselves about the ultimate goal of Obama and the Dems: single payer government run health care.
Rationing, however you want to define it, will have to be imposed if you want to meet Obama’s other criteria which is to lower cost while covering millions more people including illegal aliens and paying for abortions.
Or don’t you believe Obama is serious about controlling costs?
Sorry, but you can’t keep having it both ways.
trizzlor
14 years ago
You’re living in a fools paradise if you think that the government can do a better job of delivering health care than the private sector.
We’ve gone through this before, the VA has been rated better than general private care for nearly a decade (see here) and is stellar when compared to the kind of treatment veteran contractors get (see here). Heck, even Medicare has had lower premium increases and lower administrative costs (from the CBO):
Administrative costs and return on investment account for about 11 percent of private plans’ costs of delivering Medicare benefits, whereas the administrative costs of the fee-for-service Medicare program (as reported by CMS) account for less than 2 percent of its expenditures.
So yeah, government is doing quite a good job already in both care and coverage.
… Obama’s other criteria which is to lower cost while covering millions more people including illegal aliens…
Maybe this works at your 9-12 meetings but you’re going to have to site the bill on a claim like that … here, I’ll start:
Page 143, Line 3, Section 246: “No Federal Payment for Undocumented Aliens. Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”
What do you expect the Secretary of the VA to say in a VA press release?
The ACSI, which actually conducted the study, is the gold-standard for measuring customer satisfaction and has no incidences of bias or political controversy that I could find. The fact that it was reported by the VA does not disprove the findings themselves. The rest of your argument is a hodge-podge of human interest stories that is just as meaningless as those presented by health-care proponents about big bad private insurance. When we’re discussing a national program, that old adage certainly applies: the plural of anecdote is not data. I’m not so deluded as to have a vested interest in being “right” in an anonymous comments-box, I just want to find some consensus on the facts at hand – if you can find a longitudinal large-scale study comparable to the ACSI that disproves their findings I’ll gladly change my opinion.
trizzlor: Here we go again, last week the bill was banning private health-care … this week it’s requiring counseling.
What bullshit, triz. Talk about distorting facts… let’s see if we can straighten you out on both issues.
I know of *no one* on this site who has said the bill was “banning” private health-care. What I have personally said, and most agree, is that the bill is constructed to drive private health care out of business when they are unable to compete with the public plans. Think of it… cheaper premiums, and they reimburse health providers 20-40% below costs while private insurers pay approx 133% of providers’ bottom line costs.
Just how long do you think private insurers can compete? They can’t… and here’s why.
APPROX 2/3 OF AMERICANS WILL END UP ON THE PUBLIC OPTION
By 2030, the 78 million baby boomers will be forced into Medicare enrollees (having the “choice” of either being forced onto Medicare, or forfeiting their SS retirement checks). Assuming the death rates for the next couple of decades for the 35 million currently on Medicare, let’s be conservative and say 90 million on the Medicare rolls in 2030. And that’s low since a 65 year old today will only be 85… and our life expectancy is increasing.
Let’s also assume that Medicaid just stays status quo, or perhaps becomes incorporated into the public option. Those specifics are not clear in either original versions of bills we have seen.
Obama thinks only the currently uninsured will take the public option… or about 30 million per WH estimates. Lewin Group, who analyzes health statistics and data says otherwise. They estimate minimal 42 million of those with private insurance will change to public options (on TOP of Obama’s 30 million) if large corporations are banned from using the public option.
If large corporations can use the public option, the number of enrollees leaving the private insurance arena for the public option goes up to an estimated 119 million, or 67% of the privately insured.
Let’s see… leaving out the VA and even Medicaid, that gives us Obama’s 30 mil, the 90 mil of boomers and existing 65+ types, and either 42 mil or 119 mil more. Total of Americans on the “public plan” (either Medicare for 65+ or the new creation for 65-) would then be 162 million for the former or 239 million for the latter. That’s 54% to 79% of Americans that will be on one of two plans. That figure is actually low since we’re not counting the population on either Medicaid (approx 30 mil right now) and our military on VA.
Needless to say, there’s a piss poor percentage left to support the providers, who are getting shafting with underpayments by the government plans. That small percentage will bear a heavy brunt of higher premiums until those providing the premiums (employers, by mandate) toss the private plans and revert to the cheaper public option for financial survival.
Can you say buh-bye private insurers?
And another thing about your side’s talking points. They are demonizing the insurers. They aren’t making the money… they are paying 130% of providers costs so that the Medicare payments don’t tank the providers. They aren’t pocketing it. But it would be so politically incorrect to demonize hospitals and doctors, charging higher rates in order to make up for the losses, eh? Easier to lie about the insurers.
And change to public option employers will. You see, the bill MANDATES that employers…
1: provide health care coverage thru either private or public option that meets the Congressional standards of minimum; or
2: increase the salaries of the employees if they opt out of employer based coverage, *and* pay a tax penalty annually for the opt out option.
For employers, it will be a dollar & “sense” decision. Will the tax penalties and increased salary overhead end up being cheaper than private insurance with rising premiums.
so Myth #1… O’health care does not “ban” private insures. It merely has every advantage on the government plan that will drive first private insurers out of business, and then tank a few hospitals and doctors until they realize they are now working in a “non-profit” industry.
~~~
Now to myth #2, or the mandated counseling.
First of all, the language you request is found in Section 1233 of HR 3200, and refers back to the SSA Section 1861, amending language INRE end of life care.
But of course you read it as “an option”. That’s because you still aren’t grasping the big picture, triz.
These “end of life” types will be prominently geriatric, or younger enrollees with terminal illnesses. The bill may say “option”, but it will come down to Medicare and New Age Medicare policy for specifics on just how “optional” it is. Just like you have your SS checks held hostage to force you on to Medicare (which is a “choice”, if not a sick joke of a choice)…. policy may dictate that what treatment you may be entitled to under the public plans *requires* advance care planning consultations before receipt. They don’t lay out that little stuff in the bills because that’s all “policy” and regulation decisions.
And speaking of policy and regulation decisions, it comes to the IMAC… or what many are calling the “death squad”. This is *not* found in either the original House or Senate bill. The IMAC “death squad” of health czars is legislation written by Obama’s WH, and being carried independently. I’ve already done a post on the IMAC,… and the demise of the private insurer.
So you can go back and sort out just how much power you want to yield to the Medicare health czars in deciding what to cut in coverage and how much lower they can pay providers in order to stave off bankruptcy. That is their sole task… to manage the costs, and only by cuts and payment reductions in policy (they cannot appropriate/increase because only Congress may do that).
I see it this way… the entire working nation is paying into Medicare; meaning paying for coverage that they cannot have until they are 65. That’s not sitting in a “lock box” somewhere. Everyone is already paying for the 21% on Medicare now… and it’s still going bankrupt. Just how long do you think it will be before benefits are severely cut when you see more than half to 2/3s of Americans on this a public system?
So if Obama/Pelosi/Reid succeed in remaking health care, instead of “reforming” health care, IMAC health czars “death squad” will have a sister act that will be empowered to control the costs and policy for the New Age Medicare program.
@trizzlor: Sorry, but I am not a member of any 9-12 group.
I have however read the series of amendments which GOP House members offered to the House bill and that were rejected on nearly straight party line votes.
If your claim about not funding illegals is correct, then why did Dems vote against a Republican amendment stating that?
And if Medicare is so superior why are millions of seniors buying expensive supplemental policies?
You keep spinning and yet the facts seem to be catching up with you.
Better sit down before you fall down.
Hard Right
14 years ago
I’d say triz is way past spinning and just parroting leftist talking points. I mean, it’s been pointed out multiple times here how wrong his claims are, yet he continues to make the same ones.
Hmm, I’m noticing a few things about the claims triz is pushing.
mandatory “end of life” counseling? Same as media matters and other left wing sites.
No rationing? Again media matters and other lefty sites.
The VA care better than private? huffpo and other lefty sites. BTW, wasn’t it just a year or so ago it was an absolute mess and disaster? Now it’s suddenly wonderful?
As for human interest stories, that is something your kind loves and swears by…when it’s in your favor. We are talking about people, nut just numbers. Not surprised that means nothing to you.
Yes we need reform. Too bad the dems aren’t trying reform, just another power and money grab whil rewarding their union buddies.
@Hard Right: “Yes we need reform. Too bad the dems aren’t trying reform, just another power and money grab whil rewarding their union buddies. “
You get the gold star for today H.R.
There are plenty of good ideas out there to make REAL reforms on health care. Look at all the GOP ideas that were shot down by Democrats in house committees and the same on the senate side.
I was saving this for later, but I’ll give you a preview:
I know of *no one* on this site who has said the bill was “banning” private health-care.
I can’t believe we have to go through this again, but here‘s Aye (to whom I was responding) on the topic last week:
If you change jobs, you are not allowed to enroll in your new employers’ plan.
If you leave your job to become self employed, you cannot purchase your own plan.
Private health care insurers will not be allowed to write new policies if the effective date of those policies falls beyond the first date that the proposed legislation goes into effect.
In short, private insurers will be prohibited from signing on new customers…
All points are completely wrong and based on a gross mis-reading of the bill that completely ignores the Health Insurance Exchange … if you want to argue that “prohibit” and “ban” mean vastly different things here I’ll stay out of your way.
But to the actual debate:
First of all, here‘s some history the Lewin Group, which is wholly owned by UnitedHealth – I’m sure Curt will back me up that this study is now meaningless? Moreover, the group has since downgraded their estimates to 88 million, with the CBO counter-projection being only 11 million (assuming large corporations are banned, something I favor, and something left open in the current drafts). Even if your/their estimates are correct, there is still no guarantee that the remaining number of individuals will immediately switch to the public option. In fact, there are many countries with national health-care and a competitive private option: Israel (my hobby horse) maintains approximately 30% coverage through private companies that offer additional services and medications not offered in the national plan; Australia, another good model, it’s nearly 50% (check out Table 1 in this OECD study on private coverage, it’s more than you’d think). There’s a lot in the bill to minimize administrative costs and coverage monopolies that will help costs but that’s really digging deep because even if the public option is so good that it completely drives private health-care into supplementary mode as in Canada, the pariah of national health-care, their “needs-met” rates are still comparable to the US while maintaining 2/3rds per capita spending!
Of course, your claim about “death-squads” and “death-boards” depends explicitly on the absence of private insurance, and even then on draconian regulations you’re basically making up which would require end of life counseling … and of course the re-writing of myriad of privacy and anti-euthanasia laws. As for the IMAC (which only issues recommendations that have to be approved by Congress), it’s both necessary and quite standard to have an advisory board to determine what new coverage needs to be incorporated and what old coverage needs to be changed – any insurance, public or private, would not be able to stay modern without one and it takes a lot of maneuvering to turn it into a death-squad.
I didn’t take you for a conspiracy theorist, but your view of the “big picture” hinges on annihilation of the private sector completely absent from the bills and the likes of which does not exist in any other large national health-care system; it then follows-up with entirely hypothesized laws enforcing euthanasia and mass graves. I used to shake my head at fellow lefties who claimed we shouldn’t be in Afghanistan or Iraq because it would give Bush the motivation to take over the world, but only that caliber of argument can turn an optional, doctor supported, end-of-life consultation into a death-board.
@trizzlor: Man, you wasted a lot of ink on that comment. But let’s just cut through the bull:
The Public Option, which is currently part of the House Bill, will drive private insurers out of business and drive employers to drop their private coverage.
I don’t need to waste a whole page of space embellishing on that. It’s the truth.
You know it and I know it. And more importantly, the American people know it.
triz, again you are misinterpreting an apple as an orange. And prohibit, in the arena of Aye’s issue, is a far cry from “banning” as he was discussing the grandfathered plans… which may stay in existence only if predating the passage and implementation of Obama’s “remaking” of the health system.
What the private insurer *can* sell is a plan that conforms to the government standards…. and for a higher premium since the private insurers can’t shaft the providers like the public plan is able to. The Exchange is merely a brokerage type reference site… a way to compare coverage and premiums between all (still financially surviving) that offer insurance. Has nothing to do with “banning or prohibiting”… merely a central database for comparison shopping.
But back to “prohibit” vs “ban. The private insurer can’t offer even the same service as tlhe public plan for a competitive price since their reimbursement costs are so much higher. Thus they can only offer what would be superior services… and at a considerably higher premium.
As more and more enroll in the financial disaster known as Obama’care, the more cuts will be made to both providers and to coverage to rein in costs for the public plan…. as they have been doing with original Medicare for at least a decade (that being becoming more restrictive and raising premiums). These further cuts will, conversely, drive the private premiums even higher until they are unsustainable. That you can’t grasp this very simple concept is nothing short of mind blowing.
~~~
And duh… of course the Lewin Group is owned by UnitedHealth Group. Had you read the damn report, you’d see that disclosure on the first page. And of course, how absurd would it be to actually have a research firm with a far more indepth database for analysis actually *do* a financial perusal of an industry with which they are intimate. Silly me… we should be picking the same frat boy czar who’s running the auto industry with nary a nanosecond of experience in that business because he’d be far more accurate…..
sarcasm/off
Do you have any clue how unbelievably dumb you sound, triz? Ah yes… 88 million is much better than 119 million…. NOT. You’ll still end up with well over 53% of Americans on a public plan with a P&L sheet that’s a steady spiral into bankruptcy.
And so, because of lawsuits settlements that you know nothing about except for what WaPo tells you… conveniently because their figures happen to play against the bozo in the WH… you not only decide their data is discredited, but have the chutzpah to drag Curt into this as your phantom back up support? LOL I’m quite sure Curt can speak for himself as to the Lewin Group’s credibility.
And to point how how *really* stupid you sound, you may also want to know that… despite their report… Lewin Group is probably very pro-this plan, as they have already set up a Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research. No doubt taking advantage of Obama’s stimulus stealth health care measure. This sets them up to be quite valuable to the Big Zero’s IMAC health czars – helping them decide what cuts are going to be the most effective. In case you still have a problem compiling big picture stuff… as you apparently do… it behooves them to have this plan go thru.
Nice try tho… let’s dig up some dirt to throw on the numbers. Uh, like where are you on Obama’s fuzzy math for all his crap… from stimulus to cap and trade, and now this bogus health lie.
In fact, there are many countries with national health-care and a competitive private option:
What is it with you and Larry who, when discussing THIS House bill and THIS plan, point to some other country’s plan? Get a clue… they are not clones. Deal with the hamburger on the table before you, and stop pointing to what you think is a steak on the other guy’s table.
~~~
Of course, your claim about “death-squads” and “death-boards” depends explicitly on the absence of private insurance, and even then on draconian regulations you’re basically making up which would require end of life counseling which would still have to follow a myriad of privacy and anti-euthanasia laws.
…..snip…..
I didn’t take you for a conspiracy theorist, but your view of the “big picture” hinges on annihilation of the private sector completely absent from the bills and the likes of which does not exist in any other large national health-care system; it then follows-up with entirely hypothesized laws enforcing euthanasia and mass graves
WTF? I swear, triz… you seriously have a reading comprehension problem, guy. I say Lear jet, and you see a 747. I tell you my Corvair was defective, and you say that’s not possible because the Fiats in Italy run just fine. Huh?
What is with you that you can’t seem to follow simple economic realities? And as for the, again, reference to other countries, see above. We are talking about the proposed construct HERE, not anywhere else.
The IMAC, aka “death squads” do not depend upon the absence of private insurance. And, in fact, if you had even read the Obama-written legislation for the IMAC and the CBO analysis (which I provided in my post on this), you’d know the IMAC “death squad” is, at this moment, confined to Medicare. Of course, it doesn’t matter that Medicare is the existing public option with the highest amount of enrollees, and a guaranteed group of enrollees coming up with 78 million baby boomers.
Thus, the IMAC “death squad” can only yank away life-saving treatment (not euthanasia.. never mentioned it) from the elderly and boomers. The proposed new age Medicare for the under 65 will have to implement their own “death squad” to oversee those costs. However they can’t create a panel of czars for a plan not yet in place. But where billy bob goes with the IMAC, daisy sue will be following with a similar panel for costs control, policy and regs for the new age Medicare. This isn’t a conspiracy theory… this is the way they are proposing administering government insurance in order to control costs. Are you blind?
I repeat, private insurers cannot compete when the government underpays the providers and the private insurer cannot. The base package will be all government… and for someone who likes to compare apples to oranges, you’ll realize that’s how it’s constructed in many other countries. This means the only private insurance that will be left will be to cover what the publc plan does not. And therein lies the devil in the details you don’t appear to be aware of.
The Medicare Advantage private option plans (there’s about 12 packages. both private and public altogether) has that provider also assuming the Medicare portions as part of their supplemental. i.e., it isn’t isn’t an “add on”. These plans still use SS check deductions for the Medicare B portion, and the government pays a certain amount for your medical care to your private Medicare manager/provider. You pay an additional premium direct to your private administrator for your for extra coverage.
Bet you think this sounds hunky dory, eh?
News flash… if your Medicare has a particular drug or treatment for your ailment, but there is a more advanced (and more expensive) drug or treatment which would be better for you, your supplemental coverage *will not pay for it*. They do not pay for treatments that medicare will cover… even if it’s not your preferred treatment. Sorry guy, but if medicare buys you a burger, you can’t get the supplemental to pay for a steak.
How good is that, eh?
THIS is our current public option. Not Australia’s. Not Canada’s. Not Germany’s. *America’s* So what makes you think the public new age medicare option will be structured, and administered so much different than Medicare and Medicare Advantage?
And we haven’t even gotten into the lines and wait times….
Gaffa: Hey is it true Obama is going to set up Death Panels?
Gaffa, already covered this in my post about the big picture path to single payer system. It’s separate legislation called the IMAC – health care czars, immune from the US court system, who seize the power from Congress to set Medicare policy & regs, Medicare structure of coverage and reimbursements, with Congress only retaining the power to disapprove with a joint resolution within 30 days of the POTUS approval of their recommendations.
They’ve been called “death squads” because if their policy to save money is to deny coverage to those “too far gone” with an illness, it is a death sentence.
If you want to complain that denying treatment is exaggerated by calling it a “death squad”, you will also have to complain about the leftists claiming the opponents are calling it euthanasia.
Then again, I live in Oregon… a state where they will deny you coverage, but they will pay for legal assisted suicide. So depending on where you are, it is euthanasia here.
But of course, Mike. But I can’t depend upon Gaffa recognizing just where the “death squad” comment was coming from. After all, most people do not know about the creation of the IMAC since it’s last minute, desperate Obama WH written legislation to ply the blue dogs in the wee hours of the final session.
Does Gaffa know this? No bets from me.
And, ya know, I’ll be Sarah just may be able to see Russia from her house… unlike Tina Fey. LOL
@MataHarley: Tina Fey doesn’t need to see Russia from her exclusive Penthouse. She carries the ideal of Russia in her heart wherever she goes. Just like every other good liberal.
First off, I did read your posts and my comment on the Lewin group was sarcasm in reference to Curt discrediting a non-partisan VA analysis just up-thread because it was talked about by the VA secretary. There’s so many wheels-within-wheels at this point that it’s hard to stay clear … in any case, I took the Lewin’s at their word in the remaining argument, though I don’t think that setting up a CE center is proof of anything besides their desire to cash in on the new bill if it passes.
And prohibit, in the arena of Aye’s issue, is a far cry from “banning” as he was discussing the grandfathered plans… which may stay in existence only if predating the passage and implementation of Obama’s “remaking” of the health system.
This is becoming a he-said/she-said debate, but nowhere in his comment does he specify that this is about grandfathered plans nor did the person he was responding to ask about grandfathered plans ( … and I wonder where Aye got the wrong idea in the first place).
I repeat, private insurers cannot compete when the government underpays the providers and the private insurer cannot. The base package will be all government… and for someone who likes to compare apples to oranges, you’ll realize that’s how it’s constructed in many other countries.
Right, so your evidence of massive private-option failure come from economic Fantasyland where everyone gives up their private insurance because of cost, regardless of services offered or overall quality; while my evidence is from nearly every other major public plan where private insurance is still quite active in providing better/expedited alternative coverage at a premium.
The IMAC, aka “death squads” do not depend upon the absence of private insurance.
If your claim is that any insurer that does not cover all desired treatments is a de facto “death squad”, then anything below universal care is a “death squad” system, and you’re just making a contrarian argument (same for euthenasia or rationing – unless the government forbids you from getting the treatment out-of-pocket or privately then it’s not rationing).
They do not pay for treatments that medicare will cover… even if it’s not your preferred treatment.
This is actually a salient point, but nowhere in the bill do I see this being forbidden (that is, private insurance legally bound to a supplement than duplicate). They may choose not to do that currently under Medicare, but is there anywhere in the bill where this is banned not just prohibited:).
trizzlor: If your claim is that any insurer that does not cover all desired treatments is a de facto “death squad”, then anything below universal care is a “death squad” system, and you’re just making a contrarian argument (same for euthenasia or rationing – unless the government forbids you from getting the treatment out-of-pocket or privately then it’s not rationing).
You may be “reading”, but you’re still not “comprehending”, trizzlor. Have you learned nothing of Medicare, Medicare Advantage, and limitations on doctors treating Medicare eligible patients who want to pay with cash/private funds? It’s all those rules and regs of policy that doesn’t show up in these dang bills… but of course, is merely “fantasyland”, according to you.
If Medicare provides *some* sort of treatment as coverage (and that can be a “blue pill” instead of a “red pill”), your private carrier will not pay for alternative/better treatments (ala surgery instead of pills).
If you want to pay cash, per Grace Marie Turner of the Galen Org – and as I pointed out in my path to single payer post on Aug 8th – doctors must get out of Medicare participation entirely for two years before they can accept private-paying patients who are eligible for Medicare. (all except Larry, so he says… however I believe Turner is more credible as policy is their specialty at Galen)
This means that if you have the cash to pay for the treatment you want, you’ll have to find a different doctor (not your chosen and regular doctor) who has opted out of Medicare patients for two plus years.
Why the hell do you think the Hall v Sebelius lawsuit was filed to begin with, trizzlor? Why do you think these men are fighting for the ability to opt out of Medicare coverage? They can afford better or alternative treatments, but they cannot get it because of policy regulations.
I’m sure we all can agree it was the ‘Death Panel’ that gave the order to run her over, not Obama.
@Herman: obama just gets other to do his dirty work, we can all agree on that.
sure, dirty work comes with many jobs, and most certainly, also, the presidency. dirty work is dolled out everywhere.
however, there’s a difference between ‘dirty work’ (which, sadly, goes with many political jobs) and unstable, loosely strapped identities and those so incapable of self-management their utterances retard their own goals: talk about health care ‘death panels’, and obama being ‘a racist’ and having ‘a deep seated hatred of white people’.
…at least the dirty work furthers a political end.
@Herman:
Is it your contention that ObamaCare will not ration care to the elderly and that the elderly will not be given mandatory “end of life” counseling?
Is it also your contention that Obama is not a racist?
@Aye Chihuahua: Here we go again, last week the bill was banning private health-care … this week it’s requiring counseling. Please quote the passage from the bill that requires mandatory “end of life” counseling. From my understanding, and perhaps I’m wrong here, the bill offers coverage for counseling if you so choose to have it. As someone who recently had to make this kind of decision in the midst of an emergency, I don’t see how incentivising such counseling can be interpreted in a negative light.
Likewise, “ObamaCare will not ration care” because you will always have the option to pay for care out of pocket, just like you do now … thanks for playing.
@Herman: obama has shown himself to be prejudiced against white folks when he prejudged the cop in mass. without knowing the facts. Or he is prejudiced against cops. What is your take on this?
Cool song…I found it while seeing whether my version of this same song (didn’t know so many others had written one!) was making any kind of splash yet.
Here are the lyrics to my verson:
“Grandma got run over by Obama
bought into the whole “Messiah” vibe
If she hadn’t listened to his nonsense
Dear old Grandma might still be alive
She’d been drinking too much kool-aid
and we begged her not to vote
But she got caught up in the frenzy
Barry left her up a creek without a boat.
Still we’re all so proud of Grandpa
Stays busy since he lost his job
He’s one of those ‘un-American Nazis’
At town hall he leads an octogenarian mob!
Grandma got run over by Obama
She didn’t know his ‘change’ was all a lie
He took away her precious medication
and left my dear old Grandma out to die
Now we’re fearful of Obama
as his union goons attack
Our only hope is that the birthers
can find a way to make the Kenyans take him back
(TAKE HIM BACK!)
Grandma got run over by Obama
Cash-for-Geezers wasn’t very wise
He can say it isn’t euthanasia
but Gramps and I can see right through his lies
We’ve all been run over by Obama
We left our country to this socialist
If they could all come back to life tomorrow
I bet the founding fathers would be PISSED!
Download it here:
[audio src="http://fayettepatriots.homestead.com/grandmagotrunoverbyobama.mp3" /]
Feel free to distribute it amongst friends if you like. Let me know what you think!
jwc.usa@hush.com
@Herman: Who is it that flinging around the racist charge?]
Perhaps you would like to scan down the front page of this blog and learn.
Seems to me that’s standard operatring procedure for the left.
Unless of course you think that the people protesting at these Town Hall meetings really are the modern day equivalent of Nazis, or the Ku Klux Klan.
@trizzlor: If there is the option to pay out of your pocket, then why do we need obamacare?
@Robert Kelly: If you can’t pay out of pocket, national health-care can cover some or all of your medical procedures – that’s not rationing. Unless you’re proposing a system of universal health-care where everyone is covered for everything, there will be some people who can’t afford and are not covered for something they want – again, that’s not rationing. You might as well be criticizing national health-care because it doesn’t bring people back from the dead.
@trizzlor: Are you seriously trying to suggest that socialized health care won’t be rationed?
Let’s see–He’s going to add 47 million uninsured residents to the pool of insured we already have, with no provision for increasing the number of doctors, nurses, clinics and hospital. Sounds like rationing will have to be used, just to keep the old law of supply and demand from increasing costs even more than the Congressional Budget Office has said.
Yes Mike, he wants us to believe we will be the only ones to avoid rationing. I predict he will respond that rationing has already been occuring. That seems to be one of the canned answers the left is pushing.
@Mike’s America: I thought I was pretty clear, but let’s break it down since “rationing” has now become some voodoo catch-all just like “death-boards”. Likewise, I don’t know what “socialized health care” is (unless every government service is “socialized” in your world) but I do know about the national health-care coverage plan that Congress is proposing. If by rationing you mean that certain people will be forbidden from getting certain care then this will not happen – the bill allows for both private coverage and, as always, out-of-pocket payments. If, on the other hand, rationing is to mean that certain people will not be covered for whatever treatments they desire, then this will be present in some degree under any system that is not universal; and arguing about it is moot.
Re: Look what you’re missing in the U.K.:
I have relatives in the the U.K. one an elderly lady relative waited six months for an appointment for a hearing aid. After several visits to the hospital ear nose and throat clinic for tests to determine she really needed a hearing aid four months later she was fitted for and got one, it didn’t work properly and she had to wait five weeks for an appointment to have it “looked at”…..almost year down the road and she still doesn’t have a satisfactory comfortable working hearing aid.
With socialized/government controlled health care no matter which way it gets presented the simple truth is you join the queue and wait your turn.
.
@Philly_PA: Exactly Philly. The other day I read an article about GB’s healthcare. Even if you have private insurance, you can’t slide ahead of anyone. With private insurance you still are on these waiting lists, when calling for an appointment they tell you they will call back when an appointment is available.
Obama claims to have found $300,000 billion in Medicare cuts, wants to add 47 million people, we don’t have enough doctors and nurses as it is, before they even get a chance to ration care, appointments will be rationed. Downhill from then on.
@trizzlor: You’re living in a fools paradise if you think that the government can do a better job of delivering health care than the private sector. And let’s not kid ourselves about the ultimate goal of Obama and the Dems: single payer government run health care.
Rationing, however you want to define it, will have to be imposed if you want to meet Obama’s other criteria which is to lower cost while covering millions more people including illegal aliens and paying for abortions.
Or don’t you believe Obama is serious about controlling costs?
Sorry, but you can’t keep having it both ways.
We’ve gone through this before, the VA has been rated better than general private care for nearly a decade (see here) and is stellar when compared to the kind of treatment veteran contractors get (see here). Heck, even Medicare has had lower premium increases and lower administrative costs (from the CBO):
So yeah, government is doing quite a good job already in both care and coverage.
Maybe this works at your 9-12 meetings but you’re going to have to site the bill on a claim like that … here, I’ll start:
Ditto already addressed this for you here….not true.
@trizzlor: But when the dems give amnesty to the illegals, they will be ‘lawfully present in the US’.
@Curt:
The ACSI, which actually conducted the study, is the gold-standard for measuring customer satisfaction and has no incidences of bias or political controversy that I could find. The fact that it was reported by the VA does not disprove the findings themselves. The rest of your argument is a hodge-podge of human interest stories that is just as meaningless as those presented by health-care proponents about big bad private insurance. When we’re discussing a national program, that old adage certainly applies: the plural of anecdote is not data. I’m not so deluded as to have a vested interest in being “right” in an anonymous comments-box, I just want to find some consensus on the facts at hand – if you can find a longitudinal large-scale study comparable to the ACSI that disproves their findings I’ll gladly change my opinion.
What bullshit, triz. Talk about distorting facts… let’s see if we can straighten you out on both issues.
I know of *no one* on this site who has said the bill was “banning” private health-care. What I have personally said, and most agree, is that the bill is constructed to drive private health care out of business when they are unable to compete with the public plans. Think of it… cheaper premiums, and they reimburse health providers 20-40% below costs while private insurers pay approx 133% of providers’ bottom line costs.
Just how long do you think private insurers can compete? They can’t… and here’s why.
By 2030, the 78 million baby boomers will be forced into Medicare enrollees (having the “choice” of either being forced onto Medicare, or forfeiting their SS retirement checks). Assuming the death rates for the next couple of decades for the 35 million currently on Medicare, let’s be conservative and say 90 million on the Medicare rolls in 2030. And that’s low since a 65 year old today will only be 85… and our life expectancy is increasing.
Let’s also assume that Medicaid just stays status quo, or perhaps becomes incorporated into the public option. Those specifics are not clear in either original versions of bills we have seen.
Obama thinks only the currently uninsured will take the public option… or about 30 million per WH estimates. Lewin Group, who analyzes health statistics and data says otherwise. They estimate minimal 42 million of those with private insurance will change to public options (on TOP of Obama’s 30 million) if large corporations are banned from using the public option.
If large corporations can use the public option, the number of enrollees leaving the private insurance arena for the public option goes up to an estimated 119 million, or 67% of the privately insured.
Let’s see… leaving out the VA and even Medicaid, that gives us Obama’s 30 mil, the 90 mil of boomers and existing 65+ types, and either 42 mil or 119 mil more. Total of Americans on the “public plan” (either Medicare for 65+ or the new creation for 65-) would then be 162 million for the former or 239 million for the latter. That’s 54% to 79% of Americans that will be on one of two plans. That figure is actually low since we’re not counting the population on either Medicaid (approx 30 mil right now) and our military on VA.
Needless to say, there’s a piss poor percentage left to support the providers, who are getting shafting with underpayments by the government plans. That small percentage will bear a heavy brunt of higher premiums until those providing the premiums (employers, by mandate) toss the private plans and revert to the cheaper public option for financial survival.
Can you say buh-bye private insurers?
And another thing about your side’s talking points. They are demonizing the insurers. They aren’t making the money… they are paying 130% of providers costs so that the Medicare payments don’t tank the providers. They aren’t pocketing it. But it would be so politically incorrect to demonize hospitals and doctors, charging higher rates in order to make up for the losses, eh? Easier to lie about the insurers.
And change to public option employers will. You see, the bill MANDATES that employers…
1: provide health care coverage thru either private or public option that meets the Congressional standards of minimum; or
2: increase the salaries of the employees if they opt out of employer based coverage, *and* pay a tax penalty annually for the opt out option.
For employers, it will be a dollar & “sense” decision. Will the tax penalties and increased salary overhead end up being cheaper than private insurance with rising premiums.
so Myth #1… O’health care does not “ban” private insures. It merely has every advantage on the government plan that will drive first private insurers out of business, and then tank a few hospitals and doctors until they realize they are now working in a “non-profit” industry.
Now to myth #2, or the mandated counseling.
First of all, the language you request is found in Section 1233 of HR 3200, and refers back to the SSA Section 1861, amending language INRE end of life care.
But of course you read it as “an option”. That’s because you still aren’t grasping the big picture, triz.
These “end of life” types will be prominently geriatric, or younger enrollees with terminal illnesses. The bill may say “option”, but it will come down to Medicare and New Age Medicare policy for specifics on just how “optional” it is. Just like you have your SS checks held hostage to force you on to Medicare (which is a “choice”, if not a sick joke of a choice)…. policy may dictate that what treatment you may be entitled to under the public plans *requires* advance care planning consultations before receipt. They don’t lay out that little stuff in the bills because that’s all “policy” and regulation decisions.
And speaking of policy and regulation decisions, it comes to the IMAC… or what many are calling the “death squad”. This is *not* found in either the original House or Senate bill. The IMAC “death squad” of health czars is legislation written by Obama’s WH, and being carried independently. I’ve already done a post on the IMAC,… and the demise of the private insurer.
So you can go back and sort out just how much power you want to yield to the Medicare health czars in deciding what to cut in coverage and how much lower they can pay providers in order to stave off bankruptcy. That is their sole task… to manage the costs, and only by cuts and payment reductions in policy (they cannot appropriate/increase because only Congress may do that).
I see it this way… the entire working nation is paying into Medicare; meaning paying for coverage that they cannot have until they are 65. That’s not sitting in a “lock box” somewhere. Everyone is already paying for the 21% on Medicare now… and it’s still going bankrupt. Just how long do you think it will be before benefits are severely cut when you see more than half to 2/3s of Americans on this a public system?
So if Obama/Pelosi/Reid succeed in remaking health care, instead of “reforming” health care, IMAC health czars “death squad” will have a sister act that will be empowered to control the costs and policy for the New Age Medicare program.
It’s *always* about the big picture, triz.
@trizzlor: Sorry, but I am not a member of any 9-12 group.
I have however read the series of amendments which GOP House members offered to the House bill and that were rejected on nearly straight party line votes.
If your claim about not funding illegals is correct, then why did Dems vote against a Republican amendment stating that?
And if Medicare is so superior why are millions of seniors buying expensive supplemental policies?
You keep spinning and yet the facts seem to be catching up with you.
Better sit down before you fall down.
I’d say triz is way past spinning and just parroting leftist talking points. I mean, it’s been pointed out multiple times here how wrong his claims are, yet he continues to make the same ones.
Hmm, I’m noticing a few things about the claims triz is pushing.
mandatory “end of life” counseling? Same as media matters and other left wing sites.
No rationing? Again media matters and other lefty sites.
The VA care better than private? huffpo and other lefty sites. BTW, wasn’t it just a year or so ago it was an absolute mess and disaster? Now it’s suddenly wonderful?
As for human interest stories, that is something your kind loves and swears by…when it’s in your favor. We are talking about people, nut just numbers. Not surprised that means nothing to you.
Yes we need reform. Too bad the dems aren’t trying reform, just another power and money grab whil rewarding their union buddies.
@Hard Right: “Yes we need reform. Too bad the dems aren’t trying reform, just another power and money grab whil rewarding their union buddies. “
You get the gold star for today H.R.
There are plenty of good ideas out there to make REAL reforms on health care. Look at all the GOP ideas that were shot down by Democrats in house committees and the same on the senate side.
I was saving this for later, but I’ll give you a preview:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/11/the_great_american_oh_yeah_97842.html
It’s the arrogance of the Obama “I won” attitude that has them caught in this trap of their own making.
@MataHarley:
I can’t believe we have to go through this again, but here‘s Aye (to whom I was responding) on the topic last week:
All points are completely wrong and based on a gross mis-reading of the bill that completely ignores the Health Insurance Exchange … if you want to argue that “prohibit” and “ban” mean vastly different things here I’ll stay out of your way.
But to the actual debate:
First of all, here‘s some history the Lewin Group, which is wholly owned by UnitedHealth – I’m sure Curt will back me up that this study is now meaningless? Moreover, the group has since downgraded their estimates to 88 million, with the CBO counter-projection being only 11 million (assuming large corporations are banned, something I favor, and something left open in the current drafts). Even if your/their estimates are correct, there is still no guarantee that the remaining number of individuals will immediately switch to the public option. In fact, there are many countries with national health-care and a competitive private option: Israel (my hobby horse) maintains approximately 30% coverage through private companies that offer additional services and medications not offered in the national plan; Australia, another good model, it’s nearly 50% (check out Table 1 in this OECD study on private coverage, it’s more than you’d think). There’s a lot in the bill to minimize administrative costs and coverage monopolies that will help costs but that’s really digging deep because even if the public option is so good that it completely drives private health-care into supplementary mode as in Canada, the pariah of national health-care, their “needs-met” rates are still comparable to the US while maintaining 2/3rds per capita spending!
Of course, your claim about “death-squads” and “death-boards” depends explicitly on the absence of private insurance, and even then on draconian regulations you’re basically making up which would require end of life counseling … and of course the re-writing of myriad of privacy and anti-euthanasia laws. As for the IMAC (which only issues recommendations that have to be approved by Congress), it’s both necessary and quite standard to have an advisory board to determine what new coverage needs to be incorporated and what old coverage needs to be changed – any insurance, public or private, would not be able to stay modern without one and it takes a lot of maneuvering to turn it into a death-squad.
I didn’t take you for a conspiracy theorist, but your view of the “big picture” hinges on annihilation of the private sector completely absent from the bills and the likes of which does not exist in any other large national health-care system; it then follows-up with entirely hypothesized laws enforcing euthanasia and mass graves. I used to shake my head at fellow lefties who claimed we shouldn’t be in Afghanistan or Iraq because it would give Bush the motivation to take over the world, but only that caliber of argument can turn an optional, doctor supported, end-of-life consultation into a death-board.
@trizzlor: Man, you wasted a lot of ink on that comment. But let’s just cut through the bull:
The Public Option, which is currently part of the House Bill, will drive private insurers out of business and drive employers to drop their private coverage.
I don’t need to waste a whole page of space embellishing on that. It’s the truth.
You know it and I know it. And more importantly, the American people know it.
The only person you are fooling here is yourself.
Hey is it true Obama is going to set up Death Panels?
triz, again you are misinterpreting an apple as an orange. And prohibit, in the arena of Aye’s issue, is a far cry from “banning” as he was discussing the grandfathered plans… which may stay in existence only if predating the passage and implementation of Obama’s “remaking” of the health system.
What the private insurer *can* sell is a plan that conforms to the government standards…. and for a higher premium since the private insurers can’t shaft the providers like the public plan is able to. The Exchange is merely a brokerage type reference site… a way to compare coverage and premiums between all (still financially surviving) that offer insurance. Has nothing to do with “banning or prohibiting”… merely a central database for comparison shopping.
But back to “prohibit” vs “ban. The private insurer can’t offer even the same service as tlhe public plan for a competitive price since their reimbursement costs are so much higher. Thus they can only offer what would be superior services… and at a considerably higher premium.
As more and more enroll in the financial disaster known as Obama’care, the more cuts will be made to both providers and to coverage to rein in costs for the public plan…. as they have been doing with original Medicare for at least a decade (that being becoming more restrictive and raising premiums). These further cuts will, conversely, drive the private premiums even higher until they are unsustainable. That you can’t grasp this very simple concept is nothing short of mind blowing.
And duh… of course the Lewin Group is owned by UnitedHealth Group. Had you read the damn report, you’d see that disclosure on the first page. And of course, how absurd would it be to actually have a research firm with a far more indepth database for analysis actually *do* a financial perusal of an industry with which they are intimate. Silly me… we should be picking the same frat boy czar who’s running the auto industry with nary a nanosecond of experience in that business because he’d be far more accurate…..
sarcasm/off
Do you have any clue how unbelievably dumb you sound, triz? Ah yes… 88 million is much better than 119 million…. NOT. You’ll still end up with well over 53% of Americans on a public plan with a P&L sheet that’s a steady spiral into bankruptcy.
And so, because of lawsuits settlements that you know nothing about except for what WaPo tells you… conveniently because their figures happen to play against the bozo in the WH… you not only decide their data is discredited, but have the chutzpah to drag Curt into this as your phantom back up support? LOL I’m quite sure Curt can speak for himself as to the Lewin Group’s credibility.
Well, now… if settling lawsuits is the criteria for discredit and distrust, you may want to put that *other* stellar government program who’s bankrupt up there in your list… the VA.
And to point how how *really* stupid you sound, you may also want to know that… despite their report… Lewin Group is probably very pro-this plan, as they have already set up a Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research. No doubt taking advantage of Obama’s stimulus stealth health care measure. This sets them up to be quite valuable to the Big Zero’s IMAC health czars – helping them decide what cuts are going to be the most effective. In case you still have a problem compiling big picture stuff… as you apparently do… it behooves them to have this plan go thru.
Nice try tho… let’s dig up some dirt to throw on the numbers. Uh, like where are you on Obama’s fuzzy math for all his crap… from stimulus to cap and trade, and now this bogus health lie.
What is it with you and Larry who, when discussing THIS House bill and THIS plan, point to some other country’s plan? Get a clue… they are not clones. Deal with the hamburger on the table before you, and stop pointing to what you think is a steak on the other guy’s table.
WTF? I swear, triz… you seriously have a reading comprehension problem, guy. I say Lear jet, and you see a 747. I tell you my Corvair was defective, and you say that’s not possible because the Fiats in Italy run just fine. Huh?
What is with you that you can’t seem to follow simple economic realities? And as for the, again, reference to other countries, see above. We are talking about the proposed construct HERE, not anywhere else.
The IMAC, aka “death squads” do not depend upon the absence of private insurance. And, in fact, if you had even read the Obama-written legislation for the IMAC and the CBO analysis (which I provided in my post on this), you’d know the IMAC “death squad” is, at this moment, confined to Medicare. Of course, it doesn’t matter that Medicare is the existing public option with the highest amount of enrollees, and a guaranteed group of enrollees coming up with 78 million baby boomers.
Thus, the IMAC “death squad” can only yank away life-saving treatment (not euthanasia.. never mentioned it) from the elderly and boomers. The proposed new age Medicare for the under 65 will have to implement their own “death squad” to oversee those costs. However they can’t create a panel of czars for a plan not yet in place. But where billy bob goes with the IMAC, daisy sue will be following with a similar panel for costs control, policy and regs for the new age Medicare. This isn’t a conspiracy theory… this is the way they are proposing administering government insurance in order to control costs. Are you blind?
I repeat, private insurers cannot compete when the government underpays the providers and the private insurer cannot. The base package will be all government… and for someone who likes to compare apples to oranges, you’ll realize that’s how it’s constructed in many other countries. This means the only private insurance that will be left will be to cover what the publc plan does not. And therein lies the devil in the details you don’t appear to be aware of.
The Medicare Advantage private option plans (there’s about 12 packages. both private and public altogether) has that provider also assuming the Medicare portions as part of their supplemental. i.e., it isn’t isn’t an “add on”. These plans still use SS check deductions for the Medicare B portion, and the government pays a certain amount for your medical care to your private Medicare manager/provider. You pay an additional premium direct to your private administrator for your for extra coverage.
Bet you think this sounds hunky dory, eh?
News flash… if your Medicare has a particular drug or treatment for your ailment, but there is a more advanced (and more expensive) drug or treatment which would be better for you, your supplemental coverage *will not pay for it*. They do not pay for treatments that medicare will cover… even if it’s not your preferred treatment. Sorry guy, but if medicare buys you a burger, you can’t get the supplemental to pay for a steak.
How good is that, eh?
THIS is our current public option. Not Australia’s. Not Canada’s. Not Germany’s. *America’s* So what makes you think the public new age medicare option will be structured, and administered so much different than Medicare and Medicare Advantage?
And we haven’t even gotten into the lines and wait times….
Gaffa, already covered this in my post about the big picture path to single payer system. It’s separate legislation called the IMAC – health care czars, immune from the US court system, who seize the power from Congress to set Medicare policy & regs, Medicare structure of coverage and reimbursements, with Congress only retaining the power to disapprove with a joint resolution within 30 days of the POTUS approval of their recommendations.
They’ve been called “death squads” because if their policy to save money is to deny coverage to those “too far gone” with an illness, it is a death sentence.
If you want to complain that denying treatment is exaggerated by calling it a “death squad”, you will also have to complain about the leftists claiming the opponents are calling it euthanasia.
Then again, I live in Oregon… a state where they will deny you coverage, but they will pay for legal assisted suicide. So depending on where you are, it is euthanasia here.
@MataHarley: I’m sure you are aware that Gaffa is just taking another cheap shot at Sarah Palin.
I bet he still thinks Gov. Palin said she can see Russia from her house.
But of course, Mike. But I can’t depend upon Gaffa recognizing just where the “death squad” comment was coming from. After all, most people do not know about the creation of the IMAC since it’s last minute, desperate Obama WH written legislation to ply the blue dogs in the wee hours of the final session.
Does Gaffa know this? No bets from me.
And, ya know, I’ll be Sarah just may be able to see Russia from her house… unlike Tina Fey. LOL
@MataHarley: Tina Fey doesn’t need to see Russia from her exclusive Penthouse. She carries the ideal of Russia in her heart wherever she goes. Just like every other good liberal.
@MataHarley:
First off, I did read your posts and my comment on the Lewin group was sarcasm in reference to Curt discrediting a non-partisan VA analysis just up-thread because it was talked about by the VA secretary. There’s so many wheels-within-wheels at this point that it’s hard to stay clear … in any case, I took the Lewin’s at their word in the remaining argument, though I don’t think that setting up a CE center is proof of anything besides their desire to cash in on the new bill if it passes.
This is becoming a he-said/she-said debate, but nowhere in his comment does he specify that this is about grandfathered plans nor did the person he was responding to ask about grandfathered plans ( … and I wonder where Aye got the wrong idea in the first place).
Right, so your evidence of massive private-option failure come from economic Fantasyland where everyone gives up their private insurance because of cost, regardless of services offered or overall quality; while my evidence is from nearly every other major public plan where private insurance is still quite active in providing better/expedited alternative coverage at a premium.
If your claim is that any insurer that does not cover all desired treatments is a de facto “death squad”, then anything below universal care is a “death squad” system, and you’re just making a contrarian argument (same for euthenasia or rationing – unless the government forbids you from getting the treatment out-of-pocket or privately then it’s not rationing).
This is actually a salient point, but nowhere in the bill do I see this being forbidden (that is, private insurance legally bound to a supplement than duplicate). They may choose not to do that currently under Medicare, but is there anywhere in the bill where this is banned not just prohibited:).
You may be “reading”, but you’re still not “comprehending”, trizzlor. Have you learned nothing of Medicare, Medicare Advantage, and limitations on doctors treating Medicare eligible patients who want to pay with cash/private funds? It’s all those rules and regs of policy that doesn’t show up in these dang bills… but of course, is merely “fantasyland”, according to you.
If Medicare provides *some* sort of treatment as coverage (and that can be a “blue pill” instead of a “red pill”), your private carrier will not pay for alternative/better treatments (ala surgery instead of pills).
If you want to pay cash, per Grace Marie Turner of the Galen Org – and as I pointed out in my path to single payer post on Aug 8th – doctors must get out of Medicare participation entirely for two years before they can accept private-paying patients who are eligible for Medicare. (all except Larry, so he says… however I believe Turner is more credible as policy is their specialty at Galen)
This means that if you have the cash to pay for the treatment you want, you’ll have to find a different doctor (not your chosen and regular doctor) who has opted out of Medicare patients for two plus years.
Why the hell do you think the Hall v Sebelius lawsuit was filed to begin with, trizzlor? Why do you think these men are fighting for the ability to opt out of Medicare coverage? They can afford better or alternative treatments, but they cannot get it because of policy regulations.