Palin 'death panel' claim sets Truth-O-Meter ablaze

reply to post by Sestias


It's not just about the elderly and infirm making their own choice, regardless of faith.

It's about letting someone else make that decision altogether.

President Obama wants a third party to determine value of life v. cost of life in treatment of the elderly and infirm:

I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. ... And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance.”

"After the Great Recession"

New York Times Magazine, April 28, 2009 (published in print May 3, 2009) www.nytimes.com...

Obama advocates rationing and the use of third parties to determine cost and necessity of treatment, rather than the patient or guarantor. Read the article to see what he says about his own grandmother's care!


The UK system is increasingly criticized for mistreating the elderly and dying, and this is one of the "model" programs of Obamacare.

Patients live in agony after NHS refuses to pay for pain management

www.abovetopsecret.com...

National Health Care? "Elderly left at risk by bidding to find cheapest care"

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's not just your ability to make an informed choice. Under this proposal, as in the UK, the question will be whether your choice even matters.

jw

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
Wow... not like I needed this to realize that Palin never speaks truth, let alone truth to power.

Maybe Palin should take her own advice and Quit Making Things Up

reply to post by jdub297


OK, I see your UK NHS horror stories (which have nothing to do with the proposed American plan by the way) and raise you American horror stories engendered by the CURRENT Health Care system.

Unproven Medical Treatments Lure Elderly

Americans spend upwards of $20 billion each year on unproven medical treatments. Sixty percent of those who try untested therapies are over 65 and spend an estimated $10 billion on them, according to a 1984 House Subcommitte on Health and Long-Term Care report, “Quackery: A $10 Billion Scandal.”

Crisis Ahead for Elderly Health Care

April 14, 2008 --Experts warned Monday that the United States faces a massive health care shortage that threatens to leave millions of seniors without proper health care within the next three decades.
...
The number of Americans over 65 years of age is expected to nearly double by 2030. At the same time, the number of doctors specializing in geriatrics has been falling and rests around 7,000 now, according to the report.

Like Your Private Health Care? Thank the Government

Yet private markets for health insurance, left to their own devices, work very badly: insurers deny as many claims as possible, and they also try to avoid covering people who are likely to need care. Horror stories are legion: the insurance company that refused to pay for urgently needed cancer surgery because of questions about the patient's acne treatment; the healthy young woman denied coverage because she briefly saw a psychologist after breaking up with her boyfriend. [B]And in their efforts to avoid "medical losses," the industry term for paying medical bills, insurers spend much of the money taken in through premiums not on medical treatment, but on "underwriting" -- screening out people likely to make insurance claims.[/B] In the individual insurance market, where people buy insurance directly rather than getting it through their employers, so much money goes into underwriting and other expenses that only around 70 cents of each premium dollar actually goes to care.

Guess what part of the population is MOST likely to make insurance claims? You guessed it the elderly.

Which brings us to the current debate over reform.

Right-wing opponents of reform would have you believe that President Obama is a wild-eyed socialist, attacking the free market. But unregulated markets don't work for health care -- never have, never will. To the extent we have a working health care system at all right now it's only because the government covers the elderly, while a combination of regulation and tax subsidies makes it possible for many, but not all, nonelderly Americans to get decent private coverage.

Now Mr. Obama basically proposes using additional regulation and subsidies to make decent insurance available to all of us. That's not radical; it's as American as, well, Medicare.

EDIT: I left a good one out:

U.S.Private Health Insurance: Classic Market Failure

As mentioned in prior posts, AOR are fierce capitalists. Free market solutions are nearly always preferred, except when there is a market failure. Despite phony protests from Republicans, the U.S. health insurance market exhibits two characteristics of a market failure: 1) certain segments (elderly and poor) are neither profitable nor well-served and 2) the market lacks sufficient competition.
...
To Republicans alarming the public about the imminent rationing of health care, I submit that any health care system rations care. The U.S. just does it indiscriminately and insufficiently. It’s irrefutable that we prescribe and pay for too much unnecessary health care. Let’s move beyond the debate about whether we need a public insurance option. We do. Let’s debate the most relevant and most difficult question: how should we pay for comprehensive health reform?

[edit on 13/8/2009 by rnaa]

[edit on 13/8/2009 by rnaa]

Originally posted by Alien Mind
Are you people still attacking her? Shes no longer in office and yall are still bashing the woman.
Its time to get over it and move on.

[edit on 11-8-2009 by Alien Mind]

Sarah Palin still has incredible power.
That "Death Panel" quote has them all running for cover.
If she wasn't a threat, they would ignore her.
Sarah is throwing knock out punches.
The American people are listening to her.
It looks like it's over. We won!
Check out the latest Rasmussen Reports.
The Liberals have totally fumbled the ball on ObamaCare.
Go check yourself.
Rasmussen Reports
51% Fear Government more than insurance companies!
Just wait until August 31, 2009.
An implosion is taking place right before our eyes!
The tidal wave is getting even larger.
The tidal wave is heading towards Washington D.C. and it will wash
away all of the Left Wing Loons.

reply to post by rnaa


So, because it already happens, it's okay for the government to do it?

By that logic, they can break into people's houses and kill dissenters, because it already happens outside of the government.

Originally posted by Highground
reply to post by rnaa

 

So, because it already happens, it's okay for the government to do it?

By that logic, they can break into people's houses and kill dissenters, because it already happens outside of the government.

huh?

Originally posted by rnaa

Originally posted by Highground
reply to post by rnaa

 

So, because it already happens, it's okay for the government to do it?

By that logic, they can break into people's houses and kill dissenters, because it already happens outside of the government.

huh?

Allow me.

The Problem Statement: The Big Bad Insurance Company might deny coverage for your hip thing

The So-Called Solution: Move the entire country into a State-Run and Rationed Mechanism and have the Govt necessarily set ration limits on who can get what. Have such limit take the force of law. And presumably have it be illegal to get service in the country by private means.

The "solution" is absurd.

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Sestias

 

It's not just about the elderly and infirm making their own choice, regardless of faith.

It's about letting someone else make that decision altogether.

President Obama wants a third party to determine value of life v. cost of life in treatment of the elderly and infirm:

I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. ... And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance.”

"After the Great Recession"

New York Times Magazine, April 28, 2009 (published in print May 3, 2009) www.nytimes.com...

Obama advocates rationing and the use of third parties to determine cost and necessity of treatment, rather than the patient or guarantor. Read the article to see what he says about his own grandmother's care!


The UK system is increasingly criticized for mistreating the elderly and dying, and this is one of the "model" programs of Obamacare.

Patients live in agony after NHS refuses to pay for pain management

www.abovetopsecret.com...

National Health Care? "Elderly left at risk by bidding to find cheapest care"

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's not just your ability to make an informed choice. Under this proposal, as in the UK, the question will be whether your choice even matters.

jw

Here's the problem though... You are focusing on the UK. Look at France, and it's the opposite. One of the best healthcare systems in the world.

You are oversimplifying the issue by attempting to state that a gov ran healthcare would be as problematic as the one in the UK.

reply to post by VinceP1974


Vince, no one is saying who can get what.

That's simply another myth.

But at this rate I'm starting to realize how likely it is for an entire population to start believing in different Gods due to the amount of myths some Americans swallow, hook, line , and sinker.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka


Here's the problem though... You are focusing on the UK. Look at France, and it's the opposite. One of the best healthcare systems in the world.

You are oversimplifying the issue by attempting to state that a gov ran healthcare would be as problematic as the one in the UK.

How happy for France.

So who do we get to outsource our military defense for free to pay for it?

Originally posted by VinceP1974

Originally posted by rnaa

Originally posted by Highground
reply to post by rnaa

 

So, because it already happens, it's okay for the government to do it?

By that logic, they can break into people's houses and kill dissenters, because it already happens outside of the government.

huh?

Allow me.

The Problem Statement: The Big Bad Insurance Company might deny coverage for your hip thing

The So-Called Solution: Move the entire country into a State-Run and Rationed Mechanism and have the Govt necessarily set ration limits on who can get what. Have such limit take the force of law. And presumably have it be illegal to get service in the country by private means.

The "solution" is absurd.

I still don't know what you are talking about, sorry. Are you responding to the post ID'd in the 'Reply To' line? If so, your replies are incomprehensible. What does illegal breaking and entering have to do with health insurance and benefit coverage?

Did you have a look at the last link in that post? I'll repeat it for your convenience here here.

The 'system' is already absolutely dependent on 'the state', and it is already rationed. And the rationing already has the force of law - contract law. Read your insurance policy because this bill is basically just that - an insurance policy. But you actually have some input into this insurance policy via your elected representatives, and its provisions can't be changed because some CEO that already owns three quarters of a billion dollars in stock options wants to hit a billion this quarter.

There is NO proposal to make it illegal to get Health Care by 'private' means. The point is to provide a safety net, one that can't be arbitrarily taken away by an anonymous bean counter in your insurers head office.

You are giving too much uncritical attention to too much disinformation.

If this is false, why did the Democrats say that they will take the Death Panels out of the bill?

They didn't call them "Death Panels" of course, but you get the idea.

Originally posted by rebel9
If this is false, why did the Democrats say that they will take the Death Panels out of the bill?

They didn't call them "Death Panels" of course, but you get the idea.

Because people are afraid... that's pretty much it.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


responding to fear makes it real. Therefore they were planning it all along.


Also France doesn't need to defend itself as much, they have energy independence, they aren't that important in the grand scheme of things, and they have better leaders (questionable, but it seems so). They also have fewer people to care for and a lot less foreign entanglements. So they can afford it. We cannot.

[edit on 15-8-2009 by Gorman91]

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

While it does mention you can keep your health insurance through your employer a goverment option would in effect either kill competion; by putting in low cost plans that insurance compaines couldnt compete with in effect driving everyone onto the goverment option which would drive other insurers out of buisness giving the goverment a monoply on your health insurance. Or fix the price of all health care needs which would in turn enforce insurance companies to also set there prices the same way in order to stay in buisness..... ( Similar with what the Oil Cartels Due.)

But the true kicker here that makes me really fear this things is this... Congress, the prez, and federal employess due not have to take this... If it is so good as they are saying it is, Why dont they take this option?????? That makes the whole thing suspect.....

I always get a chuckle out of this complete contradiction.

These are two mutually exclusive things, aren't they?

Which is it? Are the insurance companies going to go belly up in the face of competition from the govt? Or is govt health insurance going to suck so bad that no one who can afford private insurance would go anywhere near it?

We can't have both of those things happen, can we? I guess we can if it furthers someone's agenda.

I was recently privy to a discussion about this topic on another forum. A gentleman from Canada was talking about how the nationalized health care up there is so bad that people flock to the US to get proper treatment.

Then, a page or two later, he was talking about how everyone and their mother flocks to Canada to take advantage of free care available. Trying to say that it's such a problem that the wives of foreign warlords come to take advantage of the Canadian taxpayers. So if your health care is so terrible that people leave the country to find better options, why do illegal aliens sneak in to abuse it?

Originally posted by rnaa

Originally posted by Highground
reply to post by rnaa

 

So, because it already happens, it's okay for the government to do it?

By that logic, they can break into people's houses and kill dissenters, because it already happens outside of the government.

huh?

Let's break this down:

You said, via emphasis in a quote, that the government rationing healthcare is okay, because it already occurs everywhere else. You pretty much said that it's okay for the government to decide who gets to live and who gets to die because the private sector already does.

I was trying to impress upon you, that by allowing the government to do things, simply because it occurs in the non-government world is not the way to go. I may not have picked the best analogy, but I feel that, "WELL THEY DO IT ALREADY" is not an appropriate excuse to commit wrong.

Originally posted by Highground

Originally posted by rnaa

Originally posted by Highground
reply to post by rnaa

 

So, because it already happens, it's okay for the government to do it?

By that logic, they can break into people's houses and kill dissenters, because it already happens outside of the government.

huh?

Let's break this down:

You said, via emphasis in a quote, that the government rationing healthcare is okay, because it already occurs everywhere else. You pretty much said that it's okay for the government to decide who gets to live and who gets to die because the private sector already does.

I was trying to impress upon you, that by allowing the government to do things, simply because it occurs in the non-government world is not the way to go. I may not have picked the best analogy, but I feel that, "WELL THEY DO IT ALREADY" is not an appropriate excuse to commit wrong.

I did not 'pretty much said that it's okay for the government to decide who gets to live and who gets to die because the private sector already does'.

I said exactly the opposite: In a very real sense, Private Insurers do decide who lives or dies by fighting claims and denying coverage, and not on medical grounds, but on purely profit-motive grounds. A 'non-profit' universal health care insurance scheme will actually eliminate this evil practice, not transfer it from private to public.

I think you are purposely misinterpreting what those articles and the quotes I emphasized are saying. There is nothing in there about anybody deciding who lives and who dies.

You must understand that "Rationing" is not equal to "Triage".

Rationing is about reducing over-capitalization and over-servicing. If there are only 'about' 10 procedures done in the country in a year, we don't need 200 hospitals certified to do that procedure, maybe we only need 20 strategically located hospitals. That certainly does not mean that the 11th person is out of luck, it means that we can more easily afford to do more than 10 procedures if necessary.

Another aspect of rationing is curing the wasting of billions of dollars a year on ineffective treatments. The bill establishes a board to research which treatments are most effective under what circumstances so both doctors and their patients have the best information, and reduce the guessing work involved in the "lets try these pills, and if they don't work, we'll try something else" merry-go-round. Yes, I know there is medical research and literature out there, but most doctors get their treatment info from drug companies these days. You know that and I know that.

And finally, the incentive for the uninsured to fall prey to wasting $20 billion dollars a year on unproven and ineffective treatments will be significantly reduced. If they actually have health insurance and can get to see a real doctor instead of having to rely on quacks, that's an automatic $20 billion cost savings that goes into the pocket of the poor and elderly that I haven't seen anybody talking up (especially from the anti-health care insurance bill special interest groups).

Originally posted by weedwhacker



THIS is the very same sort of fear-mongering junk that was uttered by Fmr Gov. Palin last Friday, because it smacks as an almost exact copy of her (false) claims of a Gov't "death panel".

That sort of shameless rhetoric, from a person who just a few months ago was outraged by a comedian's joke about (what he thought was) her adult daughter, yet this same woman has no qualms about using her infant son as a prop in this political charade???

ALL of the BS coming down the pike about the "perils" of a Health Care Bill is fostered by ---[drumroll, please]---the INSURANCE COMPANIES!!!

The same insurance companies that saw their corporate profits nearly quintuple!!! between years 2000 and 2007...(Hmmmm, who was President then???) and average Insurance Company CEO compensation?? $11.9 MILLION. Per year.

Remember those old TV commercials for Gravy Train dog food?? Well, if you don't, I sure 'betcha' these guys do!!!
__________________________________________
edit for the 'drumroll'

AND for the TV commercial....

[edit on 10 August 2009 by weedwhacker]

I do not believe that this movement is designed by the Insurance Industry as you claim.
Have you read the proposed bills? Do you Know what is in them?
SEC. 123. HEALTH BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
12 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—
13 (1) IN GENERAL.—There is established a pri
14 vate-public advisory committee which shall be a
15 panel of medical and other experts to be known as
16 the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to rec
17 ommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced,
18 and premium plans.
DUTIES.—
12 (1) RECOMMENDATIONS ON BENEFIT STAND
13 ARDS.—The Health Benefits Advisory Committee
14 shall recommend to the Secretary of Health and
15 Human Services (in this subtitle referred to as the
16 ‘‘Secretary’’) benefit standards (as defined in para
17 graph (4)), and periodic updates to such standards.
18 In developing such recommendations, the Committee
19 shall take into account innovation in health care and
20 consider how such standards could reduce health dis
21 parities.
Is this not a panel designed to decide what health benefits will be?


ACCOUNTABLE CARE ORGANIZATIONS
IN GENERAL.—A qualifying ACO qualifies to receive an incentive payment if expenditures for applicable beneficiaries are less than a target spending level or a target rate of growth.
The incentive payment shall be made only if savings are greater than would result from normal variation in expenditures for items and services covered under parts A andB.

Does this Not say that health care professionals will be given incentives to limit medical care?

Basically it is a matter of semantics in the mind of the reader/interpreter. I think it is trying to read like an insurance policy to cover as much stuff in the bill as they can. The "death panels"/explanation of benefits section is being horribly misread and scrutinized like it is a way to kill off people who are old and don't matter. That is insane.

What we need is real explicit explanation of benefits apparently so everyone can see that Obama is asking to make our people healthier by getting rid of all the current obviously flawed health care system, and not the opposite. When we have congressman spewing this crap... I mean come on.

As far as Palin goes... she is scary because people listen to her. (She and Michele Bachman I swear must be sisters.)


Some times I wonder where some people's common sense has gone. People just get so riled up and refuse to really think cognitively.

What I am worried about is that in the end the bill will be drowned by the time it passes and won't have the effect that is needed.

We will see.

[edit on 18-8-2009 by anyone]

Originally posted by anyone
Basically it is a matter of semantics in the mind of the reader/interpreter. I think it is trying to read like an insurance policy to cover as much stuff in the bill as they can. The "death panels"/explanation of benefits section is being horribly misread and scrutinized like it is a way to kill off people who are old and don't matter. That is insane. Palin is scary because people listen to her. (She and Michele Bachman I swear must be sisters.)

What we need is real explicit explanation of benefits apparently so everyone can see that Obama is asking to make our people healthier by getting rid of all the current obviously flawed health care system, and not the opposite. When we have congressman spewing this crap... I mean come on.

As far as Palin goes... she is scary because people listen to her. (She and Michele Bachman I swear must be sisters.)


Some times I wonder where some people's common sense has gone. People just get so riled up and refuse to really think cognitively.

What I am worried about is that in the end the bill will be drowned by the time it passes and won't have the effect that is needed.

We will see.

What do you think of Jim Demitt's bill in the Senate?