To those who mocked Palin when she talked about "death panels" - Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

RIROCKHOUND · 12-09-2010, 01:57 PM

Right...
because Obama's healthcare bill, and not the (Republican) Govenor's budget slashing that did this.

There was a case in Arizona last week with an otherwise healthy woman in her 20's who needed a transplant... all Obama's Death Panels...

Jim in CT · 12-09-2010, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Right...
because Obama's healthcare bill, and not the (Republican) Govenor's budget slashing that did this.

There was a case in Arizona last week with an otherwise healthy woman in her 20's who needed a transplant... all Obama's Death Panels...

Rockhound, Gov Palin's concern was that Obama's healthcare plan would result in governmnet employees making life-and-death decisions regarding whether or not healthcare would be provided.

If you have proof that Obama's plan has something in it that would prevent that from happening, that would prove that Palin was wrong. Since you are mocking me, I assume you can point me to the language in Obama's bill that says that never would any government employee make thos ekinds of decisions.

If you want to defend Oba,a's plan by saying that government employees make those kinds of decisions today, therefore Obama's plan doesn't change the status quo, that's valid.

The fact is, there would be government employees deciding who lives and who dies. Like we have today, and I'm opposed to that today.

RIROCKHOUND · 12-09-2010, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The fact is, there would be government employees deciding who lives and who dies. Like we have today, and I'm opposed to that today.

I chose the status quo argument. This is different than someone at United or BlueCross making the very same decisions how?

I don't see the difference, you are trading one decider for another. My hope is that the current HC plan allows more people to have insurance, rather than go to the Social service Agency in the first place.

RIJIMMY · 12-09-2010, 02:10 PM

[QUOTE=RIROCKHOUND;817175]I chose the status quo argument. This is different than someone at United or BlueCross making the very same decisions how?

QUOTE]

its opening up a huge can of worms that the government has no business in. Nothing good will come out of this.

RIROCKHOUND · 12-09-2010, 02:13 PM

[QUOTE=RIJIMMY;81717

its opening up a huge can of worms that the government has no business in. Nothing good will come out of this.[/QUOTE]

But you are ok with private businesses making the same decisions? Would this same procedure be covered by a private insurance co?

RIJIMMY · 12-09-2010, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

But you are ok with private businesses making the same decisions? Would this same procedure be covered by a private insurance co?

Private businesses are hired by customers. You know what you're buying when you buy it. I can tell you I went through numberous discussions with my Mom's doctors and insurance companies on experimental treatment and they were always up front on what to expect. My dealings with the insurance companies were fantastic. I cant imagine what it would have been like dealing with a govt. agency. My wife was a legal alien when we met and you should have seen the BS to get her citizenship. You're dealing with the bottom of the barrel admin staff with teh govt. Insurance companies have to manage their risk to stay in business. They have to keep customers happy (to some degree)What does the government have to do? Does the govvt make a business or a moral call? If moral, who pays the bill? I think its too much control by the govt. I really dont have the answer, but dont want the govt in this business.

Jim in CT · 12-09-2010, 02:19 PM

[QUOTE=RIJIMMY;817178]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I chose the status quo argument. This is different than someone at United or BlueCross making the very same decisions how?

QUOTE]

its opening up a huge can of worms that the government has no business in. Nothing good will come out of this.

"This is different than someone at United or BlueCross making the very same decisions how? "

Here's how. Look at the difference between the US Post Office and FedEx. Government cannot do anything better than private companies. The larger role the government plays, the more waste there is, menaing less money to pay for actual care, meaning MORE families are told "no", compared to having private companies handle these things.

You really, really don't get that? That's why I want private companies in this space, and not just the feds. Private companies have an incentive to be as lean as possible. The feds would have all kinds of ineffecencies, plus unions to placate.

Lile you, I wish everyone had good healthcare. But if the choice is between limited care provided by the feds, or limited care provided by private enterprise, I'll take private enterprise.

RIROCKHOUND · 12-09-2010, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"This is different than someone at United or BlueCross making the very same decisions how? "

Here's how. Look at the difference between the US Post Office and FedEx. Government cannot do anything better than private companies. The larger role the government plays, the more waste there is, menaing less money to pay for actual care, meaning MORE families are told "no", compared to having private companies handle these things.

You really, really don't get that? That's why I want private companies in this space, and not just the feds. Private companies have an incentive to be as lean as possible. The feds would have all kinds of ineffecencies, plus unions to placate.

Lile you, I wish everyone had good healthcare. But if the choice is between limited care provided by the feds, or limited care provided by private enterprise, I'll take private enterprise.

Another fundamental difference.

In the goal of being leaner, I see the private companies saying 'no' more than the feds IMHO.....

scottw · 12-09-2010, 02:27 PM

[QUOTE=RIROCKHOUND;817189
I don't see the difference, you are trading one decider for another. My hope is that the current HC plan allows more people to have insurance, rather than go to the Social service Agency in the first place.

Another fundamental difference.

In the goal of being leaner, I see the private companies saying 'no' more than the feds IMHO.....[/QUOTE]

thick as a brick

Jim in CT · 12-09-2010, 02:40 PM

[QUOTE=RIROCKHOUND;817189]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Another fundamental difference.

In the goal of being leaner, I see the private companies saying 'no' more than the feds IMHO.....

Wrong again.

See, for now at least, we have this thing called the "free market". If a company had a reputation of saying "no" (unreasonably) to save money, no one would buy the product from that company...everyone would buy from the company that delivered the most possible coverage you could afford.

In a single payer system, the consumer has no such protection.