To those who mocked Palin when she talked about "death panels"

[RIROCKHOUND]

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]

[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]

[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]

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]

[QUOTE=RIJIMMY;817178]

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]

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]

[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]

[QUOTE=RIROCKHOUND;817189]

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.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

amednews: Coverage denials by 4 major insurers rise nearly 50% :: Oct. 25, 2010 ... American Medical News

Here's your free market.

Coverage denials by 4 major insurers rise nearly 50%
Preexisting conditions were used to reject more than 651,000 applicants during a three-year period, says a House committee report.

Also part of the bill is written to stop insurers from denying insurance to children (like this one) with pre-existing conditions.

[scottw]

Why would a government health care program (e.g. Medicare) deny more claims than private insurers?

"According to the American Medical Association’s National Health Insurer Report Card for 2008, the government’s health plan, Medicare, denied medical claims at nearly double the average for private insurers: Medicare denied 6.85% of claims. The highest private insurance denier was Aetna @ 6.8%, followed by Anthem Blue Cross @ 3.44, with an average denial rate of medical claims by private insurers of 3.88%

In its 2009 National Health Insurer Report Card, the AMA reports that Medicare denied only 4% of claims—a big improvement, but outpaced better still by the private insurers. The prior year’s high private denier, Aetna, reduced denials to 1.81%—an astounding 75% improvement—with similar declines by all other private insurers, to average only 2.79%."

just sayin'

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by likwid

amednews: Coverage denials by 4 major insurers rise nearly 50% :: Oct. 25, 2010 ... American Medical News

Also part of the bill is written to stop insurers from denying insurance to children (like this one) with pre-existing conditions.

You are partially correct. Prior to that part of the bill taking effect, private insurers rushed to notify parents of children that they were no longer insured.

Who won, who lost?