Advertisement

Archive for Saturday, August 8, 2009

Palin says Obama’s health care plan ‘evil’

August 8, 2009

Advertisement

— Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin called President Barack Obama’s health plan “downright evil” Friday in her first online comments since leaving office, saying in a Facebook posting that he would create a “death panel” that would deny care to the neediest Americans.

“Who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course,” the former Republican vice presidential candidate wrote on her Facebook page, which has nearly 700,000 supporters.

“The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil,” Palin wrote.

An e-mail sent to Palin’s spokeswoman to confirm authorship was not immediately returned Friday.

Comments

kansasmutt 5 years, 4 months ago

What a train wreck. Look what the G O P has to offer for 2012 Yeee Haww i can see Russia from my Lawrence rooftop. ( by the way, she is refering to a living will) Now that is bad stuff. Living wills are left wing things, whooooooooo wheeeeeeeeeeeeee.

KEITHMILES05 5 years, 4 months ago

Sarah just keeps on yacking and giving Americans a reason to laugh at her sorry azz. She is pathetic and the worst of worst at word warfare.

jmadison 5 years, 4 months ago

A quote from a Hastings Report paper by Ezekiel Emanuel, an advisor to Pres. Obama, and also the brother of Obama's chief of staff, "An obvious example (for cutting health care costs) is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example Is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason."

jaywalker 5 years, 4 months ago

She certainly didn't go about it the right way, but isn't that one of the major concerns of the proposed healthcare shift? That it'll be a bureaucratic decision on who gets what care?

canyon_wren 5 years, 4 months ago

I am no fan of Obama or his health plan--I do think under his presidency we are heading straight for disaster-- but I wish Sarah Palin would just go home (or somewhere) and shut up. I think she was partly the reason Obama won the election--what a foolish choice for McCain to make--and she hasn't the qualifications to even answer pertinent questions, let alone contemplate running for a future office of any kind.

jaywalker 5 years, 4 months ago

Can't argue with that, canyon. Nothin' says credible like arguing political points on Facebook.

Alia Ahmed 5 years, 4 months ago

jayhawker, I worked for an insurance company for four years and we experienced extreme pressure to deny or limit services to mentally ill children while the CEO of the very small "not-for-profit" spent over $5000 a month on his expense account on booze, made a handsome salary and drove expensive company cars. I'd trust a bureaucrat to make those decisions before I would the greedy insurance companies. There is nothing wrong with them making a profit, but it is certainly wrong to deny health insurance coverage and services to people who deserve it.

The "euthansia" that the health insurance industry is trying to scare the elderly with is, indeed, a provision for paying a doctor an office call visit once every five year to talk with his older patients about advanced directives and a living will. For 18 years, hospitals and other medical providers have been required to offer this information to all adult patients. If anyone has had an incentive to "kill granny", it would have been hospitals who get reimbursed for Medicare hospitalizations based on DRG (Diagnosis Related Groups) rather than actual services provided. That has not happened directly, though the elderly are often discharged earlier than recommended from a hospital so the hospital can save money. As someone who has worked in the healthcare industry most of the last 35 years of my life, I can assure you rationing or limiting services for patients occurs in the private and public healthcare arenas, that managed healthcare. There's nothing wrong with managed healthcare as long as it is done responsibly, but I've seen and heard of many instances when that is not the case.

FreshAirFanatic 5 years, 4 months ago

She's correct!! Pull your head out and look at who is behind the bill! Look at who is advising the President! Stop arguing about who's a moron, because right now it sure seems like a large percentage of Americans fit that description.

Dr. Ezekial Emanuel, the brother of Rahm Emanuel. He wrote in January 2009:

“When implemented, the Complete Lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated… The Complete Lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value.

Cass Sunstein, who wrote in the Columbia Law Review in January 2004:

“I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people.”

Are you kidding me!?! These are the experts whispering sweet nothings in the Oval Office. For those on this forum over 55…good luck getting care. Same for your grandkids under 15.

All “they” need is an emergency. Not enough money, not enough blood, not enough vaccines…then “they” can ration in the sake of the collective.

Wake up!!! This is not the reform Health Care needs!

By the way...anyone see the new poll numbers from CNN? http://reportcard.cnn.com/

jaywalker 5 years, 4 months ago

"I'd trust a bureaucrat to make those decisions before I would the greedy insurance companies"

Sorry, Alia, but I don't want anyone 'deciding' whether I get to live or die, especially a bureaucrat.

"There's nothing wrong with managed healthcare as long as it is done responsibly, but I've seen and heard of many instances when that is not the case."

So we should cede control of the care of 350 million to the government? Cash for clunkers ran out of money in 6 days and was already saddled with "an enormous backlog of red tape", but a bureaucracy is what should be controlling healthcare? While there are horror stories about insurance companies (I, too, have worked in the industry) I can think of little more frightening than allowing our government to absorb the single largest industry in the country.

Randall Uhrich 5 years, 4 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Corey Williams 5 years, 4 months ago

jaywalker (Anonymous) says…

"Sorry, Alia, but I don't want anyone 'deciding' whether I get to live or die, especially a bureaucrat."

So you either have no health insurance, or you have the best health insurance money can buy. Anywhere in the middle, you have to deal with someone "deciding" whether or not you get care, or "'deciding' whether I get to live or die", in your terms.

"So we should cede control of the care of 350 million to the government? Cash for clunkers ran out of money in 6 days and was already saddled with “an enormous backlog of red tape”..."

That this program ran out of money so soon should be considered a good thing. Didn't that mean that somewhere around 200,000 new cars were sold? Wouldn't that be a good thing? And what is this "enormous backlog of red tape" of which you speak? I tried looking for stories on it and could only find instances of slow or crashing computer sites, and busy telephone lines. All things common from the problem of too much traffic, so to speak. What red tape?

KS 5 years, 4 months ago

Here come the Palin bashers. Not happy unless they can bash someone. Bush is gone, so here is poor Palin. Typical left. Can't argue the facts, so let's trash someone personally.

Sunny Parker 5 years, 4 months ago

I don't know how anyone in their right mind can agree with Hussein and what he is doing to this country. Billions and billions spent on nothing. Are you lefties really so stupid that you don't know or care who is going to be repaying his ignorant bailouts?

Where are the jobs that this man promised to create?

parrothead8 5 years, 4 months ago

It's evil, huh, Sarah?

You should know.

Corey Williams 5 years, 4 months ago

sunny (Anonymous) says…

"Billions and billions spent on nothing."

Kind of like Iraq? Goldman Sachs bailout? TARP?

tomatogrower 5 years, 4 months ago

The bill is just requiring doctors to do what they should do anyway. Having an end of life discussion is just encouraging people to decide what they want. It's a living will, so I guess Sara is against living wills. You should be kept alive and resuscitated over and over, whether you want that or not?
My mother spent the last 2 years of her life suffering from congestive heart failure. She put up with the oxygen tank, and we spent as much time with her as possible, because the doctors said she would only have less than a year. She actually lasted 2 years. She had all her brain power to the end, and made it quite clear that there would be no resuscitation when her heart gave out. She lived at her home, except at the end she was in the hospital.

She was always surrounded by family and friends, and the doctor was concerned about the crowd, but that's the way she wanted it. He tried to talk her out of her no resuscitation order, but she was adamant.

She was hooked up to a machine that beeped when her blood oxygen levels went to low. We would tell her to breathe deeply when that happened, and she would at first. Then she started getting angry, because it took so much work to breathe deeply. She wouldn't come right out and say it, but we knew she was tired and wanted to pass on, so we asked the nurses to turn off the beeping noise.

On the morning of the day she was to go home my sister stopped by before work, and the nurses said she was unresponsive. My sister went in to be with her. The nurses made sure the room was quiet and peaceful, while my sister held her hand and she slowly stopped breathing. No code blues and rushing around to resuscitate her. Just a calm going to meet the rest of our family who had passed on.

Apparently Palin would have required her to be resuscitated and made her live on life support until she turned into a skeleton, instead of letting God take care of her. Everyone should have an end of life discussion and a living will, in case you can't express your wishes. Why are they against requiring physicians to discuss this with their patients. The responsible physicians already do.

grammaddy 5 years, 4 months ago

Another example of the Regurgicans putting a negative spin on anything Obama tries to do for America. If Palin is against it, it must be good for America. BTW, Obama's grandmother "Toot" was diabetic, which is why he brings up Diabetics.

ASBESTOS 5 years, 4 months ago

" It's a living will.."

No it is not a "living will" it is a consultation to map out the "health care", that is why it is in the "health care bill". It is used to disuade further treatment or to go for cheaper treatment for terminal and end of life conditions.

It puts the Government in that choice, which is wayyyy different thatn a living will which is between the person and the family via an attorney. In the Consultation, the Beauracrats are in the decision process.

That is how it is different.

You are also reciting the Health Care for America Now "talking Points"

I have already have a copy of the disinformation from HCAN. SEIU and ACORN all have the same "talking points'.

You are correct' Darn the facts "

kla4one 5 years, 4 months ago

Unfortunately, I agree with Maher: many Americans are so stupid that we might come close to having someone like Palin in office again. She's not stupid and she's a terrific demagogue. She taps into all the hidden resentments of angry people and magnifies their fears into ridiculous bogies. Palin claims to be the victim of terrible insults and lies and rails against the press and bloggers for their falsehoods. But here she goes herself, spouting her own outrageous lies and distortions about "death panels," but she's allowed to do so because she's so special, eh? Even allowing for her bizarre language skills, claiming that "death panels" will plan to kill her child is hyperbole so ridiculous it's hard to see her as much more than a joke these days. Anyone who knowingly links her views to those of nutcase Michele Bachmann is turning herself into a caricature. Kind of sad, really, because I think at some point she could have taken a different road and been a useful conservative voice. Instead, each hyperbolic statement puts her more and more at the fringe level of the party. She's not going to win over any independents with this kind of extreme rhetoric that is so patently false.

Always amusing to have the right wing commenters accuse the left of nasty venom when their own cohorts are out there screaming down elected officials, burning them in effigy, and disrupting attempts at democratic townhalls. For sane Republicans these disruptions of townhall events should only be a source of embarrassment for the party.

jaywalker 5 years, 4 months ago

"Anywhere in the middle, you have to deal with someone “deciding” whether or not you get care, or “'deciding' whether I get to live or die”, in your terms."

That's a complete load of bs.

"That this program ran out of money so soon should be considered a good thing."

Yes, it's shocking that the government handing out $4500 would be 'successful'.

My child's monthly premium is equivalent to the cost of a monthly doctor's visit.

"So good to know that 11 out of the 12 months we pay per year and don't go to the doctor, our money is probably going to making sure some insurance executive is living well."

More rantings from the pathetically uninformed. If your child, God forbid, ever needs catastrophic care, tumbilweed, then THAT's what the premiums are for. Insurance works as a pool of resources for all in that plan. An extended hospital stay, surgeries, rehab can run over a 100k easy. A grand a year for your child ain't too bad if that goes down, now is it?
And if you don't like what you're paying for, change it. Too many believe that insurance is supposed to guarantee you unlimited access for everything. You don't get car insurance to pay for a flat tire or new windshield wipers. You don't have home insurance to cover new paint or holes in the drywall. You get insurance to cover the traumatic, catastrophic events. If you're lucky enough to have a healthy family and hardly ever utilize the insurance, get a plan that's bare bones, covers catastrophic, testing, and drugs. Never pay for maternity- you can work out a contract with the hospital; never pay for dental unless braces are in the future; and only pay for wellness if it's well covered, otherwise the premiums will cost more than paying out of pocket.

Orwell 5 years, 4 months ago

I wish Palin would honor our troops and stop makin' stuff up. I've had enough of Republicans trying to maintain or regain power by scaring the public, all so the Kochs of the world can keep extra billions.

puddleglum 5 years, 4 months ago

ahh....once again, you can almost hear the champagne corks a-poppin' in chicago for 2010

looks like another 7 years of democratic president at least.

jaywalker 5 years, 4 months ago

"The insurance companies don't do “catastrophic”. It's against their bottom line. They actively work against paying out or covering it."

Spoken exactly like someone who doesn't have a clue what they're talking about.

“And if you don't like what you're paying for, change it.” – jaywalker

"Well, that's what we're trying to do."

First of all, I was referring to tumbilweed changing his policy. Secondly, ....."we're"?!! Yeah, I'm sure you're integral.

camper 5 years, 4 months ago

The Republicans always try to drive fear into the elderly. This is the same old tactic, and unfortunately it often does prevent improvement. The only thing mentioned in Obama's plan is that doctors can get reimbursed for counseling elderly patients about options in their later years.

For example, I would never want to ring up up a million dollar doctor bill to extend my life a couple of month's by spending time in a hospital bed. I'd want to learn about ways to live my final span the best possible way without being on my back in the corner of a hospital room.

This is all the plan is saying, and of course Palin is taking it to the extreme.

pace 5 years, 4 months ago

So the Republican plan for health care is to lie and spread hysteria mixed with fear and hate. No wonder they are against education.

beatrice 5 years, 4 months ago

Sarah "I'm the only one allowed to talk about my children, especially my child with Down Syndrome, for political gain" Palin obviously doesn't know what she is talking about. Does anyone actually believe she has read the health care proposals being considered?

I too agree with Bill Maher, and feel that Palin still needs to produce her high school diploma. I've not seen a copy of it, and until then I am not convinced she is capable of such an achievement. At best, I'd say she quit in her second year.

jaywalker 5 years, 4 months ago

"Everyone is aware of the barriers to getting coverage when you have diabetes, cancer, heart disease and other severe disease processes."

Again with the perversion of what you originally state. Now they're "barriers", before it was a flat out "insurance doesn't do catastrophic". Address the idiocy of the first statement, then branch out. And such people would generally not have to face such 'barriers' if they had insurance when they were first diagnosed. As someone who worked as an agent, I came into contact with a heck of a lot more people who liked to live under the assumption that such things would NEVER happen to them and that's why they never got insurance, rather than those that simply coudn't afford it. It keeps being thrown out there that 47 to 50 million Americans don't have coverage. That number is a lie and an obfuscation. 10 to 15 million are not Americans, they're illegals. Another 10 million are just like I spoke of above, they feel they're invincible and won't need it. Millions of such people make more than 75k a year; they can't afford it? So Obama thinks government taking over such a vast system is a wise, prudent move for 20 of 350 million? Getting the indigent proper coverage and decreasing costs --- those are the problems. But that's not what this administration is actually addressing. "Expanding" coverage is not what is being offered here, nor is it any type of solution.
As to the troubles people have when they suffer pre-existing conditions.......Gee, no kiddin'. It's shocking that a company wouldn't want to take on someone that's going to cost exponentially more than they'll pay in. What's funny is people like yourself think this is somehow all going to be magically remedied if the government takes over healthcare. Where exactly do you think the money is going to come from to take care of all these folks? And there is nothing 'ad hominem' about refuting your ridiculous assertion.

Leslie Swearingen 5 years, 4 months ago

tomatogrower, you have the best post on this subject. When I was about eight the family was called to Ada, Oklahoma because my great-grandmother was passing. The whole family was at the farmhouse. I was asked my opinion of things and I remember going to the funeral home to choose the casket and all the arrangements. My great-grandmother was in a fourposter bed in the living room and she was wearing a beautiful white nightgown. There was a chair by her bed so that someone could sit by her. She loved having the family close and being able to hear them and see them. She had the sweetest smile. I was holding her hand and she took a deep breath and then didn't take another one. I held her hand for a minute longer and then I went to tell the others.

Katara 5 years, 4 months ago

jaywalker (Anonymous) says… As to the troubles people have when they suffer pre-existing conditions…….Gee, no kiddin'. It's shocking that a company wouldn't want to take on someone that's going to cost exponentially more than they'll pay in. What's funny is people like yourself think this is somehow all going to be magically remedied if the government takes over healthcare. Where exactly do you think the money is going to come from to take care of all these folks? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The initial expense for treatment of pre-existing conditions may be more at the beginning but over the long run, it can save money. Many of these people are turned down for insurance and then don't go to the doctor to help manage their condition because they can't afford to pay the full price. Then when their condition deteriorates, they end up being treated in the ER as uninsured which ends up costing everyone more in the long run.

It makes sense to get these people insured. Not only is the quality of life improved but overall costs are lowered. Win-win.

esteshawk 5 years, 4 months ago

Why can't conservatives acknowledge that Obama is ten times the President Dubya was? These people are so twisted they can't even acknowledge that Obama came in and took care of the Somali pirate problem that exploded during Bush's years in power (easier for oil companies to make money when the supply is disrupted). Obama has been friednlier to the gun industry than even Reagan, as O has overturned a Reagan-era gun control law, the stimulus package is working (recession is over), our image around the world is improving, and yes, health care change is coming. These cons. are too senseless to understand they are not in charge of their health care - their insurance company is, and they have nothing to gain by ensuring care for all. Trust me - I have a severely disabled child, and the private industry did NOTHING to help, I am in dept up to my ears from denials of service. Thank goodness she is now on GOVERNMENT RUN insurancee, as she is able to finally get the care needed. People need to set aside deeply held ideology, and look at issues individully. Guess it's easier to show up and disrupt meetings where the truth is being discussed.

KS 5 years, 4 months ago

Refer to my 8:58 AM post. I rest my case. Can't say anything nice, say nothing at all.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 5 years, 4 months ago

KS, would you be referring to the incredible, self-bashing Palindrone?

camper 5 years, 4 months ago

Palin has chosen to become a public figure, and recently left office so she could further pursue these goals. If she makes statements about current issues, shouldn't her views be open to challenge?

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 5 years, 4 months ago

You spin them so quickly, one has to wonder how anyone can remain standing after reading them...

Newell_Post 5 years, 4 months ago

I used to serve on the board of directors of an insurance company, and I also used to work for the federal government. If I had a major problem with a medical insurance claim, I would much rather negotiate it with a government bureaucrat than with an insurance executive who isn't making his monthly quota. With the government bureaucrat, you can at least try to get help from your senator or congressman. With the insurance executive, all you can do is try to sue them, and they will stall it until you die of the condition in question.

jaywalker 5 years, 4 months ago

"(laughter)

Do you proofread your posts before you send them out? You seem to paint yourself into corners on a regular basis.

(laughter)"

Why am I surprised that you'd revert back to your old 'tricks', porch. Unable to back up your ridiculous contention, so you misdirect by misrepresentation. Man, you are pathetic.

"insurance doesn't do catastrophic"

Support it or go away. That statement of yours has nothing to do with whether insurance companies take on new customers w/ serious pre-existing conditions. Of course they don't. But your 'contention' was that they "don't do catastrophic" - Period.

At least now I know what the (laughter) childishness is all about. It's your tell. When you've got nothing you break out the laugh track.

jaywalker 5 years, 4 months ago

"The initial expense for treatment of pre-existing conditions may be more at the beginning but over the long run, it can save money"

While that may be true for some cases it's certainly more the exception than the rule. The majority of pre-existing conditions that disqualify people are degenerative and/or worsen over time.

"Then when their condition deteriorates, they end up being treated in the ER as uninsured which ends up costing everyone more in the long run."

I'd love to know how you figure that's true, Katara. ER costs for the uninsured aren't being passed down to you and me. If that was the case there wouldn't have been the rash of bankrupt hospitals in California who've been forced to swallow the expense of all the uninsured illegals they've had to treat. And it's not like insurers are upping the premiums because they have to foot the bill for the uninsured, that doesn't happen.

Orwell 5 years, 4 months ago

This latest lie about a "presidential edict to report anyone to the White House who disagrees with Obamacare" is a real hoot. What they really mean is that, just like with the town hall shout-down mobs, they don't want to give anyone a chance to refute their other lies. Evidently they can't handle the truth.

When the opposition to health care reform consists of scare tactics, extreme exaggeration, stifling fair discussion, bullyboy threats and name-calling, it must be a pretty good program.

LiberalDude 5 years, 4 months ago

Thank you Sarah Palin!!! Whatever you say that opposite is sure to be true.

This is the best endorsement for health care reform that we could ever get!

Health care reform now!

tomatogrower 5 years, 4 months ago

"I'd love to know how you figure that's true, Katara. ER costs for the uninsured aren't being passed down to you and me"

Yes they are. The hospitals don't just eat it. They raise the prices for everyone else to cover it. Or if they are a community hospital they raise the taxes.

Katara 5 years, 4 months ago

jaywalker (Anonymous) says…

I'd love to know how you figure that's true, Katara. ER costs for the uninsured aren't being passed down to you and me. If that was the case there wouldn't have been the rash of bankrupt hospitals in California who've been forced to swallow the expense of all the uninsured illegals they've had to treat. And it's not like insurers are upping the premiums because they have to foot the bill for the uninsured, that doesn't happen. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Huh, that's odd. I keep hearing from rightwingers how the illegals are increasing our costs because of their use of the ER and the taxpayers having to pick up the tab, not to mention the loss of healthcare facilities decreasing the availability of health care for citizens such as you and me.

"Care is frequently provided to illegal immigrants by emergency rooms and is provided when a crisis exists rather than as preventive practice. Both phenomena add to the high cost of health care. "

"Many California hospitals cannot afford to absorb costs and many are forced to close due to financial mandates for treating illegal immigrants. As recently reported, 84 California hospitals are closing their doors forever. Hospital closure degrades health care to all in the community and results in job losses." http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/12/26/170334.shtml

Are you telling me that those rightwingers have been lying to me about this???

Katara 5 years, 4 months ago

tomatogrower (Anonymous) says… “I'd love to know how you figure that's true, Katara. ER costs for the uninsured aren't being passed down to you and me”

Yes they are. The hospitals don't just eat it. They raise the prices for everyone else to cover it. Or if they are a community hospital they raise the taxes. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I was also thinking that as the cost of healthcare rises (due to hospitals and doctors having to "eat the costs" of the uninsured), insurance companies would increase the cost of premiums to offset the cost that they would be paying out in claims. So yes, the insurance companies would pass the cost of the uninsured down to their customers.

tomatogrower 5 years, 4 months ago

I always turn to snopes.com when I get these wild claims by radicals, both left and right. Check out the link at the bottom. The bill is just requiring a study of most effective treatments. If you have 2 treatments and they both work equally as well, the government wants to pay for the less expensive treatment. That only make sense from my viewpoint. It also asks the doctors to have end of life discussion with people. Everyone should have a living will anyway. If you want to be kept alive on life support, you would have that option in your living will. You will have the decision, if you have already discussed it with your doctor. On the other hand, you have no right to tell someone else to make the same decision. Modern medicine has made death, a natural journey in life, into something to be feared and avoided, even if your brain is mostly not functioning. What's funny, is many of the rightwing Christians seem to be the most afraid of death, even though they will meet their God when they die. I fear the process of prolonging a life that is filled with pain and no longer viable much more than I fear dying.

You really need to research things instead of assuming what Rush L, and Fox news tells you is the whole truth. They distort it and put words in other's mouths. And the spam emails sent around are even more distorted. There is just so much distortion and lies, yes from the left too, but even more from the right. Anyone who only has one source for the information is a fool.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/seniordeath.asp

tomatogrower 5 years, 4 months ago

There are a lot of young people who don't have insurance and are just gambling that they will stay healthy until they can get a better job. Most of them win that gamble. If the insurance companies would offer them a reasonable priced insurance, then how could they not make money? Sure there would be some who end up sick, but the majority of them would seldom use it. Instead they just price themselves out of business. The insurance companies only concern is profit for their CEO's huge paycheck and their investors. They really could care less about your health.

tomatogrower 5 years, 4 months ago

Also, there could be a monsoon going outside, but If Obama said it was raining, Palin would disagree. If Obama came up with a solution that mimicked something she has supported in the past, she would disagree. Palin's opinion means zip. She is all about partisanship.

blindrabbit 5 years, 4 months ago

Did the huckleberry juice ferment too much; must have figured this out while sipping and trying to see Russia, Northern Lights too bright.

Ralph Reed 5 years, 4 months ago

Insurance is by definition a gamble. You're betting the insurance company that you won't get sick, die, have a car wreck, suffer damage to your house and so on.

Auto and home insurance companies either raise your rates or just simply drop you.

Life insurance companies don't care because you're dead - and unless your death fits within specific guidelines, all your beneficiaries receive is what you paid in, not the face value of the policy. Most, if not all, even have a war clause to blow off the military and everybody else. Look how many families had to take the insurance companies to court after the World Trade Center on 911 so they would pay death benefits. It's called not having to pay if you die as a result of an act of war. Also, forget it completely if you're Airborne, SF, Ranger, SEAL, or a high-risk civilian occupation and so on -- they won't even talk with you, let alone insure you.

With health insurance you're stuck within very specific parameters and god help you if there was a pre-existing condition. Bean counters decide what procedures are allowed or are even covered at all. Doctors schedule a test the bean counters decide isn't necessary, and it comes out of your pocket. As a result, the test is not done if you can't pay for it. So, if you're worried about somebody deciding what care you receive, then please stop - it's already being done. (It's experimental, the tests aren't proven, it goes against our company's dogmatic guidelines, and so on ad nauseum.) It's even done with the military. For example, for years the government made women go outside of the military medical system to terminate a pregnancy - making them pay for it out of pocket; this falls under the dogmatic guidelines clause.

From what I see, the proposed program does not make you give up or even monkey with the excellent health care a poster above says they have. I can't seem to find where the proposed health system says, "You, (poster), have to give up your excellent health care and accept what we, (the government), say you can have." I would really appreciate it if you could show in the proposed legislation just where it says that. Additionally, I suggest you review your health insurance policies for that past several years -- you will find in all probability that fewer things were covered every year by your company and that your rates have indeed gone up.

blindrabbit 5 years, 4 months ago

Mr Nancy:. Can't help it but you want to go from "tort reform" to Palin and "tart reform".

Ralph Reed 5 years, 4 months ago

Tom, I went to your Newsmax link, then went to Source Watch (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=NewsMax.com) to see what they said about Newsmax. Please, go there and find out. They say things like: "...serves up news with a conservative slant..." and; "...one of a growing number of right-wing "news" sources and blogs that act as an echo chamber for the conservative viewpoint."

I'm like you, Tom in that I don't like corrupt Liberal news media. However, I take it one step further because I don't like corrupt Convservative news media either. I don't know if you do, but I take most of what appears in the media with a grain of salt.

That being said, I did go to the link you provided. There's a disconnect. The first paragraph quotes Limbaugh as saying the President's health care symbol looks like a swastika and that Democrats are like Nazis. Later on the article complains that nothing was said when the Speaker of the House wondered why protesters were wearing swastikas. One comment expresses an opinion and is an attack on an entire group of people (ad hominem). The other comment quotes the Speaker of the House saying what she saw. See the disconnect?

In essence, Limbaugh is quoted as gospel, and anything said against him is heretical. I looked for several sources about the town hall meeting and almost all the right-wing sources carried the same article verbatum. It's like people used to say about Xerox never having a new idea.

Limbaugh, by the way, one of those who's found his market and is milking it for all it's worth; he's in it for the money and nothing else.

scott3460 5 years, 4 months ago

"“Who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course,”

Will someone tell Caribou Barbie that sick people are the ones who require health care?

Ralph Reed 5 years, 4 months ago

@Katara: re your 1700 Your responded to tomatogrower "I was also thinking that as the cost of healthcare rises (due to hospitals and doctors having to “eat the costs” of the uninsured), insurance companies would increase the cost of premiums to offset the cost that they would be paying out in claims. So yes, the insurance companies would pass the cost of the uninsured down to their customers."


Hospitals in general don't "eat the costs of the uninsured" unless the hospital is the only one in the region and is required by law to provide treatment. If there were another hospital in Douglas County (for profit) then an emergency patient's insurance would be checked at the ambulance. If the patient had no insurance, they would be routed to LMH which would absorb the cost, by law.

Doctors don't eat the costs of the uninsured because most, if not all, will not take you as a patient if you have no insurance. In fact, many are selective in the type of insurance a patient has. I know doctors who will not take Medicaide or Healthwave patients because the costs have a limit. I know doctors who will no longer work with Coventry patients because that company recently instituted a charge for simply filing a claim with them. I don't know any doctors who do pro bono work, do you?

Also, are you implying the only reason health care costs are rising is because of hospitals and doctors having to eat the costs of the uninsured? I would say you're wrong here. You've forgotten both the litigious nature of our society, and the liability and malpractice insurance premiums hospitals and doctors must pay. That's where the true costs of health care increases come from; practitioners and hospitals pass those costs on to patients. If practitioners can't pass the costs on, then they stop practicing medicine or their specialty. A case in point is obstetrics (sp?). I know many obstetritians who took down that part of their shingle because they could no longer afford the malpractice insurance premiums without making it cost prohibitive for their patients.

The indigent (those without medical insurance) are just a small part of the overall problem.

Katara 5 years, 4 months ago

Ralph, adjust your sarcasm meter. I quoted newsmax, for pete's sake and notice the " ".

However, when healthcare costs increase, insurance premiums increase, regardless the reason. Private insurance companies increase premiums to offset the increased costs to them.

I don't know of any private insurance companies who work pro bono. I do read about doctors who provide pro bono work all the time, particularly when dealing with children.

jmadison 5 years, 4 months ago

The Washington Post (not known as a right-wing publication) has a disquieting article regarding the end of life counseling provision of the health care insurance "reform". http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080703043.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

jaywalker 5 years, 4 months ago

"Huh, that's odd. I keep hearing from rightwingers how the illegals are increasing our costs blah blah blah....."

"Are you telling me that those rightwingers have been lying to me about this???"

Well gee, Katara, are you telling me that you've based your line of thinking on people that you so warmly call "rightwingers"?? Brilliant.
And to answer your 'question', how the freak do I know? I'm not a 'rightwinger', nor have I said any such to you. But that may be the dumbest rationale I've heard in a while with which to 'support' your own point......"Well, um, duoh, these here people I don't like said so, soo duoh, it must be true. Hic." And what exactly is your citation concerning hospitals closing in California supposed to refute? If the cost of the uninsured using the ER was passed on to the insured, those hospitals wouldn't have had to close, now would they? Illegals raise taxes. The states and the fed pass that cost on to us through mandates that fund for the welfare of our non-citizens that don't pay into our system. Not through insurance companies. That's moronic. That's like thinking your car insurance just went up because someone without car insurance just got in a wreck.

Katara 5 years, 4 months ago

jaywalker (Anonymous) says… Well gee, Katara, are you telling me that you've based your line of thinking on people that you so warmly call “rightwingers”?? Brilliant. And to answer your 'question', how the freak do I know? I'm not a 'rightwinger', nor have I said any such to you. But that may be the dumbest rationale I've heard in a while with which to 'support' your own point……”Well, um, duoh, these here people I don't like said so, soo duoh, it must be true. Hic.” ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Well, gee, jaywalker, I didn't call you a rightwinger.

But hey! Great to see you have no sense of humor whatsoever. I'll remember not to use any in addressing you in the future.

OldEnuf2BYurDad 5 years, 4 months ago

I voted for McCain/Palin, but that nutty chick ain't getting a vote from me in 2012. No way.

rtwngr 5 years, 4 months ago

I keep seeing these posts where the comparison is made between an insurance carrier refusing coverage and the government refusing coverage. As if implying there is no difference. Well there is a difference and a big one at that!

Under the government run healthcare you cannot receive the treatment even if you can afford to pay for it out of pocket. You, as a private citizen, can be fined and the doctor can be penalized. At least with an insurance company there is no reprisal.

Sorry, don't pee down my back and tell me it's raining.

Ralph Reed 5 years, 4 months ago

@rtwngr. Until you can show proof of your assertion at 1108. (see below) "Under the government run healthcare you cannot receive the treatment even if you can afford to pay for it out of pocket. You, as a private citizen, can be fined and the doctor can be penalized. At least with an insurance company there is no reprisal."

I'm really afraid that many people are going to tell you it's raining. Also, I contend the reprisal from the insurance company is you having to pay for healthcare out of pocket.

KS 5 years, 4 months ago

camper - Your 2:26 PM post - You are correct, but it is in how it is done. Personal destruction, in my opinion, shows more about the writer than the person being challenged. Professionalism and maturity seems to be lacking in many of these posts. It is not necessarily what is said, but how it is said..

Richard Heckler 5 years, 4 months ago

Hell an estimated 18,000 people in america die due to lack of access.

Rationing among the industry as we speak is going strong. Palin says dumb things no question about it.

It all depends on how much money one can afford.

C0-payments = rationing

Deductibles = rationing

Denied because of pre-existing condtions? = rationing

The insurance industry loves Medicare and Medicaid. Why? Because then they cannot be forced to cover senior citizens which is the most demanding of the population.

High profits,high salaries and share holders are the primary concern of the our insurance industry BOTH OF WHICH increase the cost medical insurance dramatically.

Richard Heckler 5 years, 4 months ago

This also adds dramatic increases to the cost of insurance:

“Highlighting the frenetic activity the overhaul has spurred in Washington, health interests have reported spending $262 million lobbying in the first six months of 2009, more than any other portion of the economy, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

That was $23 million more than health-related companies and groups spent lobbying during the first half of 2008.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/31/health-bill-inches-forwar_n_248359.html

==============================================================

Blue Dogs Accept record amounts from healthcare industry

At the same time, the group has set a record pace for fundraising this year through its political action committee, surpassing other congressional leadership PACs in collecting more than $1.1 million through June. More than half the money came from the health-care, insurance and financial services industries, marking a notable surge in donations from those sectors compared with earlier years, according to an analysis by the Center for Public Integrity. ad_icon

A look at career contribution patterns also shows that typical Blue Dogs receive significantly more money -- about 25 percent -- from the health-care and insurance sectors than other Democrats, putting them closer to Republicans in attracting industry support.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/30/AR2009073004267.html?hpid=topnews

Richard Heckler 5 years, 4 months ago

2010 insurance increases are looking substantial:

“In front of me I have a document from my employer that shows their cost for insurance.

Medical, Dental and Vision for the year 2010 my employer will pay $15,450. I will pay another $2,860 out of my pay check. $18,310 a year for insurance is ludicrous, and we wonder why so many companies are having massive layoffs. It is a real travesty that nothing is going to happen in the near future on health care.”

WHAT INCREASES THE COST OF MEDICAL INSURANCE? high dollar medical insurance spending on what 2,000 health insurers add to the actual cost of providing care: • its bureaucracy • profits • high corporate salaries • advertising over charges • sales commissions • Shareholders are the primary clients of for-profit insurance companies, not patients! • Special interest campaign dollars Golden parachutes Politicians as shareholders: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/12/AR2009061204075.html

What increases the cost of medical insurance? The medical insurance industry and the majority of legislators( they love corrupt campaign money and dividends from stock).

What increases the cost of Medical Insurance?

Senate Report Finds Insurers Wrongfully Charged Consumers Billions = BIG TIME CORRUPTION http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/24/AR2009062401636.html

Paying More Getting Less - How Much is the sick system costing you? The U.S. health insurance system is typically characterized as a largely private-sector system, so it may come as a surprise that more than 60% of the $2 trillion annual U.S. health insurance bill is paid through taxes which comes to $1.2 trillion. $1.2 trillion is a sweet gravy train for the industry. http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2008/0508harrison.html

Keith 5 years, 4 months ago

"Mr_Nancy_Boy_To_You (Tom Shewmon) says… Great, there goes my Mark Steyn link buried in the mire. "

Right where it belongs.

mickeyrat 5 years, 4 months ago

My favorite recurring noise:

“...you have alot of nerve lecturing us about 'all the hysterics.' You and your crowd were constantly hysterical the last term of W.”

Given that "the hysteria" was about a dim bulb making the rich (Saudis) richer, the poor (Americans) poorer, starting two wars, trashing the constitution, and turning a strong economy/budget surplus into a complete steaming pile, one would have to be delusional to compare that "hysteria" with the "health-care Nazi" nonsense.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.