Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obama's death panels, on the other hand, will deny treatment. They will prescribe a one-size-fits-all course of treatment which medical providers will have to adopt if they want to be paid. As in England they will measure your life expectancy against the cost of a prescribed treatment and if they find that the cost outweighs the benefit too bad for you.
Actually, in the UK you are more likly to recieve a different, cheaper treatment. Mostly equally effective, if less convenient or with more side effects.
Also, people in the UK have greater freedom. They can also get insurance or pay for treatments out of pocket. A lot of Americans go there to escape the bloated US prices on out-of-pocket.
No stats were posted with that-.." Medicaid denies coverage"....
If a child needs a liver transplant, are we to understand that those who hate Obamacare are saying "pay in cash "....if so they need to get in the real world. Interesting no one can defend it, with FACTS to back it up.
Palin coined the 'death panel' based on a provision that made a voluntary consultation with your primary care physician about advance directives/end of life care a reimbursable service under Medicare Part B.
There was never a panel, there were never appointees, there was never a proposal to intervene to deny care in high-cost proceedures. There was only an idiot that said something, hundreds of idiots who blogged about it, and tens of thousands of idiots who believed it.
Palin coined the 'death panel' based on a provision that made a voluntary consultation with your primary care physician about advance directives/end of life care a reimbursable service under Medicare Part B.
There was never a panel, there were never appointees, there was never a proposal to intervene to deny care in high-cost proceedures. There was only an idiot that said something, hundreds of idiots who blogged about it, and tens of thousands of idiots who believed it.
Every state regulates health insurance. If you believe you have been wrongly denied the benefits you paid for, you can take your case to the state regulator. If you would like to sue your insurer in civil court, you may do that as well. If government refuses to cover your treatment, you're just screwed. Their word is final. That is why it's a death panel.
By the time you go to a state regulator and then take a insurance company to court you could well be dead.
Last summer ABC ran a series of documentaries about the health care system. A patient had serious heart problems and needed a heart transplant the insurance company initially REFUSED the transplant. The hospital basically tried to maintain the guys health can continued to try to get the insurance company to approve the guy for a transplant. By the time insurance company finally approve the guy for transplant he other systems in his body had gotten too weak to survive the transplant surgery. The guy ended up dying a couple of weeks later.
It's obvious insurance companies make decisions where profitability take precedence over patient care or best possible health outcomes.
Here is another incident where profitablity trumped pateint care:
A Kentucky physician said she will publicly confess today before a state Assembly committee in Sacramento that she caused a man's death in California by denying him treatment -- and saved her HMO insurance company half a million dollars.
"In the spring of 1987, as a physician, I caused the death of a man," Dr. Linda Peeno says she will tell the state Assembly Health Committee, which is considering a host of reforms intended to control HMOs in California.
Peeno told The Chronicle yesterday that her decision to deny a heart transplant to a patient in a California hospital still haunts her. It was a certain death sentence, she said, but the pressure to deny the claim was overwhelming.
Last edited by JazzyTallGuy; 05-18-2011 at 04:37 PM..
How many times was this addressed during the Obamacare discussions? Twenty or more perhaps? I'll type slowly.
When insurance does not cover a treatment people still have the option to pay out of pocket and select their own physicians and treatment. However, when government dictates what treatments may be given in a "one-size fits all" mandate there are no other options allowed. The government is the final word and they own your life. Pretty simple and obvious difference, IMO.
you RECIEVE a SERVICE..you pay for the SERVICE RENDERED
why do liberals not understand personal responsibility
So. Your 12 year old daughter gets diagnosed with a rare disorder and the medication costs $200,000+ a year. That doesnt count tests, dr visits etc. Do you have that type of money lying around? Or do you simply let your daughter suffer for 'personal responsibility'??
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
