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.
If you think healthcare rationing does not already happen and is not going to happen, you better think again! Rationing is happening now by private insurance companies that do everything they can to keep the ill or potentially ill off their roles and to withhold treatments from people on their plans! And if do not think it is going to happen more and more as the population gets older and older, you are plain damn dumb!
The FACT is that it does not matter whether it is government or private- it is going to be rationed. So the question is not IF it is going to rationed but WHO is going to do the rationing. On this, I say that the government is better suited to do it on the basis of medical criteria and prognosis vs the insurance company whos first interest is in maximizing profits and paying out as little as possible on the ill.
If you take a case- let's say a 38 year old man who needs a kidney or heart transplant which might cost $100,000, who is the better judge? I would say that the government would look at this man and say he is in otherwise good health and the transplant might give him 30 more years of life. On the other hand, the insurance company will look at it and say that this man is going to cost us $100,000 and we do not wish to pay that much for one person no matter his health and they will refuse to pay for it and probably kick the man off their rolls.
Yes, I trust the GOVERNMENT more than I do insurance companies!
of course that is a contradictory position to take since government is pushing health care "reform" because the system is "broken" and they will "save money". our country is in DEBT so we better come up with a system that is less expensive overall or we are in BIG trouble as a country. your analogy maintains that the government will provide more services, requiring yet more money, thereby rendering government care totally inadequate to function in the manner in which it was designed to function.
Here's my intelligent explanation: I'm not worried about it.
Ditto. Plus, we don't really know what any of those amendments say. They may be crap amendments.
Here's one that really slays me:
Rep. Michael Rogers (MI) offered Amendment #1: This amendment prevented the use of comparative effectiveness research from being used to decide whether to offer or withhold coverage or to reduce reimbursements for healthcare providers for offering treatments. Failed 23-35.
Thank goodness it failed! It PREVENTED the use of evidence-based medicine. That's the basis of medicine.
Ditto. Plus, we don't really know what any of those amendments say. They may be crap amendments.
Here's one that really slays me:
Rep. Michael Rogers (MI) offered Amendment #1: This amendment prevented the use of comparative effectiveness research from being used to decide whether to offer or withhold coverage or to reduce reimbursements for healthcare providers for offering treatments. Failed 23-35.
Thank goodness it failed! It PREVENTED the use of evidence-based medicine. That's the basis of medicine.
As long as I can remember the left has been carping about government coming between them and their doctor when abortion was the issue, but now that the issue is withholding treatment some Washington bean counter finds to be ineffective or unwarranted due to advanced age or terminal illness of the patient, all's good.
Or you could tell us how that would be any different than what the insurance companies do now.
No, not insurance companies selling health insurance....they're fee for service. You're referring to HMO's, they're no different....that's called managed care.....that's how they reduce costs.
I just don't like seeing seniors in chartered buses going to Mexico for cheaper medications. I don't like that so many people have absolutely no health care available to them.
That's immoral and unchristlike as far as I'm concerned.
As long as I can remember the left has been carping about government coming between them and their doctor when abortion was the issue, but now that the issue is withholding treatment some Washington bean counter finds to be ineffective or unwarranted due to advanced age or terminal illness of the patient, all's good.
Since this debate started the repugs have erroneously claimed(lied) that the government will make health care decisions, come between doctor and patient.
For as long as I can remember the Repugs WANTED the government to come between the doctor and the FEMALE patient and outlaw abortion.
Anti-Rationing Amendments Fail in House and Senate
Rep. Phil Gingrey Amendment #14A: Dr. Gingrey’s amendment ensured that healthcare providers made healthcare decisions without government intrusion. Failed 24-33
Senator Enzi Amendment #273: This amendmentprohibited the Secretary of HHS from limiting doctor’s ability to choose treatments for patients to prevent death, or restore or preserve their health. Failed 13-10
Senator Enzi Amendment #7: This prevented the Healthcare Center from developing healthcare rationing methods.Failed 13-10
If this is true, and if government control and healthcare rationing were not one of the primary objectives of Obama's and the Dem's healthcare plan, why did these amendments fail?
After hearing Obama and several other key Dems say the strategy is to start with healthcare 'choice' so people can keep their employer/private healthcare plans in the beginning so that the government doesn't scare anyone, and then progress to single payer UHC, and seeing these failed amendments - why would anyone want to submit themselves to that? Why would anyone believe that the government will always make better healthcare decisions for them than they and their doctors would? Why would anyone give the government control over whether they get a lifesaving treatment or not - in essence, determine whether or not you were 'worthy' of having your life saved?
Watch the entirety of both video to hear Obama's and the Dem's intentions in their own words:
If this is true, and if government control and healthcare rationing were not one of the primary objectives of Obama's and the Dem's healthcare plan, why did these amendments fail?
We don't have the full text of these amendments. These little snippets don't tell us anything.
Insurance companies don't ration care. If they did then they would be out of business and the management would be in jail. Insurance companies don't ration care. If they did then they would be out of business and the management would be in jail.
Is this a joke?!?!?!? I know firsthand people who have been murdered by the insurance companies making people compete for their basic survival. Just watch the movie "Sicko" for some other examples of insurance industry death panels and rationing care.
I'm not saying the public option is necessarily the best (CNN had an interesting article this morning on Romney's Massachusetts health care reform that seems to work), but to defend the status quo is to defend a truly barbaric society.
I still hold out hope that someday we will become a truly pro-life society and provide universal health care for all.
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.
Insurance companies don't ration care. If they did then they would be out of business and the management would be in jail. 
