Obama Speech on Health Care, 9/9/09

[NorthSideSox72]

The end of life counselling sessions are just that, as you say. but there will still be a panel of bureaucrats somewhere deciding just what kind of care and how much of it you get. And if they deny you something that could have saved your life, you have a defacto death panel. Again, you are not focusing on the overall picture, and her true meaning and intent. Must be that R in her party affiliation that prevents that.

LOL at the bolded. I've lined out my ideas for overhaul in this very forum, and it is a lot closer to the right than the left.

 

Back to the topic, counseling does not mean dictating. If it did, why have the sessions? Its a chance for them to explore their options. To me, that is an improvement over the insurance companies deciding for you, as they do now in cooperation with your Doctor - would you not agree?

[StrangeSox]

The end of life counselling sessions are just that, as you say. but there will still be a panel of bureaucrats somewhere deciding just what kind of care and how much of it you get. And if they deny you something that could have saved your life, you have a defacto death panel. Again, you are not focusing on the overall picture, and her true meaning and intent. Must be that R in her party affiliation that prevents that.

 

No, that wasn't her true meaning and intent. Read the actual comment. She was ranting and raving about death panels killing her DS baby, not paying doctors for end of life counseling, which is what the clause everyone got so worked up about actually does.

 

Also, you already have "death panels" in private insurance, if you're going with that loose of a definition.

Edited September 10, 2009 by StrangeSox

[DukeNukeEm]

States can't determine regulations for themselves that way.

 

But yeah, the republican response was pretty bad. They really did a poor job of anticipating what he was going to say.

 

Also, humorously, Karl Rove's editorial about the speech was posted before the speech finished.

It's sad that this is what we've come to.

[CanOfCorn]

Are you saying you don't like the idea of companies being able to go across state lines? Not sure what anyone's beef with that could be. At the very least it helps improve competition, and therefore, should lower costs. it also allows for better coverage for people who travel or who move for their jobs, or work remotely.

 

It should lower costs, yes. But the people you describe isn't a large group. And, overall, people will go with who is close. I can't imagine a huge number of people in Illinois checking with companies in Mississippi, Idaho, Vermont, etc. It's just too much for one person to research. So, at the end of the day, they will probably go to who's closest.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm alive!

 

I think the concern is that there are not enough checks in the bill to stop illegals from accessing healthcare. They won't have it officially, but will easily gain access.

That is enforcement, which is a different discussion. Congress cannot ENFORCE laws directly, they rely on agencies to do that for them. Once law is written, if people are breaking it or not following it, then enforcement action should be taken.

 

This argument could literally be applied to any law on the books. Most of them do not go into detail on exactly how to enforce it - they might state specific penalties, but that is usually it. This whole argument is ridiculous, not because the fear is invalid (its very valid), but because its ire aimed at the wrong place.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

It should lower costs, yes. But the people you describe isn't a large group. And, overall, people will go with who is close. I can't imagine a huge number of people in Illinois checking with companies in Mississippi, Idaho, Vermont, etc. It's just too much for one person to research. So, at the end of the day, they will probably go to who's closest.

Which is fine - how does allowing them to go elsewhere do anything negative? It only adds positives.

 

[StrangeSox]

Someone might get around this regulation/ law, so we shouldn't pass this regulation/ law!

[CanOfCorn]

Which is fine - how does allowing them to go elsewhere do anything negative? It only adds positives.

 

Because ultimately, I don't think enough people are going to do the research to make it effective, so, to me, it'll do nothing.

[StrangeSox]

Which is fine - how does allowing them to go elsewhere do anything negative? It only adds positives.

 

It allows plans meeting lower standards in other states to undermine the higher-standard plans that meet state regulations. That's the only thing I can think of, but I don't have a problem with it.

 

I'm sort of surprised to see states-rights libertarians and republicans advocating removing individual states' powers to regulate.

[CanOfCorn]

Someone will get around this regulation/ law, so we shouldn't pass this regulation/ law!

 

Fixed and applied to all regulations/laws.

 

 

[mreye]

That is enforcement, which is a different discussion. Congress cannot ENFORCE laws directly, they rely on agencies to do that for them. Once law is written, if people are breaking it or not following it, then enforcement action should be taken.

 

This argument could literally be applied to any law on the books. Most of them do not go into detail on exactly how to enforce it - they might state specific penalties, but that is usually it. This whole argument is ridiculous, not because the fear is invalid (its very valid), but because its ire aimed at the wrong place.

 

I understand. I'm just pointing out the concern, and it's a legitimate concern. It's illegal to hop the fence at the border, but they're still getting through - enforcement is the answer. So, we have to create a new agency - woohoo! :/rolleyes

 

[EvilMonkey]

LOL at the bolded. I've lined out my ideas for overhaul in this very forum, and it is a lot closer to the right than the left.

 

Back to the topic, counseling does not mean dictating. If it did, why have the sessions? Its a chance for them to explore their options. To me, that is an improvement over the insurance companies deciding for you, as they do now in cooperation with your Doctor - would you not agree?

QUIT FOCUSING ON JUST THE COUNCELING. In case you missed it twice, I also said "but there will still be a panel of bureaucrats somewhere deciding just what kind of care and how much of it you get. And if they deny you something that could have saved your life, you have a defacto death panel". No matter how you want to try and spin it, there will be a groupof people somewhere in this system looking at all the healthcare you get, and deciding if you should still get it. There will be limits on the amount of drugs you can get because they cost too damn much, or you are too damn old. And while you can say "but it isn't in the bill" you also can't say there are any mechanisms to prevent it. Once the system becomes overburdened, rationing will occur, decisions will be made, and lives will be effected. At least in hr3200, there are sections that give the health czar and insurance commissioner very wide latitude as to what they can impose,without having to go thru congress and make actual laws for people to vote on. Too much room for potential abuse, regrdless of who is there.

[StrangeSox]

In case you missed it twice, I also said "but there will still be a panel of bureaucrats somewhere deciding just what kind of care and how much of it you get. And if they deny you something that could have saved your life, you have a defacto death panel". No matter how you want to try and spin it, there is a group of people somewhere in this system looking at all the healthcare you get, and deciding if you should still get it. There are limits on the amount of drugs you can get because they cost too damn much, or you are too damn old. Because the system has more demand than supply, rationing occurs, decisions are made, and lives are effected.

 

Hey, you just described private health insurance!

[BigSqwert]

Hey, you just described private health insurance!

[EvilMonkey]

Hey, you just described private health insurance!

With insurance you have upfront caps and restrictions, you know what you are getting and not getting from the start. With the powers granted the insurance czar and commissioner, they can change on a whim.

[StrangeSox]

With insurance you have upfront caps and restrictions, you know what you are getting and not getting from the start. With the powers granted the insurance czar and commissioner, they can change on a whim.

 

Sure you do. They never arbitrarily cancel your policy or deny claims. Private health insurance is a shining beacon of free-market capitalism.

 

The point that you're missing is that if the government regulations had very well-defined limits, caps and restrictions, you'd be b****ing even more about "DEATH PANELS ZOMG!"

Edited September 10, 2009 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

Sure you do. They never arbitrarily cancel your policy or deny claims. Private health insurance is a shining beacon of free-market capitalism.

 

The point that you're missing is that if the government regulations had very well-defined limits, caps and restrictions, you'd be b****ing even more about "DEATH PANELS ZOMG!"

 

Over half of social security claims are denied up front. Most of the appeals files in these cases do end up winning. In other words deserving people are denied social security every single day. You can have all of the "defined limits" you want, it is still going to be the federal government running things at the end of the day.

[EvilMonkey]

Ap's take on Obama's speech. They actually dare to say somethign sort of bad against dear leader.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090910/ap_on_...care_fact_check

 

Sorry.

Edited September 10, 2009 by Alpha Dog

[StrangeSox]

That's a link to a conservative blog full of OUTRAGE. Where's the AP story?

[BigSqwert]

Ap's take on Obama's speech. They actually dare to say somethign sort of bad against dear leader.

 

http://rpc.blogrolling.com/redirect.php?r=...blogspot.com%2F

What's the point of posting a biased blog entry commenting on the speech? For every one of those there's another blog claiming it was an amazing speech.

[EvilMonkey]

What's the point of posting a biased blog entry commenting on the speech? For every one of those there's another blog claiming it was an amazing speech.

Chill dude, I got the AP link from that site, it copied it as a redirect. I fixed it.

[Balta1701]

It allows plans meeting lower standards in other states to undermine the higher-standard plans that meet state regulations. That's the only thing I can think of, but I don't have a problem with it.

 

I'm sort of surprised to see states-rights libertarians and republicans advocating removing individual states' powers to regulate.

Here's how it breaks the system, and I think it's fairly easy to understand.

 

Put yourself in the position of an insurance company. If your job is to turn a profit for yourself and your shareholders, you are going to look to maximize profits at minimal expenditures.

 

Now, 50 different states are suddenly places where you can set up your main market. Which state are you going to go to? You're immediately going to go to the one where you can make the most money. We've seen beautiful examples of this in the past; think about why your credit cards all come from either North Dakota or Delaware. The companies will rush to the place where the state's regulations allow them to cover the least while earning the most. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of shareholders.

 

Now, put yourself in the position of a state. Do you want a large insurance company running itself out of your state? Of course you do. If their main offices are in your state, that's a fortune in tax revenue and additional jobs. Thus, it's to your benefit to try to set up a system that provides the biggest benefit to the insurers.

 

You literally set up a race to the bottom. Any state that has any sort of minimum requirements for what insurance may cover or mandates that specific things are covered is disadvantaged. It's a huge, huge, huge win for the insurers. It's the credit card industry all over again; the credit card industry is a disaster for consumers; you're hit with enormous fees, usurious interest rates, so many offers you have no idea how to make sense of what is a good one and what is a bad one, and a totally unaccountable industry with enormous control over your life.

 

Pretty much every insurance policy would get downgraded to a joke really fast in that case as states try to one-up each other by covering less so that the insurer will run itself out of that state. You could get that to work, maybe, if you mandated minimum national requirements for coverage instead, but then that ruins the whole game that the insurers are trying to set up.

[NorthSideSox72]

QUIT FOCUSING ON JUST THE COUNCELING. In case you missed it twice, I also said "but there will still be a panel of bureaucrats somewhere deciding just what kind of care and how much of it you get. And if they deny you something that could have saved your life, you have a defacto death panel". No matter how you want to try and spin it, there will be a groupof people somewhere in this system looking at all the healthcare you get, and deciding if you should still get it. There will be limits on the amount of drugs you can get because they cost too damn much, or you are too damn old. And while you can say "but it isn't in the bill" you also can't say there are any mechanisms to prevent it. Once the system becomes overburdened, rationing will occur, decisions will be made, and lives will be effected. At least in hr3200, there are sections that give the health czar and insurance commissioner very wide latitude as to what they can impose,without having to go thru congress and make actual laws for people to vote on. Too much room for potential abuse, regrdless of who is there.

I was focusing on it because that is what it is. This phantom OTHER panel you talk about isn't mentioned anywhere I have seen in any bill.

 

Also, as stated by others, insurance companies already do make triage-like decisions on care for the deathly ill. And as far as I can see, that isn't changing in any way.

 

[Balta1701]

I'm alive!

 

I think the concern is that there are not enough checks in the bill to stop illegals from accessing healthcare. They won't have it officially, but will easily gain access.

I covered this a few pages ago also, but here's another summary.

 

The bill specifically says that illegal immigrants are excluded from that program. But...at some point, we're going to have a comprehensive immigration solution created, and that solution is not going to involve sending them all back home, whether the anti-immigrant forces like it or not. There is going to be some mechanism to bring them in to the country and put them on a path to citizenship, because otherwise it's indentured servitude.

 

Thus, at some point, they are going to be eligible for any program that is set up. If you try to deliberately exclude them, then there's a catch-22 because suddenly you've given a huge advantage to an employer to hire a former illegal immigrant compared to a naturalized worker, because if you can hire a former immigrant, you don't have to pay the fines if you don't provide them health care. You can't keep them illegal forever, but you also can't exclude them from the system once you find a way to legalize them. Either method hurts the American worker.

[Balta1701]

Also, as stated by others, insurance companies already do make triage-like decisions on care for the deathly ill. And as far as I can see, that isn't changing in any way.

If you get rid of the lifetime coverage caps by law, then that is a huge change. Ditto if you automatically cover everyone and remove the "Recission" procedure