FACT CHECK: No 'death panel' in health care bill

[Immanuel]

Have you really thought through the repercussions if that started occurring? There would be wrongful death lawsuits up the wazoo against the US Government [Mr. & Mrs. Taxpayer, remember]. OF COURSE that isn't going to happen. Geezus.

Really? And just how far do you think such a suit would get before it was thrown out of court?

The clerk's desk? Think it would make it that far?

Immie

 

[jvn]

Did you ever notice that when Republicans read the health care bills, they are always into interpretation?

They read about a panel to study comparative effectiveness and say, "that means death panels..."

They read that private insurers are supposed to continue to exist, but say "clearly though, it is mandated that they will cease to exist..."

But, of course, there are some who ideologically believe that the "marketplace" should determine who gets to have health care and who does not. They believe that private insurance companies - with their rosters of doctors who decide what care people receive - should decide who lives or dies, who is bankrupted or not.

Tell me how the CEO of an insurance carrier who needs to justify his $100 million per year cares more about your health than a government oversight regulator?

Seems to me that health insurance companies are in business to KEEP the money they have received in premiums as opposed to paying it out for services.

 

[MaggieMae]

I noticed that too and thank you for taking the time to prepare that post.

Immie

maybe you could help me with this then because she took off after I asked her to verify this statement - "This is not FactCheck.Org, it is the Associated Press which is allied with administration thinking."

Contrary to your " then because she took off after I asked her to verify this statement - "This is not FactCheck.Org, it is the Associated Press which is allied with administration thinking." I actually have a life beyond providing you with an education.

Fair warning: I never post anything that I cannot back up.

"Never accuse the Associated Press of being hidebound by journalistic tradition. In a sharp break with past practice, the once-venerable news service is providing its 1,500 member papers with ready-to-run stories produced by "independentÓ reporters and editors.

Earlier this month, the 163-year-old news cooperative announced it would distribute "watchdog and investigative journalismÓ penned not by its own staff or that of member papers, but by four outside groups: the Center for Investigative Reporting in Barkeley, Calif.; New York-based ProPublica; and two D.C. outfits, the Center for Public Integrity (CPI) and the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University.

AP, itself a not-for-profit enterprise, identified the four organizations as "civic-mindedÓ nonprofits. They also all have decidedly liberal sponsors. A cursory glance at the "independentÓ news shops reveals their reliance on left-tilting patrons such as the Knight Foundation and leftist donors such as financier Herbert Sandler and currency speculator George Soros."
Ken McIntyre: Associated Press outsourcing to Leftist nonprofits is a bad idea | OpEd Contributor | Washington Examiner

" But providing such information would get in the way of the AP's reason for running that sentence: To tell readers conservatives are people who revile a public figure who is moderate and practical concerning controversial issues.

If you doubt that, read the sentence again:
Conservatives revile O'Connor for staking out moderate and practical positions on controversial issues.
It reads like a cut-and-paste from a Moveon.org attack ad. It does nothing but tell people what the AP wants them to believe about conservatives.

The AP could have told readers of conservatives' recent praise for O'Connor's dissent in Kelo and for much else. But that, as the pols say, "gets off message."

So the liberal journalists at the AP campaigned their way."
John In Carolina: Associated Press liberal bias - 11/1/05

AP Admits Obamacare Will Fund Abortions
Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion

This Associated Press headline is a reversal from just a few days ago, when AP falsely reported in a "fact check," that:

"The proposed bills would not undo the Hyde Amendment, which bars paying for abortions through Medicaid... Obama recently told CBS that the nation should continue a tradition of "not financing abortions as part of government-funded health care." The House Energy and Commerce Committee amended the House bill Thursday to state that health insurance plans have the option of covering abortion, but no public money can be used to fund abortions."

AP finally admitted the facts in yesterday's report, which conflict with their earlier report:

"Health care legislation before Congress would allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions, a decision that would affect millions of women and recast federal policy on the divisive issue."

The Capp amendment "would allow the public plan to cover abortion" with "dollars from beneficiary premiums. Likewise, private plans in the new insurance exchange could opt to cover abortion."
Full Iran Coverage! AP Check Of Liberal Bias In Associated Press

"In the final poll of a series measuring perceptions of media bias, the Associated Press, local television stations, MSNBC, and CNBC are all perceived as tilting to the left when reporting the news. "
Associated Press, MSNBC and CNBC Seen as Having Liberal Bias - Rasmussen Reports™


And, should you have the class to do so, I will consider accepting your apology.

Are you 'her' alter? So AP has an investigative reporting division and they call it Factcheck. So? Is that against the law or something? Does the fact that only one team on their entire staff does investigative reporting thereby negate everything else they report on? Only if you go cherry picking.

 

[Immanuel]

in you opinion? how does this or anthing Wonder Girl has comeup with directly contradict the facts that were laid out in the story?

Those so called "facts" are unsubstantiated. If you even read the article, then you will see that the first two questions dealing with whether or not there is such a panel are not even sourced. In who's opinion are these answers?

Q: Does the health care legislation bill promote "mercy killing," or euthanasia?

A: No.

Q: Then what's all the fuss about?

A: A provision in the House bill written by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., would allow Medicare to pay doctors for voluntary counseling sessions that address end-of-life issues. The conversations between doctor and patient would include living wills, making a close relative or a trusted friend your health care proxy, learning about hospice as an option for the terminally ill, and information about pain medications for people suffering chronic discomfort.

Notice farther down they do provide three sources for the information, but the early answers are not even sourced. Who gave those answers? How can we trust them? Congress hasn't read the bill, how do we know that there isn't something in there setting up such a panel?

Personally, I do not believe there is such language in the bill, but the language need not be there for it to happen. Congress is damned good at redefining the meaning of language after they have pushed it through.

Do I believe there will be government bean counters determining what services you get? Yeah, I believe that is a damned good possibility. Is the language in the bill? No.

Can I substantiate any of that? No, but neither can you substantiate that it is false. We won't know until our so called leaders have pushed this through and by then, it will be too late to do anything about it. That is what bothers me.

Immie

 

[jvn]

Not surprising... the liberals in this thread just blew past this informative, factual post like a runaway train full of insults.

Okay, this is just downright absurd. A COST STUDY with the sole purpose of REDUCING FUCKING HEALTH CARE COSTS ALREADY PAID FOR BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, and Republicans suddenly have a problem with that? No--not absurd, it's pure partisan horseshit. If the tables were turned and it was REPUBLICANS who devised this cost saving panel and DEMOCRATS opposed it, the goddamned cons would be yelping like little piggies.

Demonstrably absurd.

Only a liberal would conflate cost cutting for healthcare by reducing services to the ill and the elderly.

If cost cutting is the aim, tort reform would be the first step. And the reason that tort reform is not in the bill? Democrat pocket-lining by lawyers.

Should you actually be interested in cost cutting, consider the following:

1. Tort Reform:
While malpractice litigation accounts for only about 0.6 percent of U.S. health care costs, the fear of being sued causes U.S. doctors to order more tests than their Canadian counterparts. So-called defensive medicine increases health care costs by up to 9 percent, Medicare's administrator told Congress in 2005. "
Canada keeps malpractice cost in check - St. Petersburg Times

Now, compare those with these:
"Also, it’s worth noting that while these figures sound like a lot of money — and few would dispute the fact that health insurance company CEOs make healthy salaries — these numbers represent a very small fraction of total health care spending in the U.S. In 2007, national health care expenditures totaled $2.2 trillion. Health insurance profits of nearly $13 billion make up 0.6 percent of that. CEO compensation is a mere 0.005 percent of total spending."
FactCheck.org: Pushing for a Public Plan

The conclusion is that the cost of malpractice suits is equal to the profit of the entire industry.

This may be significant of and by itself, but when we look at the costs of defensive medicine, it alone adds to the costs of healthcare by a factor 15!!!
Once providers don’t have to watch over their shoulders for the lawyers, we should move toward coordinated care networks that take responsibility for their members' medical needs in return for fixed annual payments (called "capitation"). One approach is through vouchers; Medicare recipients would receive a fixed amount and shop for networks with the lowest cost and highest quality.


2. Reform of Insurance Policy Mandates:

Scrap all city, state, federal mandates for healthcare insurance policies. When a statute says policies must “cover mammograms of everyone 35 and over,’ how is this fair for a construction company with all male employees? What about ‘Podiatry,’ or ‘sexual reorientation surgery/? Allow insurance companies to write policies covering exactly what the consumer asks for:
Take two very different states: Wisconsin and New York. In Wisconsin, a family can buy a health-insurance plan for as little as $3,000 a year. The price for a basic family plan in the Empire State: $12,000. The stark difference has nothing to do with each state’s health sector as a share of its economy (14.8 percent in Wisconsin as of 2004, the most recent year for which data are available, and 13.9 percent in New York). Rather, the difference has to do with how each state’s insurance pools are regulated. In New York State, politicians have tried to run the health-insurance system from Albany, forcing insurers to deliver complex Cadillac plans to every subscriber for political reasons, driving up costs. Wisconsin’s insurers are far freer to sell plans at prices consumers want.
The gulf in insurance-premium prices among American states is a sign that too much government intervention—not too little—is what’s distorting prices from one market to the next. The key to reducing health-care costs for patients, then, is to promote competition, not to dictate insurance requirements from on high. Unfortunately, a government-run insurance plan is the core of ObamaCare.
Bigger Is Healthier by David Gratzer, City Journal 22 July 2009
a. NJ has some 68-69 mandates including in vitro fertilization, which adds some 2-2.5% to the cost of the policy

3.. Doctors currently have no ability to re-price or re-package their services that way every other professional does. Medicare dictates what it pays for and what it won’t pay for, and the final price. Because of this there are no telephone consultations paid for, and the same for e-mails, normal in every other profession.
Most doctors don’t digitize records, thus they cannot use software that allows electronic prescription, and make it easier to detect drug interactions or dosage mistakes. Again, Medicare doesn’t pay for it.

4. Another free market idea aimed at better quality is have warranties for surgery as we do for cars. 17% of Medicare patients who enter a hospital re-enter within 30 days because of a problem connected to the original surgery. The result is that a hospital makes money on its mistakes!

5. Walk-in clinics are growing around the country, where a registered nurse sits at a computer, the patient describes symptoms, the nurse types it in and follows a computerized protocol, the nurse can prescribe electronically, and the patient sees the price in advance

6. To reduce healthcare costs, increase the number of doctors. Obama care would do the opposite. Both tax incentives and support of the tuition of medical school.

7. Identify the 8-10 million who need and are unable to get healthcare, including those with pre-existing conditions,and provide debit cards as is done for food stamps:

"Food debit cards help 27 million people buy food, similar to the number who need help buying health coverage. In all fifty states, debit card technology has transformed the federal food stamp program, which used to be notorious for fraud and abuse. (Only 2 percent of card users are found to be ineligible, according to the General Accounting Office.) Cards are loaded with a specific dollar amount monthly, depending on family size and income, and allow cardholders to shop anywhere. The same strategy could be adapted to provide purchasing power to families who need help buying high-deductible health coverage. It's what all Americans used to buy (see chart 5), and it's all that's needed for families with moderate incomes, who can afford a routine doctor visit. "
Downgrading Health Care

8. Current law provides unlimited tax relief for coverage obtained through an employer but no comparable relief for those who purchase coverage outside their places of work. S. 334 would replace the current tax preference for employer-based health coverage with a new individual-based system. The bill would end the tax exclusion in the personal income tax for employer-based health insurance benefits and instead use a combination of subsidies and tax deductions for health insurance. Ideally, the current employer-based tax structure should be replaced with a fair and equitable universal tax credit. An across-the-board, fixed-dollar health care tax credit, for example, would offer every American federal tax relief for health care.(Wyden-Bennett Bill)

And which of the above are 'partisan'?

Some decent proposals there. Why didn't the GOP implement them when they controlled the House, Senate and the White House?

Could it be because they really DON'T want ANY reform of the system the way it is, especially given all the money the insurance carriers give them for their campaigns?

The point is that they could have and should have proposed these things, and they could still.

But the political pendulum has swung towards the left, and there is no logical reason that the US should not join every other nation in the world and have universal coverage.

That's the way it works, you win elections, you get to pass legislation.

The GOP wants to just say "no" rather than working to pass bi-partisan legislation? Oh well...

 

[Annie]

I listened to what Obama said, while he'd not call them 'death panels' he agrees as does all countries with government provided insurance that people that are not 'healthy' shouldn't be prolonging their lives, regardless of quality. It's not 'personal' but for the 'good of the most', meaning socialism.

 

[Jay Canuck]

 

[jvn]

Notice farther down they do provide three sources for the information, but the early answers are not even sourced. Who gave those answers? How can we trust them? Congress hasn't read the bill, how do we know that there isn't something in there setting up such a panel?

Personally, I do not believe there is such language in the bill, but the language need not be there for it to happen. Congress is damned good at redefining the meaning of language after they have pushed it through.

Do I believe there will be government bean counters determining what services you get? Yeah, I believe that is a damned good possibility. Is the language in the bill? No.

Can I substantiate any of that? No, but neither can you substantiate that it is false. We won't know until our so called leaders have pushed this through and by then, it will be too late to do anything about it. That is what bothers me.

Immie

Highlights are mine.

Democrats have to substantiate that things not in the bill won't happen?

Isn't that just a little absurd?

A requirement that everyone pay 50% more in taxes isn't in the bill either - do you think it shoud be voted down because that COULD happen?

Really?

 

[MaggieMae]

Not surprising... the liberals in this thread just blew past this informative, factual post like a runaway train full of insults.

Okay, this is just downright absurd. A COST STUDY with the sole purpose of REDUCING FUCKING HEALTH CARE COSTS ALREADY PAID FOR BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, and Republicans suddenly have a problem with that? No--not absurd, it's pure partisan horseshit. If the tables were turned and it was REPUBLICANS who devised this cost saving panel and DEMOCRATS opposed it, the goddamned cons would be yelping like little piggies.

Demonstrably absurd.

Only a liberal would conflate cost cutting for healthcare by reducing services to the ill and the elderly.

If cost cutting is the aim, tort reform would be the first step. And the reason that tort reform is not in the bill? Democrat pocket-lining by lawyers.

Should you actually be interested in cost cutting, consider the following:

1. Tort Reform:
While malpractice litigation accounts for only about 0.6 percent of U.S. health care costs, the fear of being sued causes U.S. doctors to order more tests than their Canadian counterparts. So-called defensive medicine increases health care costs by up to 9 percent, Medicare's administrator told Congress in 2005. "
Canada keeps malpractice cost in check - St. Petersburg Times

Now, compare those with these:
"Also, it’s worth noting that while these figures sound like a lot of money — and few would dispute the fact that health insurance company CEOs make healthy salaries — these numbers represent a very small fraction of total health care spending in the U.S. In 2007, national health care expenditures totaled $2.2 trillion. Health insurance profits of nearly $13 billion make up 0.6 percent of that. CEO compensation is a mere 0.005 percent of total spending."
FactCheck.org: Pushing for a Public Plan

The conclusion is that the cost of malpractice suits is equal to the profit of the entire industry.

This may be significant of and by itself, but when we look at the costs of defensive medicine, it alone adds to the costs of healthcare by a factor 15!!!
Once providers don’t have to watch over their shoulders for the lawyers, we should move toward coordinated care networks that take responsibility for their members' medical needs in return for fixed annual payments (called "capitation"). One approach is through vouchers; Medicare recipients would receive a fixed amount and shop for networks with the lowest cost and highest quality.


2. Reform of Insurance Policy Mandates:

Scrap all city, state, federal mandates for healthcare insurance policies. When a statute says policies must “cover mammograms of everyone 35 and over,’ how is this fair for a construction company with all male employees? What about ‘Podiatry,’ or ‘sexual reorientation surgery/? Allow insurance companies to write policies covering exactly what the consumer asks for:
Take two very different states: Wisconsin and New York. In Wisconsin, a family can buy a health-insurance plan for as little as $3,000 a year. The price for a basic family plan in the Empire State: $12,000. The stark difference has nothing to do with each state’s health sector as a share of its economy (14.8 percent in Wisconsin as of 2004, the most recent year for which data are available, and 13.9 percent in New York). Rather, the difference has to do with how each state’s insurance pools are regulated. In New York State, politicians have tried to run the health-insurance system from Albany, forcing insurers to deliver complex Cadillac plans to every subscriber for political reasons, driving up costs. Wisconsin’s insurers are far freer to sell plans at prices consumers want.
The gulf in insurance-premium prices among American states is a sign that too much government intervention—not too little—is what’s distorting prices from one market to the next. The key to reducing health-care costs for patients, then, is to promote competition, not to dictate insurance requirements from on high. Unfortunately, a government-run insurance plan is the core of ObamaCare.
Bigger Is Healthier by David Gratzer, City Journal 22 July 2009
a. NJ has some 68-69 mandates including in vitro fertilization, which adds some 2-2.5% to the cost of the policy

3.. Doctors currently have no ability to re-price or re-package their services that way every other professional does. Medicare dictates what it pays for and what it won’t pay for, and the final price. Because of this there are no telephone consultations paid for, and the same for e-mails, normal in every other profession.
Most doctors don’t digitize records, thus they cannot use software that allows electronic prescription, and make it easier to detect drug interactions or dosage mistakes. Again, Medicare doesn’t pay for it.

4. Another free market idea aimed at better quality is have warranties for surgery as we do for cars. 17% of Medicare patients who enter a hospital re-enter within 30 days because of a problem connected to the original surgery. The result is that a hospital makes money on its mistakes!

5. Walk-in clinics are growing around the country, where a registered nurse sits at a computer, the patient describes symptoms, the nurse types it in and follows a computerized protocol, the nurse can prescribe electronically, and the patient sees the price in advance

6. To reduce healthcare costs, increase the number of doctors. Obama care would do the opposite. Both tax incentives and support of the tuition of medical school.

7. Identify the 8-10 million who need and are unable to get healthcare, including those with pre-existing conditions,and provide debit cards as is done for food stamps:

"Food debit cards help 27 million people buy food, similar to the number who need help buying health coverage. In all fifty states, debit card technology has transformed the federal food stamp program, which used to be notorious for fraud and abuse. (Only 2 percent of card users are found to be ineligible, according to the General Accounting Office.) Cards are loaded with a specific dollar amount monthly, depending on family size and income, and allow cardholders to shop anywhere. The same strategy could be adapted to provide purchasing power to families who need help buying high-deductible health coverage. It's what all Americans used to buy (see chart 5), and it's all that's needed for families with moderate incomes, who can afford a routine doctor visit. "
Downgrading Health Care

8. Current law provides unlimited tax relief for coverage obtained through an employer but no comparable relief for those who purchase coverage outside their places of work. S. 334 would replace the current tax preference for employer-based health coverage with a new individual-based system. The bill would end the tax exclusion in the personal income tax for employer-based health insurance benefits and instead use a combination of subsidies and tax deductions for health insurance. Ideally, the current employer-based tax structure should be replaced with a fair and equitable universal tax credit. An across-the-board, fixed-dollar health care tax credit, for example, would offer every American federal tax relief for health care.(Wyden-Bennett Bill)

And which of the above are 'partisan'?

Oh good God, would you PLEASE put your thousand-fold points in separate postings or better yet, separate threads? I'm sticking to the issue at hand, if you don't mind, which is alleged reduction of health care options for the elderly. Apparently, as usual, the politically charged just-say-no conservatives twisted and embellished THIS proposed amendment. Ironically, this is an excerpt from the real, Honest-to-God FactCheck.org (emphasis added is mine):

As for the argument claiming that this is the first step on a slippery slope leading to government-encouraged euthanasia, that’s a stretch. The right to draw up an advance directive is federally guaranteed, but doctor-assisted suicide is legal in only three states. It would take a lot more than Medicare-funded counseling for voluntary euthanasia to become a standard government recommendation.

The original author of this part of the legislation responded to Boehner’s and McCotter’s statement on the House floor, saying that "nothing could be further from the truth." The section under question was based on a stand-alone piece of legislation sponsored by Democratic Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Republican Rep. Charles Boustany of Louisiana. Three more Democrats and another Republican cosponsored the legislation. On July 24, Blumenauer expressed his "disappointment" in Boehner’s misinterpretation of the bipartisan bill:

Rep. Blumenauer, July 24: In a statement from the minority leader … there is an allegation that somehow there is legislation in the health care draft that may place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign that may start us down a "treacherous path towards government-encouraged euthanasia if enacted into law."

Well, Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. Had the minority leader, and his whip, and the conference Chair bothered to check how that legislation came to be enacted into our health care legislation, they would have found out that it was work of a bipartisan group of Ways and Means Committee members. There were Republicans cosponsoring it along with Democrats. …

We’re seeking … to be able to adjust Medicare so that it speaks to the needs of American seniors and their families, that they’re given the attention they need to prepare for this difficult period of time. There’s nothing in this legislation that would force people to have consultations. There’s nothing that would force them to sign advance directives. It’s not going to choose a health care professional by the government and force it on them. …

Mr. Speaker, I can’t tell you how disappointed I was to see this type of reaction to a carefully crafted piece of legislation that we’ve been working on for more than 6 months that is bipartisan and that speaks to the needs of American families.

Blumenauer also discussed the importance of advance planning on life-extension treatment. "[T]oo often senior citizens and their families are not given the information they need to be able to cope with the most serious situation any of us will ever face as we have a loved one move into the end of his or her life," he said. "We had … Republican committee members talk about how their loved ones didn’t get that type of help at the end of life and actually were subjected to things that they thought were not in the best interests of their loved one. If they had a choice, they wouldn’t have done it over again, and it didn’t prolong their life, it actually made them less comfortable."

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

FACT CHECK: No 'death panel' in health care bill
AP – Tue Aug 11, 3:04 am ET
...Sarah Palin says the health care overhaul bill would set up a "death panel." Federal bureaucrats would play God, ruling on whether ailing seniors are worth enough to society to deserve life-sustaining medical care. Palin and other critics are wrong.​

FACT CHECK

ACTUAL TEXT http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-of-life-council-euthenasia-talk-origins.html

 

[MaggieMae]

Not surprising... the liberals in this thread just blew past this informative, factual post like a runaway train full of insults.

Okay, this is just downright absurd. A COST STUDY with the sole purpose of REDUCING FUCKING HEALTH CARE COSTS ALREADY PAID FOR BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, and Republicans suddenly have a problem with that? No--not absurd, it's pure partisan horseshit. If the tables were turned and it was REPUBLICANS who devised this cost saving panel and DEMOCRATS opposed it, the goddamned cons would be yelping like little piggies.

Demonstrably absurd.

Only a liberal would conflate cost cutting for healthcare by reducing services to the ill and the elderly.

If cost cutting is the aim, tort reform would be the first step. And the reason that tort reform is not in the bill? Democrat pocket-lining by lawyers.

Should you actually be interested in cost cutting, consider the following:

1. Tort Reform:
While malpractice litigation accounts for only about 0.6 percent of U.S. health care costs, the fear of being sued causes U.S. doctors to order more tests than their Canadian counterparts. So-called defensive medicine increases health care costs by up to 9 percent, Medicare's administrator told Congress in 2005. "
Canada keeps malpractice cost in check - St. Petersburg Times

Now, compare those with these:
"Also, it’s worth noting that while these figures sound like a lot of money — and few would dispute the fact that health insurance company CEOs make healthy salaries — these numbers represent a very small fraction of total health care spending in the U.S. In 2007, national health care expenditures totaled $2.2 trillion. Health insurance profits of nearly $13 billion make up 0.6 percent of that. CEO compensation is a mere 0.005 percent of total spending."
FactCheck.org: Pushing for a Public Plan

The conclusion is that the cost of malpractice suits is equal to the profit of the entire industry.

This may be significant of and by itself, but when we look at the costs of defensive medicine, it alone adds to the costs of healthcare by a factor 15!!!
Once providers don’t have to watch over their shoulders for the lawyers, we should move toward coordinated care networks that take responsibility for their members' medical needs in return for fixed annual payments (called "capitation"). One approach is through vouchers; Medicare recipients would receive a fixed amount and shop for networks with the lowest cost and highest quality.


2. Reform of Insurance Policy Mandates:

Scrap all city, state, federal mandates for healthcare insurance policies. When a statute says policies must “cover mammograms of everyone 35 and over,’ how is this fair for a construction company with all male employees? What about ‘Podiatry,’ or ‘sexual reorientation surgery/? Allow insurance companies to write policies covering exactly what the consumer asks for:
Take two very different states: Wisconsin and New York. In Wisconsin, a family can buy a health-insurance plan for as little as $3,000 a year. The price for a basic family plan in the Empire State: $12,000. The stark difference has nothing to do with each state’s health sector as a share of its economy (14.8 percent in Wisconsin as of 2004, the most recent year for which data are available, and 13.9 percent in New York). Rather, the difference has to do with how each state’s insurance pools are regulated. In New York State, politicians have tried to run the health-insurance system from Albany, forcing insurers to deliver complex Cadillac plans to every subscriber for political reasons, driving up costs. Wisconsin’s insurers are far freer to sell plans at prices consumers want.
The gulf in insurance-premium prices among American states is a sign that too much government intervention—not too little—is what’s distorting prices from one market to the next. The key to reducing health-care costs for patients, then, is to promote competition, not to dictate insurance requirements from on high. Unfortunately, a government-run insurance plan is the core of ObamaCare.
Bigger Is Healthier by David Gratzer, City Journal 22 July 2009
a. NJ has some 68-69 mandates including in vitro fertilization, which adds some 2-2.5% to the cost of the policy

3.. Doctors currently have no ability to re-price or re-package their services that way every other professional does. Medicare dictates what it pays for and what it won’t pay for, and the final price. Because of this there are no telephone consultations paid for, and the same for e-mails, normal in every other profession.
Most doctors don’t digitize records, thus they cannot use software that allows electronic prescription, and make it easier to detect drug interactions or dosage mistakes. Again, Medicare doesn’t pay for it.

4. Another free market idea aimed at better quality is have warranties for surgery as we do for cars. 17% of Medicare patients who enter a hospital re-enter within 30 days because of a problem connected to the original surgery. The result is that a hospital makes money on its mistakes!

5. Walk-in clinics are growing around the country, where a registered nurse sits at a computer, the patient describes symptoms, the nurse types it in and follows a computerized protocol, the nurse can prescribe electronically, and the patient sees the price in advance

6. To reduce healthcare costs, increase the number of doctors. Obama care would do the opposite. Both tax incentives and support of the tuition of medical school.

7. Identify the 8-10 million who need and are unable to get healthcare, including those with pre-existing conditions,and provide debit cards as is done for food stamps:

"Food debit cards help 27 million people buy food, similar to the number who need help buying health coverage. In all fifty states, debit card technology has transformed the federal food stamp program, which used to be notorious for fraud and abuse. (Only 2 percent of card users are found to be ineligible, according to the General Accounting Office.) Cards are loaded with a specific dollar amount monthly, depending on family size and income, and allow cardholders to shop anywhere. The same strategy could be adapted to provide purchasing power to families who need help buying high-deductible health coverage. It's what all Americans used to buy (see chart 5), and it's all that's needed for families with moderate incomes, who can afford a routine doctor visit. "
Downgrading Health Care

8. Current law provides unlimited tax relief for coverage obtained through an employer but no comparable relief for those who purchase coverage outside their places of work. S. 334 would replace the current tax preference for employer-based health coverage with a new individual-based system. The bill would end the tax exclusion in the personal income tax for employer-based health insurance benefits and instead use a combination of subsidies and tax deductions for health insurance. Ideally, the current employer-based tax structure should be replaced with a fair and equitable universal tax credit. An across-the-board, fixed-dollar health care tax credit, for example, would offer every American federal tax relief for health care.(Wyden-Bennett Bill)

And which of the above are 'partisan'?

The only comment I have regarding your enumerated cost-cutting observations is to wonder why Republicans, when they held majority power for so many years going all the way back to Reagan, didn't THEY begin to discuss health care reform by designing their own plan around suggestions such as those you itemize? Instead, health care reform to Republicans is non-existent until a Democratic administration attempts to try to do it. Then and only then do the flags go up and all hell breaks loose.

 

[Immanuel]

Highlights are mine.

Democrats have to substantiate that things not in the bill won't happen?

Isn't that just a little absurd?

A requirement that everyone pay 50% more in taxes isn't in the bill either - do you think it shoud be voted down because that COULD happen?

Really?

You're damned right they have to prove that the bill is legitimate and constitutional. The language may not be there... the intent may very well be there. That is the problem.

If Americans are concerned that they are setting up bean counters to determine who gets medical services and who doesn't, then they damned well better clarify what the intention of this bill is.

If Americans are concerned about the destruction of the health insurance industry then Congress damned well better write the legislation so that it doesn't destroy the industry because the language is there that will mean the death of Private Health Insurance. Not the banning of such, but a stake through the heart of the industry none the less.

Yes, it is up to Congress to convince the American Public that this bill is good for us. Last I checked, they work for us, not the other way around.

Immie

 

[Jay Canuck]

in you opinion? how does this or anthing Wonder Girl has comeup with directly contradict the facts that were laid out in the story?

Those so called "facts" are unsubstantiated. If you even read the article, then you will see that the first two questions dealing with whether or not there is such a panel are not even sourced. In who's opinion are these answers?

Q: Does the health care legislation bill promote "mercy killing," or euthanasia?

A: No.

Q: Then what's all the fuss about?

A: A provision in the House bill written by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., would allow Medicare to pay doctors for voluntary counseling sessions that address end-of-life issues. The conversations between doctor and patient would include living wills, making a close relative or a trusted friend your health care proxy, learning about hospice as an option for the terminally ill, and information about pain medications for people suffering chronic discomfort.

Notice farther down they do provide three sources for the information, but the early answers are not even sourced. Who gave those answers? How can we trust them? Congress hasn't read the bill, how do we know that there isn't something in there setting up such a panel?

Personally, I do not believe there is such language in the bill, but the language need not be there for it to happen. Congress is damned good at redefining the meaning of language after they have pushed it through.

Do I believe there will be government bean counters determining what services you get? Yeah, I believe that is a damned good possibility. Is the language in the bill? No.

Can I substantiate any of that? No, but neither can you substantiate that it is false. We won't know until our so called leaders have pushed this through and by then, it will be too late to do anything about it. That is what bothers me.

Immie

so with no proof of a "death panel" being "pushed" through why would Sarah say there is such a thing?

 

[Annie]

in you opinion? how does this or anthing Wonder Girl has comeup with directly contradict the facts that were laid out in the story?

Those so called "facts" are unsubstantiated. If you even read the article, then you will see that the first two questions dealing with whether or not there is such a panel are not even sourced. In who's opinion are these answers?

Q: Does the health care legislation bill promote "mercy killing," or euthanasia?

A: No.

Q: Then what's all the fuss about?

A: A provision in the House bill written by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., would allow Medicare to pay doctors for voluntary counseling sessions that address end-of-life issues. The conversations between doctor and patient would include living wills, making a close relative or a trusted friend your health care proxy, learning about hospice as an option for the terminally ill, and information about pain medications for people suffering chronic discomfort.

Notice farther down they do provide three sources for the information, but the early answers are not even sourced. Who gave those answers? How can we trust them? Congress hasn't read the bill, how do we know that there isn't something in there setting up such a panel?

Personally, I do not believe there is such language in the bill, but the language need not be there for it to happen. Congress is damned good at redefining the meaning of language after they have pushed it through.

Do I believe there will be government bean counters determining what services you get? Yeah, I believe that is a damned good possibility. Is the language in the bill? No.

Can I substantiate any of that? No, but neither can you substantiate that it is false. We won't know until our so called leaders have pushed this through and by then, it will be too late to do anything about it. That is what bothers me.

Immie

so with no proof of a "death panel" being "pushed" through why would Sarah say there is such a thing?

it's past time to identify what is being done. You do know it, it's been done before in Europe and Canada. Stick up for it or let it go.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The OP is correct. There is nothing called a "Death Panel" in the bill.

However, if you read the language, instead of reading left wing or right wing talking points you may learn the truth.

If people decide to click the link and read the text of the bill be warned, once you learn the truth you wont be able to go back to believing in a lie.

 

[MaggieMae]

Have you really thought through the repercussions if that started occurring? There would be wrongful death lawsuits up the wazoo against the US Government [Mr. & Mrs. Taxpayer, remember]. OF COURSE that isn't going to happen. Geezus.

Really? And just how far do you think such a suit would get before it was thrown out of court?

The clerk's desk? Think it would make it that far?

Immie

You're kidding, right? Crafty lawyers are constantly waiting in the wings for some new "cause" to concoct class action suits. And you must not know much about the legal process and the courts. Nothing is "thrown out" except by a judge and that's only AFTER a complaint and answer to the complaint are filed. As long as a person has the filing fee, you can file a complaint against your mother for force-feeding you macaroni and cheese that made you fat.

The irony of this particular back and forth is that if intentional ending of a person's life by the government were indeed part of the dark 'plan,' then the same government would be clamoring for tort reform which would have the effect of quashing such lawsuits (as you suggest they would).

 

[EriktheRed]

Try a little harder, silly lib apologist.

Here is an interesting (and by interesting I mean pathetically sick) video of your savior, the enlightened and articulate Barack Hussein Obama, telling a poor woman to take a pill.

No surgery for you.

YouTube - Obama to Jane Sturm: Hey, take a pill

Silly Con, why don't YOU try harder and please explain to us how a system mostly run by private insurers like we have now isn't using the same kind of decision-making you're bitching about.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

why dont all of you actually read the damn text of the bill before i go bald from all the misinformation

READ THE FREAKING TEXT!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Immanuel]

in you opinion? how does this or anthing Wonder Girl has comeup with directly contradict the facts that were laid out in the story?

Those so called "facts" are unsubstantiated. If you even read the article, then you will see that the first two questions dealing with whether or not there is such a panel are not even sourced. In who's opinion are these answers?

Q: Does the health care legislation bill promote "mercy killing," or euthanasia?

A: No.

Q: Then what's all the fuss about?

A: A provision in the House bill written by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., would allow Medicare to pay doctors for voluntary counseling sessions that address end-of-life issues. The conversations between doctor and patient would include living wills, making a close relative or a trusted friend your health care proxy, learning about hospice as an option for the terminally ill, and information about pain medications for people suffering chronic discomfort.

Notice farther down they do provide three sources for the information, but the early answers are not even sourced. Who gave those answers? How can we trust them? Congress hasn't read the bill, how do we know that there isn't something in there setting up such a panel?

Personally, I do not believe there is such language in the bill, but the language need not be there for it to happen. Congress is damned good at redefining the meaning of language after they have pushed it through.

Do I believe there will be government bean counters determining what services you get? Yeah, I believe that is a damned good possibility. Is the language in the bill? No.

Can I substantiate any of that? No, but neither can you substantiate that it is false. We won't know until our so called leaders have pushed this through and by then, it will be too late to do anything about it. That is what bothers me.

Immie

so with no proof of a "death panel" being "pushed" through why would Sarah say there is such a thing?

Personally, I'd have to say she has been infected with hoof and mouth disease.

The language is not there.

However, as I said, it is apparent that there will be bean counters (such as me) determining the medical services that are covered. You really do not want me determining that... honest, you don't, my job is to cut costs not save lives. Trust me, you don't want a government cost cutter determining what services you can have and can't have.

And for the record, I don't have a problem with the described "end of life" consultations. I lost my dad, two months ago. He spent the last two weeks of his life in a hospice and believe me they were wonderful. I can't thank them enough. That being said, this plan has more holes in it than fifty thousand pounds of Swiss Cheese and I am concerned about being able to maintain decent health care coverage after the plan takes affect.

Immie

 

[jillian]

why dont all of you actually read the damn text of the bill before i go bald from all the misinformation

READ THE FREAKING TEXT!!!!!!!!!!!

you mean you're going to stop spreading misinformation?