Ogamacare= Death Panels, without question.

StormfrontFL

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Posts
8,903
Media
4
Likes
6,854
Points
358
Location
United States
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
My God but you're an asswipe! :irked:

Why must you trumpet the same lies and bullshit over & over again? Do you really think we are gonna rollover and say, "Gee, Wyldgusechaz was right." :confused:

I don't see why people like you are crying over death panels when we already have them, and have for years. What do you call it, when an insurance company denys treatment to an ill and/or elderly person until it's too late to help them? In many instances the medicine and therapys are available; but someone(s) at the HMO has decided that persons life is not worth saving. So they are denied treatment. What do you call that? I call it a death panel; and it is wrong no matter who is in the oval office. :mad::cool:
You are so right. My father was denied admittance to the hospital because his HMO thought that it would be better and more cost effective to give him another prescription. Ten days after they had him sent home he had passed away from kidney failure.
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,255
Media
213
Likes
32,177
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Nice Greek chorus response. What an asshole. Instead of finding facts that rebut my post, you just SAY its undignified.

Cmon, loser, prove me wrong. Prove my numbers are wrong. Prove that Obama did not say that Medicare will grown to eat up every nickel in America.

I'll wait. But of course you won;t answer because I am right.
First, I didn't say your post was undignified, just that I wouldn't dignify it ith a response. And second, Last time I checked, name calling was an activity children engage in. I'm an adult.
 

Wyldgusechaz

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Posts
1,258
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
First, I didn't say your post was undignified, just that I wouldn't dignify it ith a response. And second, Last time I checked, name calling was an activity children engage in. I'm an adult.

So in other words you are saying I am correct. Thank you. Most appreciated and at least one lib wing nut gets it. Whew.
 

Wyldgusechaz

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Posts
1,258
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
You are so right. My father was denied admittance to the hospital because his HMO thought that it would be better and more cost effective to give him another prescription. Ten days after they had him sent home he had passed away from kidney failure.

This such a great example for me. It proves my point beyond what I could. Your father was so sick, (and I am sorry he was) that w/o treatment, he died in 10 days. He was terminally sick. I am sure to you his life was worth saving to the extent that you would have spent anything to keep him alive. However, Obama's "End of Life Counseling Boards" (a euphemism for DEATH PANEL) would not have that luxury. They would have asked/encouraged your father to accept his fate, so that limited resources could be spent on others who had a greater shot at survival.

In Great Britain, medical costs for their public option go down for the elderly because they are basically forced to accept their fate. In America, medical costs skyrocket for the elderly because they will spend anything to stay alive. See the problem?
 

Wyldgusechaz

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Posts
1,258
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
But seriously.

You willfully create the false dichotomy in order to play the fear card.

Anyone who wants to, can KEEP THEIR CURRENT HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

Only those electing a public option would even be in the realm of your argument. And anyone who currently has the "freedom" to pay for a great health care coverage, will certainly continue to have that "freedom" in the future under any reform plan.

So, give it up. Yours is not a viable, legitimate argument to make. It instead comes off as uninformed at best, or deliberately mendacious.

Your example surely pre supposes that one who keeps his own health care plan pays for it himself. I employ about 20 people. I pay their health care insurance (now about $400 month/employee) because their contribution to my success is well worth it. In a sense they are paying for their own health care because they are so valuable to me.

Now who is going to pay for the public option? The people who do not have health insurance now and who would most likely want the public option, either don't want health insurance or can't afford it. Thus the burden of paying for the public option would fall to me and my employees. Why exactly would I want to pay for all my insurance and yours too? I don't get it.
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,255
Media
213
Likes
32,177
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
So in other words you are saying I am correct. Thank you. Most appreciated and at least one lib wing nut gets it. Whew.
Your assumption is incorrect.

This such a great example for me. It proves my point beyond what I could. Your father was so sick, (and I am sorry he was) that w/o treatment, he died in 10 days. He was terminally sick. I am sure to you his life was worth saving to the extent that you would have spent anything to keep him alive. However, Obama's "End of Life Counseling Boards" (a euphemism for DEATH PANEL) would not have that luxury. They would have asked/encouraged your father to accept his fate, so that limited resources could be spent on others who had a greater shot at survival.

In Great Britain, medical costs for their public option go down for the elderly because they are basically forced to accept their fate. In America, medical costs skyrocket for the elderly because they will spend anything to stay alive. See the problem?
So now you're a doctor who can diagnose illness from a few lines in an internet post. Did it ever occur to you that if the HMO allowed this poor man's father admittance into the Hospital that treatment would have prevented his kidney failure and he would be around today? But that doesn't fit into your original premise. But you're going to believe what you want to believe.
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,255
Media
213
Likes
32,177
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Your example surely pre supposes that one who keeps his own health care plan pays for it himself. I employ about 20 people. I pay their health care insurance (now about $400 month/employee) because their contribution to my success is well worth it. In a sense they are paying for their own health care because they are so valuable to me.

Now who is going to pay for the public option? The people who do not have health insurance now and who would most likely want the public option, either don't want health insurance or can't afford it. Thus the burden of paying for the public option would fall to me and my employees. Why exactly would I want to pay for all my insurance and yours too? I don't get it.
The public option will be paid for, in most part, by the premiums people PAY to buy it, not your precious taxes.
 

SilverTrain

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Posts
4,623
Media
82
Likes
1,328
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Perhaps health care funding could get a boost by renegotiating some of those multi-humungous-million dollar contracts with Blackwater. You know, those mega millions of dollars that nobody seems to have cared about? Those mega millions that taxpayers are paying for.

Maybe some of that could go to health care instead, since suddenly everyone's so concerned about where dollars are going.

Halliburtion could pitch in, perhaps.......
 

StormfrontFL

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Posts
8,903
Media
4
Likes
6,854
Points
358
Location
United States
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
This such a great example for me. It proves my point beyond what I could. Your father was so sick, (and I am sorry he was) that w/o treatment, he died in 10 days. He was terminally sick. I am sure to you his life was worth saving to the extent that you would have spent anything to keep him alive. However, Obama's "End of Life Counseling Boards" (a euphemism for DEATH PANEL) would not have that luxury. They would have asked/encouraged your father to accept his fate, so that limited resources could be spent on others who had a greater shot at survival.

In Great Britain, medical costs for their public option go down for the elderly because they are basically forced to accept their fate. In America, medical costs skyrocket for the elderly because they will spend anything to stay alive. See the problem?
My point is that insurance companies have had all the power to determine the fates of it's insured. The family or the insured had no real control. I was a licensed health insurance agent so I've seen first hand how the game is played. End of Life counseling is simply a physician consulting with the family and/or the insured to determine what the best option might be. No where does it say that the insured has to agree with or follow the physician's suggestions. It is simply a way for the insured to have all available information.

If the suggested reforms had been in place at the time my father was alive, we could have overruled the HMO and insisted that he be admitted to the hospital. Insurance companies don't want to see change because it diminishes their profits and takes away their complete control.
 

Wyldgusechaz

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Posts
1,258
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Perhaps health care funding could get a boost by renegotiating some of those multi-humungous-million dollar contracts with Blackwater. You know, those mega millions of dollars that nobody seems to have cared about? Those mega millions that taxpayers are paying for.

Maybe some of that could go to health care instead, since suddenly everyone's so concerned about where dollars are going.

Halliburtion could pitch in, perhaps.......

Uh oh. A psuedo intellectual

Here is the market cap for Halliburton in its stock page: $23 billion.
HAL: Summary for HALLIBURTON CO - Yahoo! Finance


Thats the entire value of the company. the book value is likely lower. Sell the whole frickin company and you get $23 billion. Not even a grain of sand with the numbers Obama is putting out.

And if H is such a gravy train why is its share price only $25? Put up $2500 and you can get in on that mythical gravy train.

Deal in fact, not some liberal wishing well, please, or you look like a fool.
 

D_Tintagel_Demondong

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Posts
3,928
Media
0
Likes
74
Points
193
At $24/shot, $1,000,000 would have paid for 40000 flu shots or children's immunizations.

I hate to admit it, but he has a good point.

Edit:

If it cost $1 million to prolong the lives of Kennedy and Swayze, which seems entirely possible, then of course this money could have been used for 'better' purposes, such as immunizing 40,000 children. I don't see how this relates to social healthcare, however. What difference does it make whether the $1 million comes from private healthcare or social healthcare? It's the same end with a different means. Almost every claim that you've made against social healthcare, including denial of services, can be made about private healthcare.
 
Last edited:

scotchirish

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Posts
113
Media
0
Likes
6
Points
163
Location
Austin, TX
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
yeah, as repugnant as it seems, we're still a capitalistic nation and Gov Inc. is most likely going to end up being as cold and heartless as the DMV
 

slurper_la

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Posts
5,881
Media
9
Likes
3,762
Points
333
Location
Los Angeles (California, United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
This is a completely foreign concept to Americans as they are accustomed to the "freedom" of obtaining immediate treatment when they become ill. People become terminal and/or die on wait lists, and it's reflected in considerably lower serious illness survival rates on nationalized health systems. If you cool with that, then great, but as OP implies, we are a "save at any cost" society.

This is wrong on every level.

We in the US are subjected to delays created by the insurance companies. You may go to your personal physician at your convenience but the likelihood these days (and I'm calling on personal experience) is that your doctor must submit forms to the insurance company to get authorization to perform any sort of tests, xrays, etc.

And barring any specialized tests the likelihood is more prominent now than ever before that your insurance coverage or reimbursement is a fraction of what it once was.

So we pay through the nose for health insurance just to be denied doctore recommended treatment and procedures and if we get them pay a deductible and 20 - 30 - 40% of the bill based on "standard and customary charges" for the treatments.

Know how much BlueShield of California rates "standard and customary" for an XRAY?????? $150

Know how much a set of XRAYS cost (chest)? $475 on average and that doesn't include the prescribing doctor, the hospital or imaging center charges or the technician's fee.
 
D

deleted213967

Guest
The Obama administration is evidently keenly aware of the history of health care reform and the utter failure of the Clinton initiative last century. It will likely not risk political suicide over a public option that many Democratic congresspersons oppose themselves.

Still, even under a public option (including one run as a cooperative), the market could complement the public plan with secondary plans, some of which could kick in when the Death Panel From Hell denied benefits.

The secondary plans would be profitable insofar as their scope would be limited and their risk mitigated by a large pool of employers using them to hire and retain talent, maybe in lieu of the current, expensive, full-fledged, private medical plans.

Individuals with conditions predisposing them to costly treatment would be guaranteed coverage, on the condition that they contribute early, before the onset of the disease, as soon as the condition is identified (e.g. genetic predisposition with no current symptoms).

Under this dual system, the consumer or the employer who would choose not to purchase the complementary plans would have to live (and die) with the same cost-containment limitations already in place in much of the current health care system.


 

Phil Ayesho

Superior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Posts
6,189
Media
0
Likes
2,792
Points
333
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
There is no other way to control medical costs. Lets use Teddy Kennedy and Patrick Swayze as examples.

Glioblastoma and pancreatic cancer are grim diseases. They are a death sentence. In order to prolong what is the inevitable, upwards of $500,000 to $1,000,000 was spent on each of these men to give them one year extra of life. Any prudent public option will have to have a death panel (as Sarah Palin said it, blunt but accurate) to avoid wasting money on lives with no future.

Problem is, people want to live forever. Ted Kennedy had radical surgery to try to extend his life at inordinate tax payer cost. Obama wants to set up "end of life" counseling groups. In order to save money Kennedy should have chosen this than try to live when his diagnosis was so grim. No one save a scant few live over a year with that disease. We will need a death panel to help patients understand the limits of their disease and accept their death rather than waste precious dollars on a life with no future.

If Pres. Obama does not admit his "end of life counseling" panel is really a death panel it is a lie.

edit: Obamacare, not Ogamacare


You stupid tool

Kennedy had GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE

As do ALL the republicans who oppose it.
You want to get better healthcare? FORCE legislators to enroll in the SAME healthcare WE get.
The Constitution demands equal treatment under the law, and congressional healthcare is something they enacted as LAW..
I want what they get... the best singlepayer healthcare plan in the world.


And suggesting the the counseling portion of the bill... which was ALREADY passed into medicare by REPUBLICANS who AUTHORED it... means death panels is sheer stupidity on its face.

You can not demonstrate one single instance, nor any language in the bill even remotely supporting that statement.
Its just something you are parroting that was made up by a healthcare corporation shill.

Either you Know this is a stupid fear tactic, and are, therefore, irresponsibly amoral...
Or you honestly believe this idiocy, in which case you are unconscionably stupid.

Either way... it reflects pretty badly upon you.
 

VeeP

Sexy Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2005
Posts
1,752
Media
0
Likes
30
Points
268
Gender
Male
So, give it up. Yours is not a viable, legitimate argument to make. It instead comes off as uninformed at best, or deliberately mendacious.

Are you being purposefully combative, or are you just an asshole? Wasn't making a specific argument for/against, but rather providing the chap with a bit of perspective that he may not possess. If he's always been reasonably healthy a nationalized system may serve him just fine, but he also may not realize things such as the variance in long-term survival stats in the case of serious illness (cancer, etc.). There's a reason some Canadians seek treatment in the U.S.

Really? I have top of the line health insurance. My Primary care doc determined I needed to see a specialist.....I had to wait 6 months for an appointment. The specialist determined I needed some tests. I had to wait another 3 months for tests.

And you think that would likely improve once the existing system is flooded with 30-40 million more insureds? Perhaps for a fleeting moment you can get past the notion that anyone who isn't necessarily in favor of a government run system fails to recognize some reforms are needed. :rolleyes: Retaining your coverage when you change jobs and not being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, for instance -- I'm in favor of these proposed reforms. But a government-run system? No, not until they're able to demonstrate the ability (which won't be in my lifetime).

So we pay through the nose for health insurance just to be denied doctore recommended treatment and procedures and if we get them pay a deductible and 20 - 30 - 40% of the bill based on "standard and customary charges" for the treatments.
Again, I never said "do nothing". Increase competition amongst the insurance companies and see if there's improvement. Everyone's experience will undoubtedly be different, but all I can say is that recently when a family member had a serious health concern the private system couldn't have moved any faster to treat and there was no dicking around on insurance company's part. Not sure it would have gone the same under nationalized care.
 

D_Tintagel_Demondong

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Posts
3,928
Media
0
Likes
74
Points
193
There's a reason some Canadians seek treatment in the U.S.

You are referring to the private hospitals that pay their oncologists $500,000 a year. Canadians aren't the only people who go to these hospitals to get 'better' treatment. Plenty of Americans go there too. They aren't "patients"... they are "customers."

You are only proving the point that SilverTrain was making: there is a horrible disparity between medical services provided to the rich and the poor. Socialized healthcare will reduce, or perhaps end, this cruel disparity that offers the best healthcare only to the rich.

Again, I never said "do nothing". Increase competition amongst the insurance companies and see if there's improvement. Everyone's experience will undoubtedly be different, but all I can say is that recently when a family member had a serious health concern the private system couldn't have moved any faster to treat and there was no dicking around on insurance company's part. Not sure it would have gone the same under nationalized care.

Are you really supporting this disparity?
 
Last edited:
D

deleted213967

Guest
Really? I have top of the line health insurance. My Primary care doc determined I needed to see a specialist.....I had to wait 6 months for an appointment. The specialist determined I needed some tests. I had to wait another 3 months for tests.

6 months for a specialist? 3 months for a test?

I wouldn't call that "top-of-the-line"...