If Sara Palin had a teleprompter

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Cerek All politician's play dirty politics to get egg on the face of their opponents. The Repubs just seem more organized. But watch any campaign ad and you'll see plenty of mud slung by both sides and all that mud is provided by votes (or non-votes) on bills and issues that were manipulated precisely to make the other party look bad come election time. Yes, it IS shitty of ALL politicians to do it, but it has become SOP, so I don't see much use in complaining about it. Of course, there is nothing wrong with calling politicians out when they get their facts wrong (whether deliberately or accidentally), like Palin did this time.

Or when she went on her blog and twitter to scream about death panels that were simply made up! What a vile, snake-like woman. Imagine the lives her lies could cost as people believed her and voted against a bill that stops insurance companies from refusing you for pre-existing conditions. I honestly don't know how she sleeps at night. Maybe she was so dumb she actually did indeed believe what she said, or maybe she did it for purely political reasons, but she is a far cry from any kind of leadership material. She'd probably start 2 more wars due to "misinformation".

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior Or when she went on her blog and twitter to scream about death panels that were simply made up! What a vile, snake-like woman. Imagine the lives her lies could cost as people believed her and voted against a bill that stops insurance companies from refusing you for pre-existing conditions. I honestly don't know how she sleeps at night. Maybe she was so dumb she actually did indeed believe what she said, or maybe she did it for purely political reasons, but she is a far cry from any kind of leadership material. She'd probably start 2 more wars due to "misinformation".

Clinton was the one that actually closed the gap on pre-existing conditions. Before HIPAA, any new carrier could impose a 1-year waiting period on pre-existing conditions (for group health) or deny it completely on an individual policy. Clinton expanded HIPAA so that pre-existing conditions transferred to new carriers. If you had already gone through a waiting period, the new carrier could NOT impose another waiting period (as long as you didn't let your previous insurance expire before starting the with the new carrier).

As for the "death panels", there will be rationing of health care by necessity on the national plan and the denial for some procedures or treatments after a certain age is a logical extension of that.

[SpiritWarrior]

HIPAA did not do what this bill does.

There is already rationing of government healthcare. It will continue. But I don't see how this has anything to do with death panels. The only death panels I know of are the people who sit on the desks at insurance companies, as they deny children their critical operation because it's too expensive.

[Felix The Assassin]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior Incorrect again m'lad. That's two now :-/ I refer you again to the infamous GW saying zero when his prompter had zero. Obama now, he can improvise. And, he's done townhall meetings without anything but a mic. Communication ownage imo.

A SNL skit does not equal reality, therefore, you have once again proven to be a failure. And yes BHO does well with a mic. especially rapping child health care needing an inhaler to a breathalyzer, classic, pawnage!

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Felix The Assassin A SNL skit does not equal reality, therefore, you have once again proven to be a failure. And yes BHO does well with a mic. especially rapping child health care needing an inhaler to a breathalyzer, classic, pawnage!

"Pawnage"? lol. Don't ever do that again.

And wait just to be clear, you believe what I am referring to is an SNL skit?

[Timber Loftis]

Originally Posted by Cerek As for the "death panels", there will be rationing of health care by necessity on the national plan and the denial for some procedures or treatments after a certain age is a logical extension of that.

What exactly is this "national plan" you speak of?

As far as I understand it, there will be a clearning house you can go to to buy insurance. The plans you will choose from will be prepared and offered by private companies. Those private companies will "ration" health care in about exactly the same way they do now, barring changes in the law preventing them from denying certain procedures or capping payouts, etc.

More importantly there will be no "panel" of people, private or public, who will sit and give thumbs up or thumbs down for "death."

But, in all fairness, our end of life care practices do need re-evaluating. It does defy logic to spend such an incredible amount of money keeping someone who is so very sick and very old alive for a very short period of time.

But, let's remember, the last Americans who lived in this land without "rationed" health care were the Indians -- because the medicine man was free to all. Since the United States was founded all health care has been "rationed."

[SpiritWarrior]

Yes, it has. All health care is rationed. The best goes to the ones who can pay mas $$$. Same with schools, education is rationed. If there was no rationing, one person would get all and the rest would get nothing...The big spenders send their kids to private schools as they opt-out of rationed, government systems, as they do with hospitals or doctors. And good for them, they have the cash so they don't leech from the people who don't have it.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior The best goes to the ones who can pay mas $$$.

That's not accurate. The best health care goes to those with the best group plans. And, good group plans are based on having a huge employee base for what is essentially "collective bargaining" with the insurance companies. So, a government employee, such as my wife, has excellent, second-to-none health insurance not because her salary is huge and she pays big bucks, but rather because the fact that the government is a HUGE employer it can negotiate for GREAT benefits for all its employees.

So, it's not a $$$ game. It's a group bargaining game. And someone with good insurance is billed less for health care than someone with no insurance. Because the insurer negotiates for reduced rates at the outset.

So, let's take a "for instance" using some base numbers. My insurance covers, generally, 80% for covered procedures. So, let's say I have a hip replacement -- that would cost, ie., the doctor would bill, $40,000 roughly. O.K., so I pay 20% of that, or $8,000? NO. Because the first thing my insurer does is take a pen to that bill and insert their negotiated allowance for that procedure. Normally I see about a 50% reduction right off the bat. So that $40,000 immediately gets knocked down to $20,000 or less. This leaves me paying less than $4,000, and the insurer paying $16,000, and the doctor accepting $20,000 as fair payment.

The person who is uninsured? They get a collection agency calling them looking for a total of $40,000, which is now incurring interest over time.

The other way in which group negotiation results in lower costs is in the premiums. For attorneys in my law firm, getting the highest/best insurance for a family of 4 would cost over $1500/month. But, my wife's employer has over 100x the number of employees and can negotiate lower costs. So, we use her insurance, and our cost for our family of 4 is less than $300/month. Equal or better coverage.

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Timber Loftis That's not accurate. The best health care goes to those with the best group plans. And, good group plans are based on having a huge employee base for what is essentially "collective bargaining" with the insurance companies. So, a government employee, such as my wife, has excellent, second-to-none health insurance not because her salary is huge and she pays big bucks, but rather because the fact that the government is a HUGE employer it can negotiate for GREAT benefits for all its employees. So, it's not a $$$ game. It's a group bargaining game. And someone with good insurance is billed less for health care than someone with no insurance. Because the insurer negotiates for reduced rates at the outset.

I'm not sure you understand what I mean. I was referring to more of a public vs. private healthcare situation, or rich vs. poor if you like. Such as, a rich father getting "only the best" healthcare for his daughter. He bypasses any government system that is in place, likely scoffing at the thought of going "public" even without government assistance, and so pays top dollar for the best private doctors and rooms and facilities etc. He can afford to opt-out of any assistance, because his salary provides its own.

Meanwhile, the single mother of two uses the medicaid system in place which is rationed out and must take whatever she is given. Some things medicaid won't cover, some things it will cover. But anything it won't cover, could be done instantly if she could pay for it herself. I mean, isn't it truly a money game? A huge employer has, in turn, a huge bank account. And small business most times won't even offer insurance.