PLEDGE TO AMERICA
Comments:Criticize a public figure regarding their public work only when you have backings in the form of solid citations, quotes or proofs from authority sources. Don’t attack a private citizen by name. Refrain from criticizing an identifiable person repeatedly. Refrain from making false statements about any one. If someone has broken these rules, call it to our attention immediately.
Blogger, thanks for bringing Goodman into the discussion. Just about everyone here pegs me as a staunch liberal, but I follow his musings closely. Every now and then, he makes a valid point. I even agree with him on the issue of consumer-driven health care.
I don’t like the Medicare cuts under the Ryan plan and I didn’t like the Medicare cuts under the ACA. The only difference being that the ACA has some cost controls built into the system, so I can get behind that a little easier.
I even like the Purple Health Plan (which he endorses), which is a little ambiguous on details but still a good and serious starting point on discussion (assuming you can leave “death panels” out of the rhetoric).
The Hussein Obama health plan will be killing off seniors within a few years Yack. Are you afraid to address this problem. Take Europe and other countries with socialized medicine. Their health care is down to rationing and killing off old people. Ever take a look at a European's teeth? The look like trash (and Canada's too). So much for all the good, free dental work they get. LOL!! So easy.
Jack, looks like you are working hard. The Purple Plan seems a lot like the Ryan plan. As to my use of Death Panels, obviously as health care costs become unsustainable, there is going to have to be decisions regarding when to decide if someone in late life has an illness that has no likelihood of recovery and is prohibitively expensive. Then the question becomes who makes the call--government, a panel of physicians, insurance companies ready to face law suits, who?
So, to my using “death panels.” They will have to exist. But my side needed something to counter weight “throwing grandma off the cliff” as an attention getter.
"Rationing" of health care has always occurred. This is not a new development. I'll simply quote Jared Bernstein:
"Look, every insurer already denies certain types of care and always will– it is a non-economic fantasy to think otherwise. You can call any denial of anything you want 'rationing' but you then have to admit that there’s tons of rationing going on all the time. And btw, the current system is of course fraught with rationing by price, as about 50 million uninsured would be happy to explain to you."
As to Jack's quote I'll first point out like Nonny did that Jack has now switched his reasoning on death panels from "pure fantasy" to saying it has "always ocurred".
Let's unpack it. If an insurance company refuses to pay and condemns my life then I would ask: Who chooses my insurance company? Who decides how much I pay for insurance and how much risk I take? What stops me from selling the farm to pay for whatever treatment I can afford?
Unfortunately the answers as it stands now is Obamacare's death panels but it used to be me.
HD, your use of “death panels” has not been entirely consistent. As it concerns a group of individuals deciding (yay or nay) the care of another, without any input or control from the individual....it is fantasy. You now seem to be using the term as a synonym for “health care rationing”. Rationing, however, has always occurred in health care, and every market for that fact.
No matter which insurance policy you have, care is rationed; They won’t pay for every procedure under the sun. Even if you don’t have insurance, care is rationed; you can’t pay for every procedure under the sun. So yes, there is rationed care in the ACA, and there is rationed care in the Ryan plan, and there is rationed care in our current system, and there was rationed care thirty years ago. Under every plan just mentioned, there is nothing keeping you from “selling the farm to pay for whatever treatment [you] can afford.” But bear in mind, you can only sell the farm once.
You have repeatedly ignored the actual discussion points. Instead, you simply copy and paste your “death panel” rhetoric. The use of that term is extremely charged as does not lend itself to constructive discourse. It would be analogous to me referring to Ryan’s Medicare plan as the “Grandma Death Act”.
Speaking of the Grandma Death Act, you have also refused to answer my question. Do you approve of it? You haven’t said whether or not you like the Death Act’s plan for Medicare. And don’t claim the “it’s the only plan out there”. That’s a pathetic dodge. I have outlined a number of ideas (which you have subsequently ignored). These ideas should not be tossed aside simply because they are not up for a House vote. Also note that, since you and Blogger love public opinion polls, the majority of Americans are against the Grandma Death Act.
You also never answered your own question. In your own words:
“You have not addressed in any way the problem with choosing how much to pay to extend a nearly over life for a short time. Why don't you just say, ‘we cannot afford to treat everyone,for anything regardless of age or lifestyle. There must be a process to responsibly allocate funds and people in charge of carrying it out’? Or you could take the opposite view and say the government, if in charge of health care should be held to the standard of the hippocratic oath at any cost.”
HD, as for tort reform, you call it “skepticism” but most just call it ideological stupidity. We can already measure the effects of tort reform that have been put into place. Texas instituted tort reform measures in 2003 (the same measures that are being called for on a national level). Guess what....costs went up.....faster than the national average.
We can also compare areas of medical practice (specialities with high malpractice premiums versus specialities with low malpractice premiums). One would think that medical practices would be vastly different. Specialities with high premiums would practice a much greater level of defensive medicine and thus making a financial case for tort reform. But they’re not. Again, tort reform would be great in order to reduce defensive medicine but it’s not a valid cost control mechanism.
Any time life is rationed there must be someone, some bureaucracy, some panel to make the decisions. It's especially troubling when those paying the bill also provide end of life counseling. That's not the job of government. I don't want government making those decisions. I want to make them or decide who does, whether it be friends, family or clergy. It can also be the insurance company I chose and the plan I want to pay for. As long as I can choose my plan or change it (at any cost) then it cannot be called rationing. When I am threatened by government with fines and jail if I don't have the one size fits all plan, that does ration my life because I have no other options.
Just to clarify, I'm talking about Obamacare. Medicare is supposed to be a safety net. There are loads of supplementals available in the free market. Yes, "death panels" is a charged phrase. I've repeatedly said so. It drives liberals nuts but there is a undeniable truthfulness about the term. As you now say, life will be rationed. It's axiomatic that there must be rationers or if one wants to be inflammatory, "Death Panels". But you called the idea "pure fantasy", no it's not. Clearly bureaucrats will be making life or death decisions for those who must live or die with those decisions. It's a fundamental disagreement about the role of government and the blessings of liberty.
The CBO says tort reform would save $54 billion. Other groups have given estimates of $92 to $207 billion. I believe the numbers are much higher. So why wasn't tort reform a part of Obamacare? Because Democrats are in the back pocket of trial lawyers and don't take my word for it, ask Howard Dean. So there's that which should bother you.
Your opinion piece link puts a hard number on defensive medicine which is wildly speculative at best and unmeasurable at worst. Read Krauthammer for another perspective.
My final (and I do mean final) question for you is, "Why must you be such an asshole?" I am very careful to not get personal (this comment notwithstanding) even when I disagree vehemently. I weigh you comments and give them due respect and consideration to the extent I'm able. I've got news for you, I'm not ideologically stupid. You would do well to consider what I write, disagree if you like but I'm not pulling stuff out of my butt. There is a basis for everything I write or I would not write it.
HD, once again, I’m all for tort reform. It’s a simple and good idea. But as a cost-control measure, you’re kidding yourself. The CBO estimated $54 billion in savings over 10 years. Not that impressive. Even if we take your $207 billion number (wherever that comes from), it’s still a drop in the ocean. Current health spending is around $2.5 trillion per year. That’s $25 trillion over 10 years......if costs remain constant (they won’t). Keeping everything else constant, your $207 billion number still results in less than 1% savings over 10 years. Wow. Here’s a great Q&A with Tom Baker, who knows a little something about health policy (unlike Krauthammer).
“I want to make them or decide who does, whether it be friends, family or clergy. It can also be the insurance company I chose and the plan I want to pay for. As long as I can choose my plan or change it (at any cost) then it cannot be called rationing.”
You seem to be struggling with the concept of rationing. Anytime you don’t get exactly what you want, whether it is due to financial constraints or market unavailability, it’s rationing. If you have a health insurance plan that denies a procedure, that’s rationing, even if you chose the insurance plan. The ACA does nothing to limit your choice of plans. It states you must have an insurance plan. But your choices are wide open. There are no bureaucrats making decisions for you.
You continue to evade my question about the Grandma Death Act. And you continue to ignore discussion on feasible cost-control measures that have been outlined for you (i.e.: not tort reform).
Why am I such an asshole? I guess that’s what you call others when you have been shown to be in over your head. If being an asshole means dispelling your patently incorrect fantasies concerning the ACA, the Ryan Plan, tort reform, and health care rationing.....so be it. Skepticism is good, unless it is ideologically unmovable when presented with mountains of contrary evidence.
Hey everybody, get a load of Jack! He says I'm "struggling with the concept of rationing" when it's he that is struggling with the idea of freedom. He asks why I think he's an asshole after he calls me ideologically stupid, compares me to a picture of a whiny little kid, says I'm in over my head. All of which is gratuitous. Now don't get me wrong, I don't care I'm just pointing it out.
Finally he puts up some pointy-headed professor of law and health sciences as a counter to DOCTOR Krauthammer. Hilarious!
HD, again you avoid the actual discussion points. You continue to obfuscate and have refused to state your support or opposition towards Ryan's Medicare plan. You have yet to say anything substantive......you may have a future in politics!
As for Tom Baker, tort reform concerns legal issues. So a law and health expert is a much better citation than a paid conservative talking-head.
Tom Baker... a lawyer... not so much for tort reform... who would have thought it. But, let's describe him as a "law and health expert". Not a shyster or ambulance chaser as he only teaches shysters and ambulance chasers.
And where's the obligatory perp-walk for Edwards, another law and health expert?
"Note the there are currently 169 lawyers that are members of the House. There are currently 57 lawyers in the Senate."-Jack
That should tell you something. I try to never vote for a lawyer unless his life's experiences would include more business, military, or other than suing people or making their life's work making black and white... gray.
Jack Just read that China says they had an estimated 10,000 Ph.D. engineering graduates last year. This spring the U.S. will graduate about 8,000 Ph.D. engineers, an estimated two-thirds of whom are not U.S. citizens. Meanwhile the US turns out 45000 lawyers a year.
Jack, as you know one of the great trouble we now have is that congressional lawyers write laws that require other lawyers to interpret. These costly burdensome regulations are killing our economy.
25 comments:
Blogger, thanks for bringing Goodman into the discussion. Just about everyone here pegs me as a staunch liberal, but I follow his musings closely. Every now and then, he makes a valid point. I even agree with him on the issue of consumer-driven health care.
I don’t like the Medicare cuts under the Ryan plan and I didn’t like the Medicare cuts under the ACA. The only difference being that the ACA has some cost controls built into the system, so I can get behind that a little easier.
I even like the Purple Health Plan (which he endorses), which is a little ambiguous on details but still a good and serious starting point on discussion (assuming you can leave “death panels” out of the rhetoric).
Jack, why do you want to keep denying rationed health care (death panels) when it has already started with both Medicare and Medicade?
The Hussein Obama health plan will be killing off seniors within a few years Yack. Are you afraid to address this problem. Take Europe and other countries with socialized medicine. Their health care is down to rationing and killing off old people. Ever take a look at a European's teeth? The look like trash (and Canada's too). So much for all the good, free dental work they get. LOL!! So easy.
Your ole pal
Samantha Rogers-Bennett
Johnny Rico
Jack, looks like you are working hard. The Purple Plan seems a lot like the Ryan plan. As to my use of Death Panels, obviously as health care costs become unsustainable, there is going to have to be decisions regarding when to decide if someone in late life has an illness that has no likelihood of recovery and is prohibitively expensive. Then the question becomes who makes the call--government, a panel of physicians, insurance companies ready to face law suits, who?
So, to my using “death panels.” They will have to exist. But my side needed something to counter weight “throwing grandma off the cliff” as an attention getter.
"Rationing" of health care has always occurred. This is not a new development. I'll simply quote Jared Bernstein:
"Look, every insurer already denies certain types of care and always will– it is a non-economic fantasy to think otherwise. You can call any denial of anything you want 'rationing' but you then have to admit that there’s tons of rationing going on all the time. And btw, the current system is of course fraught with rationing by price, as about 50 million uninsured would be happy to explain to you."
Jack has finally admitted Obamacare results in rationed health care. He just can't bring himself to say it will result in more deaths.
Yes Nonny, but Jack seems to think it can be rationed without anyone (death panels) making decisions thereof.
As to Jack's quote I'll first point out like Nonny did that Jack has now switched his reasoning on death panels from "pure fantasy" to saying it has "always ocurred".
Let's unpack it. If an insurance company refuses to pay and condemns my life then I would ask: Who chooses my insurance company? Who decides how much I pay for insurance and how much risk I take? What stops me from selling the farm to pay for whatever treatment I can afford?
Unfortunately the answers as it stands now is Obamacare's death panels but it used to be me.
BTW, I don't mind being my own death panel.
HD, your use of “death panels” has not been entirely consistent. As it concerns a group of individuals deciding (yay or nay) the care of another, without any input or control from the individual....it is fantasy. You now seem to be using the term as a synonym for “health care rationing”. Rationing, however, has always occurred in health care, and every market for that fact.
No matter which insurance policy you have, care is rationed; They won’t pay for every procedure under the sun. Even if you don’t have insurance, care is rationed; you can’t pay for every procedure under the sun. So yes, there is rationed care in the ACA, and there is rationed care in the Ryan plan, and there is rationed care in our current system, and there was rationed care thirty years ago. Under every plan just mentioned, there is nothing keeping you from “selling the farm to pay for whatever treatment [you] can afford.” But bear in mind, you can only sell the farm once.
You have repeatedly ignored the actual discussion points. Instead, you simply copy and paste your “death panel” rhetoric. The use of that term is extremely charged as does not lend itself to constructive discourse. It would be analogous to me referring to Ryan’s Medicare plan as the “Grandma Death Act”.
Speaking of the Grandma Death Act, you have also refused to answer my question. Do you approve of it? You haven’t said whether or not you like the Death Act’s plan for Medicare. And don’t claim the “it’s the only plan out there”. That’s a pathetic dodge. I have outlined a number of ideas (which you have subsequently ignored). These ideas should not be tossed aside simply because they are not up for a House vote. Also note that, since you and Blogger love public opinion polls, the majority of Americans are against the Grandma Death Act.
You also never answered your own question. In your own words:
“You have not addressed in any way the problem with choosing how much to pay to extend a nearly over life for a short time. Why don't you just say, ‘we cannot afford to treat everyone,for anything regardless of age or lifestyle. There must be a process to responsibly allocate funds and people in charge of carrying it out’? Or you could take the opposite view and say the government, if in charge of health care should be held to the standard of the hippocratic oath at any cost.”
Jack changed again. Now he is a proponent of death panels. At least he is starting to be honest.
HD, as for tort reform, you call it “skepticism” but most just call it ideological stupidity. We can already measure the effects of tort reform that have been put into place. Texas instituted tort reform measures in 2003 (the same measures that are being called for on a national level). Guess what....costs went up.....faster than the national average.
We can also compare areas of medical practice (specialities with high malpractice premiums versus specialities with low malpractice premiums). One would think that medical practices would be vastly different. Specialities with high premiums would practice a much greater level of defensive medicine and thus making a financial case for tort reform. But they’re not. Again, tort reform would be great in order to reduce defensive medicine but it’s not a valid cost control mechanism.
But you keep your “skepticism”.
Jack,
Any time life is rationed there must be someone, some bureaucracy, some panel to make the decisions. It's especially troubling when those paying the bill also provide end of life counseling. That's not the job of government. I don't want government making those decisions. I want to make them or decide who does, whether it be friends, family or clergy. It can also be the insurance company I chose and the plan I want to pay for. As long as I can choose my plan or change it (at any cost) then it cannot be called rationing. When I am threatened by government with fines and jail if I don't have the one size fits all plan, that does ration my life because I have no other options.
Just to clarify, I'm talking about Obamacare. Medicare is supposed to be a safety net. There are loads of supplementals available in the free market. Yes, "death panels" is a charged phrase. I've repeatedly said so. It drives liberals nuts but there is a undeniable truthfulness about the term. As you now say, life will be rationed. It's axiomatic that there must be rationers or if one wants to be inflammatory, "Death Panels". But you called the idea "pure fantasy", no it's not. Clearly bureaucrats will be making life or death decisions for those who must live or die with those decisions. It's a fundamental disagreement about the role of government and the blessings of liberty.
The CBO says tort reform would save $54 billion. Other groups have given estimates of $92 to $207 billion. I believe the numbers are much higher. So why wasn't tort reform a part of Obamacare? Because Democrats are in the back pocket of trial lawyers and don't take my word for it, ask Howard Dean. So there's that which should bother you.
Your opinion piece link puts a hard number on defensive medicine which is wildly speculative at best and unmeasurable at worst. Read Krauthammer for another perspective.
My final (and I do mean final) question for you is, "Why must you be such an asshole?" I am very careful to not get personal (this comment notwithstanding) even when I disagree vehemently. I weigh you comments and give them due respect and consideration to the extent I'm able. I've got news for you, I'm not ideologically stupid. You would do well to consider what I write, disagree if you like but I'm not pulling stuff out of my butt. There is a basis for everything I write or I would not write it.
Texas tort reform 5 years later
HD, once again, I’m all for tort reform. It’s a simple and good idea. But as a cost-control measure, you’re kidding yourself. The CBO estimated $54 billion in savings over 10 years. Not that impressive. Even if we take your $207 billion number (wherever that comes from), it’s still a drop in the ocean. Current health spending is around $2.5 trillion per year. That’s $25 trillion over 10 years......if costs remain constant (they won’t). Keeping everything else constant, your $207 billion number still results in less than 1% savings over 10 years. Wow. Here’s a great Q&A with Tom Baker, who knows a little something about health policy (unlike Krauthammer).
“I want to make them or decide who does, whether it be friends, family or clergy. It can also be the insurance company I chose and the plan I want to pay for. As long as I can choose my plan or change it (at any cost) then it cannot be called rationing.”
You seem to be struggling with the concept of rationing. Anytime you don’t get exactly what you want, whether it is due to financial constraints or market unavailability, it’s rationing. If you have a health insurance plan that denies a procedure, that’s rationing, even if you chose the insurance plan. The ACA does nothing to limit your choice of plans. It states you must have an insurance plan. But your choices are wide open. There are no bureaucrats making decisions for you.
You continue to evade my question about the Grandma Death Act. And you continue to ignore discussion on feasible cost-control measures that have been outlined for you (i.e.: not tort reform).
Why am I such an asshole? I guess that’s what you call others when you have been shown to be in over your head. If being an asshole means dispelling your patently incorrect fantasies concerning the ACA, the Ryan Plan, tort reform, and health care rationing.....so be it. Skepticism is good, unless it is ideologically unmovable when presented with mountains of contrary evidence.
Hey everybody, get a load of Jack! He says I'm "struggling with the concept of rationing" when it's he that is struggling with the idea of freedom. He asks why I think he's an asshole after he calls me ideologically stupid, compares me to a picture of a whiny little kid, says I'm in over my head. All of which is gratuitous. Now don't get me wrong, I don't care I'm just pointing it out.
Finally he puts up some pointy-headed professor of law and health sciences as a counter to DOCTOR Krauthammer. Hilarious!
HD, again you avoid the actual discussion points. You continue to obfuscate and have refused to state your support or opposition towards Ryan's Medicare plan. You have yet to say anything substantive......you may have a future in politics!
As for Tom Baker, tort reform concerns legal issues. So a law and health expert is a much better citation than a paid conservative talking-head.
Tom Baker... a lawyer... not so much for tort reform... who would have thought it.
But, let's describe him as a "law and health expert". Not a shyster or ambulance chaser as he only teaches shysters and ambulance chasers.
And where's the obligatory perp-walk for Edwards, another law and health expert?
"shyster or ambulance chaser"
Note the there are currently 169 lawyers that are members of the House. There are currently 57 lawyers in the Senate.
Current Republican heart-throb lawyers:
Michele Bachman
Rick Santorum
Mitt Romney
Past Republican President lawyers:
Richard Nixon
Calvin Coolidge
Teddie Roosevelt
Abraham Lincoln (gasp!)
Damn shysters.
Jack- You forgot John Edwards.
"Note the there are currently 169 lawyers that are members of the House. There are currently 57 lawyers in the Senate."-Jack
That should tell you something. I try to never vote for a lawyer unless his life's experiences would include more business, military, or other than suing people or making their life's work making black and white... gray.
Jack Just read that China says they had an estimated 10,000 Ph.D. engineering graduates last year. This spring the U.S. will graduate about 8,000 Ph.D. engineers, an estimated two-thirds of whom are not U.S. citizens. Meanwhile the US turns out 45000 lawyers a year.
Which do you think we need?
Jack, as you know one of the great trouble we now have is that congressional lawyers write laws that require other lawyers to interpret. These costly burdensome regulations are killing our economy.
Sarkazein, we hit the buttons at almost the same time.
So I guess you've given up on discussing Medicare then, eh?
Post a Comment