Here's a couple exchanges I've had with some over on C4P. Nothing earth-shattering, and I'm sure I'm not always right, but here we go:ALEXONION'S COMMENT:
Death Panel" is to irrevocable bureaucratic decision not to provide care as "Star Wars" is to Ballistic Missile Defense and the destabilization it would have on nuclear parity. There was no reference to "Star Wars" in the legislative language dealing with Ballistic Missile Defense. What is it that liberals are having such a hard time grasping about the term? It captures the essence of the program - rationing of care and the allocation of the rationed care towards people who lead "worthy" lives as determined by bureaucrats.
Death Panel" is to irrevocable bureaucratic decision not to provide care as "Star Wars" is to Ballistic Missile Defense and the destabilization it would have on nuclear parity. There was no reference to "Star Wars" in the legislative language dealing with Ballistic Missile Defense. What is it that liberals are having such a hard time grasping about the term? It captures the essence of the program - rationing of care and the allocation of the rationed care towards people who lead "worthy" lives as determined by bureaucrats.
(okay, that wasn't an actual conversation, I just thought Alex made a really good point. This was an exchange) :
BUCKJOHNSON:
I have to ask those supporters of Palin's who must extrapolate and explain her death panel comments.... What do you say too those people who are making end of life decisions for family member at this moment? When we had to "ration" care for one of our parents, it was the most painful decision I had to make. But like my sister said, who was by her bedside daily, look at the toll it was taking on surviving family members and what our parent daily care was, how humiliating the daily care was to a very proud and private person. Ms. Palin, before she involves herself in the pubic discourse, should first consider making statement that do no need explaining, and second, to remember that these decisions are the most private and painful decisions a person has to make, and that to have to hear and read about death panels, esp for the people making at this time these end of life decisions for a family member, is emotionally devastating.
I have to ask those supporters of Palin's who must extrapolate and explain her death panel comments.... What do you say too those people who are making end of life decisions for family member at this moment? When we had to "ration" care for one of our parents, it was the most painful decision I had to make. But like my sister said, who was by her bedside daily, look at the toll it was taking on surviving family members and what our parent daily care was, how humiliating the daily care was to a very proud and private person. Ms. Palin, before she involves herself in the pubic discourse, should first consider making statement that do no need explaining, and second, to remember that these decisions are the most private and painful decisions a person has to make, and that to have to hear and read about death panels, esp for the people making at this time these end of life decisions for a family member, is emotionally devastating.
UFFDA (ME):
That is a decision that you and your family personally got to make. That's fine. How would you have felt if you had no say in the matter, if it was something you had no control over because shortages had centralized healthcare to Washington? There is a role for you and your family and a role for the government. Blending the roles; not a good thing. The critical point we have to be clear on is whether this bill will create such a drain on healthcare that it will create those shortages. That's the question I wish I could ask Barack Obama. Maybe he's got a good answer, but I doubt it. It's just not economically feasible. And if you actually read her statement she does put the "death panel" comment in the context of rationing. It's just that most people skip the context.
BUCK:
We ration care now. My parents insurance had a lifetime max on its policy. Who was going to pay for it after it was reached? If my siblings and myself would have hadn't to taken it over, it would have bankrupted us, I was for spending what it took, but I could not make that dec for anyone else. I was single and only had myself to be responsible for. Palin's comments were irrational and illogical. I have worked in the insurance industry for many years, in a department called "cost containment" Right now, in that department, a nameless faceless person is making decisions on your health care. The decision is probably motivated by profit, So what is the "blending" part you spoke of? There is no blending. Almost every decision in health care is based on profit. I also worked in the fraud department, so I have working first hand knowledge of the fraud.
We ration care now. My parents insurance had a lifetime max on its policy. Who was going to pay for it after it was reached? If my siblings and myself would have hadn't to taken it over, it would have bankrupted us, I was for spending what it took, but I could not make that dec for anyone else. I was single and only had myself to be responsible for. Palin's comments were irrational and illogical. I have worked in the insurance industry for many years, in a department called "cost containment" Right now, in that department, a nameless faceless person is making decisions on your health care. The decision is probably motivated by profit, So what is the "blending" part you spoke of? There is no blending. Almost every decision in health care is based on profit. I also worked in the fraud department, so I have working first hand knowledge of the fraud.
UFFDA:
Dude, there's a difference between the private sector and the government. Look at Medicare. How many trillion is that thing in the hole? Insurance companies can at least turn a profit, therefore it's sustainable. I'm not saying that there aren't problems, but putting everything (and that is the ultimate goal) into the public sector is not going to make things better.
The government way is not sustainable. It'll go for awhile, but with our country already at the breaking point financially, this is really the worst time to break us entirely with another trillion dollar program, which is only the springboard to trillions more. Eventually we'll run out, and when we put all of our eggs in a centralized basket and that basket falls through, we're all in trouble.
There are problems in private industry, but it's spread out and localized so at least not everybody gets burned. There will always be cracks and always be people who fall through them, but the idea that the government is going to make that better...I don't think so. And of course there are limits to insurance. We have to find a way to bring costs down, get more supply in (by getting more doctors, etc...), and possibly move away from an employer-based system. I've always thought that it's incredibly stupid that if you lose your job you lose your health insurance. Insurance itself drives the cost up somewhat. The only way the government can compete is by running a deficit. What on earth good does that do? And Medicare is riddled with fraud. I can only imagine the fraud in this new system.
So basically you think that by duplicating the same problems that exist now only about a hundred-fold is going to solve those problems. Mmmmmm, not so much.
----------
On a sidenote, that Democrat who's challenging Arlen Spector has been floating around Fox lately. He said something about how the uninsured are costing us something like 100 billion dollars a year and that's why we need this bill. He was also for the Clinton healthcare thing, and was one of the crafters in the House of this healthcare bill.
Now, I don't know the details of this, but I have a question: If the uninsured (illegals included, I'm sure) are costing us so much money to pick up their tab, how is the solution to offer them government health insurance? Don't the taxpayers pay for it either way? 100 billion dollars isn't penny candy, but it's better than a couple trillion.
Maybe I'm missing something, but that was my initial reaction.
Don't get me wrong, I know we need to reform health care. But after what Obama's done so far with the stimulus and all the other out-of-control spending, I just simply don't trust him. I honestly do not believe what comes out of the man's mouth. If I don't trust his words, I sure ain't gonna trust his healthcare.
Maybe I'm missing something, but that was my initial reaction.
Don't get me wrong, I know we need to reform health care. But after what Obama's done so far with the stimulus and all the other out-of-control spending, I just simply don't trust him. I honestly do not believe what comes out of the man's mouth. If I don't trust his words, I sure ain't gonna trust his healthcare.
No comments:
Post a Comment