In Health Care Government Gives Rationing
by Big Dog on Oct 19, 2009 at 19:51 Political
The federal government wants to run health care. It is the desire of the Obamatons to take control of this large part of our economy so that it can take control of the people. This is what happens with Social Security and Medicare. Every time there is an election old people are scared to death over threats about cuts in services if the right candidate does not win. They also hear the doom and gloom as excuses for tax increases come into play. The government realizes that a large portion of the elderly vote so the politicians try to placate them.
This year there will be no cost of living increase because the cost of living has not gone up. The Congress is looking to give each SS recipient a $250 check because there will be no COLA. The law says that benefits cannot be reduced so the SS never goes down regardless of how well the economy is doing. The law also says that there is no COLA increase if the COL does not go up so why don’t we stick with the law? The Congress wants to placate the elderly by buying them off.
The real concern should be what will happen to them if the government controls health care. Rationing WILL take place. If the government needs to control costs or if there is a disaster then people not deemed worthy, per Ezekiel Emanuel, will be denied care.
The state of Florida is a prime example. The Florida Department of Health, a state government agency, has issued guidelines to hospitals regarding who is to receive care and who is not should the H1N1 flu cause a shortage of hospital beds.
Florida health officials are drawing up guidelines that recommend barring patients with incurable cancer, end-stage multiple sclerosis and other conditions from being admitted to hospitals if the state is overwhelmed by flu cases. Sun Sentinel
A state government agency has drawn up guidelines on who should be refused care should the flu overwhelm the system. The state agency has given guidance for rationing care.
Take this to the next level and you have the federal government. The federal government will also have guidelines that determine who gets what treatment based on age and general health. A 90 year old person stands little chance of getting a hip replacement or heart surgery if the procedure costs too much based on life expectancy. The big difference is that an emergency need not exist for the feds to ration care. The budget will be a major consideration as a cost is placed on human life. If they only expect you to live a few years more then you will not get what you need.
We see it in place in Florida based on a flu outbreak but the fact that they are deciding now who lives and who dies is a foreshadowing of things to come should government take control of the health care in this country.
No longer will a doctor and patient decide. It will be some bean counter in DC who decides based on life expectancy charts and the budget.
We, as a nation, need to decide that it is time for all members of Congress to be denied what they need to exist. That, of course, would be elected office.
Vote them all out in 2010.
And say no to government run health care.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: budget, florida, flu, h1n1, health care, Obama, rationing, swine flu
Bigd: “budget will be a major consideration as a cost is placed on human life.”>>
DAR
This happens all the time. The only question is do you want a private for profit industry that makes more money if they deny you care to make this decision in secret, or do you want the deep pockets of the government to be there to cover the bill if you get really sick, and the decision of who gets care to be decided in public by health professionals who DO NOT have a vested interest in the decision.
America does it the first way and has far worse, and less fair, results. Europe does it the second way and has far superior, and more fair results. They way is far superior.
We do it the first way and kill 22,000 per year through lack of care, i.e., RATIONING. No other rich country puts up with this immoral slaughter.
Bigd: If they only expect you to live a few years more then you will not get what you need.>>
DAR
“Need” is often subjective. Best to leave the question to impartial health professionals rather than a profit driven greed mechanism (Wall Street).
Bigd: “Rationing WILL take place.”>>
DAR
Whenever resources are not infinite, rationing WILL take place. The US, currently, rations far more than any of it’s peer countries. It’s not even close. It’s a disgrace.
Put up a free clinic in our peer countries, nobody will show up. Put one up here, and they get overwhelmed. Just ask if you would like specific documented examples.
Bigd: No longer will a doctor and patient decide.>>
DAR
You’re dreaming. That’s not how it works here. The insurance decides. Your doctor doesn’t decide jack. In Canada, the doctor and patient decide. Here, if the doctor and patient “decide” there is one gigantic hurdle, the insurance company. About 20% to 30% of claims are denied. If you didn’t work in 100% socialized (military) medicine, I think you would know this already.
Bigd: “government realizes that a large portion of the elderly vote so the politicians try to placate them.”>>
DAR
There is a name for this actually, it’s called “representative government.”
It’s the worst system of government, except for ALL of the others.
Bigd: A state government agency has drawn up guidelines on who should be refused care should the flu overwhelm the system.>>
DAR
As they should.
Bigd: The state agency has given guidance for rationing care.>>
DAR
Private industry would never resort to rationing care now would they?
I have a pretty fresh example. I went to the doctor today actually. Totally private clinic. They had a sign up that they were out of the flu shot and didn’t know when they would have more.
D.
—————
“The United States is the only developed country that relies on profit-making health insurance companies to pay for essential and elective care…. all the other developed countries have decided that basic health insurance must be a nonprofit operation.”
–The Healing of America, A global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care. Pg. 36
Tired of private insurance rationing your care?
You could always try insuring your insurance.
D.
This is a lie. The government defines a bankruptcy from medical bills as anything over $1000. If you have 90k in credit card bills and $1005 in medical bills they will call it a medical bankruptcy and that is misleading because Stevie Wonder can see what caused the bankruptcy.
It is again, smoke and mirrors. By using this definition they can make it seem worse than it is.
Most of the so called medical bankruptcies are really bankruptcies because of something else like poor financial management.
But you all keep telling that lie.
“The government defines a bankruptcy from medical bills as anything over $1000”
No. They don’t. You also seem to be implying that 90K in credit card debt was run up to pay for HDTV’s with surround sound and not medical bills. Really educated people in health care policy have dug pretty deep into this issue. One of the ways the left and right continue to spin the issue is by exactly what I mentioned above.
Yes Randy, that is what is defined as a medical bankruptcy. I linked to several studies in past conversations that showed this and that showed the average was well below other reasons for debts causing bankruptcy.
It was mentioned in the linked cartoon.
Not as defined by the government, as you stated. I have seen exactly one study, done by a private university that used $1000 in OUTSTANDING medical bills as a criteria for medical bankruptcy. But it wasn’t the only criteria. It also looked at loans and other forms of debt incurred for the specific purpose of paying medical bills.
But that IS the definition as applied by the government- that is how they skew their stats- it is remarkably dishonest, but then so is this administration.
No it’s not (the definition as applied by the government), and saying that the government considers anyone who has filed for bankruptcy that has $1000 or more in outstanding medical bills as bankrupt due to health care costs alone is you dishonestly skewing the facts.
Also, where did Darrel mention bankruptcies in his above post?
Darrel, Do you have a PREFERRED form of government? Is something else, in your opinion, better than the representative form we now have?
BLK: Do you have a PREFERRED form of government?>>
DAR
Already gave it above.
BLK: Is something else, in your opinion, better than the representative form we now have?>>
DAR
When someone repeats the famous aphorism (as I did above):
“It’s the worst system of government, except for ALL of the others.”
They are actually saying it’s the best.
Think about it.
D.
——————
“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”
–Winston Churchill
Aaahh- but in reality, we are not a true democracy, because not all the people are involved in the decision- making process- some choose to let REPRESENTATIVES of the people make those decisions, therefore we are a Representative form of a democracy- this is an important distinction, lost on many people.
Unfortunately, people look at the elections like American Idol, with the results that we get someone who sings real pretty, but cannot compose a song to save his life.
A one trick pony as shallow as a mud puddle.
Glad you’re finally coming to terms with the election of George W. Bush.
Darrel, private insurance did not ration my brother’s care who had cancer and they have also added another year to his contract, which he pays for yearly, so you can’t say that people are always rationed with private health care. However, Medicare, which is a government insurance will not pay for an artificial neck disk instead of a bone fusion with bone taken from a cadaver because they say it is more expensive. Yet, the artificial one is much safer for a person my age and would give me total movement in my neck. I want nothing to do with government health care, but this is where they want me to go. Yes, I’m 70, but what if the Lord wanted me to live another 15 years, am I supposed to do that in constant pain? This is so sad. I wouldn’t do this to a dog.
BARB: “you can’t say that people are always rationed with private health care.”>>
DAR
You’re right, and I would never say that. But lot’s of them are. A lot of people don’t find out how under insured they are until they get sick. My brother and his wife had insurance but the company went broke. Then they went broke.
BARB: I want nothing to do with government health care, but this is where they want me to go.>>
DAR
You could just opt out and buy your own, that’s what Blake “does.” One fellow has even put a form together for this.
Excerpt:
***
I, ________________________________, do solemnly swear to uphold the principles of a socialism-free society and heretofore pledge my word that I shall strictly adhere to the following:
I will complain about the destruction of 1st Amendment Rights in this country, while I am duly being allowed to exercise my 1st Amendment Rights.
I will complain about the destruction of my 2ndAmendment Rights in this country, while I am duly >being allowed to exercise my 2ndAmendment rights by legally but brazenly brandishing unconcealed firearms in public.
I pledge to eliminate all government intervention in my life. I will abstain from the use of and participation in any socialist goods and services including but not limited to the following:
* Social Security
* Medicare/Medicaid
* State Children’s Health Insurance Programs
* Police, Fire, and Emergency Services
* US Postal Service
* Roads and Highways
* The US Railway System
* Public Subways and Metro Systems
* Public Bus and Lightrail Systems
* Sidewalks
etc.
DAR
The list goes on for a long time, that’s maybe 15% of it (and he missed some).
BARB: I’m 70,… am I supposed to do that in constant pain?>>
DAR
Perhaps if the US wasn’t wasting $200 billion on shuffling medical paper work (reference on request), there would be more money to take better care of the older folks. If we covered everyone under a national commonsense plan (private insurance available for the rich of course), there would be more money for the elderly.
And then we might not need 1,000 military bases. Yesterday I learned it costs us between $400 and $1,000 to get a gallon of gas to soldiers in the field in Afghanistan. And a million dollars per soldier.
Maybe the US, with 5% of the world’s population, can’t afford to spend as much as the other 95% of the planet combined and at the same time take care of it’s older folks?
Personally, I’m for the old folks (have a concert in a Christian old folks home tomorrow, have to go type up some lyric right now for the singalong).
BARB: “This is so sad. I wouldn’t do this to a dog.”
DAR
Count your blessing that liberals and socially minded got medicare through at all. If Blake and Bigd had their way, you would be on your own like in “the good old days” (when being old was often synonymous with being poor). After all, the Constitution doesn’t specifically say society should care of our older folks.
D.
Being old is synonymous with being poor now because the elderly are tied to the whims of government. If we were allowed to invest our own money instead of throwing it in the SS hole the elderly would be much better off.
We cannot disavow ourselves of the Post Office, it is Constitutionally mandated and it is not socialist. It is a business that has a poor model and does not make money.
I am happy to pay my taxes for the essentials that government is supposed to provide. I want it to come from the state if the federal is not allowed under the Constitution. I will be happy to provide my own health care and my own retirement, my children’s insurance and my own transportation if I can have the taxes I pay for these things back. I can do much better managing that money than the government can and my family will be taken care of.
Bigd: “I can do much better managing that money…”>>
DAR
We tried that. Didn’t work. Feel free to invest on your own (as I do) but a modern wealthy nation still needs to have a floor, a social safety net, which we don’t let the poor fall through.
If you don’t like this, I encourage you to lobby your republican leaders to kill SS, or medicare.
See how that goes.
D.
——————
“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a
tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things.
Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional
politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”
–President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 11/8/54
I should be given the choice of how to manage that which is forcefully taken from me. As it stands, the SCOTUS has ruled that SS is a government benefit that can be stopped at any time. We paid in and should get it. But we can do better. We tried it before? OK, so those who are unable to save have a problem. If they wanted to do it correctly then the money would be put aside under your SSN and it would be in an account for YOU. When you die it can be passed on.
Confiscating my money to pay someone else is wrong.
Yes, we have programs to take care of the less fortunate but they are out of control and many of the “less fortunate” are sitting on their a$$es squirting out kids and getting welfare checks.
I am tired of paying. I am not my brother’s keeper.
Bigd: “those who are unable to save have a problem.”>>
DAR
There are many, tens of millions, that live from pay check to pay check. But even those who can and do save and perhaps had their investments in GM, or Lehman Brothers, or Enron, or property in New Orleans, or a *thousand* other failed investments, also “have a problem.”
Hence the need for the state to insure a social safety net.
Bigd: “If they wanted to do it correctly then the money would be put aside under your SSN and it would be in an account for YOU. When you die it can be passed on.”>>
DAR
That’s not insurance, that’s called a bank account. And it doesn’t cover you if you have an extraordinary expense that exceeds what you paid in. Social Security does.
Rightwingers have no compassion it seems, until something happens to them. Social Security is there to help the orphans, the widows, the chronically disabled etc., you know, the ones Jesus talked about all the time. And they hate this. Amazing.
D.
————–
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” –John Kenneth Galbraith
SS doesn’t cover you if you have an extraordinary expense that exceeds what you paid in- that is bull, plain and simple- at least not if you are white, with two arms an two legs. I know of a man with cerebral Palsy, and he has not been able to get ant disability benefits at all.
He has even had a lawyer for the past three years.
SS administrators policy is to deny, deny, deny.
BLK: “SS doesn’t cover you if you have an extraordinary expense that exceeds what you paid in- that is bull, plain and simple”>>
DAR
From the National Academy of Social Insurance:
***
Who Gets Social Security?
About 50 million people collect Social Security benefits each month, and they account for about one in six people in the United States. In about one household in four, someone is receiving Social Security benefits.
About 32 million retired workers receive benefits and another 3 million individuals receive benefits as spouses or children of retired workers. A total of 6.5 million people receive benefits as survivors of deceased workers, and these beneficiaries include 4.2 million aged widows and widowers and 1.9 million children. Another 7.2 million people receive benefits as disabled workers, and 1.8 million people receive benefits as the child or spouse of a disabled worker. A total of 3.1 million children under age 18 receive Social Security and another 0.8 million adults who have been disabled since childhood get benefits as dependents of a retired, disabled or deceased parent.”
Total Beneficiaries: 50,417,000
June 30, 2008
D.
—————–
“By international standards, U.S. spending on disability benefits is relatively modest,…
Spending on public disability benefits as a share of the total economy, or gross domestic product, in 2003 was 1.3 percent in the United States. This is compared to 1.4 percent in Germany, 2.1 percent in the United Kingdom, 4.2 percent in Sweden, and 3.6 percent in the Netherlands.”
Link.
By what I said, and I mght have phrased it more concisely, my apologies- SS does not cover you for extraordinary circumstances (expensive surgeries, etc.)- oh, you will continue to get the trickle of money (for now), but SS will not cover the surgeries themselves.
The link you provided says nothing about this, therefore, the discussion about SS’s input into a healthcare situation is irrelevant.
BLK: “I know of a man with cerebral Palsy, and he has not been able to get ant disability benefits at all… SS administrators policy is to deny, deny, deny.>>
DAR
Oh, this is good. Careful readers may notice that while Blake constantly complains that SS even exists for anyone, he now complains that it doesn’t cover enough people! He thinks it should cover MORE people than the 50 million I referenced.
Notice how it is hard to demonize people in need when you actually know the person in question. Maybe someday conservatives will develop the ability to have compassion for people who aren’t suffering right in front of their noses.
D.
I don’t think he was lamenting, just pointing out what does not happen.
The reality is that SS exists. The facts are that it doesn’t work as it should. If my friend with Cerebral Palsy doesn’t qualify, then who does?
Come on D- tell me how it is NOT broken?
Does my friend have to be a different color? More Tan, perhaps? Wouldn’t that be racist?
If SS is to exist, it should actually help people who need the help, shouldn’t it? And it should do so in a timely manner.
Maybe someday liberals will actually help someone when they do NOT NEED THEIR VOTE.
Darrel- your “form” is laughable at best- I have never said that government doesn’t have its place- but limited government is best- I do not need a Mommy.
A government should help people by providing the infrastructure necessary for secure commerce.
This would include police and fire departments, roads, (although those should be the states business) and the post office which is constitutionally mandated, but the rest of the list is unnecessary, and actually benefits the government, as they can steal the money from these other programs.
See Social Security. See Medicare. Barry is going to cut 500 billion from Medicare, and the older people won’t suffer?
Only in your mind, Darrel.
Barry is playing a shell game here, and thinks we are all yokels. He keeps that up, someone’s going to get mad.
BLK: “have never said that government doesn’t have its place”>>
DAR
On September 18 you said:
“…we do not have, nor do we want, a socialized system of anything,…”>>
BLK: “government should help people by providing the infrastructure… police and fire departments, roads,”>>
DAR
All socialized systems.
BLK: “I do not need a Mommy.”>>
DAR
No comment.
D.
Your idea of socialized and mine differ.
Government should play no role in assisting one group over another- that is social engineering, and it is wrong-
Affirmative action is wrong on several levels, as it gives minorities an unfair advantage, and these same minorities, who can compete on a level playing field, feel demeaned by being “given” something they didn’t fairly earn.
They feel that they were treated as less than a whole, competing individual, and they also feel the resentment over being treated this way.
Affirmative action is unfair to all concerned.
Government should stay out of people’s lives- these “socialized” systems for roads, police, and emergency response should be more state driven than fed., because the states know better.
The only job a government has to get right is the security of its citizens- all else the citizen will get done on his own.
There is no inherent “right” to healthcare, period.
We do so, because we are a compassionate people, but as we can see, Social Security and Medicare are both going broke at an astounding rate, and all you liberal deniers are going to get your butts caught in the same crack the rest of us are. That will be my only satisfaction out of all this mess-
Darrel, can you get your stories straight. Last time you said we had 18,000 dying. The deep pockets of the government are the deep pockets of the taxpayer because government has no money.
I know you have this belief that we should pay for everyone but I have yet to put my finger upon the part of the Constitution that authorizes government to take my money to pay for someone else’s health care (or anything for that matter).
Private insurance is a business and denial of care happens but Medicare denies the most claims so how can it be better than private insurance?
Bigd: “can you get your stories straight. Last time you said we had 18,000 dying.”>>
DAR
Yes, I have referred to that number several times. The National Academies references 18,000 here.
This is the most conservative estimate, several others are much higher. I read a lot and some times refer to different ones.
Consider (Sept 18, 2009):
“Research released this week in the American Journal of Public Health estimates that 45,000 deaths per year in the United States are associated with the lack of health insurance. If a person is uninsured, “it means you’re at mortal risk,” said one of the authors, Dr. David Himmelstein, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.
The researchers examined government health surveys from more than 9,000 people aged 17 to 64, taken from 1986-1994, and then followed up through 2000. They determined that the uninsured have a 40 percent higher risk of death than those with private health insurance as a result of being unable to obtain necessary medical care. The researchers then extrapolated the results to census data from 2005 and calculated there were 44,789 deaths associated with lack of health insurance.”
CNN.
Factcheck considered this and shows several other studies here, including:
“In 2008, the Urban Institute updated the IOM numbers, using later Census Bureau estimates on the uninsured. It found that in 2006, the number who died because of a lack of insurance was 22,000. The Urban Institute also said that the IOM figure “may have underestimated the number of deaths” by trying to calculate different mortality-rate differences for each age group, an approach the Urban Institute said wasn’t well grounded in the research. Applying a mortality-rate difference to the entire population under study produced an even higher number, 27,000.”
Bigd: “Medicare denies the most claims so how can it be better than private insurance?”
DAR
Make private insurance take *everyone* over 65, then you will have an apt comparison. Otherwise, you don’t.
D.
So does this include people without insurance who are going to die anyway? If you have no insurance and end up with terminal lung cancer does it mean you died from having no insurance? It is a farce to say that people died because they lacked insurance.
The apt comparison is a moot point. The claims are that government run care is wonderful and better than private insurance. If it is so great why do people need supplemental insurance to get by and why do they deny at all? This only proves that by putting more people in insurance run by the government more will be denied. That is the reality of it.
Look at Florida. It is a microcosm.
Bigd: “So does this include people without insurance who are going to die anyway?>>
DAR
Absolutely. It wouldn’t be proper study if it didn’t.
Bigd: If you have no insurance and end up with terminal lung cancer does it mean you died from having no insurance?>>
DAR
Absolutely not.
Bigd: It is a farce to say that people died because they lacked insurance.”>>
DAR
No, it’s a well confirmed fact.
Tell that to Nikki White.
People who have insurance die at rate X.
People who don’t have insurance die at rate X + 40%.
This has all been explained to you before.
D.
—————-
“Lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States [2004]. Although America leads the world in spending on health care, it is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage. To help policy-makers, elected officials, and others judge and compare proposals to extend coverage to the nation’s 43 million uninsured, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies offers a set of guiding principles and a checklist in a new report, Insuring America’s Health: Principles and Recommendations.”
Link.
See also:
No Health Insurance, Higher Death Risk
Excerpt:
Sept. 17, 2009 — In a new study, researchers estimate that 45,000 deaths per year in the U.S. are associated with not having health insurance.
That estimate appears in the advance online edition of the American Journal of Public Health.
Data came from about 9,000 people aged 17 to 64 who took part in a government health survey between 1988 and 1994. They were followed through 2000.
During those years, about 3% of the participants died. People without any health insurance were 40% more likely than people with health insurance to die during the years studied, regardless of factors such as age, gender, race, income, education, health status, BMI (body mass index), exercise, smoking, and alcohol use.”
Darrel, perhaps you should look at the original SS legislation and see why it was set up. It was not to provide for disability and all that. If money was put aside for YOU then it should be yours. The idea behind SS was that the money was saved for YOUR retirement. It is YOURS and you should be able to pass it on. You lose it if you die before you retire or soon after. That is not right.
There are plenty of plans that provide welfare for the people who truly need it and it is paid for with taxes. If SS is for retirement then it should be like all other retirement plans.
There are investments that make money even in bad times. And even if it was a bank the interest rate averages more than the government gets. SS is a huge Ponzi scheme that is no different than what Madoff did except it is legal.