Death Panels by Bytemite

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Could the whole death panel argument be a smokescreen for something else?

Yes. It's a smokescreen for insurance companies and pharmas who don't want to give up their ongodly profits.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 6:23 AM

I seem to recall a number of big insurance companies have been bailed out recently. Profits? In last year, for the entire industry, dropped 92.6 percent.

However, I grant you there is definitely a lobby of insurance companies who are scared shitless. They see hard times possibly in the future, want a guarantee.

And I don't like insurance companies. Putting a price on human life is macabre, as is denial of claims based on computers crunching numbers and doing risk assessment.

But they're not who I mean. There's something else wrong here.

What about... Protections for the rights of the elderly? Elderly are considered a vulnerable target group for scams, fraud, and abuse. Are there any measures in this bill for that?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 6:30 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

To the best of my knowledge, the part of th bill to which you are referring is only to provide PAYMENT to doctors, etc., who counsel end-of-life issues.

While anything mankind creates, mankind can find a way to abuse, I see little abuse in that. I don't feel the need for yet one MORE bureaucracy looking into doctors and others because they might be "scamming" the elderly by counseling them, and the potential for abuse seems to me rather slim.

On the other hand, I think we should all be encouraged to make living wills and be prepared for the unexpected, or how we would like to be treated if we become incapable of caring for ourselves.

I would like specifics on what you feel is the potential for abuse of the elderly in this provision, perhaps then I would better understand what your concerns are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 6:47 AM

I know there's a provision to prevent advocating suicide or assisted suicide, so that's not it.

Could there be pressure among the medical community to encourage Do Not Resuscitate that this bill might not address? I know the medical community can at times be a bit more lighthearted about patients dying than many of us are comfortable with, and they're overworked.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 7:08 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
So this idea is completely crazy, right? I mean, consider the sources who originally started talking about it. I don't put any credibility behind the hate spitters.

But as I was thinking about it, all of a sudden my paranoia-sense started tingling.

Could the whole death panel argument be a smokescreen for something else?

There were no death panels...it was all made up. Which is why they dropped it from the bill. Because it was a lie...that is no longer in the plan.

How dare they make up lies about things in the plan forcing those things not in the plan to be removed from the plan.

Thats so wrong...or would be if the Democrats had not made it all up. Nobody actually said anything about death panels, which were removed from the plan because they were lies made up by Republicans who read the plan which has now been changed so death panels that didn't exist are now gone and all because of the Democrats or maybe the organized right wing people with their professional handmade at home signs coming to the town halls to yell at people who say there are no death panels, which have been removed from the plan.

That should clear it up.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 7:11 AM

BM

You're not nearly paranoid enough.

The real question is, how did the lobby get the public to create the outrage, or is it just an illusion that this is the public, and if so, how did they create that illusion?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 7:19 AM

Hmm. Follow the money. That could be a good lead. I was thinking of trying to look at the Senators themselves, but you're right, it might be a good idea to look at the known plants. Backtrack inductive reasoning to what the real program is, based on who's funding it. Or who may be behind the fronts funding it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 7:35 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I seem to recall a number of big insurance companies have been bailed out recently.

Not the same insurances. AIG insured credit default swaps based on mortgages, Ambac insures munibonds and mortagages; Ameriprise Financial, Hartford, Lincoln National, Principal Financial and Prudential Financial Inc. are life insurances. Its not that these insurances are inherently risky, it's just that these insurers all rode the real estate magic carpet.

But as far as HEALTH insurance is concerned... As of May 29

Quote:
Profits at 10 of the country’s largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428 percent from 2000 to 2007 while consumers paid more for less coverage. One of the major reasons, according to a new study, is the growing lack of competition in the private health insurance industry that has led to near monopoly conditions in many markets. The report says such conditions warrant a Justice Department investigation and, says Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), provide compelling evidence of the need for a public health insurance plan option as part of the health care reform initiative President Obama and Congress are developing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 7:45 AM

That is true, in fact 2006 was the highest profits for the industry on record.

But the current activity is a "saving our ass" response to the decline in the economy. Underwriting costs are a major part of how an insurance company profits off of people, but equally important is people able to buy coverage... Which many people and businesses can't afford right now, which includes health insurance. Their policyholder pool and surplus has shrunk, which is what measures their money supply and ability to stay in business.

But don't get me wrong, I do think these people are slime. I just think it's important to correctly identify what their specific motivation in this case is.

In my opinion, things look dire for all of the insurance companies. Normally I wouldn't be worried, but then what desperate acts might they do, and what'll happen to their policyholders?

In this particular case, I'm also worried about measures that the government might slip in too. This is health care, this is our health, and I don't really trust the hand that poisons us.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 8:01 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
So this idea is completely crazy, right? I mean, consider the sources who originally started talking about it. I don't put any credibility behind the hate spitters.

But as I was thinking about it, all of a sudden my paranoia-sense started tingling.

Could the whole death panel argument be a smokescreen for something else?

There were no death panels...it was all made up. Which is why they dropped it from the bill. Because it was a lie...that is no longer in the plan.

How dare they make up lies about things in the plan forcing those things not in the plan to be removed from the plan.

Thats so wrong...or would be if the Democrats had not made it all up. Nobody actually said anything about death panels, which were removed from the plan because they were lies made up by Republicans who read the plan which has now been changed so death panels that didn't exist are now gone and all because of the Democrats or maybe the organized right wing people with their professional handmade at home signs coming to the town halls to yell at people who say there are no death panels, which have been removed from the plan.

That should clear it up.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

Well, you're right when you say they were never in "the plan". For one thing, there were never any provisions for any kind of "death panels", period. The Supreme Court would never have approved it. Hell, Oregon tried to make doctor-assisted suicide a little easier once upon a time, and that was stricken down by the feds. So the "death panel" crap was completely invented out of thin air, fabricated out of whole cloth. Never existed.

For another thing, there is no one single "the plan" to talk about. There are several PROPOSALS, none of which are "the one", and none of which have "death panels" anywhere in them.

Lastly, what WAS dropped from ONE proposal was the right to have insurance provide for end-of-life counseling with your own doctor, which it SECIFICALLY STATED WAS OPTIONAL, NOT MANDATORY. This was, I believe, in Section 236 or 237 of the proposed bill, HR 3200. It's been stricken out now. What that means is that, if you want to meet with your doctor for end-of-life counseling in any form, you pay for it out of your pocket.

Why do Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and others have such a sudden, inexplicable problem with these non-existent so-called "death panels"? It seem incongruous at best, especially considering that both of them have advocated such end-of-life planning and counseling. When she was governor of Alaska, Sara Palin even declared an official "day" of such planning. One Republican lawmaker also recently proposed legislation that would make it a legal REQUIREMENT for every citizen to have a living will.

So "death panels" never existed in any healthcare reform proposal that's being discussed today. To say they did, or they do, is disingenuous at best, and outright lying for profit at worst. Given what "Hero" does for a living, I'd say it's more likely the latter.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 8:03 AM

UNABASHEDVIXEN

I confess to not being overly familiar with the bill - although it's my understanding the bill is a mish mash and hard to read.

Anyway - a DNR is and always has been a decision made between a patient and a doctor. I don't see how that would change. The medical code of ethics doesn't just go out the window when the way medical care is paid for changes.

The idea of "death panels" is simply ludicrous - ask any country with government sponsored health care (including the US) - it's a fabrication of the anti-reform movement.

*
People before profits

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 8:06 AM

Quote:

But don't get me wrong, I do think these people are slime. I just think it's important to correctly identify what their specific motivation in this case is.

Ummmm... and this is just a wild-ass guess... MONEY? Ya think MONEY might be their prime motivator?

Let's see, the economy is in the shitter, stocks were in freefall, so Blue Cross/Blue Shield gave their CEO a 220% raise over the last two years - and my premiums, with no claims and no doctors visits or pre-existing conditions, went up 23% and 21% in those two years.

What changed during that time to validate or justify such a raise in his pay and a rise in my premiums? Well, I didn't get better healthcare out of it, that's for sure. And they didn't insure more people and spread the risk pool around a little more. Nope, they raised rates, raised revenues, and increased profits while decreasing payouts (often through a process called rescission, where you get dumped once you file a claim).

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 8:10 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

A few good resources:

http://factcheck.org/2009/08/palin-vs-obama-death-panels/

excerpt

Aug 14th:
"Like many disagreements in the digital age, it all started with a post on Facebook. Last Friday, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin posted a note to her Facebook page and introduced a new term to the health care debate:

Palin, Aug. 7: The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. - Ssssss. Palin

Unsurprisingly, the phrase "death panel" does not appear in the health care bill that passed House committees last month. And Palin’s post did not make entirely clear what she might interpret as a "death panel." Nonetheless, the phrase stuck."

She's like a snake that can still kill you even when it's dead.

Also, from AARP: http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourhealth/policy/articles/health_care_reform
2.html

excerpt:

"Q. Will the government encourage euthanasia to save costs?

No. This false but scary idea—now surging around the Internet in blogs and e-mails—claims that the House bill would require Medicare beneficiaries to have mandatory classes every five years to decide how to end their lives earlier. Typical e-mails add: “They’re going to push suicide to cut Medicare spending!” All identify page 425 of the bill as their source."

Where did this myth come from? On July 16, Betsy McCaughey, a former Republican lieutenant governor of New York, appeared on a conservative radio show. Citing page 425, she said: “Congress would make it mandatory … that every five years, people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner … all to do what’s in society’s best interest.”

On July 23, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, leader of the House Republicans, issued a statement saying: “This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia if enacted into law.” On Aug. 7, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin described the proposal as setting up a “death panel.”

What does the proposal say? The clause on page 424 (section 1233) would require Medicare to pay doctors for their time if beneficiaries chose to consult them for information on advance care planning, such as making a living will, appointing a health proxy, and hospice care (already covered by Medicare). Medicare would pay for these sessions only once every five years.

AARP described McCaughey’s claims as “rife with gross—and even cruel—distortions” of legislation that “would not only help people make the best decisions for themselves [on end-of-life care], but also better ensure that their wishes are followed.”

Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia, who has sponsored a bill that would also allow Medicare to cover end-of-life planning, characterized the death panel talk as “nuts.”

Last one and a controversial source: The WhiteHouse

http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/471

Of course being paranoid these will not be very convincing and probably pretty pointless, but they are offered anyway - maybe someone will let something slip or you can find something out of whack. I vouch for none of these sources btw.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 8:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by UnabashedVixen:
I confess to not being overly familiar with the bill - although it's my understanding the bill is a mish mash and hard to read.

Anyway - a DNR is and always has been a decision made between a patient and a doctor. I don't see how that would change. The medical code of ethics doesn't just go out the window when the way medical care is paid for changes.

The idea of "death panels" is simply ludicrous - ask any country with government sponsored health care (including the US) - it's a fabrication of the anti-reform movement.

*
People before profits

Remember, Vixen, you're dealing with an awful lot of people in the U.S. who actually think - and this is not conjecture, this is from actual poll results - that the VA is not a government-run program, that Social Security is not a government-run program, that Medicare and Medicaid are not government-run programs. The reason they're screaming about not wanting "socialism" is because they actually don't really have any idea what they're talking about. They honestly don't think that those programs are socialistic, because they don't know that they're government-run healthcare systems!

THAT is the level of stupid we're dealing with here. This isn't just ignorance or willful blindness; this is aggressive stupidity on a level rarely seen in human history. These are people whom, if you try to point out facts to them, will spit in your face, punch you, kick you, call you a communist, and if they get a chance, most likely will shoot you for your troubles.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 8:25 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Remember, Vixen, you're dealing with an awful lot of people in the U.S. who actually think - and this is not conjecture, this is from actual poll results - that the VA is not a government-run program, that Social Security is not a government-run program, that Medicare and Medicaid are not government-run programs. The reason they're screaming about not wanting "socialism" is because they actually don't really have any idea what they're talking about. They honestly don't think that those programs are socialistic, because they don't know that they're government-run healthcare systems!

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 8:32 AM

HKCAVALIER

A friend of mine introduced this concept of "the bee who knows where the honey is" to describe Steven Spielberg back in the day. He meant that the guy was blessed with the ability to somehow sense exactly what people wanted to see. His movies for a while were absolute box office magic.

The insurance lobby's latest tactics remind me of Spielberg with their smears (of course they've had 40-50 years to hone their craft, to determine exactly what nonsense would get under folks' skin and kill healthcare reform). They seem to find their fricken mark unerringly. Folks just can't dismiss the obvious lie. "There's gotta be something to it!"

This "death panel" idea has legs--it's a crowd pleaser. Somehow, this idea that the government secretly--or not secretly at all--wants the weak and dependent among us to go and die has serious psych'-cred (yeah, I just made that up). It fits somehow into people's deep-seated fears about a dangerous world they feel increasingly powerless to influence. It reflects an intuitive sense that those in power do not have our best interests at heart--that those in power would gladly cull our numbers for their own gain. Really, and this is the master-stroke of the right-wing fear mongers, it reflects EXACTLY the attitude of the insurance lobby.

It's a hell of a trick and it has proven to work again and again. But I honestly think things are changing. The big lies are getting overused and we're discovering that they have diminishing returns. Fewer and fewer people are being taken in. The Republican base is being revealed as a coalition of the corrupt and the ill-informed. But what happens if the number of ill-informed shrinks? You can't uninform people. That's where these fear tactics come in. Even the most well informed person can be terrified out of his wits. Look, our own PN is not ill-informed, far from it, his trust in pretty much everything has simply been broken.

Anyway, if we think in terms of progress rather than perfection, what's happening now is pretty remarkable. Clinton's healthcare reform never had a chance in hell. It never got off the ground and I'm sure destroying it was relatively easy on the "insuro-pharmaceutical" wallet. But this time, there's actually a fight going on and we're all in on it.

And Obama has to know that if he lets them kill the public option, he's goin' home in 2012. He knows this. He's not stupid. What he is, is in trouble, and all things considered, I think that's a very good thing at the moment. 'Cause I've seen the guy rise to such challenges, and win.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 8:38 AM

Okay. I'm getting a little tired of being misrepresented.

Quote:
So this idea is completely crazy, right?

Quote:
Could the whole death panel argument be a smokescreen for something else?

Quote:
I know there's a provision to prevent advocating suicide or assisted suicide, so that's not it.

Not once, not ONCE did I say that I believe the Death Panel nonsense!

I'm SAYING that I think this fuss is being raised to hide something else.

And I'm aware of the obvious, AND TRUE, answer that the insurance companies are looking to take advantage of health care reform.

I'm saying I'm concerned there might be something else sinister here at work, besides the insurance companies, and I'm trying to figure out what it might be. HKCavalier has a more correct interpretation of where I'm at, and I may not be Republican, but yes, the government scares the hell out of me! So yes, I want to keep studying the issue, and learn as much as I can, so IF the government is actually going to try to screw us over, I know where and how.

Maybe further scrutiny won't turn anything up, and I'm fine with that, then it's just law and I don't care, and it might even help people. If it'll help people, I support that.

But I can't just take any law at face value, because it's not in my nature to do so.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 8:58 AM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Not once, not ONCE did I say that I believe the Death Panel nonsense!

I'm SAYING that I think this fuss is being raised to hide something else.

And I'm aware of the obvious answer that the insurance companies are looking to take advantage of health care reform.

I'm saying I'm concerned there might be something else sinister here at work, besides the insurance companies, and I'm trying to figure out what it might be.

I think the problem, Bytemite, is that you're being kinda ultra-cryptic. Throw us a bone--WHAT do you think it's covering up? What COULD it be covering up? WHY do you think it's a cover-up in the first place?

There's a long running meme in armchair political analysis--whatever stupid thing is the "big story" in the news is being used by shadowy forces to cover up "the real story." I think it's mostly crap. Our shadowy overlords simply have too much on their plates to be mindfully manipulating every aspect of the popular awareness.

It's scatter-shot, it's opportunism, it's simple greed running the store aided and abetted by human nature. It simply plays on the all-too-human desire for comfort. People would rather be distracted by O.J. than think about how corrupt their government is. No one has to plant that seed, no one has to set that ball in motion, 'cause it's already growing, it's already rolling.

People tend to hear what they want to hear and see what they want to see. The mechanism by which this is manipulated is fear. Frightened people seek comfort. Fearless people don't bother.

We gotta be very, very mindful, all of us, of where we're letting our fear get the better of us, of where we're settling for comfort--even the comfort of a conspiracy theory.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 9:11 AM

All right, you have a good point. Both that I'm being cryptic, and that about the comfort of conspiracy theories.

Quote:
WHY do you think it's a cover-up in the first place?

This is the only one I have anything on yet. But the reason I think this could be a cover-up is firstly all the noise, and secondly all the confirmed plants at these town-hall meetings, apparently from both sides.

We have people coming from districts that aren't their own to protest, which is dishonest. We have the radioheads raising a stink about nothing. We have shills from the insurance industry. And, if you believe other reports, some of the protesters are plants from the Democratic party, trying to stir up the crowd and make them all look bad.

Could be just party politics and fighting, true.

But the simple USE of plants makes me think we're being manipulated. For what, and why? I don't know yet. At face value, Republicans are trying to rile up their base over this, and Democrats are trying to discredit the protesters. I don't know if it's deeper than that, but because of my personal beliefs that the Republicans and Democrats really aren't so different, and that behind the party platforms seem to be working towards the same goals, it makes me wonder if there's someone or something else here working behind them.

I'm trying to brainstorm anything, any aspect that could be overlooked, hence my comments about about Do not Resuscitate. I don't find that idea particularly convincing, so I want to keep looking.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 9:32 AM

Maybe it's not the bill itself, though I want to keep looking into it.

Are there any other bits of legislation that Congress will be working on or voting on when they reconvene?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 9:32 AM

BM

My Perosnal Conspiracy Theory on this issue:

The whole attack on the healthcare plan has been designed by big pharm, who supports the healthcare plan. They want the opponents of the plan to look insane, so they add swastikas, etc. Some people are duped into following this idea.

Logic:

1. Big Pharm is the most powerful affected interest.
2. Big Pharm benefits by the plan *even if* it includes price controls, because it doubles the number of customers.
3. Once insurance is either universal or mandatory, there will be no logistical roof on prices, only whichever legislative ones Obama puts into place.
4. Limits can later be disposed of by some other legislation, probably a minor rider on a defense spending bill or some such nonsense.

(Note how stem cell research funding was banned again, only days after Obama lifted the ban, when he signed a $400 billion bailout which included the ban re-instatement on a rider. Big Pharm opposes federal funding for the research because Merck and Co are currently funding the research in exchange for shares in the smaller biotech firms that do Stem Cell research. This would eventually enable big pharm to take over stem cells, but not if there's federal funding available.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 9:34 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Byte, there are a lot of REALLY gullible, misinformed right-wingers out there. If they can believe that the earth was created 6000 years ago, they'll believe any idiocy- including death panels, nazi medicine, and Fed accessing your bank account. There are people you really don't want to take your cues from, and these are them.

But IMHO, what I think is that these peeps are having their cherished paradigms challenged. It's all one big interlocking mess in their minds: lack of scepticism and looking towards "authority" for "the facts", racism and the shock of having a half-black President, a faith that this is the best country on earth and that "freedom" means the same as "free market"... They really don't know what they think. In fact, they don't think at all! They're just being used as shock troops- cannon fodder if you will- for the REAL PTB simply because they'll get agitated over the most baseless things.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 9:58 AM

Byte, I hope you don't think *I* am misrepresenting you here. I am a little confused on what it is you're hinting at, but I get that you don't trust "the government". What I would ask of you is this: Follow the money. Look into the people who are so all-fired dead-set AGAINST reform, and see who's behind them. In every single instance I've seen, in every single one of these allegedly "grassroots" protests and organizations and "organic" anti-governnment rallies that just seem to spring up out of nowhere... in all of them, if you look behind the curtain, you'll see who's paying the bills: Lobbying firms, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and the like. The people who don't want you to have affordable health care are the people who will make the most money by keeping health care costs the highest in the world while offering you a healthcare system and outcomes that are ranked FAR, FAR below the best in the world.

Currently, health insurance companies are taking over 35 cents of every dollar you give them and putting it in their pockets as profits. By law - BY LAW - the Vegas casinos are only allowed to keep 25 cents of every dollar they take in as profits, and in reality, they keep more like 20 cents of every dollar that comes in. And they say the house always wins in Vegas. So if Vegas is a sucker bet, what's insurance? Usury? Robbery? Fraud?

You can see why they'd want to protect their racket, eh?

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 10:00 AM

Ooh. Good spot on the stem cell research thing. And that's pretty much the interest I see the health care industry having in this. They want more customers, and fewer options.

I was rummaging around on the Senate site, and I found these bills being worked on and probably voted on when congress reconvenes.

REAL ID ACT: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:S1261:

Appropriations for CIA: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:S1494:

"SEC. 311. PERMANENT AUTHORIZATION FOR THE PAT ROBERTS INTELLIGENCE SCHOLARS PROGRAM."

Pat Roberts? An Intelligence training program named after Pat Roberts? :/

But aside from those two, not a whole lot to be alarmed about there. Or at least anything that I can interpret out of H.R.53N473 speak.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 10:05 AM

Yeah. And I mean, I saw that all too. I guess maybe JUST the insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry seemed too simple. ^_^' It probably is that simple, and I guess I just keep expecting to see something deeper at work.

I shouldn't have got so upset. Sorry. Sorry to everyone, particularly you, Pizmobeach, because I kind of lost it there.

And "misrepresented" was the wrong word. Misunderstood is more right, because I really don't think death panels are a real thing. But I guess I can see now how my questions and this conversation in general might be confusing people, because *I* was being a little confusing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 11:32 AM

Byte, I don't think you've got anything to apologize for. If you're being confusing, it's because this issue is purposely being confused by people who not only don't want you to know the truth, but who actively want you to believe UNTRUTHS.

Frem has quoted intel officials saying it, but it's equally true of the medical-industrial complex: "If they knew the things we did, we'd be hanging from the lamp posts."

In all things, it seems, money flows upwards. And reasons follow the money. Find out who's doing what, and why, by finding out where their money is coming from.

Think of it this way: If government were in control of healthcare costs, and if there were a cure for cancer, government would have a vested interest in curing everyone so they could get back to work and get back to paying into the system. Now, if BUSINESS had a cure for cancer, you'd never know about it. Why? Because they can make far more money TREATING you for it than they can by CURING it. Keeping you sick actually vastly increases their profits.

That's the sickest part of it, and that's the part that nobody really wants to talk about or admit.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 11:43 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Better late than never: While Sarah Palin might have originated the term "death panel", I believe "former New York lieutenant governor, Betsy McCaughey, a strident critic of the Clinton health reform initiative in 1994, arbitrarily distorted those measures in a radio talk show. She said, falsely, that the House bill 'would make it mandatory -- absolutely require -- that every five years, people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner, how to decline nutrition, how to decline being hydrated, how to go into hospice care.'"

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2009/aug/17/8-17-t1-origin-of-death
-panel-myth/

Just a bit of useless trivia. Palin certainly gave the Right a nice terminology, tho'.

________________________
Together we are more than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 11:50 AM

Slightly off topic, but that reminds me, has anyone ever seen those skits on Conan O'Brian where William Shatner recites Palin's speeches and blogs like free-prose poetry?

VERY funny. :) Although I can kind of see why maybe she decided to step down from the governor's office, the amount of flak she was catching had to be pretty much unbearable.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 11:58 AM

Quote:
Think of it this way: If government were in control of healthcare costs, and if there were a cure for cancer, government would have a vested interest in curing everyone so they could get back to work and get back to paying into the system. Now, if BUSINESS had a cure for cancer, you'd never know about it. Why? Because they can make far more money TREATING you for it than they can by CURING it. Keeping you sick actually vastly increases their profits.

That's the sickest part of it, and that's the part that nobody really wants to talk about or admit.

Yes, I agree. :) I think both viewpoints are the wrong way to look at health care, since the government's is more about how to get you back to work so you can be used up, But the big industry side of it... Ick. Macabre, like I said before.

Although I did need to apologize, because I did kind of blow up out of frustration there. No one here deserved for me to yell at them. Pizmobeach was just trying to be informative about why death panels are a fabrication. I agree with that, so my outburst was needless.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 12:27 PM

BM,

Thanks. Actually took me a while to figure out exactly what was going on with stem cells. I tracked down the funding for the so called right to life lobbies against stem cells, and the transactions on convertible bonds and options that were funding the research. Yes, rarely I can rise to the PN/Frem level of actual research...

Quote:
BM

Pat Roberts? An Intelligence training program named after Pat Roberts? :/

Lol

The intelligence the US operates on? I think it's appropriate.

Those bill links came up completely blank for me.

Worst case healthcare scenario:

1. Law requiring you to buy a product (insurance) in order to be an American (this would be a first, you don't have to drive a car.)

2. No controls on price of insurance (a control on medicine costs is an easy get around: they just pad the fees of the doctors you have to see to get the medicine, or any part of the system, and rake it back in again, if insurance will cover it)

3. Force employers or workers (same dif) to pay out of the wages/benefits (either way, the total cost of hiring an american)

4. Have supplemental "health savings accounts" programs to pay for it, like a 401k, we all know how well those worked (why didn't more people squawk about this, don't the people have a right to the money they earn?)

5. Have loan programs so that people who can't afford health insurance can borrow money to buy health insurance, and pay for the unchecked costs in the business (just like everyone's paying interest on wars they didn't want.)

6. The resulting healthcare is an HMO with the power to select treatment and deny.

All of these are going to be pushed for by the various special interest parts of the 4 trillion dollar healthcare industry, which is now as large as the govt. itself, and is going to definitely be pulling the strings on this one... And there's one more worry:

7. States will seize the opportunity to abandon their own healthcare programs to balance their budgets, on the grounds that it's federally covered.

I have a personal interest in this one. I get state healthcare, and it would be easy for me to buy back in, esp. if there's a pre-existing condition clause on the price.

So, healthcare would be great. I think that objectively, Kerry had a better idea: create a "catastrophic case fund." Other than that, I think they're attacking this beast from the wrong angle: Control cost.

If they want a national healthcare, they could nationalize the industry by buying it. Not my first choice, but probably a better idea.

Little side story: I fell on stone steps, hit my lower back, and couldn't move it. I went to the ER:

1 P.A. comes in, takes all my info.
2 Doc sees me for 15 seconds.
3 Doc orders an upper chest x-ray.
4 Radiologist can't change doctor's orders, and does an upper chest x-ray which of course shows nothing.
5 I'm discharged, doc says I'm fine.

Turns out he never saw the notes, the P.A., he had no idea which P.A. was handling his patients, and had not been to the main desk all day to check to see who was working for him, or to see the records for any of his patients. I questioned him as I was leaving, he could not name a single P.A. who worked in the office.

So, finally, I get a bill, there's some nominal charges, one for the P.A., one for the Radiologist and X-ray, these are all like 60 or 80 bucks, high, but not as insane as it's about to get: $400 for the "room" which I waited in. It wasn't a long wait, maybe 1/2 hour. just one of those little box rooms, no bed or anything. Then $1000 for the doc's time. Nothing accomplished.

The bill at the time exceeded my total net worth, which is how I got health insurance. Total services used: a camera, twice, a paper form, a 10' square room for 30 min, and 1/2 man-hour (woman-hour actually) of skilled labor ($40/hr.) and 0 min of doctor time.

So, in the objective economic, it costs a couple dollars in equip., $10 each for two workers, so maybe $25 total. Then they might want to make a profit on it, so they could charge me $40-$50, that would be reasonable, if the doctor had been deleted, as the P.A. had ID'd the potential problems, and could have ordered the radiologist to take the proper X-ray.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 12:39 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"This is the only one I have anything on yet. But the reason I think this could be a cover-up is firstly all the noise, and secondly all the confirmed plants at these town-hall meetings, apparently from both sides.

We have people coming from districts that aren't their own to protest, which is dishonest. We have the radioheads raising a stink about nothing. We have shills from the insurance industry. And, if you believe other reports, some of the protesters are plants from the Democratic party, trying to stir up the crowd and make them all look bad."

I get emails from ALL the political spectrum.

Can I say - the right started it first ? I got the emails - read their plans. Watched them work HARD to foment this phony issue. It took WEEKS for the center and left to respond with 'plants' of their own. But it was JUST that - a RESPONSE.

Now, WHY would the right and the insurance industry collude ?

For the same reason Iraq was over-determined - everyone who supported it saw something
in it for them: Cheney saw a Halliburton cash cow, the neocons saw a 'new world order', radical x-tians saw the end of days they just couldn't wait for their god to move on, republicans saw a 'wartime' president to whip up support ---

Insurance companies want their usurious profits. Republicans want to sink the president over ANYthing with traction.

It doesn't take an Einstein to figure this one out.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 1:38 PM

Kathy,

long time no see, you missed a furious healthcare debate.

insurance companies want more insured, through them, and the right to raise rates, because they are financial institutions

republicans, just like democrats, want to be elected at all costs, because they are politicians

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 2:10 PM

FREMDFIRMA

I think, as a general rule - and I have said this before...

That when a political bruhua is suddently raging in the street outside, the FIRST place you oughta look is at your back fence, to see who's sneakin over it while you're conveniently distracted.

Apparently I missed mosta the conversation, but I think that's a *GOOD* instinct, myself.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 2:12 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I've been and continue to be verrrryyy busy ... and will be for about 6 more weeks until this project winds up (and by then I might even have walls in the house).

I've come to the conclusion that business is not about selling X for profit - it is - especially when taken public - about maintaining stock prices and dividends. That can sometimes be done by making a better X in order to sell more. But often it is by squashing competition, being the only game in town (as health insurance companies have been for too long), and charging whatever pencils-out as being ultiamtely the most profitable. If that means selling fewer plans for more money, that will be what is done.

As for health care reform, I got this from Salon:
"The Prince":

"It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order, this lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the laws in their favor; and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it. Thus it arises that on every opportunity for attacking the reformer, his opponents do so with the zeal of partisans, the others only defend him half-heartedly, so that between them he runs great danger."

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 3:04 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I did kind of blow up out of frustration there. No one here deserved for me to yell at them. Pizmobeach was just trying to be informative about why death panels are a fabrication. I agree with that, so my outburst was needless.

Whodawhatawha?

Where...??????

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 3:12 PM

Quote:

Although I did need to apologize, because I did kind of blow up out of frustration there. No one here deserved for me to yell at them. Pizmobeach was just trying to be informative about why death panels are a fabrication. I agree with that, so my outburst was needless.

Byte, we all yell around here, me more than most, even. And everyone around here has a pretty thick skin by now, I hope.

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 3:19 PM

Oh! I forgot to respond to this. Those Senate bills that I posted, FFF is AGAIN being silly with it's hyperlinks. The links have left off the last colon punctuation mark thingy, which is why they're broken.

Also, Dreamtrove, thanks for giving me some other possibilities to look into. :)

In the very least, I'm doing a lot of research on this. See, normally, my research method can be compared to a kitchen sponge, so any effort at exerting myself is a big improvement.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 3:26 PM

That's probably very likely, Rue, although with my Republican congressmen in my state, I've noticed they tend to side with the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies on any issue. I'm pretty sure I know WHY, too, but we're a red state, the only way the bastards will ever leave office is by a funeral procession.

One of them, Orin Hatch, there was an old lady who was pleading with him to explain why she couldn't get her medication from Canada, that she hadn't been able to afford her heart pills for three months. He just shrugged her off and ignored her. Fine examples of human beings these fellas are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 4:45 PM

Kathy

1. Business is about delivering what the people want. Any business that has lost sight of that is soon to be out of business. Most of the rules of business come out of 1929. It was those who truly understood the spirit of business that survived.

2. But healthcare has no opponents. This opposition is fake. I suspect the special interest stand most to benefit, but the people do as well, it's a win win. Unless someone screws it up.

BM,

I'm not fond of politicians, but I think you misjudge Mr. Hatch. He was one of the people who tried very hard to form a bi-partisan group to support healthcare against the Bush admin. He's a very conservative guy, but in that, he's representing his constituents. I also know someone who knows him, she's a pretty far left liberal, but she says it's hard not to like him. I didn't see the interview, but I know that these recent town hall meetings have been hell on politicians, and they're at wits end. As witness Barney Frank totally losing it (a)with good cause, and b) Barney losing it is a fairly common sight) but still, you understand. When people are approaching you with obama death panels and death squads and secret muslim african takeovers of the socialist states of america creating concentration camps for muslims and mexicans so they can feed the greedy lizardmen to take the gold back to the mothership, then, well, you might wear out.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 4:53 PM

This was several years ago. When a politician says they're making a bi-partisan effort, it's pretty much lip-service, because all I've ever seen, living in the state Orin Hatch "serves" is that if it's the pharmaceutical industry that stands to make a profit at the expense of the citizens, WELL THEN, buy those 400 dollar pills and like it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 5:15 PM

Quote:

2. But healthcare has no opponents. This opposition is fake. I suspect the special interest stand most to benefit, but the people do as well, it's a win win. Unless someone screws it up.

And that's the "unless" part that's scaring the hell out of those who are actually hoping for an improved system. The people who are actively trying to screw it up are doing so for a very good reason. If they can irrevocably break it, they win. How? Because now they can go back to the people and say, "We tried it their way, and it was an absolute disaster; that's why we need to privatize ALL of it, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the VA... ALL OF IT."

Don't believe me? Look at what they've done to public education. Introduce do-nothing feel-good programs like "No Child Left Behind", which leave EVERY child behind, and then DON'T FUND THE PROGRAMS, and point to the abysmal results as proof positive that the system is broken. They tried it again at Walter Reed - which is NOT the VA, it's the Defense Department that runs it; they starved the hospital of funding, showed reporters how broken it is, in an attempt to get us all paying MORE and MORE and MORE to build bigger, better, newer FOR-PROFIT hospitals. The first step to privatizing a program operated by the government is to starve it of funding; the second is to hold it up as being broken AFTER you've made damn sure that you broke the hell out of it. In that way, you get it turned over to your friends in the for-profit business end of it. It's also currently being done with the prison system and the military.

If you can turn prisons over to for-profit companies and pay the inmates $0.17 an hour or less to do what would cost you at least $7 an hour in the REAL labor market, every nickel you save on labor and make in profit goes into the CEO's pocket. And you have ever more incentives to put people into prisons. If it actually COSTS the state money to put someone in prison, they're incentivized to rehabilitate the inmates to make sure they stand less chance of coming back.

If I sound cynical and jaded, it's because I've been watching a lot of things for a very long time. After a certain point, it becomes hard NOT to see the patterns...

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 5:22 PM

Yup. Sabotaging the public plan, IF it gets through, will likely be the next step, whether or not that was the initial goal in the first place.

I kind of sort of think it is. I've been contributing money and letters of support to anyone who so much as looks like they might not try to just kill it after it's in.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 5:29 PM

Quote:

I'm not fond of politicians, but I think you misjudge Mr. Hatch. He was one of the people who tried very hard to form a bi-partisan group to support healthcare against the Bush admin.

I'm not so sure about that. Now Senator Hatch is one of the ones saying that "real" bipartisanship involves 75 or 80 Senators voting for something. In other words, once a few people came out and said that the Democrats have the votes to pass healthcare reform without a single vote from the Republicans, and once they pointed out they have enough votes to block a filibuster, and once they said, in effect, "We don't need you. Get on board or lay down on the tracks, because this train can either carry you or run you over, and I'm fine either way," THAT is the point at which the Republicans tried to change the rules yet again. No longer is 51 votes enough to pass a bill into law in the Senate; no longer is even 60 votes enough, according to them; nope, now you need EIGHTY votes to pass a bill through the Senate!

If you think he misspoke, look around. Chuck Grassley said the exact same thing today, and right-wing pundits are trying to give it some traction. Suddenly, a simple majority is no longer sufficient to pass laws in this country; the Constitution has it all wrong - it really takes EIGHTY PERCENT of the votes to win.

Of course, they're dead wrong. The rules are still the rules, and they're trying to lay the groundwork for when they lose, and they're hoping that the Democrats won't know any better and will still try to pull them onto the train. When it doesn't work and they lose, the Republicans will start whining that it's not *really* a mandate, because it only passed by "the narrowest of margins", even if that narrow margin is 65-35 in the Senate and 260-175 in the House. But, as they say, a win is a win, and at the end of the game, all that matters is being able to point and say, "Scoreboard".

So, Senator Hatch, you're wrong about bipartisanship. You're wrong if you think we need it. It would be *nice*, but your party has already shown us in no uncertain terms that it has no intention of EVER supporting anything that has President Obama's seal of approval on it, nor his seal of the Presidency. So while YOU might need it, we really don't. We have the votes, we have the support of the American people, and you can climb aboard or go under the wheels, because this train is pulling out of the station, and the destination listed on the charter is a place called "Progress".

All aboard!

Mike

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 6:29 PM

BM

Re: hatch, It wasn't open. He didn't want to be known for a bipartisan bill, he just wanted to pass the stem cell legislation. Maybe it was just because he was afraid specter would die, and so it was personal. Still, it wasn't the only time I saw him cross the line. He's a died in the wool conservative, but I don't have him pegged as a stooge like mcconnell, or my senators: Hillary R. Otten, and Chuck him anytime Shoe mur

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 6:39 PM

Mike,

I'm coming at this from the other side, and I can tell you we've practically killed to get private education with zero success.. your side has won the public education debate hands down in spite of, and i'm sure you won't disagree, a stunningly inferior product. It's like the abortion debate, it's just hopeless from a right wing side.

Healthcare is different. The old school republicans who don't like big spending, and this will be the biggest spending bill ever, bigger than social security, they hate it, but they have absolutely no power. Neocons are corrupt corporatists, and corporatists love govt. paying for anything because they can charge the govt. anything, and don't have to deal with pesky supply and demand.

The anti-healthcare is a fraud, and it's set up by the people who want healthcare, but they don't want it to fail, they want it to be always a govt. sponsored independent industry. They make the drugs, and give them to you, you take them, are dependent on them, and always have to buy more. But they don't want you to have to pay for them because they know you don't have dick for money, they want the govt. with a 5 trillion/year spending total to shell it out.

Insurance companies, they want in the game too, they want the govt. to give the money to them, or force you to pay directly, all so the people are poor, and borrow, or so the govt. is in debt and borrows, because then, not only can they skim off the top, they can collect interest on the debt, because the same massive financial empires will be loaning the govt. the money that it spends on healthcare.

a private system could work. I wouldn't mind public and private side by side, like in britain. Public would by an expanded VA, expanded to include the disabled and the poor, maybe after 2 years of service (military, peace corps, americorps, something) and then the private would have to compete with that, pricewise.

The conventional wisdom in britain is that the private healthcare is superior in quality, and sets a quality standard that the public health tries to match, while in turn, the public sets a price standard that is cheaper than the private, that the private stuggles to try to match. It's a good competitive system with two competing structures and ideals.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 6:45 PM

Ah the audacity of hope. I fear progress. I like things the way they are. Science can progress, but politics should regress back into the stone age.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 20, 2009 9:46 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Politicians of yore used to give eloquent speeches on high ideals and create memorable pieces of prose that survived decades or centuries. They still played politics, but they did it with a slice more brains.

Yes, let's friggin regress, please.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 21, 2009 6:13 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Kathy

1. Business is about delivering what the people want."

Only sometimes. When the cost of entry is low (growing tomatoes ?) and/ or established business hasn't erected barriers, many can compete and the competitive model works. But when the market is dominated by a few, and/ or the cost of entry is high (care to set up an automobile factory is your backyard ?), then there is no competition. People be damned, there are much easier ways to make money than making and selling a product people want.

Just look at the DeBeers diamond cartel. They make the most money restricting sale of product.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 21, 2009 7:03 AM