patrick.net

I can see Russia from my home, I declare Death Panels are legit :-)

SG,

What do you mean, all of a sudden :-)? I think they have been out in force for at least the last 6 months.

But this particular posting was a very sarcastic parody from Daily Kos. You know it's bad when one cannot tell the parody from the wing-nuttery :-)

Sarah Palin is the biggest joke America can offer to the rest of the world. Bush will look Abraham Lincoln compared to Sarah Palin.

Yeah, it's a parody. These are all legitimate examples of Insurance companies denying coverage and letting people die. Just to illustrate that we already have death panels.

It's ironic that the wingnuts are actually fighting against a healthcare act that would protect them against insurance company death panels, by saying it would create death panels.

I wish people would stop feeding the "Death Panel" nonsense by saying that insurance companies let people die all the time, even though it's absolutely true.

The text of the house bill doesn't even refer to the same thing at all -- it just states that doctors can be compensated for providing end-of-life counseling. That is to say, if a doctor helps a patient decide between staying in a hospital, going to a nursing home, or going home and dying in peace, it will be covered.

Of course, now the deathers are changing their tune and pulling out-of-context quotes from Rahm Emanuel's brother and presenting them as though it was some official government policy. With lunacy like that in the mainstream, it makes me wonder what the tinfoil hat crowd is up to these days.

Well........it looks like the liberals dropped the idea of end life death panels........heh. Can't drop what never existed........right ?? LOLOLOLOL !!!!
YAHOO - Key senators are excluding a provision on end-of-life care from health overhaul legislation after language in a House bill caused a furor.
Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a statement Thursday that the provision had been dropped from consideration because it could be misinterpreted or implemented incorrectly.
A health care bill passed by three House committees allows Medicare to reimburse doctors for voluntary counseling sessions about end-of-life decisions. But critics have claimed the provision could lead to death panels and euthanasia for seniors.
The Senate Finance Committee is still working to complete a bill.

10caipirinhas says

Well……..it looks like the liberals dropped the idea of end life death panels……..heh. Can’t drop what never existed……..right ?? LOLOLOLOL !!!!

More like "changed the wording of the bill so that stupid voters can't be lied to by GOP trolls".

Yeah basically because idiots confuse "end of life care" with death panels. Do you right-wing nutjobs even know what end of life care is?

Hospice Information
Palliative Care
Advance Care Planning, Advance Directives, Living Wills
Caregiving
Pain
Grief
Financial Planning
Issues Relating to the Workplace

Is this a bad thing? Well apparently it is, because we had to take it out of the healthcare bill so right-wing trolls don't scare people.

Now granny can't get help with financial planning and hospice information.... thank you very much, assholes.

Perhaps I should have said "political satire with a serious purpose" rather than "parody".

What about what Palin said on April 16, 2008 when she declared HEALTHCARE DECISION DAY in Alaska
and told everyone they should all get END OF LIFE COUNSELING!!!
This is the exact opposite of what she is saying now.

HEALTHCARE DECISION DAY by Sarah Palin is distinctly worth of an official link so that y'all can see that Sarah Palin is full of tripe about EOL Counseling:

http://gov.state.ak.us/archive.php?id=1094&type=6

On the Sidelines says

Government denial under a single payer system means you die. There is no alternative.
Insurance denial under a free market system means you’ve got to pay a little money out of pocket to purchase the treatment you’re asking for, because some other sucker isn’t going to cover it. Grow up, act like a big boy, and pay your own way.
Which do you prefer?

That is simply untrue. Single payer by definition means nationalized health insurance, not nationalized hospitals or doctors. You could still pay for service out of pocket if you so chose. The only difference is it would likely cost you half as much, based on dozens of other extant single payer systems.

Even in Britain, a rare example of socialized healthcare as opposed to single payer insurance, you can go to private clinics.

You might not like single payer or multi-payer, but at least learn what terms mean and use them correctly before trying to scare other people.

And if you really think you can "pay your own way" with a "little money" in our system when treatment is denied in serious conditons, you are either in at least the top 0.5% of taxpayers or you are delusional.

On the Sidelines says

srla says

Single payer by definition means nationalized health insurance, not nationalized hospitals or doctors. You could still pay for service out of pocket if you so chose.

That is not always the case. The most obvious counterexample is Canada, where people who want to pay out of pocket have to travel to the USA.

The reason Canadians come to the U.S. when they do (and the percentage is low) is they have longer waits. Their system is also run for 50% less than ours despite economies of scale which SHOULD operate to our advantage (as we have ten times the population and buying power). And in any case, I would hope we could come up with a better system than theirs.

Even in Britain, a rare example of socialized healthcare as opposed to single payer insurance, you can go to private clinics.

Private clinics are generally forced to offer high end, high margin services when they have to compete with “free” care from the government. Another way your brilliant single-payer plan drives up the cost of decent care.

Of course they are high end, high margin. That is the nature of supplemental care. Do you have any data that shows their high end care is even as expensive as our own, let alone more expensive?

And if you really think you can “pay your own way” with a “little money” in our system when treatment is denied in serious conditons, you are either in at least the top 0.5% of taxpayers or you are delusional.

You are not ENTITLED to egregiously expensive, bleeding edge medications and procedures at somebody else’s expense. If you cannot afford them, that’s too damn bad. Try to work a little harder and save a little more in the next life. Trade in the Prius for a Focus, shop at Ralph’s instead of Whole Foods, and quit voting for higher taxes.

Well, since you decided to make certain assumptions about me, I guess I should set you straight. For one thing, I have excellent group health insurance, and I even have a secondary policy for asset protection purposes. I am usually in the top 1% or so of earners, yet it would be a big hit just to pay for some rather minor procedures that involve no "bleeding edge medications" or technologies, say a compound fracture or appendix removal. In the past, these would have been affordable out of pocket. Today, they are not. And in case you also would accuse me of being out of shape, fat, or using up valuable resources, I also am incredibly strict with what I eat, how much I work out, and I am in quite excellent shape. In my life this far, I have incurred maybe $2000 in medical costs, mostly from getting stitches.

And while I have my own business, work 6-7 days a week, and have been very fortunate financially, I am incredibly frugal. I seriously doubt you could match me in utter frugality. Trust me, it goes with running businesses. I saved so much in my first 3 years out of college that I managed to pay off all my student loans, of which I had a bunch, since, well, Ivy league places aren't cheap. Since then, I have always put away money and never had debt, especially since the bubble was in full swing in CA and a mortgage made no sense. I also drive an old car rather than throw money away on a new one. As a result of all that, I have plenty of savings. Finally, as I am still single, I currently pay an astonishing amount in taxes, or at least it astonishes me anyhow.

Voting for healthcare reform in order to cut expenditures is not a vote for higher taxes. As Medicare pays for 65% of our healthcare costs, voting for the status quo on this issue IS a vote for higher taxes. If you have a plan to lower healthcare costs, then vote for that. But I can't see voting to support helathcare costs that are increasing at 2-3 times the rate of inflation.

Not everyone who supports national healthcare fits into your neat stereotype. Some of us are meat-eating, PETA-hating, hard working, and politically all over the spectrum. We have just studied the data and made an educated decision that it is the most economically viable model.

You are not ENTITLED to egregiously expensive, bleeding edge medications and procedures at somebody else’s expense. If you cannot afford them, that’s too damn bad. Try to work a little harder and save a little more in the next life.

I remember the mayor in Florida using this same party line during the peak of the housing bubble regarding public outcry over the affordability of real estate.

You know I am really sick of hearing about Canadians flocking to the US for medical treatment. Go to Canadian blogs and no one knows of anyone that has done it. Here is a pretty good study from 10 years ago (when the Canadian system had MUCH higher waiting times) that says its pretty much all BS.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/21/3/19

The study didn't even try to identify Canadians that were living and traveling in the US and got sick or hurt, so if anything the numbers are under reported.

People do come from all around the world for health care in America. But very few come from the other industrialized countries Those that do mostly come for very specialized treatments at the cutting edge research centers. Why do other people from around the world come here instead of Canada or England or Sweden? Is it the health care in America is so superior (it is very, very good most places) that people don't even consider the rest of the industrialized world (which also has very, very good care, I have lived in several of them)? Not at all. The reason is simply that the rest of the industrialized world has public health care that is only available to the citizens of the country. You can go to some of these countries and pay for treatment with private specialists out of pocket. But only with great difficulty. America is the only first world country you can pay out of pocket easily. Some other countries are starting to cadge onto this. For example New Zealand now offers medical tourism using private specialists with some sort of arrangement for insurance to cover any complications that need access to the public system.

Of course facts don't concern the demagogues anyway, so why bother?

interpretame says

The Obankster WANTS you asswipes busily debating HEALTH CARE because it draws your collective attention AWAY from the fact that he’s ass-raping you with his ECONOMIC policies.

It’s called BAIT & SWITCH.

You know, this is a pretty tired argument. About the worst thing that Obama is doing at present, economically is not working to reduce the deficit. While that's pretty bad, it's hardly a unique position in the world (almost every wealthy country has deficits as bad or worse than the U.S.)

What other policies are "ass-raping" us? Really, I'd like to know, and then I'd like you to show me a place that is actually any better off with different policies. As far as I can tell, the countries with economic systems similar to the U.S. (with central banks, mixed markets, and everything else) are generally pleasant places to live with a high quality of life, whereas countries that have substantially different policies are pretty much universally shit holes (or tropical islands that you can't really live in anyway).

For the average person living in the US, Canada, Australia, most of western Europe, Japan, and a choice few other countries, life is pretty good. These countries all have very similar governments and economic systems. There are certainly some differences, like military spending and health care systems, but in the grand scheme of things these are fairly minor.

So, really, what are you complaining about? What are you worried about? I will say with 100% certainty that for the rest of your life, people living in the United States (and any of the other countries I just mentioned) will have a great quality of life, no matter who we elect as president or what their policies are.

On the Sidelines says

Why don’t you do a little research into what South Africa was like 20 years ag

It was great for the tiny white minority that suppressed the black majority.

Are you suggesting that Obama will free the oppressed majority of this country and will pull the minority power holders down to the level of everyone else? Oh noes!

I'll tell you what. If I'm wrong and Obama manages to destroy the United States, I'll arrange for you to move to some other country of your choosing (as soon as you find one where your idiotic racist viewpoints are actually tolerated, of course).

"But the libs want to change this. They want everybody to be “equal” (except for the ruling elites). They believe that a highly educated professional making 6 figures in SV shouldn’t be able to obtain better medical services than the illegal alien that mops his pee off the the floor in the men’s room."

You have no clue what you are talking about. There is private insurance available in all the public health care systems around the world for anyone who wishes to pay for it. Nowhere in Obama's or anyone else's plan does anyone even suggest that private insurance wouldn't be available. Do you read anything other than the NRO. Would you care to document where and how exactly this change will be implemented. Where is the proposed bill? Who said this in what speech? Or are you just some troll throwing meaningless garbage out?