How Right-Wing Pundits Would Spin News That Obama Had Rescued A Child From Drowning

[Diehard]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-..._b_279034.html


Funny, but true. Sadly true.

[Detroit Stylin]

LOL i know right....

[ccbatson]

That is all the libs can come up with now? Absurd fictional hypothetics?

[elganned]

That is all the libs can come up with now? Absurd fictional hypothetics?

You mean like "death panels" hunting down and killing Sarah Palin's baby? Those kinds of absurd fictional hypothetics?

[ejames01]

It is called humor.

That is all the libs can come up with now? Absurd fictional hypothetics?

[Bobl]

That is all the libs can come up with now? Absurd fictional hypothetics?

Lighten up, bats. If we can endure nearly four thousand redundant posts out of the right wing catechism handbook from you, surely you could allow a little satirical humor from others.

[ZRX Doug]

You mean like "death panels" hunting down and killing Sarah Palin's baby? Those kinds of absurd fictional hypothetics?

You quite clearly don't get the idea behind the "death panel" argument. Mrs. Palin never claimed anyone would hunt down and kill her baby.
Quite simply, the rationale is that in government-controlled healthcare, cost-efficiency will be of utmost importance, or the program will either fail as miserably as the current state-run entitlement programs are already doing, or bankrupt the state.
Cost-control leads to rationing of care, rationing leads to the necessity of determining who gets what..which leads to the formation of the spookily named "death panels."
The reality of the situation is that the elderly, the terminally ill, and the severely handicapped WILL get the short end of the stick in any such scenario. If you doubt this, I invite you to take a look at any government-run healthcare program anywhere for confirmation.

[elganned]

All very rationally explained, I'm sure.

But that doesn't seem to have had much affect on the wingnuts on the talk-show and blog circuit or their call-in/write-in "me-too"s. That's what I meant by "absurd fictional hypothetics."

[UFO]

You quite clearly don't get the idea behind the "death panel" argument. Mrs. Palin never claimed anyone would hunt down and kill her baby.
Quite simply, the rationale is that in government-controlled healthcare, cost-efficiency will be of utmost importance, or the program will either fail as miserably as the current state-run entitlement programs are already doing, or bankrupt the state.
Cost-control leads to rationing of care, rationing leads to the necessity of determining who gets what..which leads to the formation of the spookily named "death panels."
The reality of the situation is that the elderly, the terminally ill, and the severely handicapped WILL get the short end of the stick in any such scenario. If you doubt this, I invite you to take a look at any government-run healthcare program anywhere for confirmation.

You are beating a dog with a dead stick Doug.

The partisan left refuse to understand this simple but true explanation of why people are hesitant about accepting full blown single payer nationalized healthcare.

Reform , a public option, and opening up to insurance market across the board for competition is the way to go.

But please Doug, stop trying to explain things to these partisan hacks on either side of the aisle.

Once a nut, always a nut.

[ejames01]

Do you really think that the insurance companies don't already do the same thing?

You quite clearly don't get the idea behind the "death panel" argument. Mrs. Palin never claimed anyone would hunt down and kill her baby.
Quite simply, the rationale is that in government-controlled healthcare, cost-efficiency will be of utmost importance, or the program will either fail as miserably as the current state-run entitlement programs are already doing, or bankrupt the state.
Cost-control leads to rationing of care, rationing leads to the necessity of determining who gets what..which leads to the formation of the spookily named "death panels."
The reality of the situation is that the elderly, the terminally ill, and the severely handicapped WILL get the short end of the stick in any such scenario. If you doubt this, I invite you to take a look at any government-run healthcare program anywhere for confirmation.

[gazhekwe]

Under Medicare, my dying mother was given every option for treatment despite multiple issues including cardiac disease, stroke, and dementia. Nothing could be done to improve her condition, and she had lost all hope of ever getting on her feet. At that point she chose hospice, which again was completely covered under Medicare. It was her choice, her timing. No one put any pressure on her. That was a government sponsored program's treatment of a very ill elder person.

And then, there is this story, about a single mother of two who was denied treatment and sentenced to death by her insurance company:

http://cbs5.com/local/cancer.treatme...2.1007394.html

But instead of having doctors working to remove her brain tumors on the day the surgery was scheduled, she sat in a San Francisco hotel room. Why? Because at the last minute, her insurance company, Blue Shield, decided it wasn't going to pay for the treatment her doctors at UCSF Medical Center had recommended.

[Detroit Stylin]

Under Medicare, my dying mother was given every option for treatment despite multiple issues including cardiac disease, stroke, and dementia. Nothing could be done to improve her condition, and she had lost all hope of ever getting on her feet. At that point she chose hospice, which again was completely covered under Medicare. It was her choice, her timing. No one put any pressure on her. That was a government sponsored program's treatment of a very ill elder person.

And then, there is this story, about a single mother of two who was denied treatment and sentenced to death by her insurance company:

http://cbs5.com/local/cancer.treatme...2.1007394.html

But instead of having doctors working to remove her brain tumors on the day the surgery was scheduled, she sat in a San Francisco hotel room. Why? Because at the last minute, her insurance company, Blue Shield, decided it wasn't going to pay for the treatment her doctors at UCSF Medical Center had recommended.

Sound like a Death Panel to me. Oh my bad, it was a private company that did that....

[ZRX Doug]

FWIW, I'm the primary care-giver of my 83 year-old mom, who has recieved less than stellar treatment thru both Medicare AND her private insurer, so please, don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining, mmkay?

What's your point? We can both come up with endless personal stories to "prove" our point..it doesn't move the discussion.
The bottom line is that the point made by detractors of the public option re: ''death panels" was not a falsehood.

[ccbatson]

In answer to the question posited by the subject title, here is the answer by analogy; Hitler loved dogs, taken in the narrow context of that fact, he probably did some very compassionate and caring things for his, and other dogs...by itself, that is a good thing. However, NOT BY ITSELF, there is a great deal negative to say about that evil villain.

[gazhekwe]

zrxdoug -- What's your point? We can both come up with endless personal stories to "prove" our point..it doesn't move the discussion.

My point is, cost control considerations happen with private insurance companies quite frequently. The one little story I cited is not the only one out there. Corporate bottom line is more controlling than any government program because if you don't make a profit, you lose your job or you don't get your billion dollar bonus. Oh, I forgot, you lose your job AND get your golden parachute and your bonus, but still, you lose your job.

[ccbatson]

Gaz, step back and see the power of competition in a free market. It is no mistake that history always proves socialism causes gradual and progressive escalation of costs and degradation of quality...ALWAYS.

[ejames01]

Do you have an example of that? Any reports that you would like to cite?

Gaz, step back and see the power of competition in a free market. It is no mistake that history always proves socialism causes gradual and progressive escalation of costs and degradation of quality...ALWAYS.

[Detroitej72]

Sound like a Death Panel to me. Oh my bad, it was a private company that did that....

But the fools on the right wing side will continue to ignore, distort, and lie about this little fact.

We already have health care rationing, its called for profit insurance and anyone who denies this is either blind, stupid or on the private companies payroll.

[Detroitej72]

Do you have an example of that? Any reports that you would like to cite?

Don't hold your breath for a response, as Bats conveniently ignores when he's pinned into a corner.

[Gistok]

FWIW, I'm the primary care-giver of my 83 year-old mom, who has recieved less than stellar treatment thru both Medicare AND her private insurer.....

I guess it must depent on the specific circumstances... I too am the primary health care provider for my 87 year old mother... and both Medicare and Blue Cross [[her private insurer) have done a marvelous job of taking care of mom's cancer surgery, rehab and treatments [[she's doing fine now). Perhaps some illness are better provided for than others.

So far out of her $190,000 in bills in the last 15 months... she's only had to pay for $100 in out of pocket expenses.

[firstandten]

You quite clearly don't get the idea behind the "death panel" argument. Mrs. Palin never claimed anyone would hunt down and kill her baby..

I don't think anyone at least on here is making any such claim other than in jest to her stupidity

Quite simply, the rationale is that in government-controlled healthcare, cost-efficiency will be of utmost importance, or the program will either fail as miserably as the current state-run entitlement programs are already doing, or bankrupt the state.
Cost-control leads to rationing of care, rationing leads to the necessity of determining who gets what..which leads to the formation of the spookily named "death panels."
The reality of the situation is that the elderly, the terminally ill, and the severely handicapped WILL get the short end of the stick in any such scenario. If you doubt this, I invite you to take a look at any government-run healthcare program anywhere for confirmation.

Two questions ?

How do you know this about government run health care ? give us an example rather than putting off the research on us

and doesn't privately run insurance companies do the same thing ?

[Detroitej72]

and doesn't privately run insurance companies do the same thing ?

Yes, see HMOs for some great examples.

[elganned]

Quite simply, the rationale is that in government-controlled healthcare, cost-efficiency will be of utmost importance,

...but it's not of utmost importance now?

Cost-control leads to rationing of care, rationing leads to the necessity of determining who gets what..which leads to the formation of the spookily named "death panels."

So such cost constraints will only attach under a "public option", but will not be active under a "private option"?

The reality of the situation is that the elderly, the terminally ill, and the severely handicapped WILL get the short end of the stick in any such scenario.

If cost continues to rise at its current rate, this will be true regardless of whatever plan is put in place, or if no new plan is put in place.

The problem is the third party payer, not who that third party is. Cost will continue to rise under private pay. Excluding public pay will not contain it.

Without a public option, rationing will still occur. The determinant will be income, rather than any "death panel". When the cost of insurance finally grows to the point where it exceeds one's ability to afford it, you will die. End of list.

[ZRX Doug]

I was not denying that "death panels" [[for lack of a better term) exist under traditional insurance plans..someone up the line was mocking the fact that they were ever brought up, so I explained the concept.

If you want to drive insurance costs down, the best way to do so is by encouraging competition in the marketplace..apparently even Obama and the Dems agree with this, as that is what they claim the purpose of a "public option" is.
The problem with that theory is that a government run plan is not "competition" to private plans..it has the advantage of being funded by an endless well of tax dollars while facing none of the challenges of the market place.
That's not "competition," that's an eventual monopoly.

Why not instead simply remove the regulations which RESTRICT competition? Under current laws, insurers are so highly regulated that there are basically small insurance monopolies in every state..open up the regs and allow interstate commerce [[competition) and prices will drop.
Add in some tort reform so that doc's & hospitals don't have to spend half their income on malpractice insurance, prices will drop.
People don't seem to realize that the vast majority of the high cost of medical care is caused by the very government which is now complaining about it..
Open up Medicare for the "uninsurable" rather than creating a whole new system, or destroying the current one by forcing private companies to assume excessive risk.

Seriously, there are at least four Republican health care plans out there, none of which are given the time of day, but all of which are infinitely more fiscally responsible than anything the Dems have put on the table so far.

[elganned]

I was the one who brought it up, primarily because so far the concept of "death panels" has been attached only to the Democrat's prospecitive plans, but has not been raised as a general issue that any plan will have to address. As such it seemed highly selective, and worthy of mockery as a red herring.

As for the rest, I'll get back to you. At least you seem a reasonable person and willing to discuss the issues rather than just repeating right-wing cant as absolute truth.