Yes Virginia, There are Death Panels
Remember how Democrats and the media kept telling you that the Obamacare health care rationing scheme passed by Nancy Pelosi's House didn't have death panels that would decide who lives and who dies?
They lied.Liberals are trying to hide behind a fig leaf by attempting to say there are no death panels because no individual cases are brought up, reviewed, and dismissed. Instead, they envision an emotionally distant genocide, where unelected appointees will summarily dictate how much money is spent to combat a specific illness or condition. Once that money is spent, Americans who have those conditions will not get their health care ration. They will suffer, and they will die, while racking up private debit attempting to save their own lives. It will be worse than what we have now, while forcing the nation every closer to bankruptcy. Lovely.
As usual, the most dangerous parts of ObamaCare aren't receiving the scrutiny they deserve—and one of the least examined is a new commission to tell Congress how to control health spending. Democrats are quietly attempting to impose a "global budget" on Medicare, with radical implications for U.S. medicine. Like most of Europe, the various health bills stipulate that Congress will arbitrarily decide how much to spend on health care for seniors every year—and then invest an unelected board with extraordinary powers to dictate what is covered and how it will be paid for. White House budget director Peter Orszag calls this Medicare commission "critical to our fiscal future" and "one of the most potent reforms."
On that last score, he's right. Prominent health economist Alain Enthoven has likened a global budget to "bombing from 35,000 feet, where you don't see the faces of the people you kill."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:40 PM
Comments
1
The problem is that we spend a ton of money on old folks. Our system is out of control in this respect. All parties are to blame. Doctors are not getting paid enough for the time they spend with the complicated problems of the elderly. So they turn to procedures for the greater amount of money that is paid. For instance, a cath gets you $500 and takes about 30 minutes. Talking to a patient and his family takes about 30 to 60 minutes and you get $30, if you are lucky. The patient might not need the cath for the given problems, but you do feel the tug of going to a procedure if at all indicated.
Then we have our friends the attorneys. They want every thing done and multiple times. So this gets the bill up there.
Hospitals will show favoritism to those docs that do more procedures, as long as they are efficient and do not spend too much money.
Families are demanding that mama and daddy stay alive forever. I have seen a 95 year old whose day consist of lying in his bed in the nursing home and has no idea of place, time, person or anything else. Also, blind and can not hear well. The family will insist that a $30,000+ pacemaker be placed instead of leaving the situation to God and nature. The pacemaker does nothing for the man's quality of life.
The government also makes it very difficult to allow people to die. And insist that all measures be preformed.
So we do have a problem in taking care of the elderly. I will try everything in my power to stay away from hospitals and doctors in my more advanced years. But I know that if my daughter gets a hold on me, she would makes sure that I stayed alive no matter what despite my wishes.
In years past, doctors made these decisions. The legal consequences were nill and the family respected the decisions. We need to educate people about death and quality of life. But do we need Obama making the decision? Or can he make a decision?
Then we have our friends the attorneys. They want every thing done and multiple times. So this gets the bill up there.
Hospitals will show favoritism to those docs that do more procedures, as long as they are efficient and do not spend too much money.
Families are demanding that mama and daddy stay alive forever. I have seen a 95 year old whose day consist of lying in his bed in the nursing home and has no idea of place, time, person or anything else. Also, blind and can not hear well. The family will insist that a $30,000+ pacemaker be placed instead of leaving the situation to God and nature. The pacemaker does nothing for the man's quality of life.
The government also makes it very difficult to allow people to die. And insist that all measures be preformed.
So we do have a problem in taking care of the elderly. I will try everything in my power to stay away from hospitals and doctors in my more advanced years. But I know that if my daughter gets a hold on me, she would makes sure that I stayed alive no matter what despite my wishes.
In years past, doctors made these decisions. The legal consequences were nill and the family respected the decisions. We need to educate people about death and quality of life. But do we need Obama making the decision? Or can he make a decision?
Posted by: David at November 16, 2009 06:25 PM (PpoBw)
2
It is a difficult problem to solve for our society! Not some impersonal commision that never has to face the people that will live or die from their decisions. But no matter what BHO and his minions sasy it is a "Death Panel". The reason it is a death panel and not a life panel is because if the system is working ok than they will never have to get invloved. It's only when the costs out way the collection that they will be put to use. Since they will not have the power to raise taxes they will only have the power to cut services. If you want your Mom or Dad to give up the services that they have paid their entire lives so that illegal aliens and their endless supply of children can have the health care that they deserve then vote for another blood sucking democrat.
Posted by: inspectorudy at November 16, 2009 07:05 PM (Vo1wX)
3
You write:
"Once that money is spent, Americans who have those conditions will not get their health care ration. They will suffer, and they will die, while racking up private debit attempting to save their own lives."
In a single-payer system, you are not allowed to spend your own money for health care like you spend money for everything else. You pay into the system based on earned income and care is doled out based on political correctness and political concerns. For example, in Canada, you have a 184% higher mortality rate for prostate cancer than the USA, but only an 11% higher mortality rate for breast cancer. Care to speculate as to why that might be?
Source:
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/08/03/must-read-how-does-health-care-in-the-usa-compare-with-other-countries/
"Once that money is spent, Americans who have those conditions will not get their health care ration. They will suffer, and they will die, while racking up private debit attempting to save their own lives."
In a single-payer system, you are not allowed to spend your own money for health care like you spend money for everything else. You pay into the system based on earned income and care is doled out based on political correctness and political concerns. For example, in Canada, you have a 184% higher mortality rate for prostate cancer than the USA, but only an 11% higher mortality rate for breast cancer. Care to speculate as to why that might be?
Source:
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/08/03/must-read-how-does-health-care-in-the-usa-compare-with-other-countries/
Posted by: Wintery Knight at November 16, 2009 08:21 PM (a+QKZ)
4
Anyone hear the rumor that the AP was going to assign a dozen or so reporters to "fact-check" the health care bills?
Me neither.
Me neither.
Posted by: SouthernRoots at November 17, 2009 12:20 AM (FJRFk)
5
CY, are you suggesting that under the current Medicare law, Congress authorizes unlimited funding year in and year out, or do you suspect that indeed there is already a certain amount of money budgeted for the program each year as part of the... federal budget?
I mean seriously CY, it's great to see you're in favor of unlimited spending for a government run, single payer, socialized medicine program like Medicare. Strange, but great.
I am curious though, why don't you guys simply suggest the seniors go to the emergency room for "free" care like you do for folks under 65 who lack insurance?
It's weird to see you guys supporting unlimited government funding for people over 65, but so dead set against any government involvement in the health care of people 1-64. It's almost as though your stance is completely political rather than ideological. Go figure.
I mean seriously CY, it's great to see you're in favor of unlimited spending for a government run, single payer, socialized medicine program like Medicare. Strange, but great.
I am curious though, why don't you guys simply suggest the seniors go to the emergency room for "free" care like you do for folks under 65 who lack insurance?
It's weird to see you guys supporting unlimited government funding for people over 65, but so dead set against any government involvement in the health care of people 1-64. It's almost as though your stance is completely political rather than ideological. Go figure.
Posted by: Jim at November 17, 2009 02:45 AM (KD9e1)
6
It's weird to see you guys supporting unlimited government funding for people over 65
Suggest ophthalmologist visit. I see the word "unlimited" zero times in what CY wrote.
You can have an opinion, but just making stuff up is very uncool dude.
Suggest ophthalmologist visit. I see the word "unlimited" zero times in what CY wrote.
You can have an opinion, but just making stuff up is very uncool dude.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 17, 2009 02:53 AM (ctICi)
7
OK, Mr. Avenger, explain how you can be against a "global budget" for Medicare, and against having Congress "arbitrarily decide how much to spend on health care for seniors every year", without being in favor of unlimited spending.
CY say, and I quote:
"Once that money is spent, Americans who have those conditions will not get their health care ration."
If the money can't ever run out, it's an unlimited amount, is it not?
CY say, and I quote:
"Once that money is spent, Americans who have those conditions will not get their health care ration."
If the money can't ever run out, it's an unlimited amount, is it not?
Posted by: Jim at November 17, 2009 03:03 AM (KD9e1)
8
Two problems with making people's lives a budget item.
The Government is supposed to use a thing called 'due process' to deprive people of life, liberty or property. The star chamber or arbitrary limits does neither.
Second problem is that slope is greased. So people with, say, pancreatic cancer cost too much to keep alive and never beat the disease. Or beat it so infrequently as to make it amount to the same thing. SO you get the cancer, so sad, too bad. "Die with dignity". Then someone does a study and finds out, "Hey, you know what? It costs a lot to keep people alive who have Spina bifida...Multiple Sclerosis...ALD...autism...Down's syndrome...all these untermenchen..."
When death becomes a cost cutting policy of government, it is time for good men to rise up.
The Government is supposed to use a thing called 'due process' to deprive people of life, liberty or property. The star chamber or arbitrary limits does neither.
Second problem is that slope is greased. So people with, say, pancreatic cancer cost too much to keep alive and never beat the disease. Or beat it so infrequently as to make it amount to the same thing. SO you get the cancer, so sad, too bad. "Die with dignity". Then someone does a study and finds out, "Hey, you know what? It costs a lot to keep people alive who have Spina bifida...Multiple Sclerosis...ALD...autism...Down's syndrome...all these untermenchen..."
When death becomes a cost cutting policy of government, it is time for good men to rise up.
Posted by: MunDane at November 17, 2009 09:12 AM (dlS06)
9
Jim,
As I understand your comment, you desire a single payor system from birth to death for every American (and likely illegals as well).
I would call your attention to the fact that the US is virtually broke! Despite some funny accounting by the present government, I can assure you that the cost of health care will go through the roof if the government takes over. Sure there are problems with the current system of insurance. But the sytem itself is working fine and almost all of our current problems and cost can be attributed to government interference since 1985.
Mediare is a horrible program and does not pay it bills resulting in a passing of cost to the rest of us. Medicaid is a joke.
This is what I propose:
1. Elimination of the DEA and all controls on drugs except for quality assurance. That way if you want a pain med or antibiotic, head to Walgreen's and by it. Why do you need to see a physician? (I am a physician). If you want to know how to use the medication or to find out whic is best, then you see the doctor. I know this will result in a substantial reduction in doctor visits and many of the other problems (like AIDS) that plague us. It makes you responsible for you health.
2. A federal board to regulate the insurance agencies. This exist on a state level but not federal. This would assure portability, equality, and fairness. Get rid of state mandates.
3. Eliminate medicaid and mediare as we know them and convert to private policies. Have the government hand out the equivilant of food stamps for health care so you can pay your premium.
4. No insurance, no care.
As I understand your comment, you desire a single payor system from birth to death for every American (and likely illegals as well).
I would call your attention to the fact that the US is virtually broke! Despite some funny accounting by the present government, I can assure you that the cost of health care will go through the roof if the government takes over. Sure there are problems with the current system of insurance. But the sytem itself is working fine and almost all of our current problems and cost can be attributed to government interference since 1985.
Mediare is a horrible program and does not pay it bills resulting in a passing of cost to the rest of us. Medicaid is a joke.
This is what I propose:
1. Elimination of the DEA and all controls on drugs except for quality assurance. That way if you want a pain med or antibiotic, head to Walgreen's and by it. Why do you need to see a physician? (I am a physician). If you want to know how to use the medication or to find out whic is best, then you see the doctor. I know this will result in a substantial reduction in doctor visits and many of the other problems (like AIDS) that plague us. It makes you responsible for you health.
2. A federal board to regulate the insurance agencies. This exist on a state level but not federal. This would assure portability, equality, and fairness. Get rid of state mandates.
3. Eliminate medicaid and mediare as we know them and convert to private policies. Have the government hand out the equivilant of food stamps for health care so you can pay your premium.
4. No insurance, no care.
Posted by: David at November 17, 2009 10:09 AM (dccG2)
10
OK, Mr. Avenger, explain how you can be against a "global budget" for Medicare, and against having Congress "arbitrarily decide how much to spend on health care for seniors every year", without being in favor of unlimited spending.
Health care costs, for anyone, are not "unlimited" (see dictionary for definition of the word).
I want you to use crisp language. I got no horse in this game other than trying to understand WTF you are saying or advocating.
Health care costs, for anyone, are not "unlimited" (see dictionary for definition of the word).
I want you to use crisp language. I got no horse in this game other than trying to understand WTF you are saying or advocating.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 17, 2009 11:39 AM (6fiQt)
11
This administration has a purpose, a purpose directed by Soros. The goal, bring America to it's knees so Soros can make even more money. He is betting against the US and he has his stooly in position. IMPEACH OBAMA NOW!
Posted by: NoLibs=PerfctWrld at November 17, 2009 12:41 PM (1y/IE)
12
Mr Avenger,
It might help your comprehension if you read and respond to all the words I type. But, I'll play along because it is possible you believe 'unlimited' means, and only means, 'infinite'. It does not, and I suggest 'infinite' isn't even the first definition for unlimited in most dictionaries, especially in common sense every day usage like "unlimited soup and salad", or "unlimited refills", or "unlimited night and weekend minutes".
The commons sense usage is indeed this:
1. unlimited - Having no restrictions or controls
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unlimited
1.lacking any controls : unrestricted
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar/Unlimited
Now read very slowly if it helps. CY does not want any bill for any Medicare patient to go unpaid in any given year. He, and the WSJ editorial, are against any budget (limit) or arbitrary decision (limit), about how much the government can pay out in a year. No $$$ amount after which no care is given. That is unlimited my friend.
As for your individual patient comment, sure no one guys bill is ever going to be infinite, but it's also silly to pretend it would have one and only one limit. A Dr could order prescription Advil instead of OTC Advil, or an additional MRI, or exploratory surgery, or another round of chemo. If no one comes between the Dr and the patient when it comes to care, and the government must pay every resultant bill for every Medicare patient, tell me where is the limit, control, or restriction? And what is the word for something without controls, restrictions or limits?
OK, your turn, please bring a little more than WTF next time.
It might help your comprehension if you read and respond to all the words I type. But, I'll play along because it is possible you believe 'unlimited' means, and only means, 'infinite'. It does not, and I suggest 'infinite' isn't even the first definition for unlimited in most dictionaries, especially in common sense every day usage like "unlimited soup and salad", or "unlimited refills", or "unlimited night and weekend minutes".
The commons sense usage is indeed this:
1. unlimited - Having no restrictions or controls
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unlimited
1.lacking any controls : unrestricted
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar/Unlimited
Now read very slowly if it helps. CY does not want any bill for any Medicare patient to go unpaid in any given year. He, and the WSJ editorial, are against any budget (limit) or arbitrary decision (limit), about how much the government can pay out in a year. No $$$ amount after which no care is given. That is unlimited my friend.
As for your individual patient comment, sure no one guys bill is ever going to be infinite, but it's also silly to pretend it would have one and only one limit. A Dr could order prescription Advil instead of OTC Advil, or an additional MRI, or exploratory surgery, or another round of chemo. If no one comes between the Dr and the patient when it comes to care, and the government must pay every resultant bill for every Medicare patient, tell me where is the limit, control, or restriction? And what is the word for something without controls, restrictions or limits?
OK, your turn, please bring a little more than WTF next time.
Posted by: Jim at November 17, 2009 01:56 PM (KD9e1)
13
But all semantic games with P.A. aside, it still cracks me up that CY, the WSJ, and Republican congressmen:
1) Are now defending Medicare, a single payer government program paid for (for now at least) with our tax dollars in a classic wealth distribution scheme.
2) Want the government to not interfere with said government program.
1) Are now defending Medicare, a single payer government program paid for (for now at least) with our tax dollars in a classic wealth distribution scheme.
2) Want the government to not interfere with said government program.
Posted by: Jim at November 17, 2009 02:07 PM (KD9e1)
14
Jim,
We used to be able to order anything we desired for a patient without government interference. It was only after the government started putting in its two cents that the cost of health care went out the roof. Other than needed oversight of the insurance industry, we do not need government regulation in medicine. In fact, it causes harm.
We used to be able to order anything we desired for a patient without government interference. It was only after the government started putting in its two cents that the cost of health care went out the roof. Other than needed oversight of the insurance industry, we do not need government regulation in medicine. In fact, it causes harm.
Posted by: David at November 17, 2009 02:22 PM (dccG2)
15
CY does not want any bill for any Medicare patient to go unpaid in any given year.
Why do you (apparently) believe this necessitates the government picks up 100% of the tab?
It seems to me you've excluded a whole universe of possibilities simply because it suits your position to do so.
Why do you (apparently) believe this necessitates the government picks up 100% of the tab?
It seems to me you've excluded a whole universe of possibilities simply because it suits your position to do so.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 17, 2009 02:57 PM (53THr)
16
David,
Insurance companies have always decided what drugs or treatments were covered for a given patient, illness or condition. And they most often have annual and/or lifetime caps in total payments they'll cover. They have their own set of unelected bureaucrats, and they have an obligation to their shareholders to maximize profits. It was never -- at least not since WWII -- just you and your Dr.
Purple Avenger,
Read what CY wrote, what the WSJ editorial he linked to says, and get back to me. CY specifically argues against people having to cover their own medical expenses, and worries about the impact of those expenses upon our economy, and likens the practice of leaving seniors with medical bills to genocide. Please address your concerns about any of that to him.
Insurance companies have always decided what drugs or treatments were covered for a given patient, illness or condition. And they most often have annual and/or lifetime caps in total payments they'll cover. They have their own set of unelected bureaucrats, and they have an obligation to their shareholders to maximize profits. It was never -- at least not since WWII -- just you and your Dr.
Purple Avenger,
Read what CY wrote, what the WSJ editorial he linked to says, and get back to me. CY specifically argues against people having to cover their own medical expenses, and worries about the impact of those expenses upon our economy, and likens the practice of leaving seniors with medical bills to genocide. Please address your concerns about any of that to him.
Posted by: Jim at November 17, 2009 03:15 PM (3GzXA)
17
Sorry Jim, you are wrong.
Posted by: David at November 17, 2009 03:30 PM (dccG2)
18
David, are you claiming no one has annual or lifetime caps to their private health insurance, and that no health insurance providers deny coverage for things they (arbitrarily) decide are unnecessary, experimental, or pre-existing?
Or that private insurers do not argue with Dr's and patients about how much they will pay out to cover the cost of any given procedure?
Please.
Or that private insurers do not argue with Dr's and patients about how much they will pay out to cover the cost of any given procedure?
Please.
Posted by: Jim at November 17, 2009 03:55 PM (3GzXA)
19
That not the arguement Jim. The arguement is the relationship that I stated was present until about 20 years ago. At that time there were few caps and no input from the insurance companies. Now don't tell me otherwise as I was actively billing at that time. As of about 20 years ago, congress passed a series of laws to favor the creation of HMO's. From that point on, medical care has gone down and cost has gone up. In addition, congress came up with the concept of DRG's. This has just about killed hospitals and many physicians.
Posted by: David at November 17, 2009 05:06 PM (ZgM5r)
20
They already approved this in the stimulus package.
Posted by: davod at November 17, 2009 05:35 PM (GUZAT)
21
Well that's an entirely different argument, how we got here, not where are we now, or why CY loves Medicare all the sudden.
The price of health care doubled in the 50s, long before Medicare or modern HMOs. Both of which were responses to the high cost of medicine and medical insurance, not the cause.
The price of health care doubled in the 50s, long before Medicare or modern HMOs. Both of which were responses to the high cost of medicine and medical insurance, not the cause.
Posted by: Jim at November 17, 2009 05:41 PM (3GzXA)
22
"David, are you claiming no one has annual or lifetime caps to their private health insurance, and that no health insurance providers deny coverage for things they (arbitrarily) decide are unnecessary, experimental, or pre-existing?"
In 1989 the cap was one million dollars. Mine is now five million and I do not have a golden medical package.
In 1989 the cap was one million dollars. Mine is now five million and I do not have a golden medical package.
Posted by: davod at November 17, 2009 05:43 PM (GUZAT)
23
Read what CY wrote, what the WSJ editorial he linked to says...
I'm not concerned about what they wrote. I'm focusing on what YOU WROTE.
I'm not concerned about what they wrote. I'm focusing on what YOU WROTE.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 17, 2009 06:09 PM (7dU/r)
24
Jim, best to ignore you as all you desire to do is argue. When I comment or read a comment I want to learn something. When someone who has been active in the medical field for 40 years tells you something about the cost of medicine, listen. Of course all I have done is talk to other physicians, hospital administrators, senators and reps and many of the other key players in this. By the way, are you a troll?
Davod, some insurance packages had limits in the 80's. It all depended on where you lived. But in the 80's insurance companies were much more compliant in paying without intefering. Of course they had experimental designations and refused to pay for really stupid treatments such as chelation. But now they will not pay for an angioplasty if the lesion is 85% and not 90%. It has gotten that stupid. In the 70' and 80's all I had to do was put a patient in the hospital and treat them and did not have to explain the situation to anyone. Now you have the insurance company breathing down your neck and many other organizations that feel a nurse can make better judgements than the doctor. In the end, it cost more money and is a waste.
Davod, some insurance packages had limits in the 80's. It all depended on where you lived. But in the 80's insurance companies were much more compliant in paying without intefering. Of course they had experimental designations and refused to pay for really stupid treatments such as chelation. But now they will not pay for an angioplasty if the lesion is 85% and not 90%. It has gotten that stupid. In the 70' and 80's all I had to do was put a patient in the hospital and treat them and did not have to explain the situation to anyone. Now you have the insurance company breathing down your neck and many other organizations that feel a nurse can make better judgements than the doctor. In the end, it cost more money and is a waste.
Posted by: David at November 17, 2009 06:25 PM (ZgM5r)
25
I'm listening David, did health care costs double in the 50s or not. If they did, and the skyrocketing costs pre-date Medicare (65) and HMOs (73), what does that tell you about cause and effect?
Look, we agree the current system is a mess, I just don't agree with you on how it should be fixed.
And for hopefully the last time. CY has a blog, I objected to some of what he said on that blog, and I think I've been very specific about what I found to be wrong, or amusing, or both. I did not offer myself as someone who has the solution to the current health care mess. He's wants to protect Medicare from government controls. It's laughable and sad.
Davod,
About 23% of people with health insurance have lifetime caps of $2 mil or less. You can go through $1 million in a couple of surgeries.
Look, we agree the current system is a mess, I just don't agree with you on how it should be fixed.
And for hopefully the last time. CY has a blog, I objected to some of what he said on that blog, and I think I've been very specific about what I found to be wrong, or amusing, or both. I did not offer myself as someone who has the solution to the current health care mess. He's wants to protect Medicare from government controls. It's laughable and sad.
Davod,
About 23% of people with health insurance have lifetime caps of $2 mil or less. You can go through $1 million in a couple of surgeries.
Posted by: Jim at November 17, 2009 06:51 PM (3GzXA)
26
"tell me where is the limit, control, or restriction?"
Jim - That would be the common sense of the health care providers, something you apparently do not believe in otherwise you would not advance the ridiculous position you have here after twisting CY's words and those of other commenters that they support infinite medical expenditures.
Putz
Jim - That would be the common sense of the health care providers, something you apparently do not believe in otherwise you would not advance the ridiculous position you have here after twisting CY's words and those of other commenters that they support infinite medical expenditures.
Putz
Posted by: daleyrocks at November 17, 2009 06:59 PM (3O5/e)
27
daleyrocks,
Speaking of twisting words, where did I say infinite medical expenditures? Please don't tell me you too don't think "unlimited refills" means you'll get an infinite amount of coffee.
As for the common sense of health care providers, last I looked Drs were complaining Medicare paid too little for procedures, not too much, and covered too few tests, not too many. What does that tell you?
Speaking of twisting words, where did I say infinite medical expenditures? Please don't tell me you too don't think "unlimited refills" means you'll get an infinite amount of coffee.
As for the common sense of health care providers, last I looked Drs were complaining Medicare paid too little for procedures, not too much, and covered too few tests, not too many. What does that tell you?
Posted by: Jim at November 17, 2009 07:16 PM (3GzXA)
28
Jim,
You are arguing apples and oranges. Sure health care went up in the 50's because prior to that it did not exist. In the decades preceeding the 50's you could only get a handful of surgeries and the mortality associated with those was high. In the 50's modern antibiotics came on the scene and the whole picture changed. Cost went up secondary to technicology. In the 70's the effect of the government came to play and they really stuck it to us in the 80's. Just remember, government equals and increase in cost and inefficiency.
You are arguing apples and oranges. Sure health care went up in the 50's because prior to that it did not exist. In the decades preceeding the 50's you could only get a handful of surgeries and the mortality associated with those was high. In the 50's modern antibiotics came on the scene and the whole picture changed. Cost went up secondary to technicology. In the 70's the effect of the government came to play and they really stuck it to us in the 80's. Just remember, government equals and increase in cost and inefficiency.
Posted by: David at November 17, 2009 08:05 PM (ZgM5r)
29
That's a great point David, but I'm not sure how we could ever factor out the increasing complexity of medical care, I mean it's not like there wasn't an ongoing explosion of new drugs, treatment possibilities like chemo and transplants, and techs like MRIs and PET scans that occurred after the government increased it's role in health care. Apples, oranges and pears, oh my. 
Posted by: Jim at November 17, 2009 08:19 PM (KD9e1)
30
"where did I say infinite medical expenditures?"
Jim - Well you seem to switch back and forth between dictionary definitions and "common usage" at your own convenience. By "unlimited", which you use in many places, viz.
a) "If the money can't ever run out, it's an unlimited amount, is it not?"
b)"It's weird to see you guys supporting unlimited government funding for people over 65"
a) Sure sounds infinite under common usage and that's what you claim by some twisted reading that CY is advocating, yet you have not bothered to point that out. How many knee replacements can a patient have in a year, Jim? Maybe they could add in some unlimited hip replacements as well. Is that infinite or unlimited if you are more comfortable with that word? Or under ObamaCare should they take a pill instead?
Your argument, if you can call it that, is ridiculous. Do you sit down to pee?
Jim - Well you seem to switch back and forth between dictionary definitions and "common usage" at your own convenience. By "unlimited", which you use in many places, viz.
a) "If the money can't ever run out, it's an unlimited amount, is it not?"
b)"It's weird to see you guys supporting unlimited government funding for people over 65"
a) Sure sounds infinite under common usage and that's what you claim by some twisted reading that CY is advocating, yet you have not bothered to point that out. How many knee replacements can a patient have in a year, Jim? Maybe they could add in some unlimited hip replacements as well. Is that infinite or unlimited if you are more comfortable with that word? Or under ObamaCare should they take a pill instead?
Your argument, if you can call it that, is ridiculous. Do you sit down to pee?
Posted by: daleyrocks at November 17, 2009 11:16 PM (3O5/e)
31
CY doesn't want Congress to set any maximum dollar amount that can be paid out to Medicare in any given year. Is that infinite, no. Is it unlimited yes. I don't see why that's so hard to wrap ones brain around or why it's so hard to see that I chose one word, not the other.
Unlimited refills are poured in restaurants every day, and yet all those cups fall well short of infinity. Again, why is that hard to understand?
CY doesn't want it to be possible for unpaid bills being handed to folks on Medicare. What else is that if not unlimited funding? No bill unpaid, no limit to how much gets paid out for any illness or condition. If I'm wrong, and annual Medicare costs have an absolute limit by all means add up all the possible bills and supply us with the magic total. Then add one more office visit, or a thousand.
BTW, no additional comments about your own claim that Drs, if left to themselves would order fewer tests and charge less for everything, or where exactly on your body you pulled that idea from?
What's ridiculous is watching anti-big government, anti-taxation, anti-single payer people suddenly defend Medicare -- because seniors vote -- and accuse anyone looking for ways to cut Medicare costs of genocide. That is some unlimited gall right there. Perhaps even infinite gall.
Last but not least, I'd really appreciate it if you'd spend less time thinking about me peeing.
Unlimited refills are poured in restaurants every day, and yet all those cups fall well short of infinity. Again, why is that hard to understand?
CY doesn't want it to be possible for unpaid bills being handed to folks on Medicare. What else is that if not unlimited funding? No bill unpaid, no limit to how much gets paid out for any illness or condition. If I'm wrong, and annual Medicare costs have an absolute limit by all means add up all the possible bills and supply us with the magic total. Then add one more office visit, or a thousand.
BTW, no additional comments about your own claim that Drs, if left to themselves would order fewer tests and charge less for everything, or where exactly on your body you pulled that idea from?
What's ridiculous is watching anti-big government, anti-taxation, anti-single payer people suddenly defend Medicare -- because seniors vote -- and accuse anyone looking for ways to cut Medicare costs of genocide. That is some unlimited gall right there. Perhaps even infinite gall.
Last but not least, I'd really appreciate it if you'd spend less time thinking about me peeing.
Posted by: Jim at November 18, 2009 12:46 AM (KD9e1)
32
And daylerocks, if you read a little more carefully you'll see that unlimited not meaning infinite is not only the common usage, but the #1 dictionary definition for the word, so I never switched from one to the other, it's just a couple of people here who don't seem to understand the meaning of the word. But don't take my word for it, read and learn.
Posted by: Jim at November 18, 2009 12:48 AM (KD9e1)
33
Well, the government just recommended that women under 50 don't get mammograms. Hello health care rationing and death panels! This is all about costs and not about women's health.
Posted by: Right on Demand at November 18, 2009 01:19 AM (EK6Jb)
34
Jim - If you spend less time worried about dictionary definitions and coffee servings which make you pee, you might be able to glean a clue about CY's point rather than constructing ridiculous strawman arguments which nobody has made and then bravely hacking them down yourself.
According to Dictionary.com - the following is the third definition for infinite:
"3. unlimited or unmeasurable in extent of space, duration of time, etc.: the infinite nature of outer space."
It lists as antonyms: "Antonyms:
1. small, limited."
Merriam Webster lists the following:
"3 : subject to no limitation or external determination"
So you can blow your sophistry on the word parsing out your pie hole.
It is clear to any honest reader that the point being made is that government run healthcare leads to rationing and that the death panels included in the Democrat bills insert faceless bureacrats between doctors and their patients in the determination of medical decisions.
Think about it. It has been a standard talking point the left has unsuccessfully been fighting off for quite some time.
According to Dictionary.com - the following is the third definition for infinite:
"3. unlimited or unmeasurable in extent of space, duration of time, etc.: the infinite nature of outer space."
It lists as antonyms: "Antonyms:
1. small, limited."
Merriam Webster lists the following:
"3 : subject to no limitation or external determination"
So you can blow your sophistry on the word parsing out your pie hole.
It is clear to any honest reader that the point being made is that government run healthcare leads to rationing and that the death panels included in the Democrat bills insert faceless bureacrats between doctors and their patients in the determination of medical decisions.
Think about it. It has been a standard talking point the left has unsuccessfully been fighting off for quite some time.
Posted by: daleyrocks at November 18, 2009 07:26 PM (3O5/e)
Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.009 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0056 seconds, 42 records returned.
Page size 32 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.