Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Tuesday, August 11, 2009

"Nnever once did I have a Medicare bureaucrat tell me what I couldn't do for a patient, but all the time we have bureaucrats from the insurance companies calling up and saying we're not going to cover this, we're not going to pay for that, we're denying coverage for that. The system we have now is broken. We need to fix it." -- Dr. Howard Dean, former Democratic National Committee chairman

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

frankf55

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

From Deadly Doctors Exist Now, in the Health Insurance Industry
www.huliq.com

"[The implication of moronic statements like Palin's is that they imply] health care reform currently moving through...would ration health care, to the point of euthanasia. What's wrong with that view is there's already such a bureaucracy in place: it's called the health care industry.

"The health insurance industry already doles out and denies care every day. Instead of hyperbolic headlines like "Deadly Doctors," how about "Deadly Health Insurance Coordinators?"

"The problem with this country is that people are far too gullible and do no fact-checking....If a public option is so bad, why is it every other industrialized nation has a form of it?"

Doc,

The lobotomized trolls that call themselves 'conservatives' will never read or believe anything that is spoon fed to them by Glen Beck or Flush Rimjob.

These drooling morons still think the medicare is not government run health care and the VA and military hospitals are benevolent operations run by Humana and Aetna.

Pray for the rapture!!! SOON!!!! The planet's average IQ will jump 30 points.

It is shocking that anyone... Even the left would listen to anything this man has to say... Unless he yelled fire in a Movie house....

So according to Dean.... We now have his word on this... We can all rest easy because everything is covered?

Jesus, BashThis, you doubt the truth on this? I can tell you right now about insurers trying to deny my own mother coverage she needed to beat a chronic condition (one they initially agreed to). It was only after a lawsuit was threatened that they paid up. That was 20 years ago, and now she's fine, by the way.

Surely everyone reading this knows of at least a couple of major clashes with an insurance company trying to deny coverage. And yet your costs double every few years.

That doesn't mean the proposal for a public option is the perfect solution either, but at least be honest.

"Never once did I have a Medicare bureaucrat tell me what I couldn't do for a patient, but all the time we have bureaucrats from the insurance companies calling up and saying we're not going to cover this, we're not going to pay for that, we're denying coverage for that. The system we have now is broken. We need to fix it." -

- Dr. Howard Dean, former Democratic National Committee chairman


Howard Dean is right on with his statement.

He was a practicing physican for years and his wife is still practicing.

"Death Panels" are alive and well in the private medical insurance industry.

Medicare and Tri-Care (for military veterans) rarely, if ever, deny needed medical procedures.

Pray for the rapture!!! SOON!!!! The planet's average IQ will jump 30 points.

---------

If they take the rest of the various religious wackos with them it would be enough for another Renaissance.

I guess dean is saying I can't pay for it myself. What a lie.

The amazing part is a slew of sock puppets will soon be here to either negate this story or support the insurance companies.

So Murphy is an Agent of Death?

So Murphy is an Agent of Death?

#9 | Posted by mOntecOre

Well, yes... plus she works in the insurance industry.

"I guess dean is saying I can't pay for it myself. What a lie."

YOu could but how much could you afford??

Some drugs could bankrupt even fairly wealthy people.

Compassionate conservatives believe that only the rich should recieve the medications that will prolong their lives.

"I guess dean is saying I can't pay for it myself."

No, he's not. And regardless what passes, you'll still be able to pay for what you want, if you want it that much. The "lie" is pretending otherwise.

"Well, yes... plus she works in the insurance industry."

I didn't know that, sure explain many of her idiotic posts.

Dr. Howard Dean, former Democratic National Committee chairman

A complete farce made of 2 different titles by just one jackass.

I guess this complete failure has crawled out from under his rock because he thinks he can set himself up as some kind of authority on the subject.

Just as Soon as the Pitchfork Brigade Cools Down from Being Manipulated and Whipped into an Irrational Frenzy by Commercial Selling Shock Jocks, these same people will be regretting their Opposition to Healthcare Reform.

Once this MSM carnival sucks every penny out of this issue and people return to the real world of rising premiums, denied services and duplicate testing, these very same people will be back to Pissing and Moaning about the Cost of Healthcare and the need for "something" to be done!

Let's ask one of the many other embarassing Dem leaders - maybe let's ask John Edwards about tort reform -

let's ask John Murtha about the strategy in Afghanistan

let's ask Barney Frank about NAMBLA

let's ask Robert Byrd about how to improve race relations

Let's ask Stretch Pelosi about human rights and interrogation techniques.

I didn't know that, sure explain many of her idiotic posts.

------------

This place is full of marketing cocksuckers. If you didn't already know.

Oh, did I interrupt the home of today's lefty daisy chain?

I didn't think so because.... the "corker" isn't here -

I guess this complete failure has crawled out from under his roc

Failure??? He's an MD, was elected to high office, was a serious contender for prez, led the demos back to power. I understand you don't agree with him, but for a loser like you with a porn screen name to call someone as accomplished as Dean a failure is fucking stoopid!

#18 | Posted by 8roper at 2009-08-11 02:49 PM | Reply | Flag: look at me! look at meeeee!

a porn screen name???

uh -

wha ????

and.... Dean was a serious contender for pres???

huh????

are you talking about this guy? :

video.google.com

#20 | Posted by panchovilla at 2009-08-11 02:54 PM | Reply | Flag: fuckin 8roper DID interrupt the serkle jerk !

I can see Screaming Howard Dean as the head of that Government Death Panel.

OMG

www.youtube.com

Get a grip, righties.

If you don't see what Dean is talking about, it must be because you've never dealt with a health insurer on a serious illness. You could get money out of the Mafia easier.

Whatever your opinion of Dean, he's telling the truth.

Oh, that's right - that's what drives you guys up the wall. Every time.

Carry on.

Get a grip, righties.

If you don't see what Dean is talking about, it must be because you've never dealt with a health insurer on a serious illness. You could get money out of the Mafia easier.

Whatever your opinion of Dean, he's telling the truth.

Oh, that's right - that's what drives you guys up the wall. Every time.

Carry on.

#26 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore

Translation:

"BYAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! "


It is shocking that anyone... Even the left would listen to anything this man has to say...

#3 | Posted by bashthis

Would you like to expand upon why you believe Dean has no credibility, other than that he is a Democrat?

8Roper:

That was about as up the wall as I've ever seen here.

As I said, carry on. Because God knows a stupid shit like you will carry on, no matter what the facts are.

"BYAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! "

#27 | Posted by 8roper

As usual, boxitch has nothing.

And does this "reform" actually fix it, or does it just let the government get in on the act of telling people they can't get treatment.

Be honest.

Yes, insurance companies suck. At least we still get to choose our "death panel" :-D

Seriously though... Those arguing that government-run health care will work better or can't be worse than what we have now... Listen, the flaws of insurance companies do not rationalize the need for a government takeover. It's like voting OB in office just because Bush sucked so bad.

What happened to consumers gravitating to a better product? Are ALL insurance companies sucking ass this much? Perhaps a better insurance company is in order? Who wants to partner up with me and start a new private insurance company whose ideals aren't clouded by greed? ...isn't there any of those companies out there?

Listen, without specifics, you can run just about anything under the banner of it being "healthcare related." That's the danger of the bill. I guarantee the deed to your house has less stretch-room left to chance than the current wet paperbag house bill.

Again, what we're hearing from the government is basic lawyer semantics. Many of our concerns here are not necessarily what today's intentions may be, but how the future government powers-that-be utilize it or exploit the bills loopholes. Like the Patriot Act... it was "intended to benefit the citizens" by, for one, allowing wire tapping and the like in order to protect us from terrorists. But, now it's already gone a step further by allowing the admin to tap any of its private citizens... not just terrorist suspects.
It's the same as declaring a "war on terror" as the term Terror is an abstract description of what that war is to encompass. A terrorist can be just about anyone who verbally disagrees with the President. Why isn't this met with equal opposition?

8Roper:
That was about as up the wall as I've ever seen here.
As I said, carry on. Because God knows a stupid shit like you will carry on, no matter what the facts are.

#29 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore

Stupid shit is his best quality.

We have insurance industry execs making $100,000 dollars an hour based on how many claims they can deny and how many patients they can fuck over.

And these stupid shits love the status quo.

We have insurance industry execs making $100,000 dollars an hour based on how many claims they can deny and how many patients they can fuck over.

ideological talking point...nothing more

pure rage....nothing more

Compassionate conservatives believe that only the rich should recieve the medications that will prolong their lives.

#11 | Posted by danni
Some Dems belive that only the rich should pay taxes so that everyone else can get the healthcare. Healthcare is not a right. It takes other peoples effort, work, time, and invention. Stuff that no one else has a right to. If you pay them for their effort, work, time and invention, then you can have it. Otherwise, Life (and death sucks)

If you don't see what Dean is talking about, it must be because you've never dealt with a health insurer on a serious illness.

really? we haven't?

Some of us has fool.

Have you?

Compassionate conservatives believe that only the rich should recieve the medications that will prolong their lives.

Rich democrats agree.

Let's all practice our Dean Screams.

EEEEYAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!

"ideological talking point...nothing more"

How is stating a factual truth an "ideological talking point", or "rage", for that matter?

"really? we haven't?

Some of us has fool.

Have you?"

Only spent the last four years fighting an insurer on behalf of a loved one, who died because needed treatment was denied.

If you've been through anything like that - and still want to maintain our present system - then there is no hope for you.

How is stating a factual truth an "ideological talking point", or "rage", for that matter?

Go ahead anytime Corky.

Danforth is waiting.

LOL

Do you think that insurance executive's compensation plans are based on denied claims?

either post proof of that or accept that it was a post full of nothing but "rage" and an "ideological talking point" or STFU.

gotta go,

check back later

"Do you think that insurance executive's compensation plans are based on denied claims?"

Do you think compensation has anything to do with profit, or not?

If I'm driving a Ford and you want to sell me a Chevy tell me why I should by the Chevy, not how bad the Ford is.

Just another deflection.

"Do you think that insurance executive's compensation plans are based on denied claims?"

Denying claims increases profits so the answer would be an absolutelym positivelym undeniably YES!!!

...."never once did I have a Medicare bureaucrat tell me what I couldn't do for a patient..."

Could this be because Medicare didn't have you on their list to even treat Medicare appointed patients? Just asking, because you squirrelly politicians all start sounding alike.

Only spent the last four years fighting an insurer on behalf of a loved one, who died because needed treatment was denied.

Very sorry to hear that.

Seriously, give me carrier, state, individual or group plan, disease, "needed treatment".

I have dealt with state insurance departments in the past.

gotta go.

#35 | Posted by freechoice

Hear Hear

Denying claims increases profits so the answer would be an absolutelym positivelym undeniably YES!!!

no, wrong. you dont' understand compensation plans.

perhaps someone other than an hourly worker can play?

United Health Care CEO makes over $100,000 an hour while denying basic coverage to children

Doctors tell you what you need, insurance companies tell you what they will pay for. Talk about rationing, it is occuring right now in the US of A.

The CEO of United Health Care owns $744,232,068 in stocks, makes over $100,000 an hour and they deny coverage to desperate families who were paying their premiums and thought their children would be taken care of in case they needed to.

Not under the current rationing system. Under the rationing of health care companies, some people, in particular children, who if saved might continue to require care for a very long time, are not just worth saving. A certain governor who quitted her job was talking about "death squad." She should give a buzz to these families featured in this video who will tell her how the current system indeed decides who lives and dies.

And you think these guys are spending $1.4 million dollars a day to make the system better?

Credulity has its limit AMERICA!!!!

www.gather.com

Eat me.

"you dont' understand compensation plans."

Eb gets off pretending the profits and the pay are unrelated. Does the CEO get a percentage of every claim denied? No, not directly. But does the CEO's compensation package have anything to do with how many overall claims are denied, thus increasing the bottom line? Of course it does.

As a 15 year military man I can tell you first hand that the military does indeed deny care.

They deny it by limiting the options for perscriptions that you can get. They only allowed me one kind of medication for my acid reflux. It was the OTC brand of Prilosec. After I got out and was scoped I was put on Previcid twice a day to take care of the problem.

There was a study that I wish I had a copy of that said the military only stocked 15% of the new and most expensive drugs. That is how they cut costs.

Anyone who says there wont be rationing is lying to themselves.

If Howard Dean had been elected things would already be getting better.

The investor class understood this and spent big to kill his candidacy.

We are not in a recession. We are living in a planned demolition.

Healthcare is not a right. It takes other peoples effort, work, time, and invention. Stuff that no one else has a right to. If you pay them for their effort, work, time and invention, then you can have it. Otherwise, Life (and death sucks)

#35 | Posted by freechoice

It will be a right one day you greedy pos.

Only spent the last four years fighting an insurer on behalf of a loved one, who died because needed treatment was denied.
If you've been through anything like that - and still want to maintain our present system - then there is no hope for you.
#40 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore

Wow, you shoulkd be thankful for those four years. My dear friend died in less then a year fighting cancer while the UK Parliament bickered as to whether or not his treatment was worth the cost!
Listen, the solution can't be to turn over your care choices to the government.

Again, where are the good private insurance companies? I would think, as with other successful businesses, the insurance company who offers to the consumer what he/she wants would surely corner the market in no time. I think something else is afoot here.

#54 | Posted by jackass
So taking others people effort, work, time, and invention will be a right some day? That is a huge leap away from freedom... I think that you are the greedy SOB! People with self respect don't want what they don't earn. But self respect is a quality not understood by many.

"That's $355 million over just two years, shared by fewer than 25 execs, at only five top insurance companies.

Imagine how much of our money the hundreds of other execs/managers have been funneling out of dozens of insurance companies over the past 10 years."


"Profits at 10 of the country's largest publicly-traded health insurance companies rose 428 percent from 2000 to 2007, from $2.4 billion to $12.9 billion, according to U.S. Securities and exchange Commission filings." (HCAN report)

Note that profits are calculated after executive pay (which is a pre-profit "expense"). The table below gives a tiny glimpse of how much money insurance company execs have been funneling into their personal pockets."

bucknakedpolitics.typepad.com

And yes, every penny that an insurance company denies paying is a penny to go into their pockets.

You think these stupid shits would enjoy a for-profit police force or a for-profit fire dept, eh?

Free idiot we have the right to LIFE, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Without healthcare we are denying many the right to live you moron.

Whatever your opinion of Dean, he's telling the truth.

Oh, that's right - that's what drives you guys up the wall. Every time.

Carry on.

#26 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore

The term "truth" along with "reason" isn't in the libs play book.

#58 | Posted by jackass
Damn you are stupid, you are not denying anybody healthcare unless the govt gets involved (then you surely will be). Everyone can have all the healthcare that they can afford. In otherwords they can have all the fruits of others efforts, work, time, and invention that they can compesate those others for. That is Freedom! When you get the GOvt involved then there will be denial of healthcare because there will not be enough money to cover it. Then you will not be free, your money will not be yours, because they will have to tax you to death to pay for others, you will no longer have freechoice. Again your greedy ways are a leap away from freedom, not to it.

By the way right to life, means that they can't take it awy from you, not that the govt has to keep you alive at all costs. Get real...

The United States spends far more on health care than other advanced countries. Yet we don't appear to receive more medical services. And we have lower life-expectancy and higher infant-mortality rates than countries that spend less than half as much per person. How do we do it?

An important part of the answer is that much of our health care spending is devoted to passing the buck: trying to get someone else to pay the bills.

According to the World Health Organization, in the United States administrative expenses eat up about 15 percent of the money paid in premiums to private health insurance companies, but only 4 percent of the budgets of public insurance programs, which consist mainly of Medicare and Medicaid. The numbers for both public and private insurance are similar in other countries - but because we rely much more heavily than anyone else on private insurance, our total administrative costs are much higher.

According to the health organization, the higher costs of private insurers are "mainly due to the extensive bureaucracy required to assess risk, rate premiums, design benefit packages and review, pay or refuse claims." Public insurance plans have far less bureaucracy because they don't try to screen out high-risk clients or charge them higher fees.

And the costs directly incurred by insurers are only half the story. Doctors "must hire office personnel just to deal with the insurance companies," Dr. Atul Gawande, a practicing physician, wrote in The New Yorker. "A well-run office can get the insurer's rejection rate down from 30 percent to, say, 15 percent. That's how a doctor makes money. ... It's a war with insurance, every step of the way."

Isn't competition supposed to make the private sector more efficient than the public sector? Well, as the World Health Organization put it in a discussion of Western Europe, private insurers generally don't compete by delivering care at lower cost. Instead, they "compete on the basis of risk selection" - that is, by turning away people who are likely to have high medical bills and by refusing or delaying any payment they can.

Yet the cost of providing medical care to those denied private insurance doesn't go away. If individuals are poor, or if medical expenses impoverish them, they are covered by Medicaid. Otherwise, they pay out of pocket or rely on the charity of public hospitals.

So we've created a vast and hugely expensive insurance bureaucracy that accomplishes nothing. The resources spent by private insurers don't reduce overall costs; they simply shift those costs to other people and institutions. It's perverse but true that this system, which insures only 85 percent of the population, costs much more than we would pay for a system that covered everyone.

And the costs go beyond wasted money.

MORE

www.nytimes.com

"Everyone can have all the healthcare that they can afford"

FC obviously never heard of recision.

Try getting covered after you've been refused; you now have a "pre-existing condition".

Everyone can have all the healthcare that they can afford.

Posted by freechoice

So poor people should be left to die?

Then you will not be free, your money will not be yours, because they will have to tax you to death to pay for others.

I support paying a little extra in taxes to ensure everyone gets access to quality medical care. Go live in a 3rd world country. They think like you do.

"Wow, you shoulkd be thankful for those four years. My dear friend died in less then a year fighting cancer while the UK Parliament bickered as to whether or not his treatment was worth the cost!
Listen, the solution can't be to turn over your care choices to the government.

Again, where are the good private insurance companies? I would think, as with other successful businesses, the insurance company who offers to the consumer what he/she wants would surely corner the market in no time. I think something else is afoot here."

I am not at all in favor of turning over all care choices to the government. I want three things:

1- Insurance for everybody. Free-market for those who can afford it, subsidized or government-paid for those who cannot.

2- Government oversight of claim denials, working on a fast track to resolve problems, not another do-nothing bureaucracy with a "mission statement" on its Website and no follow-through on behalf of the taxpayers who fund it.

3- Scrutiny of healthcare insurers to guarantee that they are doing the most possible for claimants overall, given that they must make a profit. Increasing profits by allowing or even fostering preventable deaths is something that needs to be curbed.

In other words, I want a system where people are insured, but the insurance industry is held directly and immediately accountable for the quality of service it provides in return for premiums paid.

Now, that's not so fucking hard, is it?

P.S.: Eberly, you are beneath contempt.

#63 | Posted by Danforth
Insurance is not a right either, you damn children. You act like it is your right to have someone be your daddy and take care of you. If you can't get someone to trade your monthly payment for coverage then that is a damn shame. It sucks, I feel for you, and I give to charities to help out in those instances. But you have no right to insurance, and you have no right to healthcare. Grow up, gain some self respect, and take responsibility for your own life. Freedom is not free.

FREECHOICE anyone without health care insurance now can just go to the ER where it is much more expensive to treat illnesses and guess who is paying for it....those same taxpayers....so we're already paying for it, now it is just a matter of getting a better bang for our buck.

I am also thinking that you are probably one of those nit wits who champion private for profit health care insurance even though you probably can't afford it for yourself. You'd have a hard time convincing me otherwise because the logic you use in your argument is pretty lame.

Freedom is not free....that's why we pay taxes nit wit.

May freechoice need medical attention one day and not get it. That will be the justice he deserves.

I support paying a little extra in taxes to ensure everyone gets access to quality medical care. Go live in a 3rd world country. They think like you do.

#64 | Posted by jackass
Great that is called charity. Give all you want. Taxes is called slavery, you support it, then you want to force everyone else to do what you support. Great for you, no freedom for the rest. Charity = Freedom, Taxes = Slavery. Again you are the greedy pos.

Taxes pay for roads, fire dept and police you imbecile. We need taxes.

#69 | Posted by jackass
That is just a sick and vindictive statement, and is brought on by your childness. I do have a condition, and can not get health insurance. It costs me a lot for healthcare. I do not whine, or expect others to pay. I earn what I get.

"" Freedom is not free."""

lol...apparently not...most personal bankruptcies in the states are over medical bills. You can usually judge a society by how they treat their less fortunate constituents.

Freedom of speech wasn't a right til we forced the King to sign the Magna Carta.

Funny thing, the same folks who don't want health care to be a right do want to give up the right to sue for damages, also gained in the Magna Carta.

"Insurance is not a right either, you damn children"

I never said it was. I merely pointed out your statement "Everyone can have all the healthcare that they can afford" is total bullshit.

"Grow up, gain some self respect, and take responsibility for your own life."

Interesting: you avoided the entire subject of recision. So if someone is grown up enough and has taken responsibility to have a health insurance policy in place, but is then a victim of recision by the insurance company, what's your answer?

According to you when your funds eventually dry up you should be tossed in an alley to die. If that's what you want, who am I to deny you happiness?

"Taxes is called slavery"

No they aren't, involuntary servitude is called slavery. TAxes are just called taxes. MOst Americans pay what they owe and don't whine.

""Again you are the greedy pos.""

If it was greed, he would wand the money for himself, so in reality, it's your point of view that could be construed as being selfish. Period.

so where did muffy (aka the angel of death) scamper off to?

"According to you when your funds eventually dry up you should be tossed in an alley to die."

But we know he won't, he'll start getting some of that there soshalized medicine called Medicare that us poor taxpayers will have to pay for.
Thing is we pay whether he gets good health care now and avoids more costly treatments later or we pay later when he can't work and pay any premiums at all. Health care savings will benefit society as a whole and our economy will grow instead of just continue to pour more money into insurance company coffers.
How many businesses have gone under because health care premiums became too large. I know of one, my own.

To the right..

www.youtube.com

I've worked for and defended insurance companies as a lawyer. I worked on what you'd call a death panel. Howard Dean is right. Sorry.

The Health Insurance Racket:

Getting Rich by Denying Americans Care

UnitedHealthcare CEO Stephen Hemsley owns $744,232,068 in unexercised stock options. CIGNA's Edward Hanway spends his holidays in a $13 million beach house in New Jersey. Meanwhile, regular Americans are routinely denied coverage for the care they need when they need it most.

Welcome to the American health insurance industry. Instead of helping policyholders attain the health security they need for their families, big insurance companies get rich by denying coverage to patients. Now they're sending lobbyists to Washington, DC to twist the arms of lawmakers to oppose reform of the status quo. Why? Because the status quo pays.

sickforprofit.com

#81 | Posted by danni
Now Danni, has a bit of an arugument, or at least a stand to argue about. If it benefits socitiy as a whole then you could maybe go with it. That is a great place to have the debate. Because everything else is BS. "we need govt controll, because it is a right" or "because insurance suck" or because "some rich person worked his ass off to get something that I can't now he should be punished"... All BS. Now if you can convice people that the crazy cost is more of a benifit to society than the drain it will place, maybe you have a chance.

15 SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION.

16 (a) MEDICARE.
17 (1) IN GENERAL.Section 1861 of the Social
18 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1 395x) is amended

4 "(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the
5 continuum of end-of-life services and supports avail-
6 able, including palliative care and hospice, and bene
7 fits for such services and supports that are available
8 under this title.
9 "(F) (i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of
10 orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar
11 orders, which shall include
12 "(I) the reasons why the development of
13 such an order is beneficial to the individual and
14 the individual's family and the reasons why
15 such an order should be updated periodically as
16 the health of the individual changes;
17 "(II) the information needed for an indi
18 vidual or legal surrogate to make informed deci
19 sions regarding the completion of such an
20 order; and
21 "(III) the identification of resources that
22 an individual may use to determine the require-
23 ments of the State in which such individual re-
24 sides so that the treatment wishes of that indi
25 vidual will be carried out if the individual is un
1 able to communicate those wishes, including re-
2 quirements regarding the designation of a sur
3 rogate decisionmaker (also known as a health
4 care proxy).
5 "(ii) The Secretary shall limit the requirement
6 for explanations under clause (i) to consultations
7 furnished in a State
8 "(I) in which all legal barriers have been
9 addressed for enabling orders for life sustaining
10 treatment to constitute a set of medical orders
11 respected across all care settings; and
12 "(II) that has in effect a program for or-
13 ders for life sustaining treatment described in
14 clause (iii).
15 "(iii) A program for orders for life sustaining
16 treatment for a States described in this clause is a

17 program that
18 "(I) ensures such orders are standardized
19 and uniquely identifiable throughout the State;
20 "(II) distributes or makes accessible such
21 orders to physicians and other health profes
22 sionals that (acting within the scope of the pro-
23 fessional's authority under State law) may sign
24 orders for life sustaining treatment;
1 "(III) provides training for health care
2 professionals across the continuum of care

3 about the goals and use of orders for life sus-
4 taining treatment; and
5 "(IV) is guided by a coalition of stake-
6 holders includes
representatives from emergency
7 medical services, emergency department physi
8 cians or nurses, state long-term care associa
9 tion, state medical association, state surveyors,
10 agency responsible for senior services, state de-
11 partment of health, state hospital association,
12 home health association, state bar association,
13 and state hospice association.

1 "(B) An advance care planning consultation with re-
2 spect to an individual may be conducted more frequently
3 than provided under paragraph (1) if there is a significant
4 change in the health condition of the individual, including
5 diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a
6 life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening
7 injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a
8 long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or
9 a hospice program.
10 "(4) A consultation under this subsection may in-
11 clude the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining
12 treatment or a similar order.
13 "(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term order
14 regarding life sustaining treatment' means, with respect
15 to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to
16 the treatment of that individual that
17 "(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as de-
18 fined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care
19 professional (as specified by the Secretary and who
20 is acting within the scope of the professional's au-
21 thority under State law in signing such an order, in-
22 cluding a nurse practitioner or physician assistant)
23 and is in a form that permits it to stay with the in-
24 dividual and be followed by health care professionals
25 and providers across the continuum of care;

1 "(ii) effectively communicates the individual's
2 preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, in-
3 cluding an indication of the treatment and care de-
4 sired by the individual;
5 "(iii) is uniquely identifiable and standardized
6 within a given locality, region, or State (as identified
7 by the Secretary); and
8 "(iv) may incorporate any advance directive (as
9 defined in section 1866(f) (3)) if executed by the in-
10 dividual.
11 "(B) The level of treatment indicated under subpara
12 graph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treat-
13 ment to an indication to limit some or all or specified
14 interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may in-
15 clude indications respecting, among other items
16 "(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the
17 patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac
18 or pulmonary problems;
19 "(ii) the individual's desire regarding transfer
20 to a hospital or remaining at the current care set-
21 ting;
22 "(iii) the use of antibiotics; and
23 "(iv) the use of artificially administered nutri
24 tion and hydration.".

Note that the stakeholders' will be the deciders here.

sweetness-light.com

Hey Obama, liar liar pants on fire!

"Now if you can convice people that the crazy cost is more of a benifit to society than the drain it will place, maybe you have a chance."

Isn't looking at every other Western Industrial Nation's lower GDP to cover more with better health outcomes enough?

#88 | Posted by KBM

...I don't think that's what it says...It says that the forms, dissemination, tracking, and requirements will be decided and carried out by those people...they are writing about Living Wills, you idiot. God, I wish people knew how to read.

Oh yeah, who would want doctors, patients and state health experts deciding on life sustaining treatment when we already have multi-millionaire insurance execs who profit by not providing such services doing it.

Fucking moron.

The Government (the people) has invested billions over many decades to create the environment where we have some of the best medical schools and research institutions in the world. The average person doesn't realise the dollars spent by the government (the people) to maintain the medical standards we have, yet some think this investment should only be handed out to the rich. That the rich should only profit from a country built and paid for by taxpayers. If the roads built by taxpayers can be driven on by anyone who has a car, then why can't medical care be had by all taxpayers. After all we paid and are still paying throught the nose for both. We are just scared that someone is going to get more out the system than I get. If you are sick then you should be garuanteed whatever you need to get well. Everything in this country has been bought and paid for by taxpayers. All the institutions from Harvard to Walmart came from our collective payments in some shape or form. One of these days we will realise that a country like a family cannot survive when it is fighting against itself. But for now you will get yours by denying me mine. We will see how that all works out for you real soon.

We will see how many people will be begging for government health care if and when swine flu starts killing a lot more people. We will be saying then, "Why didn't the Government do....."

#89 | Posted by Danforth
Except that is not what you Obama boy is proposing. He even said it would not be a "Canada Style System" so take another stupid an ancedote off the table, and start arguing for the merrits of what they are propossing if you like it so much. Cost to benefit comparrisons of the bill. Not, but we love Europe, and they are so smart, or Big insurance sucks, or whatever you can complain about.

I would like to see the statistics of how many republicans are insurance agency owners versus democrats.

I would almost bet the ratio to be 2-1 or higher and that most of those arguing inane nonsense on these boards are either employed by insurance companies or own a local office.

#95 | Posted by legio
So that would mean they are employed, or have started and run their own business. I would bet if you take those stats in to play it would be a much higher chance that someone employed or actually done something productive with their life would be a repub than a dem. So make that 5 or 10 to 1.

Quack quack quack quack this fucker couldnt lace a boil no wonder he was told not to do procedures.

This is exactly what I was trying to say last week (although Dean does it better, for once), that Palin's boogeyman of 'death panels' already exists in the form of private insurers.
Pretty much anyone who sees how hospitals and nursing homes operate at the ER level can tell you that Medicare will pay for ANYTHING, Medicaid will pay for MOST THINGS, but most private health insurances pick and choose what they will and will not cover like it's a dart game with your life. 'Eh, maybe we'll heal you, or maybe we'll just let you die in pain.' That's the current system.

Quack quack quack quack this fucker couldnt lace a boil no wonder he was told not to do procedures.

Republican answer to health care: Put a doily on it and call it an "life enhancement."

So that would mean they are employed, or have started and run their own business. I would bet if you take those stats in to play it would be a much higher chance that someone employed or actually done something productive with their life would be a repub than a dem. So make that 5 or 10 to 1.

#96 | Posted by freechoice

only a fucking turd would call a parasitic industry productive..

They make nothing and only do the odds they have to pay out.. sorta like a scumbag bookie.

You want respect make that 2-1 making a fucking product..

I farm and feed america what do you do?

Blah blah blah...

I think what our felow Americams on the right of the aisle forget is that wether or not we provide public insurance for the millions of Americans now uninsured or not WE Americans will pay for them anyway. This will occur through higher medical costs at all levels of healthcare/insurance/pharma due to increased emergency medical care and decreased health maintenance care for said millions of Americans...

Funny how when the right of the aisle screams for nationalism and unquestioned support for a war to support the corporate agenda du joure, with tax dollars and the lives of our youth, they call you "traitor" if you disagree...

But, when the left trys to help the uninsured (whose healthcare costs will be borne by us anyway) the right just get up in arms... It's almost like they have some vested financial interest in keeping American healthcare expensive and inefficient... There's that corporate agenda du joure...

If you make less than a million/year and are Republican, you are either misinformed, or JFS (Just F%#*ing Stupid)

If you make less than a million/year and are Republican, you are either misinformed, or JFS (Just F%#*ing Stupid

if you think there is a difference in the 2 parties then you are JFS

P.S.: Eberly, you are beneath contempt.

I asked you questions you chose not to answer.

WTF are you talking about?

Eb gets off pretending the profits and the pay are unrelated. Does the CEO get a percentage of every claim denied? No, not directly. But does the CEO's compensation package have anything to do with how many overall claims are denied, thus increasing the bottom line? Of course it does.

still waiting for someone who knows something about compensation plans to weigh in on this.

danniforth are clueless envious ideologues.

"Nnever once did I have a Medicare bureaucrat tell me what I couldn't do for a patient, but all the time we have bureaucrats from the insurance companies calling up and saying we're not going to cover this, we're not going to pay for that, we're denying coverage for that. The system we have now is broken. We need to fix it." -- Dr. Howard Dean, former Democratic National Committee chairman

I call LIAR!!!

This bastard hasn't practiced medicine since 1991 and it was only part-time before that!

Does he really know what the hell he's talking about.

And the rtards wonder why no one believes a word they say???

Posted by frankf55


Could it be that Dean is a f*cking liar?

A good freind of my Wife, who had private insurance that her employer offered, had a kidney transplant. The University of Michigan Transplant Hospital's patient co-ordinator told her flat out when she checked in and an organ had been located, "You will never pay the bill for this so don't even worry about trying. Your insurance is going to fight you every step of the way and the hospital is going to turn you over to collections long before you could ever make a dent. So just try not to let it bother you because it's going to follow you for the rest of your life" (unless you win the lotto and can come up with several million $ fast).

If that's not broken, what is the definition of broken? (because it must not mean what I thought it did). This country needs to catch up with the rest of the civilized world, like now.

Oh, I forgot. She was also told that her credit was history forever because she topped out the lifetime clause and BTW here are 8 expensive scripts to keep you alive (that your insurance is going to deny), and here is the number to a charity to help pay for them... #-what transplant hospital in the country. Shamefull!

***"if you think there is a difference in the 2 parties then you are JFS" #102 | Posted by eberly at 2009-08-11 07:00 PM

I love it when people say this... There are OBVIOUS differences in the two mainstream political parties...

Though their end-game is the same, their means to it are quite different...

Why even reply if your only argument is distraction... What's next, pointing out my spelling/grammar mistakes???

And once again:
If you make less than a million/year and are Republican, you are either misinformed, or JFS (Just F%#*ing Stupid)

Uran anus

Same results. No difference. Each party panders to their own sheep

Baaaaaaaaaaaaa

We know about the women from Oregon, and we know about Natasha Richardson in Canada, who in the United States was denied care by private insurance? I did a Google Search, and there was many articles saying people were denied coverage, but know specific person. I know it happens, so why is it not all over the news when a case happens.

***"Same results. No difference. Each party panders to their own sheep" #109 | Posted by eberly at 2009-08-11 07:59 PM

Eb, I said "end game".

The paths each party takes to accomplish similar goals, or "end games" are quite different... Hence the political arguments, and political "DIFFERENCES" over issues such as: imigration, healthcare reform, political procedures, use of armed forces, gay marriage, abortion, gun control, etc, etc, etc...

Is it your premise that republicans and democrats share the same view on the above listed issues???

Or, is it your premise that none of these issues are relevent because the "end game" of both parties are similar???

The latter although I would't include all issues you posted.

Most of them though

"Except that is not what you Obama boy is proposing. "

Huh? He's proposing wellness programs. What don't you understand?

And if you're going to toss an insult, try spelling it correctly. Otherwise you just look like a racist dumbshit.

Death Panels already exist at the insurance companies?

True that.

Bankrupcies and premature deaths are the inevitable result of that heinous practise.

Dean makes a good point here.

Another good point is that the insurance industry, like the MSM has consolidated into a near monopoly over the years which traditionally always means a higher bottom line for the company and less patients rights than ever fer the rest.

Trust busting legislation must be introduced as part of the over-all fix here or it won't work.

Be Well.

Nobody understands this unless they have been denied a procedure or denied coverage for a pre-existing condition.

Until you FEEL this, it's all conjecture.

Nobody understands this unless they have been denied a procedure or denied coverage for a pre-existing condition.
#114 | Posted by fresno500

A guy I know has epilepsy. Less than a year ago a generic form of one of his meds became available and his ins. co. would no longer approve the name brand.

Within a month of using the generic, he began to experience seizures with increased frequency.

Turns out that generics are not always identical to the name brand, and often these arguably minor differences in product can affect its effectiveness in some patients. There is peer-reviewed evidence of this difference with respect to this drug. Two appeals later, they still will not approve the name brand even when his doctor submitted a statement saying that the generic brand is not working well for him. He really can't afford the prescription on his own, so he's basically screwed unless the ins. co. reverses its decision.

This is the funny part.... he's not sure that he wants single payer.

And yes, he voted for Obama.

Turns out that generics are not always identical to the name brand, and often these arguably minor differences in product can affect its effectiveness in some patients. There is peer-reviewed evidence of this difference with respect to this drug. Two appeals later, they still will not approve the name brand even when his doctor submitted a statement saying that the generic brand is not working well for him. He really can't afford the prescription on his own, so he's basically screwed unless the ins. co. reverses its decision.

This is a great example of the flaws in health insurance.

Can somebody point to the page in the bill where this situation gets reversed in favor of the patient?

I'm not saying it isn't in there, I really don't know.

Its probably not there, Eb, because its not a single payer bill.

Bullshit....there are no "death panels" - if there were they would be sued out of exsistence.

Who is going to sue the Government?

He is a lying sack of shit like this president...what he and Pelosi and crew did not expect is that the public would rise up and catch them.

They have been lying all along and with the support of the media. No one to hold them accountable.

Now they are getting a taste of thier own medicine. They staged all the anti-war protests...and now - without any staging - the great and good are saying no....and the only thing Obama and crew can do is to try and perpetuate the lies.

#16 | POSTED BY 8ROPER AT 2009-08-11 02:47 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Make an argument to support your stance against health care reform. Instead of doing so, you have so far relied on the logical fallacy of 'poisoning the well'. I would enjoy hearing an attempt at coherent reasoning from you. You rob me of entertainment, you fucking clown.

#7 | POSTED BY SNIPER AT 2009-08-11 02:17 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

*I* guess that no comment was made on the topic of paying for health care without insurance. I challenge you to have children, raise them, and pay for all of their medical procedures, dental work etc, and yours for the duration of their childhood and your reading-comprehension-skills-
free life.

#31 | POSTED BY R0B0T AT 2009-08-11 03:52 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Why should I pay a company whose primary goal is to keep my money and then trust that company to pay for my health care when I get sick? Pooling risk is a good thing. Pooling risk and making profit in the process seems like a recipe for just what we have now: Doctors fucking insurance companies and insurance companies fucking patients.

Pooling risk and making profit in the process seems like a recipe for just what we have now:

Lets try losing money while doing it and see how that comes out.

It's a closed system, Eberly. Which system is better:
A) We all pay in, then a group of CEOs syphon off hundreds of millions each year for their personal gain, finally money is paid out for medical procedures.

B) We all pay in, then money is paid out for medical procedures.

Which one is better?

Congress should pass the bill. Then, Eberly can keep using his private insurance company and I can move over to a government plan. If the company Eberly works for moves over to a government plan, he can opt out of that too and stay with a private provider.

"Nnever once did I have a Medicare bureaucrat tell me what I couldn't do for a patient, but all the time we have bureaucrats from the insurance companies calling up and saying we're not going to cover this, we're not going to pay for that, we're denying coverage for that.

True, but misleading and still a lie of sorts. Medicare has never once said you can't do a procedure is true, but they do often decide after the fact that they don't have to really pay for it. Medicare approves most everything, but refuses to pay or keeps it delayed for months and months and months. If you can afford to do something and wait forever to be reimbursed for it, go Medicare.

Which system is better:
A) We all pay in, then a group of CEOs syphon off hundreds of millions each year for their personal gain, finally money is paid out for medical procedures.

B) We all pay in, then money is paid out for medical procedures.

Which one is better?

The premise is screwed up. Your problem is that you think there is an option B in the first place.

Quick question....who do you think is going to provide option B to you?

Medicare is like going to a car lot, telling the dealer you will pay them tomorrow and you get to drive off with the car today, then you decide the car is not really worth what you agreed to pay, you keep the car, and try to renegotiate the price and refuse to pay until you get the price you want. Then, once the price is agreed upon, you then wait another 6 months before paying the dealership.

It's a closed system, Eberly. Which system is better:
A) We all pay in, then a group of CEOs syphon off hundreds of millions each year for their personal gain, finally money is paid out for medical procedures.

B) We all pay in, then money is paid out for medical procedures.

Which one is better?

#123 | Posted by JonO
-----------------
If it was that simple there would be know debate.

#126 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-08-12 03:24 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Canada, France, UK, etc are syphoning off money from their health insurace programs and giving it to private citizens to make them wealthy? News to me, Eberly.

insurance

#128 | POSTED BY 90C2CAB AT 2009-08-12 03:26 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

It's that simple.

#126 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-08-12 03:24 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Socialized insurance. Already available in Canada and Europe.

News to me, Eberly.

we are offering a single payer plan in this bill like in Canada and the UK?

news to me, Jono.

#133 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-08-12 03:37 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

So you support the idea? Excellent.

So you support the idea? Excellent.

I don't know. Why would I consider whether or not a single payer system would great when we aren't proposing such a plan.

If you prefer a single pay system, then you will be very disapointed with the one being proposed now.

Quick question....who do you think is going to provide option B to you?

I assume by your avoidance of this question that you believed that the govt was going to provide you with a health insurance option in this legislation. I don't pretend to be the authority of this bill in anyway but I don't believe this is anything but an exchange to buy insurance from the same private carriers currently in the marketplace.

True enough. Baby steps, Eberly. Baby steps. I believe the theory goes that a government program that is not profit motivated nor headed by CEOs that are syphoning off wealth will be introduced, driving the other insurance companies to compete or die. I favor this idea as well as a modernization (and securitization) of medical information exchange to make health care more efficient and health outcomes more favorable. There are other ways to improve efficiency and frequency of favorable outcomes, but I frankly don't know enough about them.

Sorry, #135 was true enough. I exclude #136 from the 'true' category.

Speaking of avoiding questions, you didn't actually choose A or B.

#135 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-08-12 03:43 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Why would I consider whether beating someone's head in is wrong unless I'm actually in the process of beating someone's head in?

If you want a single payer system, Eberly, then write your congress person and let him know. I'll do so as well.

#139 | POSTED BY JONO AT 2009-08-12 04:06 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Obvious answer: I think assaulting people is wrong so I actively avoid it.

Speaking of avoiding questions, you didn't actually choose A or B.

are you serious? you frame a question in that way and you expect an answer?

get real. If you can't table the ideological pants pissing rantings then dont' expect me to take you seriously.

I'm attempting to point out that we have leeches firmly attached to a system where no leeches would be preferable.

I missed the part in this thread where you proposed any kind of solutions, Eberly. How would you change the bill, or what bill (in loose terms) would you propose instead?

I missed the part in this thread where you proposed any kind of solutions, Eberly. How would you change the bill, or what bill (in loose terms) would you propose instead?

I have wishes, not solutions....just like you.

I have the same issues with the system that you have. I just don't advocate throwing gas on fire so I can say I'm doing something.

My goals are to have better preventative care and have a healthier nation.

It is a pipe dream though. It is ludicrous to believe we can get people, who don't value their health, to value a healthcare system.

#102 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-08-11 07:03 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Insurance co CEOs don't get paid by doling out all the potential profits to sick people, Eberly. They get paid by increasing the worth of their companies. In the face of rising health care costs (sometimes stemming from ineffecient or downright crooked behavior by doctors and patients) that means avoiding payouts. Please attempt to assail this simple logic.

Insurance co CEOs don't get paid by doling out all the potential profits to sick people, Eberly.

they why do people give them billions of dollars in premiums......that is, if the don't pay claims.??

#143 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-08-12 04:32 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

I disagree that it's a pipe dream. I think that there are severe inefficiencies that must be addressed to fix the system. Some inefficiencies are related to unethical behavior (insurance CEOs, and doctors who make money by performing unecessary X-Rays, for instance). Others, as you point out, require fat asses to get out and ride a bike and eat healthier foods (simplifying another set of complex issues, here).

Eliminating inefficiency and cutting out unethical behavior will get us %75 of the way towards fixing things.

145 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-08-12 04:37 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Many people don't. Many people choose to go without coverage, or with a form of coverage that is less than they require. Do you have dental? I don't.

Insurance companies are parasites. They survive by killing the host slowly, not all at once. They have to stay in business, broseph, so they only do what they think they must to stay attached to the host.

If you prefer a single pay system, then you will be very disapointed with the one being proposed now.

#135 | Posted by eberly at 2009-08-12 03:43 PM | Reply |

I'd be in this boat, and I am in fact disappointed.

I would have hoped we would of taken the good examples of canada, europe, and hell maybe even cuba and applied them here.

But the current legislation is another beast entirely. A complete bastard of a bill, that seems to aim to make nobody happy.

They are trying to do too much too fast, and in other ways they are not going nearly far enough.

The opposistion? Wants to do absolutely fucking nothing. We are fucked.

***"The latter although I would't include all issues you posted. Most of them though" #111 | Posted by eberly at 2009-08-11 11:29 PM

So, you log onto a political website and argue passionately from an extremely neo-con position about all of these "irrelevent" issues... For hours at a time... To the point of abusing other posters... Because all these issues are "irrelevent"?

Riiiiight...

So, you're just really bored?

#118 | Posted by foshaffer at 2009-08-12 01:24 PM

Off your meds again?

Or, did you get new meds? If so check the dosage...

Not one person has talked about the VA Medical Program for retired service members. Everyone things it's such a great program. NOT!

You think you got problems now, want til you get the New Socialist Medical Program.

You got to love it.

I'll talk about the VA program--it is GREAT. Far better than the service I get from the pay as you go docs.

If everyone could have the care the VA program puts out, this would be a great nation. As it is now, we are a nation of "I got mine---you can go fuck yourself". Not much greatness involved with that philosophy. Now a nation Of the people by the people and FOR THE PEOPLE would be a great nation. Maybe we should try that philosophy for a while and see how it works out.

The best safeguard against the healthcare mischief would be to insist that the Congress and the Government get the same choice as the rest of the taxpayers, who after all foot the bill for them.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable