So basically these people could have come to the U.S. for these life saving drugs and be alive today. How ironic.

Jay-
No. Not really. They'd have to pay for them, and if they couldn't afford them, they wouldn't get them. Also, if their US insurance refused to pay, they wouldn't get them. How many die in the US due to refused access due to ability to pay?

(I'm sorry, that question doesn't fit your agenda for "ironic", so it doesn't exist. Please ignore it.)

I'm pretty sure there's programs in the U.S. to pay for life saving drugs.

But that would change under Obamacare.

We're all going to die.

I'm pretty sure there's programs in the U.S. to pay for life saving drugs.

#3 | Posted by JaySherman at 2010-03-14 11:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm sure you are. No one goes without lifesaving treatments or drugs or surgeries in the US due to inability to pay or inadequate insurance.

Later Jay.

I know Dems are saying that 45,000 people die each year due to lack of insurance. They propose to begin taxing us now and introduce the benefits by 2014. They are willing to let 180,000 die while they fiddle around for a few years.

No, the ironic part is that our socialist-in-chief and his socialist-loving-lackies think that hey can someone implement a socialist paradise that will give everything to everyone without any controls, and without having to let people die. There will be death pannels.

The problem that most people fail to see is that the profit on health care providers, something around 4%, is significantly less than the waste and abuse and overhead that will be incurred by govt... thus ensuring that more people will suffer and die needlessly. So, in an effort to fix a system that isn't broken, they will cause more misery, worse care, and more death.

And then they will go home and pat themselves on the back and think that they are such good poeple cause they CARE. Results be damned.

The rationing body NICE

Sounds like a death panel to me.

Oh--the house or senate bill don't have anything like that?

Except here--

(2) INSUFFICIENT FUNDS.If the Secretary es23
timates for any fiscal year that the aggregate
24 amounts available for payment of expenses of the
25 high-risk pool will be less than the amount of the ex-
VerDate Nov 24 2008 12:56 Oct 30, 2009 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:BILLSH3962.IH H3962 rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with BILLS
26
HR 3962 IH
1 penses, the Secretary shall make such adjustments
2 as are necessary to eliminate such deficit, including
3 reducing benefits, increasing premiums, or estab4
lishing waiting lists.

Page 25-26

Oh--Look!

It's in the Senate bill too--page 51

51
HR 3590 EAS/PP
1 (2) INSUFFICIENT FUNDS.If the Secretary esti2
mates for any fiscal year that the aggregate amounts
3 available for the payment of the expenses of the high
4 risk pool will be less than the actual amount of such
5 expenses, the Secretary shall make such adjustments
6 as are necessary to eliminate such deficit.

No, the ironic part is that our socialist-in-chief and his socialist-loving-lackies think that hey can someone implement a socialist paradise that will give everything to everyone without any controls, and without having to let people die. There will be death pannels (sic).

Death panels, huh? OK nutcase.

The problem that most people fail to see is that the profit on health care providers, something around 4%, is significantly less than the waste and abuse and overhead that will be incurred by govt

You fail to mention the 20-40% 'administration' insurance companies suck out of every health care dollar. Gee, add that to the 4% and you have 24-44%. Translastion $.24-44 of EVERY health care dollar.

Ya, let's stick with the status quo.

Not to mention the 15-60% ANNUAL health insurance premiums we saw just this year.

Rises in health insurance premiums. Yep. 15-60% just THIS year.

You wanna pay $40,000 a year for health insurance in 10 or 15 years? Not me.

AU-hole,

Have you ever worked? Do you understand HOW insurance works? Do you have any experience working for an insurance company?

Just want to know your background and expertise so I don't waste time in our discussions.

And you think that the gov't run health insurance is going to be done for free?? lol

Oh--that's right--raise the taxes and print or borrow the money--that's the gov't handle..

And why don't you read the damn bills--go on.

Then get back to us with more name calling.

Fact is that this bill does NOTHING to reduce costs.

No, the ironic part is that our socialist-in-chief and his socialist-loving-lackies think that hey can someone implement a socialist paradise that will give everything to everyone without any controls, and without having to let people die. There will be death pannels.

I'm sure it doesn't mean much, but what shred of the benefit of the doubt I was willing to give you evaporated with this gem.

You sir, are an idiot.

Anybody here NOT think that a completely unfettered free market would lead to some pretty extreme rationing?

POSTED BY JAYSHERMAN
"I'm pretty sure there's programs in the U.S. to pay for life saving drugs. But that would change under Obamacare."

Oh?

The UK has about 60 million people and 20,000 die each year because they can't afford care.

The US has 300million people and 45,000 die each year because they cant afford care

So you are less than half as likley to die in America due to not being able to pay for medications.

Imagine all the money we'll save when we can put the Boomers under Obamacare, then just de-fund it.

The libbies pretend they'll be better off when they switch their healthcare providers from a for-profit health company, to a bankrupt federal government. We already see how that's working elsewhere.

There should be two systems. One system for the dumbasses who think the government should take care of them, and that they will save money besides. And one for the rest of us, who are determined to live longer.

How will this be any different here in the US?

Profound health inequalities mean that people living in the poorest parts of England already suffer an extra 17 years of ill-health and disability, the Government commissioned review found.

Death panels, huh? OK nutcase.

Dumb-fuck. We already have death pannels. Insurance companies put caps on spending, as does the feds. One of the feds favorite methods is waiting lists... you just sit at home and die, waiting for your approval. All that is going to change is that MORE people will be dying, as the overhead of the govt program will be higher. Sorry that you can't understand that govt is less efficient on EVERYTHING. Followed closely by heavily-unionized shops.

You fail to mention the 20-40% 'administration' insurance companies suck out of every health care dollar. Gee, add that to the 4% and you have 24-44%. Translastion $.24-44 of EVERY health care dollar.

Again, you prove that your knowledge is, well, limited would be giving you extra credit. These 'administative costs' are MUCH LESS than when the gov't ran the majority of medicare and medicaid processing themselves. So much less that they have outsourced to companies like Blue Cross and others. All that will happen if you push everyone into a govt program is that you will have the same insurance companies, making the same or more profit, and a few hundred thousands more govt workers that do nothing but review and reshuffle the paperwork that is requried. Net effect, more health care dollars go away from hospitals and doctors, and more people die.

Ya, let's stick with the status quo.

#11 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

No, AU-hole, lets try and do things that will improve it, not make it worse.

WTF did your 'libertarian' President do for 8 years to address the health care debacle?

Absolutely nothing. Exactly what you say every post.

I'm sure it doesn't mean much, but what shred of the benefit of the doubt I was willing to give you evaporated with this gem.

You sir, are an idiot.

#16 | Posted by jpw

Your right, I don't give a fuck if someone who has no clue doesn't like me. Try reading the post I made to AU-hole (above).

Let me ask you... have you EVER worked for a health insurance company? Do you know how insurance works?

#23 | Posted by 1libertarian

You sir, are an idiot. You've shown how uninformed you are post after post after post.

Don't even vote for the Libertarian candidate for President. You're a fake.

WTF did your 'libertarian' President do for 8 years to address the health care debacle?

Absolutely nothing. Exactly what you say every post.

AU-Hole,

Why do you keep harping about whether or not I am a libertarian. Really, can you discuss the issues? No, of course not. How silly.

So, what background do YOU have in medicine? Have you ever worked for an insurance company? Do you even know how insurance works?

Health care is already rationed in this country, based on who is allowed to buy insurance and who can afford it. Every year the number of people in this favored group shrinks as their payments go up and "pre-existing conditions" are used to exclude more people.

People who think that's only a problem elsewhere have their heads in the sand.

Health care is already rationed in this country, based on who is allowed to buy insurance and who can afford it. Every year the number of people in this favored group shrinks as their payments go up and "pre-existing conditions" are used to exclude more people.

People who think that's only a problem elsewhere have their heads in the sand.

Sorry Rcade, but it's your job to explain to those who don't want anything to do with Obamacare that the above thread is moving in the right direction.

Let's try not to deflect to "that's the way it is now"...tell me why the above example is "better"...is it because the government decides who dies rather than insurance companies? If so, you're going to have to do a bit better than that to sell me.

WTF did your 'libertarian' President do for 8 years to address the health care debacle?

Are you high? What the fuck are you talking about?

20,000 UK patients with rare forms of cancer died due to lack of availability of expensive new drugs?

Not quite.

Article say their lives were not extended as far as they could have potentially been.

A distinction with a difference sez Spud.

And the sad thing is they are still better off than many, many Americans.

There are still millions of uninsured in the US many of whom die cos they can't afford health insurance.

There are millions of under-insured who's HMOs would not pop for these new drugs.

There are million's of ostensibly insured who die because there HMO's make them wait for a decision on various treatments and that waiting time becomes a death sentence.

Nobody's health care system is perfect and life is a terminal disease.

It's all relative.

The UK like Canada and the rest of Europe is less socially Darwinian in their outlook on Healthcare and that makes those systems superior.

The best health care in the world is meaningless to those who can't access it.

Be Well.

Sorry Rcade, but it's your job to explain to those who don't want anything to do with Obamacare that the above thread is moving in the right direction.

If you're content with the way things are now, where insurance companies jack up premiums and drop customers each year, by all means let's continue the present system.

Most of us aren't fortunate enough to be in the dwindling class of Americans who get health insurance and can count on not losing it when we need it.

We wouldn't need "Obamacare" -- as you derisively call it -- if the insurance companies were capable of doing the job. They've proven they can't.

If you're content with the way things are now, where insurance companies jack up premiums and drop customers each year, by all means let's continue the present system.

Most of us aren't fortunate enough to be in the dwindling class of Americans who get health insurance and can count on not losing it when we need it.

As I said before, you're going to have to do a better job of convincing people to go from tier 1 coverage to what's mentioned in the above thread, with no returns for 3 years.

When folks who don't have insurance expect those who do to take a hit in the quality of their care to insure they have coverage...well, you shouldn't be surprised when a pat on the back doesn't suffice.

I'm not trying to be callous here, but as the above thread notes, those who have quality insurance will take a hit, there are no buts about it...and you have to convince them that less is more.

We wouldn't need "Obamacare" -- as you derisively call it -- if the insurance companies were capable of doing the job. They've proven they can't.

Is Obamacare really derisive? Honestly, I didn't think it was much different than Reaganomics, that is, a concept that is suggested by a particular President....and I didn't feel like typing out Health Care Reform.

I'm not trying to be callous here, but as the above thread notes, those who have quality insurance will take a hit, there are no buts about it...

Perhaps. But most Americans either lack health insurance or are afraid they're going to lose their insurance and be shit out of luck. That's why universal health care does well in polls.

Is Obamacare really derisive? Honestly, I didn't think it was much different than Reaganomics ...

I've never heard a supporter of health care reform call it Obamacare. It's a favored term of the people who think health reform is a trojan horse to control the economy.

The number of cancer patients keeps on increasing, and so will the need for more opiate production.

So, what background do YOU have in medicine? Have you ever worked for an insurance company? Do you even know how insurance works?

#26 | Posted by 1libertarian at 2010-03-16 04:09 AM | Reply

So anyone without medical training or employment at an insurance company is prohibited from commenting on this topic?

That is not how this site works cupcake.

That's why universal health care does well in polls.

But where it does not do well is with the pols who will lose part of their payoffs if it were ever passed.

There are still millions of uninsured in the US many of whom die cos they can't afford health insurance.

Then there are ones with health insurance that when they are diagnosed with cancer they are dropped for "pre existing" conditions, have their medical care challenged by paper pushers and have their annual premiums skyrocket to the point where they cannot afford them here in the Medical Industry Utopia.

Article say their lives were not extended as far as they could have potentially been.

A distinction with a difference sez Spud.

Yes, if you lived in the US and had no insurance, you would probably not have access to the drugs [unless medicaid covers it, or charities kick in, etc]... so you would still die. Net effect, you die under either system.

However, if you have a private insurance, you would most likely die later. Now, a difference of a week or a month or a decade, whatever, may be a distinction without a difference to you... but I think the dying would have noticed. I think the distinction would make a MORE difference to you if you or your family member was dying.

And the sad thing is they are still better off than many, many Americans.

And worse off than millions more. So, you want to punish those who have insurance? You want them do die sooner? How Marxist of you. Can't save everyone? Then everyone should die sooner.

There are million's of ostensibly insured who die because there HMO's make them wait for a decision on various treatments and that waiting time becomes a death sentence.

Really, I thought I was the 'nutjob' for talking about death panels. Point is, they already exist, and will be expanded under the Obamanation of a bill. Still, if you are bitching about the wait today, do you honestly believe the wait for treatment for govt controlled HC is going to be less? Has the govt ever done anything quickly or efficiently? Come on, govt control will create more dead, just through paper shuffling and other nonsense. And that is before they tighten down the rationing to balance future budgets.

The UK like Canada and the rest of Europe is less socially Darwinian in their outlook on Healthcare and that makes those systems superior.

Depends on how you measure better. Canadians come here for a LOT more treatment that Americans go there. Maybe they know something you don't?

The best health care in the world is meaningless to those who can't access it.

Be Well.

#30 | Posted by dethspud

And all the treatments in the world do you no good if you can't get them, or if you die while standing in line.

Great. Eberly's stupider little brother weighs in.

poor lettuce sprayer... still spewing his shit.