Its all a deathpanel, the truth about osamacare

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2009/...care/#more-624

You want to see rationing and death panels?

Lets leave the system the way it is. Let costs increase until medicare goes broke. Then there will be LOTS of old folks dying of untreated illness. There won't be a private insurance company that'll take them for all the money they have saved in their lives.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...108.guest.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Gutermuth

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...108.guest.html

---

what next? Financial blogs from Bernie Madoff? Or marital advice from Mark Sanford? Not enough time in the day to waste a second of it on Rush or any other extreme wacko drug addict, from either side of the spectrum.

The fact is that every managed care plan is currently in the business of rationing care to their insured populations. They have hidden behind the defense that they are not denying care. They are simply refusing to pay for it and should face no consequences other than paying the cost of services that were received by the patient but not reimbursed. Of course, if the patient was unable to obtain treatment because of the absence of insurance coverage, nothing is owed. To date, courts have generally accepted this limited view of liability since the insurance companies are not actually considered to be health care providers.

Increasingly, service limitations take the form of a "bribe". Specifically, patients with terminal illnesses are offered home care services but only if they sign away any right to treatment designed to prolong their lives. My father wrestled with this with my mother and ultimately rejected such services and, despite being seriously disabled by his own medical conditions, changed and laundered her bedding 6-8 times per day during the last year of her life. At the same time, life insurance programs are offering terminally ill patients buy -outs on their death benefits. Terminally ill people expected to die in less than six months are offered immediate payment of a fraction of the death benefits that would otherwise go to their beneficiaries in return for gving up their insurance. For many, including a 57 year old acquaintance who recently died of liver cancer while in his 50's, this was the only way to pay the cost of his care when his insurance company stopped paying the bills.

Are these forms of trade-off right or wrong? I don't know any simple way to answer that question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YardleyLabs

Are these forms of trade-off right or wrong? I don't know any simple way to answer that question.

---

I would add the banks' offers of reverse-mortgages to the retired or elderly. Its basically offering a few carrots to someone in financial difficulty, then taking their home when they die instead of it going to their children. Nice way to collect properties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Gutermuth

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...108.guest.html

---

So we are to assume a link to a drug addict would be unbiased and reliable?
Couldn't find a Marion Berry link for us to rely on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YardleyLabs

The fact is that every managed care plan is currently in the business of rationing care to their insured populations. They have hidden behind the defense that they are not denying care. They are simply refusing to pay for it and should face no consequences other than paying the cost of services that were received by the patient but not reimbursed. Of course, if the patient was unable to obtain treatment because of the absence of insurance coverage, nothing is owed. To date, courts have generally accepted this limited view of liability since the insurance companies are not actually considered to be health care providers.

Increasingly, service limitations take the form of a "bribe". Specifically, patients with terminal illnesses are offered home care services but only if they sign away any right to treatment designed to prolong their lives. My father wrestled with this with my mother and ultimately rejected such services and, despite being seriously disabled by his own medical conditions, changed and laundered her bedding 6-8 times per day during the last year of her life. At the same time, life insurance programs are offering terminally ill patients buy -outs on their death benefits. Terminally ill people expected to die in less than six months are offered immediate payment of a fraction of the death benefits that would otherwise go to their beneficiaries in return for gving up their insurance. For many, including a 57 year old acquaintance who recently died of liver cancer while in his 50's, this was the only way to pay the cost of his care when his insurance company stopped paying the bills.

Are these forms of trade-off right or wrong? I don't know any simple way to answer that question.

---

Khrushchev always said we would go willingly. We keep handing more power to the government, while we blame a so called market system that is hampered by the most successful union ever in America(AMA) and government intrusion(over 50%). The problem is too much government now and we are going to cure it with more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tpaschal30

Khrushchev always said we would go willingly. We keep handing more power to the government, while we blame a so called market system that is hampered by the most successful union ever in America(AMA) and government intrusion(over 50%). The problem is too much government now and we are going to cure it with more.

---

It's been a long time since doctors ruled the roost in health care. Between 1995 and 2003, real physician incomes declined more than 7%. Control has now passed to managed care companies. Physician job satisfaction is down, and too much time is spent on non patient care activities. Even after some gains in the last few years, the number of medical school applicants is still 10% less than in 1996. One of the objective of true health care reform has to be breaking the grip that corporate bureaucrats, divorced from any accountability for patient care, have on the delivery of medical services.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YardleyLabs

It's been a long time since doctors ruled the roost in health care. Between 1995 and 2003, real physician incomes declined more than 7%. Control has now passed to managed care companies. Physician job satisfaction is down, and too much time is spent on non patient care activities. Even after some gains in the last few years, the number of medical school applicants is still 10% less than in 1996. One of the objective of true health care reform has to be breaking the grip that corporate bureaucrats, divorced from any accountability for patient care, have on the delivery of medical services.

---

Why in the health care bill is there no plan to increase the amount of providers. Might be the reason the AMA is for the bill. They control who and how many can provide all in the name of supposedly benefiting the patient.
If there were a shortage of penecillin sould there not be a plan to produce more of it. If there is a shortage of HC why is there no plan to increase the amount of providers. The plan being propoded increases demand for health care without increasing supply. Guess what happens then? That is why this plan is not about health care.
Ever hear of the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules. Doctors are not accountable to patients since they don't pay the bill. Delivery is not the problem, it is who the payer is.