The Death throes of the Death Panel

1. 61

   A.Villarasaposted 10 years ago

   Nowadays,  almost everyone and everybody seem to have something to gripe about  ObamaCare. From the onset of its introduction to the American people, soon after Obama was elected President in 2008, the Tea Partyers were against it for the simple reason that it would expand government reach way beyond their comfort zone, exemplified  by Sarah Palin's succinct observation that it would lead to the creation of "Death Panels".
   
   Despite significant resistance from the American people and the Republuican party , Obama  rammed  it through Congress and the Senate (which at that time were both under the control of the Democratic party) without as mush as a debate as to  its intentions, implementations, and ramifications. Nancy Pelosi's stupid statement: "We will pass it, then  you can read it later" comes to mind. And with much fanfare, he signed it into law, still trying to convince the American people that the whole bill was not a taxing mechanism but a penalizing  imposition. The Supreme Court decided ObamaCare constitutional based on its interpretation that it is a TAX.... not a PENALTY.
   
   So now that the time  for its full implemetaion is looming in the horizon... a lot of folks (who once rabidly supported the bill and its passage)  have become very nervous about  its potential for unwanted and unintended consequences. Several big union groups have expressed their desire to be exempted from its clutches, and so are government employees, from congressional/senate staffers. to the union members of the IRS. In fact some individuals and groups ( mainly those who are friendly  and have made significant monetary contributions to the president's election and re-election coffers) have been given waivers.
   
   Dr. Howard Dean, that avatar of far left ideology, a one time  Presidential wannabe, and the former  chairman of the DNC,  commented that the creation of IPAB ( a health care advisory board) within ObamaCare ,  could  lead to what would be close to what Sara Palin banded as "Death Panels" becasue they  are given the ultimate authority to  deny  doctors and their patients diagnostic and therapeutic modalities that could and would be life-saving.
   
   We could only hope that we could witness the death throes of these death panel when ObamaCare is finally burried underground where it properly belongs.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      As an addendum to the above forum post::>>>> It is now cyrstal clear that Obama's promise (or threat...depending upon one's perspective) of  being the most transparent of  all presidencies ever , is but a pipe dream .  We should have  had an inkling of this,  when Obama care was in the cusp of being passed by congress, and he stated that the whole bill would be posted on some kind of website, where people would  be given  access to it, and allowed enough time to digest all of its 2000 pages. That did not happen, and transparency be dammed, OBama and  Nancy  just have to ram it through, before anyone had any chance to  thread through its intentions, and ramifications.

      replyreport
   2. 91

      Dr Billy Kiddposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, page 490: The proposal shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums under section 1818, 1818A, or 1839, increase Medicare beneficiary costsharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria."
      
      http://www.factcheck.org/2012/09/scary-medicare-claims/
      Quoting the law itself--death panels (rationing of healthcare) is prohibited.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         @Dr. Billy:
         
         There is now a bipartisan  movement in Congress to remove the provision for the IPAB....a provision that if left untouched and unhindered could in fact lead to rationing of health care... a slippery slope towards  the so-called "death panel".

         replyreport
         1. 69

            Ralph Deedsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            There is a need to reduce unnecessary and ineffective tests and procedures, especially in the final months, weeks and days of life when a high percentage of health care costs are incurred.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               @Ralph:
               We are not talking about end-of-days health care.  The doctor and family members do decide,  in almost all cases,  that when a patient is on his(her) last days, resuscitative measures (what you term as un-necessary and ineffective tests and procedures) are pointless.  In cases where the delivery of health care is obviously indicated and mandated by a patient's medical condition, then,  the cost of those tests and procedures should be the least  criteria to be used for making  the decision.  The decision is the sole purvue of the doctor, the patient and his family... not the IPAB, as envisioned and or provisioned by ObamaCare.

               replyreport
2. 0

   Brenda Durhamposted 10 years ago

   The thing should be burned.

   replyreport
   1. 91

      Zelkiiroposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I know, right? Making sure every American has insurance and stays alive is a travesty.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Brenda Durhamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         It's not that,  not about taking care of Americans' health really.
         It's all the crap attached to the Bill and contained in the Bill and the whole myriad of other problems including the inception of it and the targets of it,  not to mention the unConstitutionality of it.
         Obama has been praised for his "brilliance" concerning his Bill;  it is his baby,  his pet project,  and his intention is to use it to force everyone to be under "universal heath care coverage".    Do you not know this?  He has made it clear.
         The thing is--------any sane literate person could've done better than his Bill by advocating for fraud monitoring and insurance company competitive rates,  and left out all the crap,  and we'd be better off now and in the future.   Even Obama (lol!)  could've done better!    He just simply wanted to make a big show of how "brilliant" he was,  when in fact he's not so brilliant at all;  he just made a huge mess of paperwork that's gonna have his name on it and distract from the real issues as he pushes this piece of carp legislation that mandates a law that tyrannizes citizens by imposing a law upon them that's unConstitutional  (the law forces people to buy something  where the choice should be left up to the citizen; and if they don't,  they'll be fined as though they were criminals;  and if they want to carry their own insurance without considering Obamacare,  their options will be limited there as well).   That's all he wanted and wants------to see his name on a huge piece of legislation and force people to follow it.  He wants fame.   Even if  it's infamy instead of fame......

         replyreport
         1. 91

            Zelkiiroposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            It's called the Affordable Care Act. You can't even make an anagram out of it, because it lacks a 'b' and an 'm'.

            replyreport
      2. 65

         innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Ask Sooner about what Obamacare really is. You might be able to digest it better from a left-winger.

         replyreport
      3. 61

         A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         @Zelkiiro:
         
         Your attempt at mockery and sarcasm just missed the mark by a mile.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Mark Knowlesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Hit it smack on from my (admittedly liberal, look after your fellow man) perspective. Odd the Christians are so anti helping your fellow. How come?

            replyreport
            1. 88

               GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               I see you brought your anti-religion axe with you Mark. But with no Christian references in the thread so far, (except yours), where are you going to grind it?
               
               GA

               replyreport
   2. 69

      Ralph Deedsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Suck it up! It's the law of the land.

      replyreport
      1. 66

         Cody Hodge5posted 10 years agoin reply to this

         But but but.....the Supreme Court isn't REALLY the highest court in the land.....just cuz they say something doesn't mean its the law!

         replyreport
      2. 65

         innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         This is a non-argument. Laws should be constantly evaluated and analysed.

         replyreport
         1. 69

            Ralph Deedsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Hard to evaluate before it's implemented. Dogmatic, true believer libertarians like you are incapable of an objective assessment. You have zero appreciation for the common good nor an ounce of compassion for our less fortunate among us.

            replyreport
            1. 65

               innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               That is called a character attack where I come from. It is also false, and you would know that if you had read what my 'dogma' actually is. If you have not read my other posts on the issue, here is the position: we both wish to see everyone receive adequate healthcare, we simply differ on the method.

               replyreport
               1. 69

                  Ralph Deedsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Please tell us your method.  Single payer perhaps. (I've read plenty of your comments. You appear to me to be a libertarian or perhaps a social Darwinist or worse an Ayn Randian.

                  replyreport
                  1. 65

                     innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     Free market with fraternal cooperatives worked just fine before the government got involved with doctor license-ship and other interventions.
                     
                     Philosophical libertarian and anarcho-capitalist. I'm not a social Darwinist or Ayn Randian.

                     replyreport
      3. 61

         A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         @Ralph:
         For any law to be  "the law of the land" it should be just and fair, i.e.  it should  not impose an unreasonabe burden on its citizen, and when implemented it should apply to every citizen, and that includes the President on down, Based on these, Obamacare is neither just nor fair because it imposes a tax burden or fine (however one looks at it)  that is unreasonable, and because now that its implementation is finally upon us, some individuals/groups/associations etc are being given waivers or are being exempted from its burdensome clutches..... including the ones that used to rabidly support  it (labor unions, Obama adorers and acolytes in the mainsttream media))  and voted for its passage in the Congress and Senate.
         
         Now it you want to live under such a law,  be my guest... but the rest of us refuse to do so, thus our call for ObamaCare to be buried under a pile of disgust and abhorrence.

         replyreport
3. 82

   psycheskinnerposted 10 years ago

   For those without insurance and getting cover it absolutely is about getting healthcare.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      @psyche:
      Getting healthcare is a personal responsibility, and  should not in any way be imposed or mandated by anyone even by the government. Folks who do not now have any medical coverage (for whatever reason), are still getting health care via the program called Medicaid... a program that,, despite abuses both by patients and  health care providers, has proven to be sustainable. ObamaCare is not. And if you do not believe that, try getting the irrefutable facts  from the CBO.

      replyreport
4. 0

   alexsaez1983posted 10 years ago

   How is this "death panel" thing any different from what private insurance companies do all the time? You pay premiums for years only to be turned down over some excuse or technicality. I guess private death panels are fine, but once the government might do it (based on nothing more than speculation), it's suddenly wrong. A bit hypocritical.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      @alex:
      
      It is not  mere speculation...as I mentioned in the OP, Dr. Howard Dean ( a practicing Internist)  himself suggested as much. So maybe my referencing  death panels  may  have gone a bit far from what I initially intended to point out.  And the point is governmental intrusion on doctor/patient relationship  is much more abhorrent than when done by private insurers etc. And who said  private "death panels" are fine? Certainly not me... a practicing Pediatrician who has to deal with the vagaries and inchoate policies of private insurers/HMO's/PPO's regarding my  medical procedures/drug prescriptions that are routinely denied.

      replyreport
      1. 69

         Ralph Deedsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         There are no death panels in the Affordable Care Act. The cost of health care, for a variety of reasons, has been going up at an unsustainable pace and has been producing results inferior to those in other advanced countries. I would be interested in hearing your suggestions for improving health care and controlling costs. In my experience there is a great deal of waste in the American health care system, and a large number of uninsured people are not well served.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            @Ralph:
            The term "Death Panels" was popularized by Sarah Palin and other tea Partyers to indicate their extreme displeasure over governmental intrusion into what used to be sacrosanct doctor-patient relationship. Obama Care does  provide for some kind of a Review Board (IPAB)  that  is empowered to make clinical decisions that once used to be the sole purview of the patient and his/her doctor. The onset of HMO's /PPO's/IPA's and other managed health care organization/insurers, via their own utilization board have invaded that cocoon of patient/doctor relationship; however both doctor and patient could question the decision of that board and request and sometimes demand re-consideration of that decision, based on what the doctor feels is an undue infringement on his clinical judgement.
            
            The government board (IPAB) as envisioned by Obama Care has total control of the process, and no amount of doctor/patient complaints could reverse its decision, unless a huge public outcry ensues, as what happened in the case of the 12 year old girl with cystic fibrosis, who her doctors felt needed a lung transplant, but Ms. Sebelius and her Dept of  HHS initially said no, until a huge public outcry, forced her to relent.

            replyreport
         2. 61

            A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            @Ralph:
            You are right to say that there is a great deal of waste... and abuse I might add, in the American health Care system. And you think involving the government in that system would eliminate the expense and abuse?. I doubt  that very much, for one simple reason:  governments  of all types and stripes in all their  operational/budgetary considerations have  been shown since time immemorial to be the biggest perpetrator of waste and abuse.

            replyreport
5. 76

   Reality Bytesposted 10 years ago

   Would it be appropriate to state:  The rest of the nation is continuously sniffing the butt of Massachusetts.  We figured this out for ourselves, without it being forced upon us by an oppressive centralized regime!  AND, it was done under the governance of Mitt Romney.
   
   Why hasn't your state already addressed the issue?

   replyreport
6. 91

   Dr Billy Kiddposted 10 years ago

   Could someone explain the "Death Panel" thing to me.
   
   I read the Affordable Care Act bill and I missed it. In there it guarantees that you can keep your current health insurance policy even if you get fired or quit and start your own business. You become more of the boss of what policy you have. So please, some details....

   replyreport
   1. 61

      A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      @ Dr.Kidd:
      "Death Panel" is an extreme version of governmental intrusion into the health care delivery system, that involves a Review Board (made up of bureaucrats, albeit and hopefully, the clinical kind) with the power of making decisions (that may not all be based on clinical considerations) regarding the delivery and application of health care, be they surgical procedures, diagnostic and therapeutic tools, prescription medications etc.

      replyreport
      1. 91

         Dr Billy Kiddposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         You mean like requiring that health insurance policies provide birth control services to women? And free preventative examinations? And allowing children up to age 26 years old to stay on your policy? Sounds rough.
         
         But let's face it--all health insurance policies everywhere are regulated by the governments in whose nation or state they provide services.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            @Dr. Billy:
            The first two services you mentioned are already being provided sans ObamaCare. Allowing children up to age 26(?) to be covered under their parents insurance is something new, and so is requiring health insurers to cover pre-existing conditions.
            You might want to Google ObamaCare-IPAB, to better understand why this particular governmental intrusion is anathema to most people, hiding as it does  under the rather benign  façade of controlling health care cost

            replyreport
            1. 69

               Ralph Deedsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               Anathema to most people?  I don't think so.  Certainly not to the people who are uninsured or the many who are covered by insurance from companies bent on maximizing their premiums and minimizing their payments for medical care  Nor by people subjected to being overcharged for sometimes unnecessary tests and procedures by for profit hospitals and other providers.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  @Ralph:
                  And you think that ObamaCare will solve the problems that you mentioned in your post?
                  Aside from the fact that people who are uninsured(for whatever reason) will be "forced" to get some form of health insurance coverage via the so-called exchanges, and will be penalized, if they don't . ObamaCare does nothing to decrease premiums or eliminating expensive/unnecessary tests/procedures.....  unless TORT reform is also mandated.

                  replyreport
                  1. 69

                     Ralph Deedsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     Of course Obama care won't solve all problems. It's far from perfect. Single payer would have been better. Obamacare will reduce the rate of increase in health care costs in this country. And many currently uninsured individuals will be able to get insurance. Recent reports are that insurance costs have already declined significantly in New York and California which have moved with alacrity to implement Obamacare. .

                     replyreport
7. 57

   Education Answerposted 10 years ago

   There's a lot of information and disinformation regarding Obamacare.  The original document is what, 20,000 pages? I've read quite a bit about Obamacare, and I still don't really know what it will or won't do: I doubt most people, including our Congress, know much more about it. 
   
   Something does need to be done to make healthcare more affordable, but I doubt it's something the government can solve by taking over such a large portion of our healthcare.  Our government is a joke when it comes to fiscal responsibility, so we're going to allow it to take over a significant portion of a 2 or 3 trillion dollar industry?  Many  people, but likely not all, MAY get better healthcare, but will the cost be better?  All I hear about is how much it's going to cost people.  I want to know about how much it's going to cost America.  Is this going to be a self-sustaining program, or are we going to slide into bankruptcy trying to finance universal healthcare?  I know people will cite examples in Europe and around the world, but I don't believe our country functions as efficiently as many of those nations.  How many of those nations have a debt to populace ratio as high as we do?  I'm guessing no solvent country in the world has a proportionate amount of debt.  Will it be the final straw that breaks the camel's back?  That's my worry.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      A.Villarasaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      @Education:
      
      The economic  consequences  of ObamaCare are unimaginably  staggering to say the least.  The CBO projects that it could add another trillion to America's debt, by  the time Obama leaves office in 2016.
      
      When people make the argument that Singapore, or  Switzerland or some othet country have universal health care system, they don't take into consideration that the USA is infinitely larger,  and complex, and multi-cultural  a society than those other countries, combined.

      replyreport