Rug Burn Junky on 18/8/2009 at 17:02
Quote Posted by Muzman
Death Panels: better known as triage, this goes on in any health system where are are limited resources (ie. all of them, right now). You're not going to get through the provisions for any system like that without some mention of what to do when the unpleasant business comes up. When people start acting as though this is changing drastically from current practice or talking outright garbage about foreign systems: crazy. (you can find all sorts of people pointing out that nothing much is functionally different from things done under Bush or Reagan, making the hysterical bulldust party political).
I didn't think this was possible, but your description underestimates the inanity of the Deathers' position.
If it were triage, then it would still be hysterical and unfair, but at least a reasonable logical leap to take, but that's not what the death panels even are. The provision in the bill that prompted this hysteria was one which encouraged insurance companies to pay for consultations in connection with the drafting of a "Living Will" detailing one's wishes for end of life care. That's it. It wasn't even in connection with the giving of care, but the discussion of care down the road.
As I've said elsewhere, anybody who's afraid of "death panels" probably has good reason to be - since when you're fucking braindead, that's when a living will kicks in and its time for the rest of us to pull the plug.
Quote Posted by Rogue Keeper
But reasonable politics is mainly about compromises!
The key word is reasonable. The far right fringe that is hijacking this debate are entirely unreasonable. If the minority's only concession to "compromise" is "Give us everything we want" then fuck'em. In response, if the progressives that support true health care don't put pressure on Obama, they win just by throwing the loudest tantrum, and that does no-one any good.
The key is to maintain the logical and moral highground, but to communicate in no uncertain terms that continued support for Obama is contingent upon him following through on the policies he was elected to enact. Saying that those on the left should just shut up and trust Obama is naive.
CCCToad on 19/8/2009 at 02:52
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
I didn't think this was possible, but your description underestimates the inanity of the Deathers' position.
If it were triage, then it would still be hysterical and unfair, but at least a reasonable logical leap to take, but that's not what the death panels even are. The provision in the bill that prompted this hysteria was one which encouraged insurance companies to pay for consultations in connection with the drafting of a "Living Will" detailing one's wishes for end of life care.
.
.
Correct. You also failed to mention that the consults are MANDATORY for those on the public option.
The thing with the bill, is that there probably would not be all these complaints about the bill if anyone genuinly believed it would reform health care and drive down costs. NOTHING in the bill is about that, instead it provides a public option, with some troubling provisions. Here are a FEW of the problems I have with it, sections that I can find conveniently (its late) are quoted.
-It allows for the government direct access to bank accounts of those enrolled in the public option.
-Employers with a total payroll above 400k have to provide the public option, or will be taxed 100 dollars a day per employee (first found this by reading the bill, NOT a website)
Quote:
SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE
19 HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
20 ‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual
21 who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at
22 any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed
23 a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—
1 ‘‘(1) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross in2
come for the taxable year, over
later:
Quote:
NOT TREATED AS TAX IMPOSED BY THIS
14 CHAPTER FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.—The tax im15
posed under this section shall not be treated as tax
16 imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining
17 the amount of any credit under this chapter or for
18 purposes of section 55.''.
Restricts the kinds of power chairs for seniors. It seems lego-babble, but what it means in practical terms is that they will not pay for a chair that isn't designated as "rehabilitative"
Quote:
PART 3—OTHER PROVISIONS
2 SEC. 1141. RENTAL AND PURCHASE OF POWER-DRIVEN
3 WHEELCHAIRS.
4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1834(a)(7)(A)(iii) of the
5 Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(a)(7)(A)(iii)) is
6 amended—
7 (1) in the heading, by inserting ‘‘CERTAIN COM8
PLEX REHABILITATIVE'' after ‘‘OPTION FOR''; and
9 (2) by striking ‘‘power-driven wheelchair'' and
10 inserting ‘‘complex rehabilitative power-driven wheel11
chair recognized by the Secretary as classified within
12 group 3 or higher''.
Doctors who treat patients covered by the public option will be paid the same, regardless of specialty: true. This part is what lends the most credence to the "socialism" argument.
Quote:
(1) ESTABLISHMENT OF SERVICE CAT6
EGORIES.—Subsection (j) of section 1848 of the So7
cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4) is amended
8 by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
9 ‘‘(5) SERVICE CATEGORIES.—For services fur10
nished on or after January 1, 2009, each of the fol11
lowing categories of physicians' services (as defined
12 in paragraph (3)) shall be treated as a separate
13 ‘service category':
14 ‘‘(A) Evaluation and management services
15 that are procedure codes (for services covered
16 under this title) for—
17 ‘‘(i) services in the category des18
ignated Evaluation and Management in the
19 Health Care Common Procedure Coding
20 System (established by the Secretary under
21 subsection (c)(5) as of December 31, 2009,
22 and as subsequently modified by the Sec23
retary); and
V
1 ‘‘(ii) preventive services (as defined in
2 section 1861(iii)) for which payment is
3 made under this section.
4 ‘‘(B) All other services not described in
5 subparagraph (A).
6
Service categories established under this paragraph
7 shall apply without regard to the specialty of the
8 physician furnishing the service.''.The bill also taxes private insurance companies:
Quote:
11 ‘‘SEC. 4375. HEALTH INSURANCE.
12 ‘‘(a) IMPOSITION OF FEE.—There is hereby imposed
13 on each specified health insurance policy for each policy
14 year a fee equal to the fair share per capita amount deter15
mined under section 9511(c)(1) multiplied by the average
16 number of lives covered under the policy.
17 ‘‘(b) LIABILITY FOR FEE.—The fee imposed by sub18
section (a) shall be paid by the issuer of the policy.
19 ‘‘(c) SPECIFIED HEALTH INSURANCE POLICY.—For
20 purposes of this section:
21 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise pro22
vided in this section, the term ‘specified health in23
surance policy' means any accident or health insur-
ct to individuals resid2
ing in the United States.
3 ‘‘(2) EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN POLICIES.—The
4 term ‘specified health insurance policy' does not in5
clude any insurance if substantially all of its cov
erage is of excepted benefits
I'd post more, but its late and I have to get up early for the first day of university, with most of my pre-law classes meeting in the morning. I disagree with the right in that we do need reform to cut the corporate stranglehold on health, but this bill does nothing of the sort: It appears designed to give the public option a massive advantage, has NO provisions that will drive down the cost of care, and has problematic provisions that are intrusive, such as forced enrollment into medicaid (page 102). If anything, it is going to increase costs through taxation. Rather than repeal previous legislation which drove the cost up, such as that medicaid is prohibited from negotiating drug prices, and instead adds more subsidies to be paid for by the states.
The result? More money will be filtered from the taxpayers, into the hands of the schiesters who run these large medical corporations.
