Fox News Analyst Says ‘No One’ Is Saying Obama Wants ‘To Kill Old People’ After Saying It Himself
Fox News Analyst Says ‘No One’ Is Saying Obama Wants ‘To Kill Old People’ After Saying It Himself
On Fox & Friends this morning Fox News analyst Peter Johnson Jr told the hosts that “no one is saying” that the health care legislation before Congress will kill old people:
JOHNSON: The President’s reform plan is a redistribution of health care. And what he’s saying is, I want to reduce hospital costs by $220 billion from Medicare. I want to cut out Medicare Advantage that affects ten million people. I want to reduce imaging studies. I want to reduce electric wheelchairs. I want to reduce advanced nursing care in facilities. So no one is saying that the President wants to kill old people.
Watch it:
The problem with Johnson’s statement is that he himself has said that health care reform could kill elderly people, as he did on the very same show two weeks ago:
JOHNSON: Some people are saying, well, this is a health care reform, other people say — maybe me — that this is a subtle form of euthanasia. And when you start looking at the proposals, you say, God, what’s happening? One of the proposals, Section 1233, talks about advanced care planning consultations. And that’s a fancy term where a doctor goes to you every five years once you’re 65, or more if you’re chronically ill, and explains to you the benefits of so-called palliative care, of not giving active treatment
Watch it:
Johnson has repeatedly made the accusation that the government is going to put people to death under health care legislation, including telling Fox viewers that reform is going to have us living in “kind of [a] 2009 Brave New World, Soylent Green, 1984, Aldous Huxley kind of world” where doctors will suggest that you end your life instead of being cared for.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Lest we forget…..All conservatives think the stroke of midnight means “DO-OVER”.
August 12th, 2009 at 12:41 pmRepublican hypocrisy is news?
Hmm. Here I was thinking that it was just standard fare.
August 12th, 2009 at 12:42 pm“kind of [a] 2009 Brave New World, Soylent Green, 1984, Aldous Huxley kind of world” where doctors will suggest that you end your life instead of being cared for.
– - I could see eating Gretchen Carlson, ya know, for nutritional purposes.
August 12th, 2009 at 12:42 pmI love a good idiot, especially for breakfast.
Where did FauxSnooze get this nut case; he seems to be the perfect example of self-contradiction and someone who has no qualms about bearing false witness in the pursuit of the advertiser’s dollar. Any fracking thing for a buck; no ethics, no morals, no truth.
And quit calling him an analyst. I know analysts, I have friends who are analysts, I myself have done analysis, this bozo Johnson is no analyst – he’s a twerp and a hypocrite.
August 12th, 2009 at 12:44 pmObviously, Johnson has not been listening to Caribou Barbie lately.
August 12th, 2009 at 12:47 pmClearly this is an example of engaging the mouth before the brain is in gear.
Twerp! Haven’t heard that one in a while–sweet!
Twerp. Ha!
August 12th, 2009 at 12:47 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Clearly he said ‘a subtle form of Youth in Asia’ … you see some people see this as health care reform and some, maybe him, see it as an 1980’s anarchist punk band from Great Britain… makes perfect sense.
August 12th, 2009 at 12:51 pmthat this is a subtle form of euthanasia.
For that matter, what’s wrong with that? I was all for what Kevorkian was doing. If someone wants to end their suffering, why stop them?
August 12th, 2009 at 12:51 pm(afterthought) My comment was aimed at the ‘analyst’ not on VirtualPebble’s comment.
Yes, Johnson is a twerp.
August 12th, 2009 at 12:52 pmThree brains glued to couch
August 12th, 2009 at 12:53 pmDiscussing human value
Oh the irony
“Declare the past, diagnose the present, foretell the future; practice these acts. As to diseases, make a habit of two things — to help, or at least to do no harm.”
Hippocrates Epidemics, Bk. I, Sect. XI.
August 12th, 2009 at 12:56 pmBreathtaking stupidity..you gotta be impressed (only for a fleeting moment) how these folks can spew all this garbage and then try to come back and say “who me?”…
August 12th, 2009 at 12:59 pmI have put it to the confused like this, and it works really well:
“Do you seriously believe the government is writing a plan for first degreee murder into a health care bill?”
Because that is essentially what is being said, or screamed actually, by the hysterical right.
August 12th, 2009 at 1:00 pmFuxPundit 1: “Obama wants to kill you parents, your grandparents and the disabled.”
FuxPundit 2: “Obama wants to kill my Grammy and Pappa?”
FuxPundit 1: “I never said that.”
And the Barcalounger Lemmings eat it up!
PEACE
August 12th, 2009 at 1:02 pmTundra
August 12th, 2009 at 1:02 pmAre you still seeking attention or have you beyond that?I am just curious what the goal is. Thanks.
Fox News is intellectual euthenasia.
August 12th, 2009 at 1:04 pmIf someone wants to end their suffering, why stop them?
I actually agree. Provided that someone were to receive proper counseling on the issue and made the decision themselves, I see no reason why euthenasia is a problem. We put dogs to sleep to keep them from unduly suffering. Why don’t we have the humanity to treat human beings better than we treat our animals?
August 12th, 2009 at 1:06 pmWhile their hypocrisies certainly demonstrate their lack of personal character, what disturbs me most about Republicans on TV is their zealous, relentless, willingness to LIE about what they DID say and or what they DID NOT say in the era of video and audio recordings. Forget the fact that it is a sin to tell a lie, it’s absolutely farcical to attempt to deny incontrovertible facts.
If they’ll lie under the bright light of recorded facts, they’ll certainly lie when no one else is watching.
August 12th, 2009 at 1:07 pmIs Peter Johnson related to Gabby?
August 12th, 2009 at 1:08 pmSoooo, Peter Johnson is….no one?
August 12th, 2009 at 1:08 pmJohnson has repeatedly made the accusation that the government is going to put Fox viewers to death under health care legislation.
There, I like that much better.
August 12th, 2009 at 1:08 pmWhen are the Democrats going to wake up and stop being pushed around by a fringe minority?
Screw the teabaggers and the rest of the GOPshite. The Dems need to do the will of the majority, and the majority wants effective reform and the public option.
Wake up, Dems. You may permanently lose a lot of your base if you continue to listen to the repiggie base. They will never vote for you anyway, so screw them.
August 12th, 2009 at 1:08 pm1984? With the government spying on all the citizens’ comunications?
Wow, Bushthinkers bellyfeel IngSoc.
August 12th, 2009 at 1:09 pmOne of the proposals, Section 1233, talks about advanced care planning consultations. And that’s a fancy term where a doctor goes to you every five years once you’re 65, or more if you’re chronically ill, and explains to you the benefits of so-called palliative care, of not giving active treatment
LIAR! (Yes, I’m shouting.)
The doctor doesn’t go to you. You go to the doctor. And you talk about options, active and palliative care. And here’s the new part: the doctor can get paid for this service! What a radical capitalistic concept, right? And it’s not mandatory every five years. It’s optional and only paid for once every five years.
We need to call them what they are: LIARS!
August 12th, 2009 at 1:14 pmAre you still seeking attention or have you beyond that?
This time I was kind of curious what the general consensus on euthenasia was.
August 12th, 2009 at 1:14 pmI categorically deny that Peter Johnson Jr beats his wife. I never said it and will never say that Peter Johnson Jr beats his wife. People who say Peter Johnson Jr beats his wife are wrong. Why are people constantly talking about if Peter Johnson Jr beats his wife? We should stop talking about if Peter Johnson Jr beats his wife.
August 12th, 2009 at 1:15 pmFunny – because that’s EXACTLY what insurance companies have been doing for years, to the complaint and resistance of many.
Funnier still – we don’t get to vote for who runs insurance companies.
So how dumb am I if I scream that the government (which I can vote for or against) should have a say in the administration of healthcare??
(hint: the answer is : very, very dumb)
August 12th, 2009 at 1:16 pmTundra says:
advanced care planning consultations. And that’s a fancy term where a doctor goes to you every five years once you’re 65, or more if you’re chronically ill, and explains to you the benefits of so-called palliative care, of not giving active treatment
What is the negative in that?
August 12th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
_________________
Nothing. Patients should have the right to discuss end-of-life options with their doctor without worrying about paying massive out-of-pocket costs for the consultation.
The problem is the corporate-conservative spin machine turning this basic and extremely personal issue into a two-word talking point.
August 12th, 2009 at 1:16 pm26
August 12th, 2009 at 1:16 pmCool. I am with smidget on this one. I just hope those same jackasses that leave their stupid anacondas in the ‘glades or their unwanted dogs out in the woods have better sense.
If Fox News is paying Peter Johnson Jr for beating his wife, that is evil. Where does it stop? Are we going to stand idly by and watch everyone’s wife get beaten and the beater paid?
August 12th, 2009 at 1:19 pmBuckie Boy says:
Johnson has repeatedly made the accusation that the government is going to put Fox viewers to death under health care legislation.
August 12th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
____________
Maybe these death panels aren’t such a bad idea after all…
August 12th, 2009 at 1:19 pmAre we going to stand idly by and watch everyone’s wife get beaten and the beater paid?
They let Vick back in the NFL
:-P
August 12th, 2009 at 1:19 pmeuthenasia implies that the patient has no say in it. You initially mentioned assisted suicide which is not the same thing at all.
When you use the word euthenasia you distort the discussion and imply something that is horrifying to all.
But you continue to use it as if it were something that the left might advocate when the truth is that the insurance companies are deciding who live and who dies without thier input right now, every day.
August 12th, 2009 at 1:20 pmI still think Death Panel would make a cool “viewers choice” type tv show and I don’t even have cable. Viewers could get to decidewhich contestant was killed each week. It would be killer so to speak…
August 12th, 2009 at 1:21 pmPeter Johnson Jr. is a trial lawyer
and president of a Wall Street law firm.
I thought that Fox believed trial lawyers were evil?
August 12th, 2009 at 1:22 pmJohnson is now trying to create the fig leaf of being one of the rational players in the health (s)care discussion but even here he cannot avoid speaking in code i.e. “redistribution” which of course is an issue to Johnson and his ilk only when it is directed downward. Upward redistribution is known as “fairness” in free market orthodoxy.
His self-separation from his own previous words is nothing new and he will likely never be held accountable for it unless The Daily Show staff picks it up.
August 12th, 2009 at 1:22 pmI just had a Really Evil idea: Since most of these wingnut clowns and their intellectually dilettante followers never take the time to actually do any objective detailed research and are apparently genetically hedged against intrusion of any rational argument and facts, I thought about just cutting out little sections of the legislative drafts, editing into them the most outlandish provisions (use your imagination), and then breathlessly posting them, under a sock puppet handle, on wingnut blogs etc. LOL. “SEE!!!! See what these Terrible Commie Lib’ruls are up to!!!…”
Sorta, y’know, the way Orly Taitz got punked on the Obama Kenyan birth certificate. De-legitimizing disinformation warfare. Make ‘em ever more overtly the laughingstock they are. Seems like it worked pretty well with Tammy Faye Taitz (not that she’ll stop, but she’s now been totally marginalized).
I know, it would just further decrement the signal-to-noise ratio. Sigh…
August 12th, 2009 at 1:23 pm#9 – Tundra says:
——————————————————–
“For that matter, what’s wrong with that? (euthanasia) I was all for what Kevorkian was doing. If someone wants to end their suffering, why stop them?”
August 12th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
There’s a big difference between offering a graceful way to end suffering (What Dr. Kevorkian offers terminally ill patients) and spinning an lying about Obama Health Care Reform. There’s no “euthanasia” plan to stop coverage for older persons, but that’s what the right-whiners are trying to spin into existance.
Possibly because these right-whiners have no real opposition to Health Care Reform other than lies and spin. (My opinion, as they’ve yet to articulate an honest opposition to the facts.)
August 12th, 2009 at 1:27 pmFox won the “right” to LIE in 2003 from a FL appeals court after a FL jury unanimously awarded judgement in 2000 to two Tampa journalists that were wrongfully fired for doing an expose on bovine growth hormone(BGH). The station edited their story to the point where it was a complete distortion of the truth and they (the journalists) blew the whistle.
August 12th, 2009 at 1:31 pmIt was blatant sucking up by FOX to Monsanto.
1st amendment rights, my a$$! When do we get our PUBLIC air waves back?!
@BobbyG
That’s actually not a terrible idea.
August 12th, 2009 at 1:31 pmSometimes I wonder what planet it is where these wonderful plans for seniors currently exist. It doesn’t appear to be on Earth, but maybe I’m blind.
Obviously most of this is BS, but they talk about this stuff as if there’s not a ridiculous amount of people dying or being bankrupted due to the current system.
August 12th, 2009 at 1:32 pmWhy is this talking head getting away with the false assertion that “[T]he President’s reform plan is a redistribution of health care”??? There is not one goddamn word in the House bill about redistributing (i.e. taking care from patient A and giving it to patient B) health care. The concept that “health care” is a fixed resource like petroleum or gold and that providing it to the millions currently without insurance takes away from those on Medicare or an employer plan is false — not to mention an ugly example of the “I’ve got mine screw you” nutter mindset.
August 12th, 2009 at 1:32 pmStandard reight-wing playbook…drag the argument so far to the right with lies and deception, then back-peddle just a little, to appear like a reasonable guy so you can dominate the discussion…
*turns head & spits on ground*
August 12th, 2009 at 1:33 pmBeing a two year lung cancer survivor, I would appreciate the opportunity to have by Doctor visits reimbursed if my adeno carcinoma comes back.
We would be discussing the palliative treatments available to provide mass removal of the brain tumor that would likely result from remission.
Or discussing the pain relief available should I decide not to opt for mass removal, and let nature take its course.
We all die.
August 12th, 2009 at 1:34 pmGet over it.
euthenasia implies that the patient has no say in it.
The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment.
I never felt the word implied “without patient consent”. If you feel that the word does, then I understand your resistance to it.
When you use the word euthenasia you distort the discussion and imply something that is horrifying to all.
Again, if you take the word to “Imply” without patient consent. Then I suppose the topic would be horrifying to you.
But you continue to use it as if it were something that the left might advocate when the truth is that the insurance companies are deciding who live and who dies without thier input right now, every day.
I fully agree with this statement. Which is another reason why I often ask “Currently the insurance companies are withholding “experimental” treatments. So yes the government would as well (The treatments have not been evaluated and approved yet). However when stating such I get told “The government would never withhold any care”. With government healthcare you will have access to anything you need that may possibly assist you.
Me stating that “Yes, there is still going to be care that the very wealthy can afford (Kennedy) that people would possibly not get under a public option. It’s not meant as a bad thing. Those people have no access to any of it now and regular insurance wouldn’t cover it anyway. But yes a rich man who has the money to pay for whatever experimental treatments (extra) he wants, will get a different quality of care (Still just like the insurance companies having a rationed approach)
Some people use the word rationed to be bad (Imply bad things with it if you will). Personally I would prefer a public option used regulations on what is reasonable (just like the insurance companies do). So yes I think a public option would ration care too (I hope it would instead of just wildly spending whatever whenever). But the word isn’t meant to scare me although alot of people hate the word because they have preconceived notions about what it means.
August 12th, 2009 at 1:34 pmThe more I think about BobbyG’s post the more I wish I had come up with it myself….
I wonder if the screenname “obamisuxors” is already taken on freeper?
Hmmm…..
August 12th, 2009 at 1:34 pmgeez, not remission, recurrence…duh.
August 12th, 2009 at 1:35 pmbelaccifer lacca says:
Clearly he said ‘a subtle form of Youth in Asia’ … you see some people see this as health care reform and some, maybe him, see it as an 1980’s anarchist punk band from Great Britain… makes perfect sense.
Indeed. Here’s Ali G (aka Borat aka Bruno aka Sasha Baron Cohen) in a panel on health care discussing among other things this very important issue of youthinasia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya_uJHdOtdc
August 12th, 2009 at 1:35 pmI don’t think Kevorkian is comparable here. The slander against this program is more that we’re going to kill off “useless old people” like we do dogs at the pound.
It’s a less extreme version of Logan’s Run. In that movie, when you turn a certain age you’re killed. That’s essentially the implication with these comments. That’s the sentiment they’re trying to get across.
August 12th, 2009 at 1:36 pmWhat do you expect? Even people who are on Fox don’t believe anything heard on Fox.
Come on do we really believe that Peter Johnson is dumb enough to believe stuff that Peter Johnson says? He’s not bright, but he’s not that stupid. Give the guy some credit.
August 12th, 2009 at 1:38 pmExcept the insurance companies do it based on a bottom line and profit, not what is sensible and reasonable.
August 12th, 2009 at 1:40 pmI have placed this link on other posts, so I apologize, but this video is insane.
This is the video of Glenn Beck’s show from last night (8-11-09) condensed into 10 minutes.
I have never seen so many health care scare tactics and talk about eugenics in such a short period of time.
You have to watch.
http://progressnotcongress.org/?p=2505
August 12th, 2009 at 1:43 pmBut the word isn’t meant to scare me although alot of people hate the word because they have preconceived notions about what it means.
This is a HUGE part of the problem, not just with this issue, but with any issue that is even slightly devisive.
Instead of taking the time to understand an issue, people latch onto buzzwords (that they frequently are misunderstanding in both meaning and context) to scare others into agreeing with them.
Just about every issue we have to deal with in this country at this time can be directly traced back to our piss-poor educational system.
August 12th, 2009 at 1:43 pmAn absolute must read, first hand experience from an American ex-pat living and working in the UK:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/08/another_story_from_the_uk.php#more?ref=fpblg
PEACE
August 12th, 2009 at 1:47 pmExcept the insurance companies do it based on a bottom line and profit, not what is sensible and reasonable.
I fully agree with you here. My point was I would hope they would use regulations on what kind of care. Simple as that. I have never stated I was against a plan. I have never stated that I was against them “Regulating the care” (because insurance companies already do). I am simply against it when people argue that the government is not going to regulate it or not going to give reasonable care. I am fully against “the government giving the best quality care available to all”. The same care that a Kennedy could afford. Why? because it’s too expensive. Should everyone have access to the same type of care that insured people have access too today? So far sure, haven’t gotten all the details yet.
August 12th, 2009 at 1:47 pmI guess it doesn’t matter that everything this idiot says President Obama wants to do with Health Care is a LIE. Their LIES about how Obama wants to kill old people fell flat so now their LIES are that Obama wants to kill Medicare. What President Obama does want to do, and it’s about time someone did it, is to get rid of the waste and fraud involved in Medicare. You have physicians sending patients for useless tests to facilities they are partners in. This happens daily. There is so much fraud and abuse in the Medicare system I think that maybe we could put the 47 million without health insurance on Medicare and pay for them by eliminating the fraud.
August 12th, 2009 at 1:50 pmWhat was it Grace said on Will & Grace?— “No takesies-backsies!”
August 12th, 2009 at 1:52 pmYou will have to quote someone on this. I don’t know where you got it but it sounds like another misconception that is being used as a fact.
August 12th, 2009 at 1:53 pmThe ironic thing is these people want to destroy Medicare…and then the private insurance death panels would be the first to rescind policies once seniors become “unprofitable…”
August 12th, 2009 at 1:53 pmThere is so much fraud and abuse in the Medicare system
If that is the case, why are people calling it a “highly successful program”, which is an example of how the government can pay for care.
August 12th, 2009 at 1:54 pmI have to agree with most of what you’ve said here, Tundra, with at least one exception.
With regard to experimental treatments, there should be occassions when such treatments are paid for by insurance. I can give a personal example.
My mother has advanced ovarian cancer, which she has lived with (and nearly died from several times) for right at 10 years (most people live about 5 years when diagnosed as late as she was). At one point, the doctors decided that there was nothing else that they could do for her, but had looked into experimental treatments, and discovered that she was an excellent candidate for a study on a new drug designed to stop the growth of tumors which are estrogen-fed (such as certain types of breast or ovarian cancers). She was placed into the study by her oncologist, knowing that she had a 25% chance of being a successful candidate and that even if she was successful, the treatment would not cure her, it would merely halt growth and allow her to live the rest of her life with cancer, instead of fighting cancer.
Short story – it worked, and is still working to this day. My mom is very fortunate that she had doctors who weren’t willing to let her go when there was a still a viable option for her. It wasn’t an insurance agent that decided if the treatment was right for her, it was her physcian and herself. Any public option should allow for things such as this, as it wasn’t something she pushed for, it was the direct recommendation of her doctor, but still experimental nonetheless.
August 12th, 2009 at 1:54 pm@44 you nailed it, pastcaring
same old players, same old hackneyed tricks
same old crowd that never catches on that they’re being played.
August 12th, 2009 at 2:01 pmTundra says:
There is so much fraud and abuse in the Medicare system
If that is the case, why are people calling it a “highly successful program”, which is an example of how the government can pay for care.
It is a highly successful system in providing health care to senior citizens. It is not successful when it comes to addressing waste and fraud. The last 8 years have been a boon to the medical care companies who have been ripping off Medicare because President Bush and the Republics turned a blind eye to all the fraud that was happening. They were trying to destroy Medicare by bankrupting the system, so they did not do anything about their friends and families who were ripping the system off. That is what President Obama is trying to do with Medicare. He’s trying to address all the waste and fraud that have been occurring for decades, but much more in the last 8 years.
August 12th, 2009 at 2:04 pmThose Pox News “reporters” are so slick. Notice how they always preface their outrageous lies with, “Some people are saying…Barack Obama’s health care plan includes chopping off the heads of babies”, or by framing them as questions, such as, “Is Barack Obama an atomic death robot from the planet Zorg?”
August 12th, 2009 at 2:04 pmYou will have to quote someone on this. I don’t know where you got it but it sounds like another misconception that is being used as a fact.
Grassley Uses Kennedy’s Brain Tumor To Spread Fear Of Rationing
If you read through that whole post it is full of statements that the government would never “ration care”. Everyone would get care as good as Kennedy got.
I would provide a link but then it would be moderated and take forever.
August 12th, 2009 at 2:17 pmWith regard to experimental treatments, there should be occassions when such treatments are paid for by insurance.
First off I certinaly approve of your mothers success and am happy to hear it.
I do differ that insurance should pay for it (or a government option). I feel that the company providing the treatment should pay for it. If they would like their treatment to get on the approved list they are required to show it works. Otherwise the government will NEVER pay for it. Once they prove it works (by paying for their own research) then it becomes approved and no longer “experimental”.
August 12th, 2009 at 2:19 pmTundra
I think we are miscommunicating on what rationing means.
When they say rationing of care, they are, in my experience at least, referring to the infamous “wait times” and lack of access to care, not the practice of denying radical or unnecessary treatments. Insurance companies at this time practice rationing in this sense by denying access to doctor-approved or recommended treatments based not on rationality, but on profit margins. This is the type of activity that the government would not likely participate in because it would no profit-motive to concern itself with.
However, you are referring to rationing in a more reasonable sense, and I think that we can all agree that in the context in which you are placing it, some degree of regulation and control on what is being paid for is only sensible.
August 12th, 2009 at 2:22 pmokie dokie says:
Peter Johnson Jr. is a trial lawyer
and president of a Wall Street law firm.
I thought that Fox believed trial lawyers were evil?
Oh, they do. Johnson is an Insurance Defense trial lawyer. That’s different. Part of a huge disinformation campaign against real trial lawyers. Johnson’s defense firm fights peoples who sue insurance companies that try to weasel out of paying medical bills under the policies they wrote. They are “fine print” called “exclusions.” This guy makes at least $500 an hour from Aetna and Blue Cross to deny what their bureaucrats have deemed “too expensive to pay.” He even probably wrote the exclusions himself. There are a lot of these parasitic creatures. I’ve had the pleasure of suing a few.
August 12th, 2009 at 2:23 pmTundra
The university did pay for it while the study was on (bear in mind that this particular study was already on the government, as it took place at a medical college via research grants, not at a pharmaceutical company), but when the study ended, someone had to pick up the tab for what had been proven to be a successful treatment, at least for her. I’m sure I didn’t make that clear, as I tend to assume that people are more familiar with this type of process than they actually are, probably due to my own over-exposure to many aspects of the medical industry.
You must realize that it is far less black-and-white than it seems on the surface. Let us say, for example, that the treatment was proven successful for some, but not enough to warrant widespread useage among the affected population. Should insurance not pay for a successful treatment, because the numbers aren’t good enough? Should they instead let her die, because the study wasn’t compelling enough to get said treatment on a list, despite the fact that her doctors are the ones that wanted her to take it?
These are questions that should be raised and discussed, but they are also the types of issues that are getting drowned out by the scandalized, and still yet trivial, talking points that are currently comprising the din.
August 12th, 2009 at 2:28 pmI think we are miscommunicating on what rationing means.
I agree
I tend to assume that people are more familiar with this type of process than they actually are
You know a whole lot more than I do on it I am sure.
Should insurance not pay for a successful treatment, because the numbers aren’t good enough?
I think it’s one of those slipery slopes. I like the key word of “successful” though. Actually using that word I like a whole lot more. It would ensure that every effort was made and prevent the “companies” from just trying it all the time.
August 12th, 2009 at 2:39 pm‘too expensive to pay’
The irony.
‘too big to fail’
August 12th, 2009 at 2:40 pmThe problem with the word “successful” is how one measures success. Generally a treatment is considered successful when the studies show that it is successful, but if we are discussing it from a more personal standpoint, then the studies be damned, if it works for you it’s successful.
I think this is really the kind of thing that people get nervous about when it comes to government control, and when they talk about a bureaucrat standing between themselves and their doctor. I think there shouldn’t be a list of approved treatments, or we won’t have it any better than we currently do. Treatments are a personal decision to be made by yourself and your doctor.
Unnecessary treatments are where I start taking exception, but what exactly is unnecessary? I saw a commercial for a medication that can make your eyelashes grow, available only through prescription. On first glance, this is the type of medication that one would not want to be covered under a public plan, and for cosmetic purposes, I agree. However, there are legitimate reasons to need such a thing. Back to the cancer example – when my mom was on chemo, her eyelashes fell out (it’s not just the hair on your head that falls out, and people don’t realize that), and it caused her some pretty serious problems with her eyes and with irritants getting in there. If this type of medication could have regrown her eyelashes, or at least helped somewhat, it could have prevented her unnecessary discomfort.
There are lots of other examples. A nose job for cosmetic reasons shouldn’t be covered…but someone who can’t breathe shouldn’t have to pay to be able to. A breast aug should be out of pocket….unless that woman has lost hers due to cancer.
So I am loathe to get into a black-and-white discussion over what is acceptable treatment to be covered and what is not, because until you have a thorough understanding of an individual’s medical history, there is no way you can make a judgement like that. Which is precisely why it should be left up to the doctor and the patient, not a government bureaucrat OR an insurance adjuster. The only rationing that I’m okay with is for treatments and procedures that are declared, by the physician, to elective, not medically necessary. And that really seems to be where they are trying to go with it. Will it make it there? At this time, who knows?
August 12th, 2009 at 2:58 pmI know I add a lot of words to the debate, and I appreicate everyone’s patience with me.
For many reasons, some of them personal, I am extremely passionate about this subject, and I can’t thank everyone enough for putting up with my occassionally long-winded posts.
August 12th, 2009 at 3:02 pmSmidget,
I understand and agree with alot of your post.
Which is precisely why it should be left up to the doctor and the patient, not a government bureaucrat OR an insurance adjuster.
Here is where I see a problem though (or an personally uncomfortable). Essentially people are buying insurance because they “are betting that if a specific list of things happen they are covered”. As it is with insurance they have a list of things they will cover. I think that a government option has to be the same, just due to the extreme amount of fraud that is available leaving it patient to doctor.
For instance ‘My patient is depressed and breast augmentation would help get her out of it”. Could that be real? You betcha. Am I against that person getting them? Not really if it honestly helps. How do we prevent the 10,000 other women or men who heard they can use that excuse?
Esentially with a plan you are asking someone else to pay for what you can’t. I think we have a right to decide what and how much we will pay. There are plenty of doctors that would use anestesia to allow a pop star to sleep better and charge the government to it if they could. I don’t have the answers but I agree that the descussion has to cover “what’s covered” or “How much per person is covered”. Hard to say
August 12th, 2009 at 3:19 pmFOX NEWS PREYS ON ELDERLY; with scam : We care about you. We are your news station. Yeah right.
August 12th, 2009 at 3:33 pmTundra
Which is why judgements on such things shouldn’t be made by laypersons. There is a distinct difference between making tenuous claims that are unsupported by evidence (breast aug to cure depression) and making rational medical judgements (eyelash growth treatment following chemo).
These are the kinds of treatments that are not going to be emergency treatments, and can be reviewed by people who are far more knowledgeable than you or I. We don’t want to leave the system wide open to fraud, but we also don’t want to deny people legitimate courses of treatment that will (or could, at least) actually help them. It should be up to the patient and the doctor. At best a panel of doctors. Under no circumstances should someone lacking in medical knowledge make this type of decision, and that occurs with private insurance on an incredibly frequent basis.
August 12th, 2009 at 4:11 pmHi
August 12th, 2009 at 4:33 pmI’d like a group of people to join me in infiltrating Freedomworks, with the specific goal of undermining them and making them look like fools to the rest of the nation. Their goal is clear, stop health care reform at all costs. Their method: bullying speakers at town hall meetings, like poor old Arlen Specter. I’ve joined already, any information I get that relates to these bully tactics occurring at town hall meetings or any call to arms emails will be shown to anyone interested.They are obsessed with the sabotage of progress, it is time to stop this subversion of Democracy. The first amendment allows us all to have our say and have opinions and ideas of our own. Freedomworks is trying to silence Democrats and spread false ideas among the uninformed. The reformation of the health care system in our great country is not and will not be perfect, but it is not what they say it is. We should at least let the truth be told and let people make up their own minds, knowing the real facts, not the mutterings of retired governors.
The paradoxical thing about people worried about control is that, by definition, a publicly owned and managed system is more controllable than a private system.
If it turns out that inefficiencies or flaws show up, it is Far, far easier for a government system to be modified.
If a city wants to modify their recycling program,and it is a municipal program, they just do it. If on the other hand, the recycling program is done by Waste Management Inc., changing the system is a complicated negotiation in which the change might not get done. Trust me, I know what I’m talking about.
And if the change is more individual and less systemic, it’s even easier.
There is no inevitability to rationing of any sort in a public system. If the populace wants a better system and no waiting periods, they’ll get them. The only way rationing would occur would be due to inadequate funding. And if the populace decides to ignore the right-wing whiners and raise taxes on the rich to pay for them, or float more debt, it will get done.
Does government control over the arms business lead to rationing of the military? Quite the contrary. Whatever they want to get built gets built–because the national will says sure. Do it.
So, in a public system, the only cause of rationing would be–the Republicans. People would get the health care they want.
Contrast it with our present private system: systemic changes seem to require full-scale war–and individual injustices are impossible for the people to effect.
Where’s the control? Where’s the error-correction process? Where’s the redress of grievancs? Where’s the medical justice? A private system by definition has less control.
(Oh, and one point: we’re talking about an insurance system and not a medical system. One of the sources of abuse in Medicare is that it doesn’t run the hospitals or manage the doctors. The bad practices and fraudulent billing occur in the PRIVATE part of the system. It’s why the VA, which does have its own doctors and hospitals, has the best record in the country.)
The argument that government doesn’t work is nonsense. Here’s the point: Government can tend towards inefficiency and bloat. So can private corporations. But government can be MADE to work. Private companies? Not so much.
Any of the objections to spcific parts of the systen, whether true or fanciful–Death Panels? preventative care? dealing with the wast cost of end-of-life treatments? Wellness?–all are better dealt with in a system where we have more control.
I’d ask the teabaggers this: if AEtna or Cigna had death panels, what could you do about it? Would shouting at public meetings and carrying swastika posters do anything to get rid of them? Not bloody likely.
Their very process at these town meetings is an argument for public control of health care. The fact that their tactics is using public control to deny public control shows just how insane their actions are.
August 12th, 2009 at 4:42 pm“Fox News Analyst Says ‘No One’ Is Saying Obama Wants ‘To Kill Old People’ After Saying It Himself ”
Dog bites man?
So common it barely merits notice.
August 12th, 2009 at 6:11 pmI’m with you, prex.
Just be careful to toe the party line while you’re on the site, or they will figure you out and boot you for not being one of their lemmings.
:)
August 12th, 2009 at 6:11 pmpbeeg
BRILLIANT.
You should make an effort to post this EVERYWHERE.
August 12th, 2009 at 6:14 pmDo you really want to understand why we’ll lose the health insurance reform? Visit any blog — including this one — the first seven out of eight stories are about what the Republicans or neocons or right-wing media are saying about health reform. Why? Are the Dems saying nothing or is the media simply not reporting anything the Dems say? We are weak, we don’t fight, we want “bipartisanship.” Bullshit, as LBJ would say. I am sick and tired of Senators calling each other “my good friend” knowing all the while the Republicans will stab them and this country in the back.
August 12th, 2009 at 8:42 pmThe next time some Republican Senator or Representative has a town meeting, assuming you can get in…ask them one question: How much money have you taken from the insurance and medical PACS and companies? Hell, ask the same question of a Democratic Senator or Representative. Then you’ll know why we’ll lose this reform. And is the White House, meaning Rahm Emanual, Reid and Pelosi don’t grow a set…this is never going to happen. Count on it…