Comments on: Sarah Palin and Other Republicans Spread False Claims Regarding “Death Panels” and Euthanasia

By: » All Obama on Television Sunday Morning Liberal Values

» All Obama on Television Sunday Morning Liberal Values — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 23:59:50 +0000

[...] from the right. When Obama did not speak out enough, the vacuum was filled by people such as a crazy lady in Alaska writing on [...]

By: » Further Fact Checking of False Conservative Claims on End of Life Decisions Liberal Values

Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:56:55 +0000

[...] Palin On American Medicine | Journalisk: on LiberalVal ues [...]

By: » More Debunking of Right Wing Misinformation On Health Care Reform Liberal Values

Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:06:52 +0000

[...] Palin On American Medicine | Journalisk: on LiberalVal ues [...]

By: » Newt Gingrich Defends Palin’s Claims of “Death Panels” Liberal Values

Mon, 10 Aug 2009 00:46:15 +0000

[...] Sarah Palin and Other Republicans Spread False Claims Regarding “Death Panels” and Eutha… [...]

By: Fritz

Fritz — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 00:22:48 +0000

MSFT has a really cool program — an 800 number for a consult and they will send a doctor out on weekends and evenings when your PCP office is likely closed. Even that is cheaper for the company than getting billed for an ER visit.

By: Ron Chusid

Ron Chusid — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 22:50:44 +0000

ER’s are not necessarily places where you can get health care and ability to pay is not dealt with. ER’s will still send bills for the uninsured, which may or may not get paid. ER’s also vary in how much they will do for someone who cannot pay. They might provide MediCenter type care and not be concerned about pay while in ER, or an ER might make sure someone has no life threatening problems and then send them on their way.

It will help demand in the ER if people have coverage and a primary care physician where they can go instead. Having near universal coverage won’t eliminate improper use of ER’s but will greatly reduce it. Many insurance plans also take additional steps to reduce inappropriate use such as higher copays for ER visits or requiring approval to go from the primary care physician.

By: Fritz

Fritz — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 21:27:43 +0000

Eclectic — we are certainly in agreement that ER’s are the place you can get health care and ability to pay is not dealt with and demand outstrips supply and the gating factor is “how long can you wait”. I am not convinced that extending the “ability to pay is not dealt with” model to more venues will ease demand. I guess we will see.

Ron, I absolutely believe that end of life issues should be discussed openly. I just want through all of that with my mother before she died in February. She had been openly talking about wanting the services of Dr. Kevorkian for two years. When hospice care was finally provided, it made the ramainder of her life much more comfortable.

By: Mike Licht

Mike Licht — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 20:03:32 +0000

First appointment to Death Panel? See: http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/paula-abdul-named-to-obama-death-panel/

By: Eclectic Radical

Eclectic Radical — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 17:17:13 +0000

The GOP is not talking about economic reality, if they were they would understand that the private insurance market is far less able to serve seniors’ medical needa than the government. They would not be claiming that the private market would be better for the people they wish to ration out of Medicare.

In my opinion, the economic reality is fairly straightforward. American business cannot afford to keep subsidizing the bulk of American health care, and the people currently paying for their insurance through payroll deductions would be equally able to pay for national health care on the same basis through dedicated taxation. The cost sharing would be redirected into one pool rather than multiple pools, which would lower the premium rate per customer. American business would be freed of the de facto tax burden providing health care for their employees creates. This would decrease operating costs and allow for increased investment in productivity, without having to outsource to achieve the same results.

That’s a signficant economic investment right there, and it’s better for everyone involved. Working Americans pay directly for their own health care out of their payroll taxes, as those with health insurance at work do now, but everyone who works would have access and the increasted cost sharing efficiency would lower costs. Business would be freed of an immense fiscal burden and would be able to compete freely for employees on a straight up basis of wages, vacations, and incentives… much more affordably.

As for demand outstripping supply… we’re already dealing with this problem in the form of overcrowded emergency rooms. I don’t see a massive increase in the demand. There are currently rural clinics in my area operating below capacity because people know they would have to pay at point of service and so go to the hospital emergency room instead. If they were able to pay at point of service, the strain on emergency rooms would be decreased and the clinics would not be overstrained. I know it is much the same in urban areas from my experience in Los Angeles (can’t get much more urban than that) where emergency rooms are overburdened and urgent care clinics are underburdened because ‘urgent care’ clinics demand payment at point of service.

If people who needed the emergency room went to the emergency room, people who needed ‘urgent care’ went to the clinic, and people who needed routine medical service called their doctor, the burden would be distributed more evenly and realistically. That is economic reality.

I understand that nightmare scenarios are extremely entertaining to listen to, but we are actually experiencing the nightmare scenario now. The supply-exceeding-demand problem is happening in emergency rooms every day. It’s one of the reasons we need health care reform.

Thoughtfully addressing the problem is how we reduce that burden.

By: Ron Chusid

Ron Chusid — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 15:22:53 +0000

Fritz,

But the topic here is how the Republicans are distorting the bill. Republicans aren’t simply talking about “economic reality.” The objection is to the Republicans outright lying about how health care reform would impact such issues and falsely claiming that this is a reason to oppose health care reform.

As I previously noted, someone who is sincerely concerned about this (as opposed to the Republicans who are using it to distort the issue) should support rather than oppose the voluntary discussion of end of life issues contained in the House bill.

By: barricade

barricade — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 11:05:36 +0000

Pug Stuff: » Sarah Palin and Other Republicans Spread False Claims Regarding ... http://bit.ly/zdGaz

[Original tweet, Topsy page]

By: Fritz

Fritz — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 11:01:39 +0000

Eclectic, I’m not talking about what is in bills here. I’m talking about the reality of demand outstripping supply when ability to pay is not allowed to play a part.

Are you faulting the GOP for actually talking about economic reality? That is atypical for you.

By: Eclectic Radical

Eclectic Radical — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 10:28:32 +0000

"Eventually decisions will have to be made on the allocation of scarce resources, and since “ability to pay” will not be allowed as a factor, something else will be put in place. I think “social utility” will likely beat out “lottery number”." Fritz, I've mentioned this before, but I do have to mention it again, broken record or not. Have you read CPR? The only health reform bill which would enact 'rationing' of care of any kind is one written by a conservative Republican. Now one can oppose Medicare on principle all they want... but what Judd Gregg is talking about is 'rationing care' for senior citizens based on 'social utility' on the premise that 'social utility' is served by getting them into the private insurance market. Considering this fact, that Republicans are actually the ones advocating the rationing of health care for senior citizens based on their own definition of 'social utility', it's very disingenuous to take the claim that the GOP is being far-sighted in efforts to prevent it. They are the only people, anywhere in America, who are for it. CPR should practically be required reading for everyone who wants to take part in this debate. It shows just how completely bent the views of the right are on this issue. In order to prevent the rationing of care for American seniors based on 'social utility', they want to ration care for American seniors based on 'social utility.'

By: Fritz

Fritz — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 01:15:36 +0000

Which is why people are fighting tooth and nail against government healthcare being expanded. Because once the government gets in, it will take an economic singularity to get back out.

By: Leslie Parsley

Leslie Parsley — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 00:14:20 +0000

You have that right, Ron. If someone tried to take away my Medicare, I’d turn into a banshee unlike none other. I’ve earned every penny and I’m not too keen on becoming a street person. Duck, Fritz.