Yes, I agree, and as was no doubt the case with Ted Kennedy…

n/t

…or their modern day eqivalents: reeducation/concentration/death camps. Down the greased skids we’re heading. And the justification will be saving the planet from overpopulation. Not to mention liquidating counterrevolutionaries.

We’ve seen this before with science prostituted in the service of totalitarian horrors. And it’s always the vulnerable who are the first to be eliminated. Get out your scissors for the “doing unto the least of these” verses to create the new left version of the Bible that Obama and his acolytes seem determined to impose as hope and change.

This healthcare “ideal” is a scary prospect for me both as someone who receives benefits and as a healthcare provider.

I think there is a very real sense in which they don’t even know human spirit exists. They are committed to their ideas, and conforming everything to those ideas, most especially those who disagree with those ideas. But they lack the basic understanding that there is a human spirit which is free to choose, and which rebels against being confined in any manner other than those it elects to allow. An sf writer wrote a book (Babel 17 I believe) around the concept of trying to communicate with a race that didn’t have a word for ‘I’ and the concomitant problems. Although I wouldn’t recommend the book, thinking about the question and its implications is quite fascinating. I think in some sense it applies to ideologues of all types. And that in turn explains why I don’t think of conservatism as an ideology, but more of an anti-ideology.

I think you’re right but there also are people on the left who are not in power but nonetheless think that we all should be controlled, “taken care of” by the government.

I remember during one of Bill Clinton’s campaigns he participated in a town hall meeting or debate or something similar, and one person got up and said “take care of us” (or something very similar.)

I couldn’t believe what I was hearing - coming from a grown man no less.

Imagine if such thinking existed in this country in any large measure at its founding, during its development period (such as pioneer days) or during any of the major wars - we would have never made it…

“Why is it OK when private companies deny coverage when the odds of survival are low, but the idea of the government doing the exact same thing sends you all into a wild panic? Wake up, it’s already happening!”

In the private sector, you have options. A public option will consume the market and there will only be one option,

The free market promotes freedom. Health care aside, Assuming what you say its true, that it is all the same. Wouldnt you promote the option that promotes liberty. Private care does not control your life. The government can. Why empower leviathan.

Its not all the same. Private sector always outperforms the public sector. Power entrenched becomes irresponsible. Bureaucrats are incompetent. Whose going to hold them accountable? No one. Wh is going to sue them? You cant. What pressure do they have to perform. None. The pressures of the free market promote exceptionalism, hard work and responsibility

Either way, this talking point is just that … a talking point. I think it’s only liberals who come by and claim that as a matter of course, health insurance companies dump their policy holders the instant they fall sick.

If this is true, why would 85% of health insurance policy holders in America be satisfied with their insurance? Heck, if this is true, something would have been done about it long before Obama came into the picture.

Sorry, I’m not buying your mythology.

---

 To me, “consensus” seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects … There are still people in my party who believe in “consensus” politics. I regard them as Quislings, as traitors … I mean it.
      - Margaret Thatcher
NOTE: “consensus” = “Bipartisanship™”/”Centrism™”

Whether you believe the “public option” explanation by the Obama Administration or not, the facts don’t bear out the ability of private insurers to stay in business and therefore offer a true choice between the private market and the gov. run insurance business. The financial incentives for an employer to dump his insurance program are too great to deny. Millions of working stiffs will lose their employee-provided health coverage if your side prevails. It won’t happen immediately, but it will happen within a few years at most.

I’ve had plenty of experience with insurance companies over the years. Your statement that they immediately drop you when you cost them money is totally inaccurate. I have no doubt that their are companies who behave in a less than humane manner, but to assume that the government will be tender in its regard to those who cost IT money is irrational in the extreme.

you don’t think there’s going to be “death panels” or rationing, or that (eventually) everyone won’t have to be part of the public “option”?

Then I have some reading for you to do…

Be sure to get back to us after reading that, ‘K?

Join the RedState Strike Force

“No. You can’t” -Moe Lane

It’s an OPTION because it says so in the name…..brilliant.

No to insurance companies acting as death panels. If you go to the hospital and you have insurance, you will still be admitted. When it comes time to pay the bill, your insurance company may not cover all of the costs, and you should be perfectly aware of that up-front. Now if the hospital kicks you out because your insurance does not cover the cost and they fear you will not be able to pay, then it is the hospital that decides not the insurance company. Ignorance of your health insurance policy is your own responsibility, not the insurance company putting you to death. If you read your darn policy, you will know what to expect from them when it comes to paying for certain procedures. Take some darn responsibilty. Next on top of that an insurance company can not violate the terms of the policy, if they do you have a really good case to bring against the insurance company. The one thing I love about liberals is there ability to find the one “What if” situation that satisfies their belief in what they are saying.

Government ZERObama Health care will have processes in place that will prevent you from getting the treatment long before you are able to even attempt the process. At least the insurance company tells you up front, not mention that the insurance company will work much faster than the bureacracy of the Government. Do some thought process thinking and some of these answers become clear liberal.

BTW, I have never been turned away from a hospital for emergency reasons, like the night I was electrocuted on the job. Of course my insurance company would not have paid for the treatment; however, I was in the ICU for a day without the hospital knowing who was going to pay.

Lastly, the public option can not exist in perpetuality with private run healthcare because the ultimate plan is to become universal healthcare, and then we are all screwed. You have just eliminated innovation in the medical field. You know people like you really irritate me because your ability to conceive the notion that the Government might as well be an inefficient monopoly when it gets in a business. Do you remember the utilities and telephone monopoly? Do you remember the cost of a long distance telephone call back in the late 70’s and early 80’s? Do you even remember the Soviet Union? Now since I know you’re a liberal, whats the point in arguing with you, you feel you do not think.

Regarding your first paragraph, the accusations that I and others have leveled are directed against the left leadership, such as Ezekiel Emmanuel and Sen. Dodd (if I recall correctly) who have made no bones about wanting to be in charge of decision-making for the unwashed masses and who want to define the interests of “society” in opposition to the individual and impose such decisions involuntarily on individuals in the name of a cost-benefit calculus - and nevermind that outdated Hippocratic Oath, doctors need to serve the interests of the state first.

No disagreement with your second paragraph, except to note that ObamaCare creates a structure that will remove the “free” from a choice about end-of-life decisions - just as we’ve seen recently in Oregon.

Anyway, I really don’t think there is going to be “rationing” or “death panels” or whatever you call it in the public option. If I did think that was going to be part of it, I would be opposed to it. By the way, it’s called the public OPTION. You don’t HAVE to be part of it. You are free to keep your private health insurance.

The law does create empower and fund efforts to rank treatments and use cost-benefit analysis to to create formulae that will decide which people are worth treating and which people just get palliation because they’re too old, too young, etc.

Strictly speaking, it won’t be “death panels” - it will be worse, because “Panels” mean that people will be deciding, which means there is a chance of compassion or mercy. Rather, what ObamaCare sets up will be impersonal bureaucratic structures and computer algorithms that will make the determination - and there will be no appeal because there are no people to appeal to.

As far as “public option” - it’s not an “option” if there is only one choice (ultimately) - or if the playing field is tilted to favor the “public option”. And if you read the contents rather than just focusing on semantics, you’ll realize that a public health plan with government deep-pockets and no capital risk backed by a government that sets the rules for its competition and also acts as referee creates a rigged game designed to push people out of private plans. Again, the “man behind the curtain” has been exposed in terms of the rigged rules being proposed, just read the contents of the bill rather than relying on unsupported statements by those selling ObamaCare.

Plus, leading Democrats have made it clear that “public option” is just stalking horse for single payer.

If you want to talk about increasing “options” (given the consolidation that has gone on among health insurers, the way to go is to remove artificial regulatory barriers that allow insurers to cross state boundaries and other anticompetitive laws that insureres have bought with their political contributions - not get even more government with more power to kill competition

Speaking of death panels and private health insurace, isn’t that what private health insurance does anyway? Life and death decisions are not in your hands, and they are certainly not in the hands of your doctor. The moment you start to cost the insurance company money, they drop you, or deny coverage for some vital (and expensive) life-saving procedure. Why is it OK when private companies deny coverage when the odds of survival are low, but the idea of the government doing the exact same thing sends you all into a wild panic? Wake up, it’s already happening!

No it’s not the same. 1) with private insurers, you have a process for appealing an adverse decision, whereas under a government plan, there is no appeal - the law says the government cannot be sued.
2) You still have the option of paying for the care, going public and shaming the company, etc - not great alternatives, to be sure - but better than having no appeal and being denied the opportunity to pay for the care yourself.
3) if the insurance company acts illegally to drop your coverage, etc. you have the power to fight; you can’t do that when it’s the government that does that.
3a) It’s much easier to correct an insurer’s error than a government bureaucracy, as anyone who’s been through that experience can testify. And in the case of health, you’re quite likely to die before you get your case resolved.
4) It’s not true that the decision is out of the hands of your doctor - at present, you doctor is your advocate with the insurance company because his duty is your best interests. Under ObamaCare, your doctor will at best have dual loyalty - to you and to “society” - and since we know that no one can serve two master, “society” inevitably will win because government has the power to make offers that doctors can’t refuse if they want to continue to practice.

with the same amount of doctors/equipment as before, there will be rationing. If there is to be rationing, groups that aren’t politically informed and organized will be left without treatment, or in the case of a utilitarianist bill, those who aren’t as “socially useful” as others.

With private healthcare, you have options. $1,000,000 for a treatment to save your child? Tough, but isn’t the fact that people do it evidence that they value their son’s life more than those $1,000,000? In that case, why would government denying care to said child because of cost be a good thing, especially to the family that was willing to pay that amount to save their child? And if you think that private plans would be allowed to compete against the public plan, read this article from Investor’s Business Daily (not a right wing attack machine by any means):

“”It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of “Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage,” the “Limitation On New Enrollment” section of the bill clearly states:
“Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day” of the year the legislation becomes law.
So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won’t be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers…

The nonpartisan Lewin Group estimated in April that 120 million or more Americans could lose their group coverage at work and end up in such a program. That would leave private carriers with 50 million or fewer customers. This could cause the market to, as Lewin Vice President John Sheils put it, “fizzle out altogether.”
What wasn’t known until now is that the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law…

The public option won’t be an option for many, but rather a mandate for buying government care. A free people should be outraged at this advance of soft tyranny.
Washington does not have the constitutional or moral authority to outlaw private markets in which parties voluntarily participate. It shouldn’t be killing business opportunities, or limiting choices, or legislating major changes in Americans’ lives.”

Yes it’s called the public option, but there’s not much option to it.

Take a look at the contents of the bill and you’ll find that the public option is only optional for your current insurance. If your current plan is no longer offered or if you don’t like your current plan or if you don’t currently have a plan but want to get one, the only option is the government run plan.

Read the bill instead of just the headings.

And yes, you have a culture of death. Justify it however you need to in order to sleep at night, but support for killing babies and euthanasia and withholding treatment based on someone else’s judgement of quality of life is a culture of death.

Socialism doesn’t work. It looks nice on paper, but it’s been tried and it’s failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Join the RedState Strike Force

Doesn’t necessarily mean your intent is evil, but it does greatly increase the probability that they will result in tragic consequences.

The first cold hard truth is economics is ALWAYS about rationing scare resources over essentially unbounded wants. Yes, that means insurance companies are doing a cost-benefit analysis when deciding what will and will not be covered. But at least there are multiple insurance companies out there, and maybe if I could choose amongst them, they’d give a darn about what I think instead of that being a tertiary consideration because the insurance happens to be through my employer who provides exactly two choices: buy a group plan with their chosen agent and not have to pay taxes for the insurance, or pay taxes and look for a non-group plan.

The second cold hard truth is that the older we get the more relevant the death panels are. On average, the older you get the problems you have and the more expensive they are to fix. Unless you die catastrophically there is likely to be a death panel deciding what happens. The real question is who is going to sit on the death panel: your family and the insurance company or the faceless government bureaucrat with his reams of computer data. As for me, I’d rather take a chance with my family and the insurance company. And if the insurance company turns me down, I sure as heck want the chance to spend my own money if I can afford it. Canada and England don’t allow that because it undermines the basis of the single payer system, which by his own admission, is The Big 0’s preferred system.

you are absolutely right…it’s all about freedom and letting us control how we approach healthcare. If we control it, it empowers us, if the government controls it, it empowers them - and we all know what Obama and the Libs want - power and control over the populace…

thanks!