Options

[Borachio]

Do people really leave Europe to go and pay for healthcare in America?

Yes. I have heard of it. If there's some particular technique that has only recently been developed in the US.

The NHS might even fund such trips in the case of need.

The US health system is technologically sophisticated alright. It's just not universal. Or particularly cheap.

 

[Chiteng]

I really don't care if you judge me ignorant or belligerent. You don't live in reality.

an interesting comment from someone that denies health care will be rationed.

Just look at the UK system

 

[Arakhor]

the fact that it'll be done through opaque methods, such as rationing and death panels via the Affordable Care Act, is small consolation.

Are you for real? That's a hysterical over-reaction and you're really not helping the "I'm not a conspiracy theorist" look.

 

[Benefactor]

We don't have death panels in the UK.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Death Panels

The last few days are like a compilation LP: The Best Of GOP Scary Words.

 

[Crezth]

We don't have death panels in the UK.

uh. obviously untrue.

liberal partisan hack-liars.

 

[Cutlass]

You mean Obama?

All taxing the rich will do is create a ceiling for the 99%, and that ceiling will slowly drop closer and closer to the poverty line as the bureaucratic elite wring every last bit of wealth the middle class has.

Obama has never made a move in that direction, so no.

The rest is so ridiculous there's no point in addressing it.

Yes, Obama wants to crush us under his boot.

I know it's hard to understand, because he says such nice things about reducing sea levels and healing the planet, but his policies are absolutely crushing to the middle class.

Barney Frank, D-MA, didn't "roll the dice" on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2003 because it was the morally right thing to do; he did it because he still needed them to force banks to issue so much bad debt that he could create a housing "crisis" on demand. He didn't keep on protecting them because they were effective in their goal when Bush, other Republicans, and even nonpartisan sources suggested that the growing risk posed by Fannie and Freddie needed to be addressed; he kept on protecting them so that they (democrats) could ride an easy wave to victory in 2008 after blaming the whole thing on Bush.

Conspiracy theory, perhaps, but certainly one that has far more merit to it than most tinfoil worthy theories (and infinitely more merit to it than the crackpipe theory that American bombed itself on 9/11).

And what fate befell the mastermind behind the 2008 financial collapse? He was given the green-light to enact broad reaching financial reform largely unrelated to the financial collapse, along with his Countrywide-bribed buddy from Connecticut, Chris Dodd, D-CT, reform legislation so broad and so nonspecific that it's still being actively written and interpreted not only by the agencies tasked with enforcing it, but also by Msrs. Frank and Dodd themselves (apparently they also needed to pass the bill before reading what was in the bill, but we forgive Ms. Pelosi possibly the most un-American statement any American politician has said in the past 50 years).

So even though Obama has never made a move in that direction, it's all his fault?

I was hoping we'd have the sense to elect a guy who might repeal the most recent entitlement program, given that we're already looking at raising taxes in order to deal with currently existing entitlement programs.

I was hoping we'd have an earnest debate in which we came to the collective conclusion that we need to cut entitlements in order to address the deficit and debt, because they're a luxury we can't afford.

Instead, we'll experience the same cuts, but without any sort of honest discussion; the fact that it'll be done through opaque methods, such as rationing and death panels via the Affordable Care Act, is small consolation.

Entitlements are only a problem because conservative policies have destroyed the ability to pay for them. It's the free lunch crowd at the top who is causing all the problems.

 

[Borachio]

@Benefactor No. But there are decisions made based on the quality of life of a patient, in terms of cost/benefit analysis, that if you were a seriously disturbed individual could be thought of as "death panel" decisions.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Are these guys mad because rationed healthcare no longer covers the sour grape complex?

 

[Arakhor]

That's a pre-existing condition. It's terribly common in people whose dreams just got trampled upon.

 

[Nares]

The US health system is technologically sophisticated alright. It's just not universal. Or particularly cheap.

And won't be technologically sophisticated for much longer, because it's not "cost effective" enough on a per person basis.

 

[Arakhor]

And won't be technologically sophisticated for much longer, because it's not "cost effective" enough on a per person basis.

Welcome to the free market. It's a [female dog].

 

[Leoreth]

Yeah, because American healthcare has always been more cost effective before Obamacare, compared to other countries with public healthcare

 

[Benefactor]

I admit, I don't much about 'Obamacare'. I thought it just mandated that people have to buy health insurance now and that companies can't charge you massive amounts extra because you have a pre-existing condition.

Am I missing something? Nares sounds like he is describing a third world attempt at copying the NHS.

 

[Nares]

@Benefactor No. But there are decisions made based on the quality of life of a patient, in terms of cost/benefit analysis, that if you were a seriously disturbed individual could be thought of as "death panel" decisions.

How is it seriously disturbed to think they'll be considering the amount of healthcare they provide Grandma now that she's over 78?

They wouldn't possibly make it as obvious as a panel making up or down decisions on whether a person lives or dies.

But Grandma won't see 80 if she needs major healthcare investment at 78; it just isn't cost effective.

I don't know why you're so cavalier about it all; you a 0.1%?

 

[Crezth]

But Grandma won't see 80 if she needs major healthcare investment at 78; it just isn't cost effective.

Why should I pay for her healthcare? Bootstraps, baby.

 

[Leoreth]

So you admit death panels don't exist?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

How is it seriously disturbed to think they'll be considering the amount of healthcare they provide Grandma now that she's over 78?

They wouldn't possibly make it as obvious as a panel making up or down decisions on whether a person lives or dies.

But Grandma won't see 80 if she needs major healthcare investment at 78; it just isn't cost effective.

I don't know why you're so cavalier about it all; you a 0.1%?

See, now this is simply a load of bollocks.

Dear Nares and Chiteng, please consider you're being terribly embarrassing for the Republicans who don't share your level of .... quirkiness. I mean, us lefties are enjoying the heck out of your .... quirkiness, but I can't escape the thought that sensible right winged people read your posts and groan out of fear of association.

edit: Which is wrong by the way! Association is I mean. Wrong.

 

[Borachio]

Look. Look at this.

Within the field of healthcares, quality of life is often regarded in terms of how it is negatively affected, on an individual level, a debilitating weakness that is not life-threatening, life-threatening illness that is not terminal, terminal illness, the predictable, natural decline in the health of an elder, an unforeseen mental/physical decline of a loved one, chronic, end-stage disease processes. Researchers at the University of Toronto's Quality of Life Research Unit define quality of life as "The degree to which a person enjoys the important possibilities of his or her life" (UofT). Their Quality of Life Model is based on the categories "being", "belonging", and "becoming", respectively who one is, how one is not connected to one's environment, and whether one achieves one's personal goals, hopes, and aspirations

This is the sort of thing that happens under a universal health care system.

It doesn't differ from the sort of decisions that happen under a non-universal system.

Except, that under the US system, non-emergency care is strictly rationed by the individual's ability to pay.

 

[Benefactor]

How is it seriously disturbed to think they'll be considering the amount of healthcare they provide Grandma now that she's over 78?

They wouldn't possibly make it as obvious as a panel making up or down decisions on whether a person lives or dies.

But Grandma won't see 80 if she needs major healthcare investment at 78; it just isn't cost effective.

I don't know why you're so cavalier about it all; you a 0.1%?

See, now this is simply a load of bollocks.

Yes it is, it's quite the coincidence actually but my Grandad is 78 and has just had surgery on the NHS.