Unconstitutionalcare

Sub... not to go all tenther on you but, yes, that would have been much more acceptable. One size fits all programs rarely work at any level of government. If the states were given the ability to not just decide, but add or subtract from the packages offered, yes, that would have been much better.

 

Actually, now that I think about it, weren't journalists the ones who established the court precedent that taxation used punitively is the equivalent of a ban? Something about a newspaper tax in Minnesota, I dunno, it's been forever since comm law and I'm getting old.

 

Well, Palin was ripped for "death panels," and in a roundabout way isn't that what you are talking about?

 

Because health outcomes aren't already affected by the state one lives in.

To say nothing of the fact that the states where a government role is likely to be most needed also happen to be those states that like to trash the feds while simultaneously holding out their hands.

And say what you will: There is no way on God's green earth that the federal government setting minimums for the states to meet wouldn't have been met with the same hue and cry that the current plan has been.

 

Should have just looked next to the subject line where is says who started the thread. Dummy.

 

I guess I'd just say that I don't know what a "Death Panel" is. It sounds like people would be voting to send grandma off to a gas chamber.

That's not going to happen. But, the rationing of health care is going to be a necessity. It's the only way we're not going to bankrupt ourselves to pay for its increasing costs.

Obama already laid out an example (video at the link):

The President also is/was under the impression that money can be saved by making sure unnecessary procedures aren't done. Maybe this is somewhat true, but who decides -- a government bean counter?

And, his example was way off, and terribly insulting to doctors (video at link):

In this case, not only was he wrong on how doctors provide care, but he was way off on the price.

 

http://www.hospitalmanagement.net/features/feature627/


The direct cost of an amputation associated with the diabetic foot is estimated to be between $30,000 and $60,000. The estimated cost for three years of subsequent care for individuals whose ulcer has healed without the need for amputation has been estimated to be between $16,000 and $27,000.

The corresponding cost for someone who eventually needs an amputation ranges from $43,000 to $63,000 – mainly due to the increased need for home care and social services.

 

The American College of Surgeons is deeply disturbed over the uninformed public comments President Obama continues to make about the high-quality care provided by surgeons in the United States. When the President makes statements that are incorrect or not based in fact, we think he does a disservice to the American people at a time when they want clear, understandable facts about health care reform. We want to set the record straight.

Yesterday during a town hall meeting, President Obama got his facts completely wrong. He stated that a surgeon gets paid $50,000 for a leg amputation when, in fact, Medicare pays a surgeon between $740 and $1,140 for a leg amputation. This payment also includes the evaluation of the patient on the day of the operation plus patient follow-up care that is provided for 90 days after the operation. Private insurers pay some variation of the Medicare reimbursement for this service.

Three weeks ago, the President suggested that a surgeon’s decision to remove a child’s tonsils is based on the desire to make a lot of money. That remark was ill-informed and dangerous, and we were dismayed by this characterization of the work surgeons do. Surgeons make decisions about recommending operations based on what’s right for the patient.

We agree with the President that the best thing for patients with diabetes is to manage the disease proactively to avoid the bad consequences that can occur, including blindness, stroke, and amputation. But as is the case for a person who has been treated for cancer and still needs to have a tumor removed, or a person who is in a terrible car crash and needs access to a trauma surgeon, there are times when even a perfectly managed diabetic patient needs a surgeon. The President’s remarks are truly alarming and run the risk of damaging the all-important trust between surgeons and their patients.

http://www.facs.org/news/obama081209.html

 

I know what their statement said. I know what the president said.

I also know that what a surgeon is reimbursed isn't what a leg amputation "costs."

It's one part of the cost.

And I'm shocked that doctors would try to put the brakes on health care reform.

 

I once interviewed the CEO of a smallish regional hospital, and he was adamant that the solution for rising health-care costs was to have hospitals be paid based on the results and not the treatments.

 

I do agree that employers providing health care is not very efficient or even logical. Why not have them provide car insurance as well? Seems odd. The system needs a big fix, but both sides will have to grow up and do something for the good of the American People for a change (instead of for the corporate entities that load them up with dollar bills). Neither side is interested in working with the other, however. And thats the biggest problem. Even here, why is it the typical righties on here can't discuss things without some lefties throwing temper tantrums and acting like petulant children? I think both myself and YF have been pretty rational in this thread...but it's the same old tired crap from the same old tired people. Oh well.

 

As a Canadian, I have no desire to turn into the US. Whatever you've 'heard', I don't know a single Canadian that would trade our system for yours. In fact, if you want to trade anecdotal evidence, an actor I worked with was in Canada long enough to qualify for Canadian health care and got the surgery for debilitating back pain he'd been putting off for 10 years because it was going to cost him approximately $100,000 in the US. Here .... not a cent.