I say yes, you say no, OR People are Strange

Bren, the gavel was made for him by one of his constituents. I can see why he would want to use it.

Good morning, all, and thank you, Annette!

Bren, my guess would be because repeal of the entire health care reform bill is a symbolic rejection of Obama's entire presidency.  Or perhaps they really don't want to repeal it, but making the futile gesture is something to campaign on in the future.  Who knows?  One thing we can be sure of - most politicians (all sides) do what's best for them politically, not what's best for the country.

E

Maybe if they had decided to go through it piece by piece, instead of this futile attempt, the law could  have been improved and clarified.  I guess I am still blinded by hope.

Okay .. I forgot that part about the individual mandate and preexisting conditions being tied together in the Bill.  It's been awhile since I read the actual Bill. 

I understand about insuring the young and healthy to help pay for the preexisting conditions, but worry about the middle-aged people who can't afford to purchase insurance.  Guess this is why single-payer would have been the best way to go.

Bren

OT .. Tank is banging his head on my keyboard .. silly puppy!  I think he needs a bisquit.

E .. you're very funny this a.m.!

Bren

Time for a little good news!  My local newspaper reports today that the U.S. economy seems to be improving:

~ 297,000 jobs created in December, more than 3 times greater than November's increase

~ Crude oil prices topped $90/barrel this week (a 15% increase over last year)

~ U.S. auto sales jumped 9%.  Americans bought 11.5 million new vehicles, and are forecast to up that number to 13M+ this year

~ There was a 5.5% rise in retail sales during the pre-Christmas period, the best performance since 2005.

(From the Globe & Mail's front page today)

I've been thinking of this whole death panel farce.  The insurance companies have been running "death panels" for profit -- denying coverage, making it difficult to get any coverage at all, coverage that's too little, too late.  When the insurance company denies coverage for a treatment and the person dies, the company is actually profiting from that person's death.  Sick and twisted, IMHO.

And, yes, good news about the US economy -- I heard it on the radio this AM.

Personally, I would like to have just a few moments with the "internal expert" who apparently knows much more about treating cancer than my oncologist and surgeon, and constantly denies various things.  Someone familiar with insurance once made the comment that in all probability it is some 22 year old fresh out of college that gets a big bonus based on how much money they can save the insurance company by denying claims.  Still hoping for one of my adult children to return to Canada so that they can sponsor me.  National Health Care, outstanding chinese food, and Nanaimo bars, nothing but win!

My insurance is through my husband's group insurance from his employer.  It is a relatively small business with an aging workforce, so it is not a good policy at all.  My deductible is so high I have been forced into the situation where I just do not go to the doctors except for my oncologist.  The first four years I followed my  "follow-up" plan religiously, but gave up last year, we just can not afford any more medical debt.  I am still paying off my MRI from 2009.

IronJawed- you are correct in that there is a financial incentive tied to denial of claims. It is different among all the insurers, but it does exist.

Speaking of death panels, here's an interesting article:

http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/05/arizona-death-panel-claims-another-victim/ 

Tucson University Medical Center has confirmed that a patient who was refused a liver transplant due to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s decision to cut the state benefit that would have made the transplant possible, has died. The patient had been scheduled for the needed transplant but was dropped from the waiting list on October 1st when the cuts went into effect.

And equally as interesting - the author's opinion:

However, I cannot help but be struck by the emptiness of the argument put forth by those who suggest that government need not look out for these people because charitable Americans will always step up and help in these circumstances.
Nonsense. Where were these charitable Americans that could have saved this individual’s life?

Respin .. the following is also from the article you posted.

The Arizona budget that previously provided transplants to people in need was $1.4 million. As there were 99 people on the waiting list for transplants at the time the cuts went into effect, the net result is that the State of Arizona valued each of these lives at something less than $14,000 a person.

Today, there are only 97 on the waiting list as two have passed away.

Can this really be happening in the United States?

I understand that life is tough and things can't always work out as we would like. However, I cannot help but be struck by the emptiness of the argument put forth by those who suggest that government need not look out for these people because charitable Americans will always step up and help in these circumstances.

The numbers really struck me.  I read somewhere (have to find the link) that AZ would be saving 4 million by cutting back on medicaid spending.  $14K per person really doesn't sound like too much to ask to save a life.

I wonder what will become of the 97 men and women left on the transplant list.

Bren

Edited:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/15/jan-brewer-transplant-cuts_n_796696.html

"Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) commented recently on the cuts to her state's Health Care Cost Containment System, which have imperiled the lives of some patients in need of an organ transplant. Brewer said that people branding the cuts as a real-life incarnation of "death panels" should be asking the federal government to send more money -- a perhaps surprising position from someone who continues to oppose the federal health care reform legislation passed earlier this year."

The "bold" was my emphasis.

Barbara, yes, according to Cantor.  Funny - I was just reading this article, take what you may from it:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/01/repealing_health-care_reform_w.html 

Lindasa, I once had a long, er, debate, with someone (not here) over this issue.  A child of a friend of hers needed a large amount of money to pay off treatment (although they were insured.)  

The debater thought it was *the* way to handle the situation (fundraise for them.) 

While it was most generous, I couldn't get past that they were being denied treatment. 

? 

So what you're saying is that there are already death panels, just not ones run by the federal government  yet?

It is indeed sad that the man has died, however, there is no guarantee that he would have found a matching organ, or that the transplant would have come in time to save his life.  Taking him off of the transplant list definitely did not help his chances, but as we all know far too well, with medical proceedures, there are no guarantees. 

The article quoted by respin goes on to say: " The Arizona budget that previously provided transplants to people in need was $1.4 million. As there were 99 people on the waiting list for transplants at the time the cuts went into effect, the net result is that the State of Arizona valued each of these lives at something less than $14,000 a person.

Today, there are only 97 on the waiting list as two have passed away."

Since transplants cost considerably more than $14,000, even if the funding were fully restored, the expectation is that many of those on the transplant waiting list eligible for Arizona state funding would die before a suitable organ is found for them.