Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I have a question about all this death panel thing, what is it that is actually being called a death panel? Do they actually decide over life and death of comatose people or something?

 motyak wrote:
I have a question about all this death panel thing, what is it that is actually being called a death panel? Do they actually decide over life and death of comatose people or something?

Sarah Palin, who had been keeping a low profile after her July 3, 2009, resignation announcement as Alaska's Governor,[15][20] was the first to use the "death panel" term on August 7, 2009. In her first Facebook note, she said:[21][22][23]
[G]overnment health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.[24]

Ah, so when you are ill you apply to the panel to be granted health insurance, and they judge, based on your level of productivity to society, how much cover you should be granted.

Why are employers coming into this then if its granted by a panel?

Well, it's hard to make out the exact details since the whole process is covered in a thick, fudgey layer of bs.

 motyak wrote:
Ah, so when you are ill you apply to the panel to be granted health insurance, and they judge, based on your level of productivity to society, how much cover you should be granted.

That's what Palin claimed, yeah. None of it is true, though, there was no scope for determining treatment based on a person's 'worth'. She was straight up making up bs to play to the crazies, who bought in to it, as they always do.

Now, that said, there really are boards and people that make decisions on what treatments are to be undertaken and what simply can't be afforded given finite medical resources. State boards do this all the time, cutting one Medicare treatment in order to fund another. And here in Australia we do the exact same thing.

But what none of these board do is make the decision patient by patient, dependant on that person's 'worth'. It's all about what treatments and medications can be afforded as a whole, with their cost compared to how many more years the average recipient will live.

 sebster wrote:

 motyak wrote:
Ah, so when you are ill you apply to the panel to be granted health insurance, and they judge, based on your level of productivity to society, how much cover you should be granted.

That's what Palin claimed, yeah. None of it is true, though, there was no scope for determining treatment based on a person's 'worth'. She was straight up making up bs to play to the crazies, who bought in to it, as they always do.

Now, that said, there really are boards and people that make decisions on what treatments are to be undertaken and what simply can't be afforded given finite medical resources. State boards do this all the time, cutting one Medicare treatment in order to fund another. And here in Australia we do the exact same thing.

But what none of these board do is make the decision patient by patient, dependant on that person's 'worth'. It's all about what treatments and medications can be afforded as a whole, with their cost compared to how many more years the average recipient will live.

Got it, less 'patients apply for treatment', more 'board reviews the efficacy of several treatments for a disease and deems some as good enough to benefit from the insurance and some not good enough'. Thanks

 whembly wrote:
I was referring to Palin and other politicians.

And I was referring to you, because you have a tendency to use hyperbolic expressions.

 whembly wrote:

Um... that's how insurance works. I will admit that those are poor choices of words there...

What you pay the insurance company is called the "premium". The "deductible" is a part of your medical expenses that you pay even with insurance.

The money to pay your medical bills comes from other people's premiums. So the insurance administrators need to create policy/plans to determine what's covered.

I know how health insurance works in the US, but I do not know who "these people" are, or how the present situation in the US can be described as "us or them". In fact your latest post has only served to confuse me as it does not serve to answer either question. If you were to do so I would be able to understand the point you are attempting to make.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I was referring to Palin and other politicians.

And I was referring to you, because you have a tendency to use hyperbolic expressions.

Um... okay... I think you take me way too seriously sometimes. We're all guilty of that... even you.

 whembly wrote:

Um... that's how insurance works. I will admit that those are poor choices of words there...

What you pay the insurance company is called the "premium". The "deductible" is a part of your medical expenses that you pay even with insurance.

The money to pay your medical bills comes from other people's premiums. So the insurance administrators need to create policy/plans to determine what's covered.

I know how health insurance works in the US, but I do not know who "these people" are, or how the present situation in the US can be described as "us or them". In fact your latest post has only served to confuse me as it does not serve to answer either question. If you were to do so I would be able to understand the point you are attempting to make.

"us" = who pays into the plan via premium payments.
"them" = who uses the plan to pay for services rendered.

The point I was trying to make (and very poorly done...sorry) is that folks want to believe that everything is covered since they're paying insurance and choosing to ignore that it's impossible to cover everything for everyone. So, this is that "us vs them" mentality here... that is, "I paid into the system, so I expect to be taken care of..." And, when there's an event that insurance doesn't cover, that's when you hear the complaints.

It's turning out there is more than a substantial number of people who don't want Obamacare now.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/15/20506193-poll-obamacare-remains-highly-unpopular-as-implementation-looms?lite

Zero sympathy for the ones who voted Obama in that decided they don't want his healthcare system.

I wonder if Obamacare would make me more hire-able. My wife is a teacher, so I can nearly guarantee that I would rather take her Insurance rather than what any place I try to put in at could give me, thus having one less person to insure.

It looks like doctors are going to be having to ask about your sex life under Obamacare. In the bargain you can kiss confidentiality goodbye, according to this report.

http://nypost.com/2013/09/15/obamacare-will-question-your-sex-life/

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/09/17/doctors-as-sex-police-baseless-obamacare-lie-ju/195913

You know, as a person that actually does health histories I have to say that if your doctor isn't asking those questions then they are not being very thorough.

 d-usa wrote:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/09/17/doctors-as-sex-police-baseless-obamacare-lie-ju/195913

You know, as a person that actually does health histories I have to say that if your doctor isn't asking those questions then they are not being very thorough.

Yeah, it's almost as if one's sex life could potentially be a health concern.

 d-usa wrote:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/09/17/doctors-as-sex-police-baseless-obamacare-lie-ju/195913

You know, as a person that actually does health histories I have to say that if your doctor isn't asking those questions then they are not being very thorough.

mediamatters D... really?!?

But... you're absolutely right that your doctors SHOULD be asking those question.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Walgreens is next...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-18/walgreen-joins-in-exodus-of-workers-to-private-exchanges.html
Now this is different than actually kicking them to the ACA exchange... they're shifting the employees to a private exchange and giving the employees a flat-rate subsidy.

This is a big deal for two reasons:
A) It transfers the burden of rising costs from the employer to the employee.
B) That this absolutely gets Walgreens and other corporate employers off the hook for compliance costs

This goes to show that whenever well meaning bureaucrat starts muddling with complex, diverse issues like healthcare... business will ALWAYS work to drive down costs, usually to the detriment to their employees.


Just go single-payer already...

 d-usa wrote:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/09/17/doctors-as-sex-police-baseless-obamacare-lie-ju/195913

You know, as a person that actually does health histories I have to say that if your doctor isn't asking those questions then they are not being very thorough.

And the moment you answer it, it will be retained and can be perused by the government at its leisure.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/09/17/doctors-as-sex-police-baseless-obamacare-lie-ju/195913

You know, as a person that actually does health histories I have to say that if your doctor isn't asking those questions then they are not being very thorough.

And the moment you answer it, it will be retained and can be perused by the government at its leisure.

Eh...

I'd chalk this up as the "Electronic Medical Records (EMR)" hysteria.

The argument really should be, why are bureaucrats making these requiments for physicians to do "x"?
It probably is a good thing... or it could be unnecessarily onerous. That's where the debate should be.

But, having these sorts of things on your EMR? Nah... no problem there.

1. I have a big problem there. It will be there forever, and easily seen by anyone in government, anyone who pays someone in government to get it, or your average hacker.

2. Agreed on the bureaucrat thing.

 Frazzled wrote:
1. I have a big problem there. It will be there forever, and easily seen by anyone in government, anyone who pays someone in government to get it, or your average hacker.

2. Agreed on the bureaucrat thing.

You worried about that we'd turn into a Gattica-like society?

In other news...

You can keep you Doctor... period.

Until the service providers layoff doctors and staff... right?
http://www.wkyc.com/news/article/314788/33/Cleveland-Clinic-layoffs-coming-as-part-of-cost-reductions

CLEVELAND -- The Cleveland Clinic has told workers they will be laying off an unspecified number of employees as part of an overall, sweeping cost-reduction plan.

Clinic CEO Dr. Toby Cosgrove discussed the looming cuts and changes in a Wednesday morning all-employee meeting.

Clinic spokeswoman Eileen Sheil denied circulating rumors that employees were told there would be 3,000 jobs cut.

She said any layoffs will be part of a multi-year plan to cut $330 million from the Clinic's budget.

The Clinic is the region's largest employer with roughly 42,000 workers.

Sheil said personnel represents 60 percent of the Clinic's budget.

She said early retirement would be offered to 3,000 eligible employees. Most vacant jobs are not being filled.

She attributed most of the budget reductions to looming changes accompanying the start of the Affordable Health Care Act.

Sheil said the Clinic had not made overall layoffs in the past 11 years.

She declined to give a specific figure on how many jobs could be lost.

Sheil said that depends on how much savings individual departments can make with other reductions.

She added that any layoffs would be across the board, including doctors.

The Clinic issued the following statement:
"To prepare for healthcare reform, Cleveland Clinic is transforming the way care is delivered to patients. Over the past several years, we have had an ongoing focus on driving efficiencies, lowering costs, reducing duplication in services and enhancing quality to make healthcare affordable to patients.

Although we have made progress, we need to further reduce costs to the organization by $330 million in 2014. We are carefully evaluating all aspects of our system to accomplish this. Some of the initiatives include offering early retirement to 3,000 eligible employees, reducing operational costs, stricter review of filling vacant positions, and lastly workforce reductions.

Through these changing times, we are focused on providing the highest quality of care to our patients in the most efficient and cost-effective manner."

Anyone wanna claim that they're evil corporations using the ACA as an excuse to unnecessarily do this?

Remember these arguments about bureaucrats and medical decisions next time some red state votes in "small government republicans" who then immediately pass a bunch of ridiculous new abortion restrictions.

 Ouze wrote:
Remember these arguments about bureaucrats and medical decisions next time some red state votes in "small government republicans" who then immediately pass a bunch of ridiculous new abortion restrictions.

Will do!

 Frazzled wrote:
1. I have a big problem there. It will be there forever, and easily seen by anyone in government, anyone who pays someone in government to get it, or your average hacker.

My wife just asked why I was laughing so much...

 sebster wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
1. I have a big problem there. It will be there forever, and easily seen by anyone in government, anyone who pays someone in government to get it, or your average hacker.

My wife just asked why I was laughing so much...

Because you've not been paying attention to what has been going on in the last year? We have the President of Brazil canceling meetings with the Whitehouse over the NSA, NSA admitting its members have been rutinely doing checks on friends, relatives and anyone they damn well pleased, hacker attacks daily, and the government itself saying the computer security of the ACA is utter crap and behind schedule.

If this makes you laugh, maybe you should step away from the computer a little more, or attend to more local events then issues concerning a country thousands of miles away.

Found this hysterical... bit creepy too...

Tell's students to use the opt-out approach on college campuses, so that the fewer healthy young people buy insurance, the less money there’ll be to keep insurance companies solvent.

 Frazzled wrote:

And the moment you answer it, it will be retained and can be perused by the government at its leisure.

There is no reason you have to answer the question, just as there is no reason you have to answer any question that your doctor asks.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

And the moment you answer it, it will be retained and can be perused by the government at its leisure.

There is no reason you have to answer the question, just as there is no reason you have to answer any question that your doctor asks.

We had 5 people go ranting and raving at my job because a coworker went to a new doctor with his pregnant wife and the doctor had the nerve to ask him "do you have any guns in your home". To hear him tell the story he basically went into full-blown "thanks Obama!" mode and started to cuss out the doctor because it's none of his goddamn business to ask him anything like that and the doctor doesn't need to know about anything that goes on at his home. He immediately fired this doctor and got a new one, (probably a Republican one, I don't know).

Of course a home-safety assessment is a very normal part of any thorough history and physical, more so for an OB/GYN during pregnancy and a pediatrician. Between the baby-blues and curious kids it's something worth assessing.

Heck, my wife's doctor asked me the same question and I told him that I own a gun and a rifle. Instead of entering the information into the secret Obama-Net that the ACA forces him to be wired into (I think that's a thing) he simply reminded us that kids can get into these kind of things and asked us if we wanted the contact info for a group that provides free trigger locks.

I'm still waiting on the blue-helmets to knock on my door to take my guns from me...

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

And the moment you answer it, it will be retained and can be perused by the government at its leisure.

There is no reason you have to answer the question, just as there is no reason you have to answer any question that your doctor asks.

Exactly.

 Frazzled wrote:

We have the President of Brazil canceling meetings with the Whitehouse over the NSA, NSA admitting its members have been rutinely doing checks on friends, relatives and anyone they damn well pleased, hacker attacks daily, and the government itself saying the computer security of the ACA is utter crap and behind schedule.

Why in God's name would anyone be interested in the medical history of the average person? I guess because it might be tied to an SSN, but there other ways to obtain that; quite a few in fact.

 Frazzled wrote:

If this makes you laugh, maybe you should step away from the computer a little more, or attend to more local events then issues concerning a country thousands of miles away.

I laughed too. I mean honestly, are you that concerned about people knowing things regarding your sexual history? Things which you are not required to disclose?

Medical history.

Dogma is not concerned about privacy. Thats fine. Others are.

 Frazzled wrote:
Medical history.

Dogma is not concerned about privacy. Thats fine. Others are.

It isn't that I'm not concerned about privacy, its just that I don't really care if people have access to my medical history. And, honestly, I don't understand why its an especially big deal. I mean, right now, there are 9 different insurance companies that have copies of my medical history on file*, 11 different doctors/clinics, and 3 hospitals; obviously all current to different dates.

The notion that my medical history is private flew out the window a long time ago.



*Not including independent dental insurance plans.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Medical history.

Dogma is not concerned about privacy. Thats fine. Others are.

It isn't that I'm not concerned about privacy, its just that I don't really care if people have access to my medical history. And, honestly, I don't understand why its an especially big deal. I mean, right now, there are 9 different insurance companies that have copies of my medical history on file*, 11 different doctors/clinics, and 3 hospitals; obviously all current to different dates.

The notion that my medical history is private flew out the window a long time ago.



*Not including independent dental insurance plans.

Others are not so inclined.