NationStates Jolt Archive

My backcracker mentioned this and was going to email me more info about it.

Seems we will get a new buracracy to judge medial issues. Guided by Dashels belief that old people should be cutoff......

One thing I found on it.

http://news.prnewswire.com/ViewContent.aspx?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/02-11-2009/0004970606&EDATE=

So if it's true. An Obama move or a republican move to make Obama look bad?

I favor more of a "Logan's Run" approach to dealing with the elderly. *nod*

I'll say what I said in Hotwife's thread about the same thing: people demand not to pay the higher taxes and higher insurance premiums needed to fund a service which is becoming more expensive than people feel they can afford, but still demand an extremely high standard of care. Cutting costs is therefore the only option. Rationing in this way is already done in the UK, and I'd be willing to bet that insurance companies do the same when considering what services they will and will not cover.

I'll say what I said in Hotwife's thread about the same thing: people demand not to pay the higher taxes and higher insurance premiums needed to fund a service which is becoming more expensive than people feel they can afford, but still demand an extremely high standard of care. Cutting costs is therefore the only option. Rationing in this way is already done in the UK, and I'd be willing to bet that insurance companies do the same when considering what services they will and will not cover.

Never saw his thread.

I would believe your argument if the industry didn't have the rather large profit margins year after year.

Containing costs is also a matter of opinion. Plastic surgery for "beauty"? Probably something to contain.

A simple test for testicular cancer? Very questionable. In fact a coworker who is from the UK has her father-in-law dying of testicular cancer. It wasn't caught early enough. Why? Because he wasn't old enough to deserve a test.

A simple test for testicular cancer? Very questionable. In fact a coworker who is from the UK has her father-in-law dying of testicular cancer. It wasn't caught early enough. Why? Because he wasn't old enough to deserve a test.

I know of no cut off age for cancer testing in the UK.

The claims mentioned in the OP are a lie promulgated by the pharmaceutical industry. The person who started this story is Betsy McCaughey, former lieutenant governor of New York who, since leaving public office, has been a paid spokesperson and consultant to several medical industry corporations. This is propaganda, pure and simple. The measures she claims are "stealth rationing" snuck into the stimulus are actually the normal operating procedure for insurance companies and have been for many years. The story is a lie.

did you miss mr obama's idea that if we computerize medical records we can save money? (many hospitals, probably most, are already computerized) this horrifying provision is part of that idea.

its only a step on the way to nationalized medicine because your chiropractor believes that that is where mr obama intends to take us.

That's i all i need. Obama is clearly out to kill old people time to riot in the streets.

So, a press release form a lobby group for private medicine contaiing factual inaccuracies and criticising public healthcare for something the free market already does without any evidence.

It's called cherry picking (http://www.oheschools.org/ohech3pg3.html):

A company selling health care insurance has to estimate the level of risk accurately . This is difficult because they will not have complete information on the risk status of the person they are insuring. One solution is to set the premium at an average risk level. But this makes the policy expensive for low risk customers who therefore may choose not to buy the insurance. This process whereby the best risks select themselves out of the insured group is called adverse selection.

Insurance companies know that this is likely to happen so they offer different premiums according to the level of risk and the person's experience of ill health. This is why most companies will offer non-smokers a lower premium than smokers. Offering low insurance premiums to low risk groups, often called 'cream skimming' or 'cherry picking', means high premiums have to be charged to high risk groups such as the elderly or chronically sick.

So in a free market, health care insurance is likely to be too expensive for many people, and especially for those most in need of health care.

And just to point out that this isn't some hypothesis that has no empirical evidence:

Many Pancreatic Cancer Patients Not Offered Surgery

A U.S. study found that nearly 40 percent of early-stage pancreatic cancer patients who qualified for surgery did not get it, greatly reducing their life expectancy.

The researchers noted that about 30 percent of patients with early stage pancreatic cancer who have surgery live at least five years, compared with less than five percent of those who don't have surgery, the Associated Press reported.

The analysis of national cancer data revealed that 3,644 (38 percent) of 9,559 early-stage pancreatic cancer patients were not offered surgery. Those least likely to be offered surgery were: blacks, patients older than 65, and those with less education and lower annual incomes.

Linky. (https://healthlibrary.epnet.com/GetContent.aspx?token=c7d33036-86bc-497f-aff5-9309713ed08f&chunkiid=207783)

So, a press release form a lobby group for private medicine contaiing factual inaccuracies and criticising public healthcare for something the free market already does without any evidence.

It's called cherry picking (http://www.oheschools.org/ohech3pg3.html):



And just to point out that this isn't some hypothesis that has no empirical evidence:



Linky. (https://healthlibrary.epnet.com/GetContent.aspx?token=c7d33036-86bc-497f-aff5-9309713ed08f&chunkiid=207783)

Over-consumption sounds like trying to make it a business. As such you get these "feel good" medicine should be controlled if not eliminated arguments.

Catching something early is far cheaper and better for you vs waiting to the last minute for the expensive procedures which is better for the provider. It might also be argued that it's a self fulfilling prophesy but the industry. You listen to "medicine is running out; it's falling apart" It probably instills that attitude well I better get this checked out while I still have insurance.

Probably the biggest screwover of the consumer will be the "medical database" Sure it sounds great to have records available but then the abuse starts as for example companies can look it over to determine if you will make their premiums go up if they hire you. Insurance as a nice central database to "evaluate" you for pre-existing conditions.

Over-consumption sounds like trying to make it a business. As such you get these "feel good" medicine should be controlled if not eliminated arguments.

Catching something early is far cheaper and better for you vs waiting to the last minute for the expensive procedures which is better for the provider. It might also be argued that it's a self fulfilling prophesy but the industry. You listen to "medicine is running out; it's falling apart" It probably instills that attitude well I better get this checked out while I still have insurance.

Probably the biggest screwover of the consumer will be the "medical database" Sure it sounds great to have records available but then the abuse starts as for example companies can look it over to determine if you will make their premiums go up if they hire you. Insurance as a nice central database to "evaluate" you for pre-existing conditions.

I'm not sure what your post has to do with mine.

I'm not sure what your post has to do with mine.

A bumble.

I wanted to click reply. Clicked quote, got distracted and typed without deleting your stuff....

Probably the biggest screwover of the consumer will be the "medical database" Sure it sounds great to have records available but then the abuse starts as for example companies can look it over to determine if you will make their premiums go up if they hire you. Insurance as a nice central database to "evaluate" you for pre-existing conditions.

Such a database already effectively exists, insurance companies already screen for preexisting conditions, and it is a violation of existing privacy laws for companies to use your medical records for hiring decisions.

rationing is inevitable. we can't give infinite medical care, even though for any particular individual we could almost always give more. the question is how we will do the rationing justly.