• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

States with most uninsured most likely to believe euthanasia myths

No you don't get it let me repeat.

"if you broke it down and compared Blue State minorites to Red State minorites you would see the same pattern."

No need to explaibn, because...I get it...:rofl
 
I don't know much about medicare, but from what I've heard it's a supplement to private insurance and not a replacement. I've also heard that it greatly complicates the insurance market and is hopelessly inefficient when compared to private insurance. This is all coming secondhand though, I really don't know much about it.

Medicare is not a supplement to private insurance, it's a replacement. Some senior purchase Medicare supplements to cover out of pocket costs for what Medicare does not cover.
 
Medicare is not a supplement to private insurance, it's a replacement. Some senior purchase Medicare supplements to cover out of pocket costs for what Medicare does not cover.

It's weird because that's completely different from what my dad said when I asked him about it last night, and he's had a lot of experience helping his own parents pay their medical costs.
 
Utah is lilly white and has the most porn purchases.

Nevada is majority white and has most divorces. Wyoming is #2 one of the whitest States in the Nation.

As far as abortion rates go...minorites likely are a big factor but if you broke it down and compared Blue State minorites to Red State minorites you would see the same pattern.

Red State ideology is bankrupt anyway you cut it.

Speaking of bankrupt, how is California/NYC/Chicago doing?
 
Just like for-profit insurance companies do today. They don't pay for every procedure or treatment.

So again! It's besides the point.

I think the difference is that insurance companies have contracts with the insureds. If a 90 YO woman has insurance policy and that contract covers treatments, the insurance company will cover it,. If they deny the treatment that should be contractually covered, they will be sued and rightfully lose. Contract law applies to both signers of the contract.

Good luck suing the federal government once they go the way of determining who gets treatment and who doesn't. WHich will have to happen eventually.
 
Last edited:
So basically, what you are saying is that you are choosing to be uninsured, thus if you need serious medical attention, you will go to an emergency room, rack tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills (or more), and the costs will be passed on to the rest of us.

Great system.
how presumptious of you. I do have a plan. I would just withdraw the necessary money from the bank and pay it back after I am well. I have above-average credit and personally know my banker, so it would never be a problem.

And, not to be so pessimistic(I thought liberals were never pessimistic :roll: ) If I don't get into an emergency situation like that, I make out like bandit from not paying the premiums. I win.
try again?
 
Last edited:
It's weird because that's completely different from what my dad said when I asked him about it last night, and he's had a lot of experience helping his own parents pay their medical costs.

Well your father is mistaken then.

Medicare Part A and B:

Part A: Hospital Insurance
Part A covers inpatient hospital stays (at least overnight), including semiprivate room, food, tests, and doctor's fees.
Part A covers brief stays for convalescence in a skilled nursing facility if certain criteria are met:
A preceding hospital stay must be at least three days, three midnights, not counting the discharge date.
The nursing home stay must be for something diagnosed during the hospital stay or for the main cause of hospital stay. For instance, a hospital stay for a broken hip and then a nursing home stay for physical therapy would not be covered.
If the patient is not receiving rehabilitation but has some other ailment that requires skilled nursing supervision then the nursing home stay would be covered.
The care being rendered by the nursing home must be skilled. Medicare part A does not pay for custodial, non-skilled, or long-term care activities, including activities of daily living (ADLs) such as personal hygiene, cooking, cleaning, etc.
The maximum length of stay that Medicare Part A will cover in a skilled nursing facility per ailment is 100 days. The first 20 days would be paid for in full by Medicare with the remaining 80 days requiring a co-payment (as of 2009, $133.50 per day). Many insurance companies have a provision for skilled nursing care in the policies they sell.
If a beneficiary uses some portion of their Part A benefit and then goes at least 60 days without receiving facility-based skilled services, the 100-day clock is reset and the person qualifies for a new 100-day benefit period.

Part B: Medical Insurance
Part B medical insurance helps pay for some services and products not covered by Part A, generally on an outpatient basis. Part B is optional and may be deferred if the beneficiary or their spouse is still actively working. There is a lifetime penalty (10% per year) imposed for not enrolling in Part B unless actively working.
Part B coverage includes physician and nursing services, x-rays, laboratory and diagnostic tests, influenza and pneumonia vaccinations, blood transfusions, renal dialysis, outpatient hospital procedures, limited ambulance transportation, immunosuppressive drugs for organ transplant recipients, chemotherapy, hormonal treatments such as Lupron, and other outpatient medical treatments administered in a doctor's office. Medication administration is covered under Part B only if it is administered by the physician during an office visit.
Part B also helps with durable medical equipment (DME), including canes, walkers, wheelchairs, and mobility scooters for those with mobility impairments. Prosthetic devices such as artificial limbs and breast prosthesis following mastectomy, as well as one pair of eyeglasses following cataract surgery, and oxygen for home use is also covered.[8]
Complex rules are used to manage the benefit, and advisories are periodically issued which describe coverage criteria. On the national level these advisories are issued by CMS, and are known as National Coverage Determinations (NCD). Local Coverage Determinations (LCD) only apply within the multi-state area managed by a specific regional Medicare Part B contractor, and Local Medical Review Policies (LMRP) were superseded by LCDs in 2003. Coverage information is also located in the CMS Internet-Only Manuals (IOM), the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), the Social Security Act, and the Federal Register.

The reason why senior many times get Medicare supplements is not because Medicare coverage is any worse than private sector plans they previously would have had through their employer, but rather because they utilize medical care far more than they did when they were younger, and are on a fixed income, the copays and coinsurance is more of a financial burden on them than it would have been when they were younger and in better health. Thus they get a supplemental policy to assist paying that.

The problem with Medicare is not that its crappy insurance, its in fact great insurance, it has higher satisfaction rates among its recipients than any private sector insurance plan. The problem is that health care is getting so expensive and so many people are on it, some 42 million, that its future fiscal solvency is in question.
 
how presumptious of you. I do have a plan. I would just withdraw the necessary money from the bank and pay it back after I am well. I have above-average credit and personally know my banker, so it would never be a problem.

And, not to be so pessimistic(I thought liberals were never pessimistic :roll: ) If I don't get into an emergency situation like that, I make out like bandit from not paying the premiums. I win.
try again?

The problem is the risk posed by your not carrying at least a catastrophic policy is born by everyone else. If you were to God forbid get cancer or something, good credit or not, you are not going to be able to go get a loan to pay your hundreds of thousands of medical bills. The hospital that treats you will simply pass those costs to those that have insurance.
 
The problem is the risk posed by your not carrying at least a catastrophic policy is born by everyone else. The hospital that treats you will simply pass those costs to those that have insurance.

I think the hospital would just spread thoses costs to everyone that recieves service ther, not just to those that have insurance.

But, if he had insurance, the insurance company would simply pass those costs around to everyone else that has insurance.

If he is enrolled in the government option, which I think will become more then just an option for most, those costs will just be spread around to all of us, the taxpayers.

Other then the size of the pools, I'm not certain I see too much of a difference.
 
The problem with Medicare is not that its crappy insurance, its in fact great insurance, it has higher satisfaction rates among its recipients than any private sector insurance plan.

1. I'd like to see proof of those satisfaction rates
2. If it's so great, then how come, as you admitted, people want more than it can offer?
3. You do realize that some doctors don't even accept Medicare? I know this because apparently it happened to my grandpa. It's so much more costly and risky to use for the doctor that they sometimes don't even accept it.

The problem is that health care is getting so expensive and so many people are on it, some 42 million, that its future fiscal solvency is in question.
Well yes, that's another problem with it.
 
I think the difference is that insurance companies have contracts with the insureds. If a 90 YO woman has insurance policy and that contract covers treatments, the insurance company will cover it,. If they deny the treatment that should be contractually covered, they will be sued and rightfully lose. Contract law applies to both signers of the contract.

Good luck suing the federal government once they go the way of determining who gets treatment and who doesn't. WHich will have to happen eventually.
The government can and must ration what it will cover. Those who want gold plated coverage can and should get a gold plated supplemental plan. I have no problem with that. Notice that Steve Jobs had no difficulty getting a liver transplant. Those who have the money will always be able to purchase the best health care. I don't really have a problem with that. Do you? Medical technology has exceeded our ability to pay for everything for everyone to extend life to the maximum fraction of a day.
 
1. I'd like to see proof of those satisfaction rates

National Journal Online - Who's Afraid Of Public Insurance?
More importantly, the higher scores for Medicare are based on perceptions of better access to care. More than two thirds (70 percent) of traditional Medicare enrollees say they "always" get access to needed care (appointments with specialists or other necessary tests and treatment), compared with 63 percent in Medicare managed care plans and only 51 percent of those with private insurance.
 
Well, not that this is a surprise, but the uneducated in this country and the poor are really being taken advantage of by the right wingnuts. Sad really.

States With Most Uninsured Most Likely To Believe Euthanasia, Govt. Takeover Myths



And before you come yelling at me for siting an article using one poll, these poll results back up others on the same topic.

I think what we are seeing are the fruits of the Republican "think" tanks who have spent many years crafting language to frame the issues and distort the political discourse. Then they disseminate the talking points to talk show hosts and the media. The "death Panel" notion is Exhibit A

George Lakoff has written books about this:

Language always comes with what is called "framing." Every word is defined relative to a conceptual framework. If you have something like "revolt," that implies a population that is being ruled unfairly, or assumes it is being ruled unfairly, and that they are throwing off their rulers, which would be considered a good thing. That's a frame.....

And now, as the New York Times Magazine quoted Paul Weyrich, who started the Heritage Foundation, they have 1,500 conservative radio talk show hosts. They have a huge, very good operation, and they understand their own moral system. They understand what unites conservatives, and they understand how to talk about it, and they are constantly updating their research on how best to express their ideas.


I heard an interview with randomly chosen people in some southern city on the topic of health care. What I found remarkable was the serenely expressed conflicting notions contained in one brain. Lots of people said things like; "oh yeh, I think the government needs to do much more to help people with their health care...but, I don't want any of that socialized medicine thing!"
 
I think what we are seeing are the fruits of the Republican "think" tanks who have spent many years crafting language to frame the issues and distort the political discourse. Then they disseminate the talking points to talk show hosts and the media. The "death Panel" notion is Exhibit A

George Lakoff has written books about this:

Language always comes with what is called "framing." Every word is defined relative to a conceptual framework. If you have something like "revolt," that implies a population that is being ruled unfairly, or assumes it is being ruled unfairly, and that they are throwing off their rulers, which would be considered a good thing. That's a frame.....

And now, as the New York Times Magazine quoted Paul Weyrich, who started the Heritage Foundation, they have 1,500 conservative radio talk show hosts. They have a huge, very good operation, and they understand their own moral system. They understand what unites conservatives, and they understand how to talk about it, and they are constantly updating their research on how best to express their ideas.


I heard an interview with randomly chosen people in some southern city on the topic of health care. What I found remarkable was the serenely expressed conflicting notions contained in one brain. Lots of people said things like; "oh yeh, I think the government needs to do much more to help people with their health care...but, I don't want any of that socialized medicine thing!"

True. I totally understand the power of language. It can be used to spread lies, move people in their emotions, and promote good causes. I find the Republican think tanks are really outdoing themselves right now and stirring up their base to challenge something they completely don't understand.
 
The government can and must ration what it will cover.

SO, I'm thrilled that we have an agreement that the so called "death panels" are not a "fabrication of the right" and are actually true.

The government will, eventally, end up determining who is eligible to receive treatmen and in so doing, decide who will, essentially, die.
 
The government can and must ration what it will cover. Those who want gold plated coverage can and should get a gold plated supplemental plan. I have no problem with that. Notice that Steve Jobs had no difficulty getting a liver transplant. Those who have the money will always be able to purchase the best health care. I don't really have a problem with that. Do you? Medical technology has exceeded our ability to pay for everything for everyone to extend life to the maximum fraction of a day.

Sounds like we're only re-inventing the wheel. Only difference is, the government will control our health care. Something makes me think that's not such a great idea.
 


SO, I'm thrilled that we have an agreement that the so called "death panels" are not a "fabrication of the right" and are actually true.

The government will, eventally, end up determining who is eligible to receive treatmen and in so doing, decide who will, essentially, die.

No the "death panel" B.S. is an example of right-wing propoganda. As I am sure you know it is a separate issue from rationing. Encouraging people to discuss end of life issues with their primary care physician just makes sense.

An example of rationing: Jane Doe cannot become pregnant. The gov't health care plan allows, say, 3 tries at I.V.F. After that she will have to pay for it out of pocket. Does that restrict her freedom? I think not. It is exactly want happens in our private insurance system, now.
 
No the "death panel" B.S. is an example of right-wing propoganda. As I am sure you know it is a separate issue from rationing. Encouraging people to discuss end of life issues with their primary care physician just makes sense.

An example of rationing: Jane Doe cannot become pregnant. The gov't health care plan allows, say, 3 tries at I.V.F. After that she will have to pay for it out of pocket. Does that restrict her freedom? I think not. It is exactly want happens in our private insurance system, now.

Yeah, it was so much BS that they pulled that section from the bill. You know; the part that said, "the secretary will issue and order to sustain life".
 
Yeah, it was so much BS that they pulled that section from the bill. You know; the part that said, "the secretary will issue and order to sustain life".

People have to die. I don't understand the obsession with "death panels". Maybe you can inform me?

At the end of my Mom's life, the Doc's continued to give her chemo. They made money, of course. My Mom was Dying!! Her last 6 month, you would not subject to a dog. That is where our health care $$$ are spent: Sustaining people who will not improve, at great expense.

Congratulations- the status quo will probably continue, at great expense, because NO ONE wants to make the difficult end of life decisions. I just hope that when I get there I am physically able to walk off a cliff so I don't end up tied to a bed.
 
Last edited:
At the end of my Mom's life, the Doc's continued to give her chemo. They made money, of course. My Mom was Dying!! Her last 6 month, you would not subject to a dog. That is where our health care $$$ are spent: Sustaining people who will not improve, at great expense.

I'm sorry your mom had to go through that. I know the end of life for a cancer patient is always hard.

But, that was a decision between your mom (family) and her doctor. The government shouldn't be in that discussion at all.

I believe the govt will eventually have to be rationing that treatment (much like NICE).

This might be years down the road from initial implementation (or sooner) but it will evetnually happen.

That to me is a death panel.
 
I'm sorry your mom had to go through that. I know the end of life for a cancer patient is always hard.

But, that was a decision between your mom (family) and her doctor. The government shouldn't be in that discussion at all.
And Medicare would pay for that consultation. Physicians and patients will be better informed about the usefulness of (say) another round of chemo because the gov't will have completed effectiveness research. One aspect of medicine that is under appreciated is the benefit of DOING NOTHING. Americans are extremely biased in favor of heroic efforts, forgetful of the fact that surgery and chemo can do more harm than good- especially with the elderly.

Most people say they would prefer to die at home, they nonetheless die in an institution. Many people don't really discuss or plan these things until it is too late.
 
And Medicare would pay for that consultation. Physicians and patients will be better informed about the usefulness of (say) another round of chemo because the gov't will have completed effectiveness research. One aspect of medicine that is under appreciated is the benefit of DOING NOTHING. Americans are extremely biased in favor of heroic efforts, forgetful of the fact that surgery and chemo can do more harm than good- especially with the elderly.

Most people say they would prefer to die at home, they nonetheless die in an institution. Many people don't really discuss or plan these things until it is too late.

My grandfather also died of cancer - he worked construction and his was related to asbestoes exposure

When he first found out, he planned on having chemo and radiation. However, after he had a second (and third) opinion - all paid for by medicare - he decided that he didn't want it.

He believed that the chemo would not do anything but make his last days sicker then anything.

A decision made by himself, the family and the doctors. The government should not be involved in that decision at all - and they will evenually be, due to the "Rationing" you describe, or the costs the government will be incurring. "Death Panel".
 
Last edited:
My grandfather also died of cancer - he worked construction and his was related to asbestoes exposure

When he first found out, he planned on having chemo and radiation. However, after he had a second (and third) opinion - all paid for by medicare - he decided that he didn't want it.

He believed that the chemo would not do anything but make his last days sicker then anything.

A decision made by himself, the family and the doctors. The government should not be involved in that decision at all - and they will evenually be, due to the "Rationing" you describe, or the costs the government will be incurring. "Death Panel".

Medicare (government provided healthcare) has been in place for nearly 45 years and hasn't attempted your paranoid scenario.

Additionally, this bill doesn't touch the way Medicare is run..

If you cannot think rationally and use reason and critical thinking skills you are just going to wind up hurting your family's livelyhood.

Wake up.
 
Medicare (government provided healthcare) has been in place for nearly 45 years and hasn't attempted your paranoid scenario.

Additionally, this bill doesn't touch the way Medicare is run..

If you cannot think rationally and use reason and critical thinking skills you are just going to wind up hurting your family's livelyhood.

Wake up.

Meicare is nearly out of money, and it only covers seniors. How long until a bill that will end up covering most Americans will be out of money? How much do you really think raising taxes on the "rich" will provide?

The government will have to start rationing the care people recieve. Much like nearly any other UHC out there.

There is no possible way the gov't will be able to afford everything for everyone - hard decisions will have to be made, and many will be made by the govt.
 
Meicare is nearly out of money, and it only covers seniors. How long until a bill that will end up covering most Americans will be out of money? How much do you really think raising taxes on the "rich" will provide?

The government will have to start rationing the care people recieve. Much like nearly any other UHC out there.

There is no possible way the gov't will be able to afford everything for everyone - hard decisions will have to be made, and many will be made by the govt.

OR they can make the sacrifice primarily on the drug companies, insurance companies and other fat cats in the medical industry......but wait!

The GOP will not go for that either!

The public option that this bill offers is the building block for all these other cost saving measures to work....

GOP supporters are cutting their own throat by opposing the public option.
 
Back
Top Bottom