• 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!

President Obama to Make Recess Appointment of CMS Administrator Rationing Expert

the makeout hobo said:
The GOP has been blocking almost every single appointment, why would this one be any different?
Click to expand...

Thank God for the GOP, too. Every appointment has been some pinko-commie-asshole. This guys is a prime example.
 
apdst said:
Thank God for the GOP, too. Every appointment has been some pinko-commie-asshole. This guys is a prime example.
Click to expand...

Not every appointment has been some pinko commie asshole. Rahm Emmanuel is a ballet loving gay jew boy. Get your facts straight.
 
So much incorrect.......so little time.
Deuce said:
People were asking for me to respond to questions about the "death panel" earlier, so here goes.

All health care is rationed. Whether on government-run Medicare/Medicaid/VA or in private industry. Health care resources and the money to pay for them are not in unlimited supply. Somebody, in private or public healthcare, makes a decision on the claims that come in and what sort of procedures to pay for. Whether you want to call it a "death panel" or not is up to you, but whatever you call it, it already exists.
Click to expand...
Private companies do not "ration" care, there is not a waiting list unless the physician cannot schedule a surgery or other procedure immediately. Denials of coverage happen for a multitude of reasons and differing frequencies depending on the coverage model and they fall under different reasons such as a younger person requiring a surgery that usually is a later requirement in life, a detailed physicians report will remedy that immediately, as well, there may be a network conflict and a practitioner may not be in the approved network, this is remedied when the practitioner decides to join and usually happens in PPOs, OPOs, and other provider network products. Medicare and Medicaid have the highest denials(government) as does the VA system(government) and the VA has one of the worst satisfaction ratings of any system. Under a government rationing body the reasons are simply that no other procedures can be covered for the time certain so it isn't even remotely the same thing. But I'm sure in your expert(snicker) opinion you already knew this right?

"Obamacare" does not substantially alter Medicare or Medicaid in how they go about doing this, so there's no "new" death panel, despite what Sarah Palin will tell you. The situation is pretty much exactly what it was before. In fact, private industry is being affected more significantly than Medicare, but they're still going to be private employees of private companies making decision about private healthcare delivered by private physicians.
Click to expand...
Does the term "best practices" mean anything to you? Think the NICE board of the UK. Massive fail on this point.
Relating more directly back to the subject, a good rule of thumb is that if you find yourself cutting out sentences to help prove your point about something a person says, you've already lost. The "rationing expert" was saying we already ration health care, but that we do it "blindly." Clearly he is not saying "Hey, we should start rationing health care!"
Click to expand...
In full context it's clear exactly what this guy wants. This was an epic fail on your part.

We ration health care in this country, but we don't have a good, systematic way of determining how best to spend the limited resources we have. Right now, it's left up to whichever profit-motivated insurance company employee happens to pull up your claim. The outcome of those choices is not well tracked or measured, and that should change so that we can improve the situation going forward.
Click to expand...
Repetition of wrong does not change wrong. But it does get repetitive.

This thread is yet another example of blind partisan nonsense, the infuriatingly-typical tactic of taking statements out of context to mean exactly the opposite of their intent.
Click to expand...
It's partisan as hell to jump on the UHC bandwagon because the Dems said it was a good idea, even moreso to twist and turn to make garbage more palatable.
 
TennesseeRain said:
Vance - thanks for trying. I was posting using vernacular attributed to "Palin Hating Leftists" with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek. It was obviously lost on some who instead decided to get their knickers in a knot over my word selection. These are, of course, the same people who have no problem with the use of the words "leftard" or "libtard" - gawd forbid I might actually offend the offspring of their goddess. Truth be told, I think Trig is the smart one in the family.
Click to expand...

No, your meaning wasn't "lost". I knew exactly what you meant, despite your protestations to the contrary now that you've been called out.

By the way, I would appreciate a quote of me using the words "leftard" or "libtard". I'll expect an apology when you can't find any.
 
Gill said:
No, your meaning wasn't "lost". I knew exactly what you meant, despite your protestations to the contrary now that you've been called out.

By the way, I would appreciate a quote of me using the words "leftard" or "libtard". I'll expect an apology when you can't find any.
Click to expand...

I would appreciate a quote of me saying that you use those words. I'll expect an apology when you can't find any.
 
TennesseeRain said:
I would appreciate a quote of me saying that you use those words. I'll expect an apology when you can't find any.
Click to expand...

OK, I'll play your silly game. Let's see quotes of "leftard" or "libtard" from anyone that commented on your partisan and cruel remark about Palins baby.
 
Gill said:
OK, I'll play your silly game. Let's see quotes of "leftard" or "libtard" from anyone that commented on your partisan and cruel remark about Palins baby.
Click to expand...

Or rather, how about we go look in the current thread with "leftard" in the title and see how many people called it "cruel" and "partisan."

Or even better, we could go back on topic! Now there's a novel idea.
 
TennesseeRain said:
Or rather, how about we go look in the current thread with "leftard" in the title and see how many people called it "cruel" and "partisan."

Or even better, we could go back on topic! Now there's a novel idea.
Click to expand...

Don't know what you're talking about. This thread doesn't have "leftard" in the title.

I don't recall seeing a post from you in this thread that was "on topic". All you've done since you came to this thread was troll and snipe.

What's wrong... don't have anything substantive to say about the topic???
 
Gill said:
Don't know what you're talking about. This thread doesn't have "leftard" in the title.

I don't recall seeing a post from you in this thread that was "on topic". All you've done since you came to this thread was troll and snipe.

What's wrong... don't have anything substantive to say about the topic???
Click to expand...

I said WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY back before you derailed this thread by chastizing me and piling on that healthcare is already rationed.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Private companies do not "ration" care, there is not a waiting list unless the physician cannot schedule a surgery or other procedure immediately.
Click to expand...
??? So, there's not a waiting list unless...........there's a waiting list. I'm sure other health care systems wouldn't have a waiting list unless there was a reason, such as the physician cannot schedule a surgery or other procedure immediately.

As a side note, our system has always had a waiting list. Just because we call them appointments doesn't change the effect.

LaMidRighter said:
Denials of coverage happen for a multitude of reasons and differing frequencies...
Click to expand...
Isn't denial of coverage just another way of saying rationing? Aren't there different reasons for rationing as well?


LaMidRighter said:
...there may be a network conflict and a practitioner may not be in the approved network, this is remedied when the practitioner decides to join and usually happens in PPOs, OPOs, and other provider network products
Click to expand...
Kinda limits the ol' 'free to choose the doctor of my choice' mantra

LaMidRighter said:
Medicare and Medicaid have the highest denials(government)...
Click to expand...
Medicare's highest denials are coded:

*Claim/service lacks information which is needed for adjudication.

*Claim not covered by this payer/contractor. You must send the claim to the correct payer/contractor.

People/providers don't fill out claims correctly or are confused on where and to whom to send them to. A single payer system has only ONE place to send the claim.

LaMidRighter said:
...the VA has one of the worst satisfaction ratings of any system.
Click to expand...
Oh...
Patients routinely rank the veterans system above the alternatives, according to the American Customer Satisfaction Index. Last year, the government program got a satisfaction rating of 85 for inpatient treatment, compared with 77 for private hospitals. The index, a University of Michigan project, found that veterans’ outpatient care scored 3 points higher.

Vets Loving Socialized Medicine Show Government Offers Savings - Bloomberg
Click to expand...

Gallup shows that private vs. Medicare satisfaction pretty much even over the last several years.

Rating Public and Private Health Insurance - Economix Blog - NYTimes.com

LaMidRighter said:
In full context it's clear exactly what this guy wants.
Click to expand...
If you go back to the OP article and read the interview linked, you can see clearly "exactly what this guy wants".
In the interview he is talking about how to use CER (Comparative Effectiveness Research) to reduce ineffective and costly medical treatments. Isn't that what we're after, lowering medical costs?
Here's that particular Q&A.
Q: Critics of CER have said that it will lead to the rationing of healthcare.
A: We can make a sensible social decision and say, “Well, at this
point, to have access to a particular additional benefit [new drug or medical intervention] is so expensive that our taxpayers have better use for those funds.” We make those decisions all the time. The decision is not whether or not we will ration care — the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. And right now, we are doing it blindly.
Click to expand...
Sounds like he's looking after tax payer money.
Unless someone can figure out how to pay for every procedure for everyone for any reason, somebody has to make a hard decision. And no I wouldn't rather have a private executive, with his year end bonus on the line, making that decision.

LaMidRighter said:
Repetition of wrong does not change wrong. But it does get repetitive.
Click to expand...
Right or wrong, why is it all of a sudden an issue when it's spoken of by a democrat, when it has been going on all along?
 
BWG said:
??? So, there's not a waiting list unless...........there's a waiting list. I'm sure other health care systems wouldn't have a waiting list unless there was a reason, such as the physician cannot schedule a surgery or other procedure immediately.

As a side note, our system has always had a waiting list. Just because we call them appointments doesn't change the effect.
Click to expand...

Surely you are not attempting to compare wait times in the U.S. with those in countries with socialized medicine. Does it take you over 18 weeks to see a surgeon?? I know it doesn't in my family.

The average wait time for a Canadian awaiting surgery or other medical treatment is now 18.3 weeks, a new high, according to a report released Monday.

That's an increase of 97 per cent over 14 years, the report says.

"Canadians wait longer than Americans, Germans, and Swedes for cardiac care, although not as long as New Zealanders or the British," it reads. "Economists attempting to quantify the cost of this waiting time have estimated it to amount to $1,100 to $5,600 annually per patient."

The report, the 17th annual edition of Waiting Your Turn: Hospital Waiting Lists in Canada, is published by the Fraser Institute, an independent Canadian research organization.

"Despite government promises and the billions of dollars funnelled into the Canadian health-care system, the average patient waited more than 18 weeks in 2007 between seeing their family doctor and receiving the surgery or treatment they required," said Nadeem Esmail, director of Health System Performance Studies at the Fraser Institute and co-author of the report, in a release.
Click to expand...

Read more: CBC News - Health - Wait times for surgery, medical treatments at all-time high: report
 
BWG said:
??? So, there's not a waiting list unless...........there's a waiting list. I'm sure other health care systems wouldn't have a waiting list unless there was a reason, such as the physician cannot schedule a surgery or other procedure immediately.
Click to expand...
I hope you are being dishonest here otherwise I'll have to write your opinion off. The system of private care is not denying anything unless there is a conflict with the contract, all of that is in writing beforehand, a physician having a waiting list is not even remotely ****ing close to a government board making you wait so they don't have the money to fullfill demand.

As a side note, our system has always had a waiting list. Just because we call them appointments doesn't change the effect.
Click to expand...
That is a load of asanine crap. Waiting a week is not in the same ballpark as waiting months to years because of funding shortages in a public plan. You have no ground to stand on here.

Isn't denial of coverage just another way of saying rationing? Aren't there different reasons for rationing as well?
Click to expand...
No, and the fact that you are hanging on to this worthless talking point shows just how uninformed many people are about the subject.


Kinda limits the ol' 'free to choose the doctor of my choice' mantra


Medicare's highest denials are coded:

*Claim/service lacks information which is needed for adjudication.

*Claim not covered by this payer/contractor. You must send the claim to the correct payer/contractor.

People/providers don't fill out claims correctly or are confused on where and to whom to send them to. A single payer system has only ONE place to send the claim.


Oh...


Gallup shows that private vs. Medicare satisfaction pretty much even over the last several years.

Rating Public and Private Health Insurance - Economix Blog - NYTimes.com


If you go back to the OP article and read the interview linked, you can see clearly "exactly what this guy wants".
In the interview he is talking about how to use CER (Comparative Effectiveness Research) to reduce ineffective and costly medical treatments. Isn't that what we're after, lowering medical costs?
Here's that particular Q&A.

Sounds like he's looking after tax payer money.
Unless someone can figure out how to pay for every procedure for everyone for any reason, somebody has to make a hard decision. And no I wouldn't rather have a private executive, with his year end bonus on the line, making that decision.


Right or wrong, why is it all of a sudden an issue when it's spoken of by a democrat, when it has been going on all along?
Click to expand...
AAAAAAND, insert wordy emotionalized irrelevant crap here seems to be the health debate tactic of the day.
 
Gill said:
Surely you are not attempting to compare wait times in the U.S. with those in countries with socialized medicine. Does it take you over 18 weeks to see a surgeon?? I know it doesn't in my family.



Read more: CBC News - Health - Wait times for surgery, medical treatments at all-time high: report
Click to expand...
Gill, how dare you stand in the way of their free ****, that the rest of us have to pay for! How can you be so heartless as to want to keep what you've earned and defend a better system with facts! How DARE you insist that people be honest in the massive failure that is UHC! [sarcasm off]
 
LaMidRighter said:
I hope you are being dishonest here otherwise I'll have to write your opinion off. The system of private care is not denying anything unless there is a conflict with the contract, all of that is in writing beforehand, a physician having a waiting list is not even remotely ****ing close to a government board making you wait so they don't have the money to fullfill demand.

That is a load of asanine crap. Waiting a week is not in the same ballpark as waiting months to years because of funding shortages in a public plan. You have no ground to stand on here.

No, and the fact that you are hanging on to this worthless talking point shows just how uninformed many people are about the subject.


AAAAAAND, insert wordy emotionalized irrelevant crap here seems to be the health debate tactic of the day.
Click to expand...

So when your crap is exposed you just declare another's rebuttal as crap and go on about your business...LOL

At least you didn't throw up that stupid...but...but...I'm a professional...LOL...Adios...:2wave:
 
BWG said:
So when your crap is exposed you just declare another's rebuttal as crap and go on about your business...LOL

At least you didn't throw up that stupid...but...but...I'm a professional...LOL...Adios...:2wave:
Click to expand...
Except I explained in painstaking detail why it's garbage, all you are doing is a weak redirect. Oh, and you might want to watch your tone, I'm getting tired of certain people attacking my character when beaten around here, first and final warning.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Except I explained in painstaking detail why it's garbage, all you are doing is a weak redirect. Oh, and you might want to watch your tone, I'm getting tired of certain people attacking my character when beaten around here, first and final warning.
Click to expand...

In an attempt at constructive criticism, LMR, it's not your character that people are attacking, it's your debating style. You have a tendency to dismiss what people say with what boils down to nothing more than "You're wrong. That's wrong." Sometimes, but not always, you cite "professional knowledge," without posting evidence to back up what you're saying. That's not an argument, nor is it evidence. Then there's this bullying via self-proclaimed authority thing that happens. Look at your recent posts here: "Otherwise I'll have to write off.." and "You might want to watch your tone, I'm getting tired... first and final warning." These sorts of threats don't support your case and they ruin any attempt at honest debate. I'll avoid the Psych101 aspect of it because that's irrelevant. The point is that you should try and avoid this belligerant posting style if real debate is what you're after/
 
Deuce said:
In an attempt at constructive criticism, LMR, it's not your character that people are attacking, it's your debating style. You have a tendency to dismiss what people say with what boils down to nothing more than "You're wrong. That's wrong." Sometimes, but not always, you cite "professional knowledge," without posting evidence to back up what you're saying. That's not an argument, nor is it evidence. Then there's this bullying via self-proclaimed authority thing that happens. Look at your recent posts here: "Otherwise I'll have to write off.." and "You might want to watch your tone, I'm getting tired... first and final warning." These sorts of threats don't support your case and they ruin any attempt at honest debate. I'll avoid the Psych101 aspect of it because that's irrelevant. The point is that you should try and avoid this belligerant posting style if real debate is what you're after.
Click to expand...
Listen very closely. You already attacked me in another thread, and you attacked my character, even after I was nice to you and tried to include you in the debate. I am sick and tired of people who do not know what they are talking about on this subject injecting bad information, this is a crucial issue. You in fact attacked my character, the person I was addressing attacked my posting style which is why I warned him to stick to the debate. He like many others brought bad information.

Again, this is about an idiot appointed to a position speaking to rationing even after additional tax increases. Let's get back to it shall we.

EDIT- if you think establishing credibility is bullying then you have a problem, I am explaining why I know what I know and why your information is bad. If you don't like it find better information.
 
Last edited:
LaMidRighter said:
Except I explained in painstaking detail why it's garbage, all you are doing is a weak redirect. Oh, and you might want to watch your tone, I'm getting tired of certain people attacking my character when beaten around here, first and final warning.
Click to expand...

Oh?

YOU SAY Medicare and Medicaid have the highest denials(government)...

I RESPOND Medicare's highest denials are coded:

*Claim/service lacks information which is needed for adjudication.

*Claim not covered by this payer/contractor. You must send the claim to the correct payer/contractor.

Giving the reason for denial rate - filing error by claimant.

YOU SAY...the VA has one of the worst satisfaction ratings of any system.

I RESPOND [the VA]got a satisfaction rating of 85 for inpatient treatment, compared with 77 for private hospitals.

Complete with link and as a bonus, I throw in the fact that private and Medicare are rated pretty much even, also complete with link.


YOU SAY In full context it's clear exactly what this guy wants.

I RESPOND Q: Critics of CER have said that it will lead to the rationing of healthcare.

A: We can make a sensible social decision and say, “Well, at this
point, to have access to a particular additional benefit [new drug or medical intervention] is so expensive that our taxpayers have better use for those funds.” We make those decisions all the time. The decision is not whether or not we will ration care — the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. And right now, we are doing it blindly.

The question and WHOLE answer, not just the cropped or extended ration statement. Making the case that he believes CER can have the benefit of saving taxpayers money.

YOUR RESPONSE TO ALL OF THE ABOVE IS:

LaMidRighter said:
AAAAAAND, insert wordy emotionalized irrelevant crap here seems to be the health debate tactic of the day.
Click to expand...

Finally... I don't really care if you're tired...and as far as my "first and final warning"...ROTFLMFAO...:2rofll:
 
BWG said:
Oh?

YOU SAY Medicare and Medicaid have the highest denials(government)...

I RESPOND Medicare's highest denials are coded:

*Claim/service lacks information which is needed for adjudication.

*Claim not covered by this payer/contractor. You must send the claim to the correct payer/contractor.

Giving the reason for denial rate - filing error by claimant.

YOU SAY...the VA has one of the worst satisfaction ratings of any system.

I RESPOND [the VA]got a satisfaction rating of 85 for inpatient treatment, compared with 77 for private hospitals.

Complete with link and as a bonus, I throw in the fact that private and Medicare are rated pretty much even, also complete with link.


YOU SAY In full context it's clear exactly what this guy wants.

I RESPOND Q: Critics of CER have said that it will lead to the rationing of healthcare.

A: We can make a sensible social decision and say, “Well, at this
point, to have access to a particular additional benefit [new drug or medical intervention] is so expensive that our taxpayers have better use for those funds.” We make those decisions all the time. The decision is not whether or not we will ration care — the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. And right now, we are doing it blindly.

The question and WHOLE answer, not just the cropped or extended ration statement. Making the case that he believes CER can have the benefit of saving taxpayers money.

YOUR RESPONSE TO ALL OF THE ABOVE IS:



Finally... I don't really care if you're tired...and as far as my "first and final warning"...ROTFLMFAO...:2rofll:
Click to expand...
Ahh, but the denials for the same reasons as private are okay with you, but then you don't extend the courtesy to private companies. Gotcha. Then you really didn't get that right because your source shows the highest denials in the catagory of the government system but that isn't what the point was, it was that overall as a percentage the government programs have the highest denials IN THE INDUSTRY. So you still got that wrong, good try though. The VA system is a singular unit, so of course the highest rated hospitals are going to bring the overall satisfaction rating up, whereas a private hospital gets a single point in the rating. So again you're wrong, but hey you don't care as long as you feel right. Correct? And again, the rationing of care, you ended with emotional arguments with that "we as society" "we are the world" "cumbaya" ****. So realistically keep laughing, you are wrong and that is funny, but the next attack is gonna cost you. But please continue to think you are somehow winning this one.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Ahh, but the denials for the same reasons as private are okay with you, but then you don't extend the courtesy to private companies. Gotcha.
Click to expand...
Didn't say anything about private.
LaMidRighter said:
Then you really didn't get that right because your source shows the highest denials in the catagory of the government system but that isn't what the point was, it was that overall as a percentage the government programs have the highest denials IN THE INDUSTRY. So you still got that wrong, good try though.
Click to expand...
I didn't give a source.

I didn't say that the government program didn't have high denial rates. I DID give reason why so many claims are rejected. CLAIMANT ERROR!!!!! I was right on that...LOL

LaMidRighter said:
The VA system is a singular unit, so of course the highest rated hospitals are going to bring the overall satisfaction rating up, whereas a private hospital gets a single point in the rating.
Click to expand...
YOU made the statement:
LaMidRighter said:
...and the VA has one of the worst satisfaction ratings of any system.
Click to expand...
I countered it. YOU pitted the VA system against ANY system. If you want to set parameters after the fact don't make a generic accusation in the first place.

LaMidRighter said:
So again you're wrong, but hey you don't care as long as you feel right. Correct?
Click to expand...
I opposed your 'say so' with a factual poll, so I'd say you don't have a clue as to what I 'care' or 'feel'.


LaMidRighter said:
And again, the rationing of care, you ended with emotional arguments with that "we as society" "we are the world" "cumbaya" ****.
Click to expand...
So you take my statement - "Isn't that what we're after, lowering medical costs?" - and turn it into the jibber-jabber above. No wonder you're so confused.

LaMidRighter said:
So realistically keep laughing, you are wrong and that is funny, but the next attack is gonna cost you.
Click to expand...
This statement confirms what was already obvious, that you believe you're right because 'I say so'.

LOL...What attack??? And just what is it gonna cost me????...:laughat:

LaMidRighter said:
But please continue to think you are somehow winning this one.
Click to expand...
I think I'll be just fine in spite of your self-proclaimed victory...:peace
 
Last edited:
BWG said:
Didn't say anything about private.
Click to expand...
Ah, so when you get on the UHC bandwagon you aren't attacking the private model?


I didn't say that the government program didn't have high denial rates. I DID give reason why so many claims are rejected. CLAIMANT ERROR!!!!! I was right on that...LOL
Click to expand...
Actually, no you weren't. Many claims are in fact due to error on the part of claimant, but most are in fact clerical and budgetary. But thanks for playing.


YOU made the statement:

I countered it. YOU pitted the VA system against ANY system. If you want to set parameters after the fact don't make a generic accusation in the first place.
Click to expand...
Whatever you've gotta tell yourself pal.

I opposed your 'say so' with a factual poll, so I'd say you don't have a clue as to what I 'care' or 'feel'.
Click to expand...
Your attitude told me everything I needed to know, as well as your **** sure attitude and attacks. You debate like a true government sycophant. Thanks for playing.


So you take my statement - "Isn't that what we're after, lowering medical costs?" - and turn it into the jibber-jabber above. No wonder you're so confused.


This statement confirms what was already obvious, that you believe you're right because 'I say so'.

LOL...What attack??? And just what is it gonna cost me????...:laughat:


I think I'll be just fine in spite of your self-proclaimed victory...:peace
Click to expand...
I just skipped the rest, I'm just going to do myself a favor and put you on ignore since you obviously don't want anything more than an ego stroke. Have a nice life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom