H
Hesychios
Guest
No argument about that.
- Status
H
Hesychios
Guest
This wouldn’t have been ghost written by Joel Osteen, would it?
H
Hesychios
Guest
Socialism and democracy are not mutually exclusive, you are confused.
It’s not your fault really, all too often in our past we Americans have been told that we “fight for Democracy” when in fact we were often fighting for Capitalism, an economic system.
This is why it was possible to support people like corrupt absolute monarchs (such as the Shah of Iran) and corrupt dictators (such as Ferdinand Marcos). It had nothing whatsover to do with democratic institutions, but everything to do with large American commercial enterprises making a buck.
In fact, the government of the USA has directly interfered with the democratic process in countries around the world when the free exercise of Capitalism was threatened. The entire subject has become confused in the minds of the American public.
H
Hesychios
Guest
W
wabrams
Guest
We aren’t the only ones guilty of that. Look at the British, Germans, French and Dutch for starters. It’s comes with being a major industrialized nation.
T
timcfc
Guest
British PM i would say Tony Blair. I would also say a large number of people like the Monarchy,the British Olympic team.Many Scottish people like English football teams,they also like to holiday in England and Wales.
I would say by your attitude that you dont like Scottish people very much?
T
timcfc
Guest
**Originally Posted by peary1
Obama’s Regulatory ‘Czar’ Cass Sunstein has also publically stated that he believes in statistical methods that give preference to what the government rates as “quality-adjusted life years.” Meaning, the government decides whether a person’s life is worth living. If the government decides the life is not worth living, it is the individual’s duty to die to free up welfare payments for the young and productive. He even WROTE that in his study Lives, Life-Years and Willingness to Pay for the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies. You can find it here:**
Maybe the “Death Panels” are already happening in the US and you are unaware of it,take California for example
California’s Real ‘Death Panels’: Insurers Deny 21% of Claims
September 5, 2009
Nataline Sarkisyan died while awaiting a life-saving liver transplant recommended by doctors that her health insurance company CIGNA denied.
More than one of every five requests for medical claims for insured patients, even when recommended by a patient’s physician, are rejected by California’s largest private insurers, amounting to very real death panels in practice daily in the nation’s biggest state, according to data released today by the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee.
CNA/NNOC researchers analyzed data reported by the insurers to the California Department of Managed Care. From 2002 through June 30, 2009, the six largest insurers operating in California rejected 31.2 million claims for care – 21 percent of all claims.
The data will be presented by Don DeMoro, director of CNA/NNOC’s research arm, the Institute for Health and Socio-Economic Policy, at CNA/NNOC’s biennial convention next Tuesday, Sept. 8 in San Francisco. The convention will also feature a panel presentation from nurse leaders in Canada, Great Britain, and Australia exploding the myths about their national healthcare systems.
“With all the dishonest claims made by some politicians about alleged ‘death panels’ in proposed national legislation, the reality for patients today is a daily, cold-hearted rejection of desperately needed medical care by the nation’s biggest and wealthiest insurance companies simply because they don’t want to pay for it,” said Deborah Burger, RN, CNA/NNOC co-president.
For the first half of 2009, as the national debate over healthcare reform was escalating, the rejection rates are even more striking.
PacifiCare denied 40 percent of ALL California claims in the first six months of 2009. Cigna, which gained notoriety two years ago for denying a liver transplant to 17-year-old Nataline Sarkisyan of Northridge, Calif. and then reversing itself, tragically too late to save her life, was still rejecting one-third of ALL claims for the first half of 2009.
“Every claim that is denied represents a real patient enduring pain and suffering. Every denial has real, sometimes fatal consequences,” said Burger.
PacifiCare, for example, denied a special procedure for treatment of bone cancer for Nick Colombo, a 17-year-old teen from Placentia, Calif. Again, after protests organized by Nick’s family and friends, CNA/NNOC, and netroots activists, PacifiCare reversed its decision. But like Nataline Sarkisyan, the delay resulted in critical time lost, and Nick ultimately died. “This was his last effort and the procedure had worked before with people in Nick’s situation,” said his older brother Ricky.
California Blues rejected 28 percent of claims in the first half of 2009. In 2008, six days before RN Kim Kutcher of Dana Point, Calif., was scheduled to have special back surgery, Blue Cross denied authorization for the procedure as “investigational” even though the lumbar artificial disc she was to receive had FDA approval.
At the time of denial, which she calls “insurance hell,” Kutcher notes she had “already gone through pre-op testing, donated a unit of blood, had appointments with four physicians.” Kutcher paid $60,000 out of pocket for the operation and is still fighting Blue Cross.
Kaiser Permanente, which denied 28 percent of ALL claims in the first half of 2009, was one of two systems to reject options for radiation and chemotherapy for 57-year-old Bob Scott of Sacramento after his diagnosis of a brain tumor in 2005. The reason cited was his age, says wife Cheryl Scott, RN. “He had been in perfect health all of his life. This was his first problem other than a sprained ankle. He died six months later.”
Rejection of care is a very lucrative business for the insurance giants. The top 18 insurance giants racked up $15.9 billion in profits last year.
“The routine denial of care by private insurers is like the elephant in the room no one in the present national healthcare debate seems to want to talk about,” Burger said. “Nothing in any of the major bills advancing in the Senate or House or proposed by the administration would challenge this practice.”
“The United States remains the only country in the industrialized world where human lives are sacrificed for private profit, a national disgrace that seems on the verge of perpetuation,” she said.
CNA/NNOC supports an alternative approach, expanding Medicare to cover all Americans, which would give the U.S. a national system similar to what exists in other nations. Data released in late August by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, which tracks developed nations, found
that among 30 industrial nations, the U.S. ranks last in life expectancy at birth for men, and 24th for women.
.
Obama’s Regulatory ‘Czar’ Cass Sunstein has also publically stated that he believes in statistical methods that give preference to what the government rates as “quality-adjusted life years.” Meaning, the government decides whether a person’s life is worth living. If the government decides the life is not worth living, it is the individual’s duty to die to free up welfare payments for the young and productive. He even WROTE that in his study Lives, Life-Years and Willingness to Pay for the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies. You can find it here:**
Maybe the “Death Panels” are already happening in the US and you are unaware of it,take California for example
California’s Real ‘Death Panels’: Insurers Deny 21% of Claims
September 5, 2009
Nataline Sarkisyan died while awaiting a life-saving liver transplant recommended by doctors that her health insurance company CIGNA denied.
More than one of every five requests for medical claims for insured patients, even when recommended by a patient’s physician, are rejected by California’s largest private insurers, amounting to very real death panels in practice daily in the nation’s biggest state, according to data released today by the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee.
CNA/NNOC researchers analyzed data reported by the insurers to the California Department of Managed Care. From 2002 through June 30, 2009, the six largest insurers operating in California rejected 31.2 million claims for care – 21 percent of all claims.
The data will be presented by Don DeMoro, director of CNA/NNOC’s research arm, the Institute for Health and Socio-Economic Policy, at CNA/NNOC’s biennial convention next Tuesday, Sept. 8 in San Francisco. The convention will also feature a panel presentation from nurse leaders in Canada, Great Britain, and Australia exploding the myths about their national healthcare systems.
“With all the dishonest claims made by some politicians about alleged ‘death panels’ in proposed national legislation, the reality for patients today is a daily, cold-hearted rejection of desperately needed medical care by the nation’s biggest and wealthiest insurance companies simply because they don’t want to pay for it,” said Deborah Burger, RN, CNA/NNOC co-president.
For the first half of 2009, as the national debate over healthcare reform was escalating, the rejection rates are even more striking.
PacifiCare denied 40 percent of ALL California claims in the first six months of 2009. Cigna, which gained notoriety two years ago for denying a liver transplant to 17-year-old Nataline Sarkisyan of Northridge, Calif. and then reversing itself, tragically too late to save her life, was still rejecting one-third of ALL claims for the first half of 2009.
“Every claim that is denied represents a real patient enduring pain and suffering. Every denial has real, sometimes fatal consequences,” said Burger.
PacifiCare, for example, denied a special procedure for treatment of bone cancer for Nick Colombo, a 17-year-old teen from Placentia, Calif. Again, after protests organized by Nick’s family and friends, CNA/NNOC, and netroots activists, PacifiCare reversed its decision. But like Nataline Sarkisyan, the delay resulted in critical time lost, and Nick ultimately died. “This was his last effort and the procedure had worked before with people in Nick’s situation,” said his older brother Ricky.
California Blues rejected 28 percent of claims in the first half of 2009. In 2008, six days before RN Kim Kutcher of Dana Point, Calif., was scheduled to have special back surgery, Blue Cross denied authorization for the procedure as “investigational” even though the lumbar artificial disc she was to receive had FDA approval.
At the time of denial, which she calls “insurance hell,” Kutcher notes she had “already gone through pre-op testing, donated a unit of blood, had appointments with four physicians.” Kutcher paid $60,000 out of pocket for the operation and is still fighting Blue Cross.
Kaiser Permanente, which denied 28 percent of ALL claims in the first half of 2009, was one of two systems to reject options for radiation and chemotherapy for 57-year-old Bob Scott of Sacramento after his diagnosis of a brain tumor in 2005. The reason cited was his age, says wife Cheryl Scott, RN. “He had been in perfect health all of his life. This was his first problem other than a sprained ankle. He died six months later.”
Rejection of care is a very lucrative business for the insurance giants. The top 18 insurance giants racked up $15.9 billion in profits last year.
“The routine denial of care by private insurers is like the elephant in the room no one in the present national healthcare debate seems to want to talk about,” Burger said. “Nothing in any of the major bills advancing in the Senate or House or proposed by the administration would challenge this practice.”
“The United States remains the only country in the industrialized world where human lives are sacrificed for private profit, a national disgrace that seems on the verge of perpetuation,” she said.
CNA/NNOC supports an alternative approach, expanding Medicare to cover all Americans, which would give the U.S. a national system similar to what exists in other nations. Data released in late August by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, which tracks developed nations, found
that among 30 industrial nations, the U.S. ranks last in life expectancy at birth for men, and 24th for women.
.
P
peary1
Guest
You should give the people more credit than you do.
T
tjm190
Guest
The Insurance Industry as a whole operates with a 4% profit margin. Assuming the denied claims are about the same price as accepted claims, they would still have to reject 17% of claims just to operate at zero profit. If you want insurance companies to accept more claims, they need to raise rates.
T
timcfc
Guest
I believe this is the biggest fault in the US healthcare system,it puts profits before people. Why should anyone be denied healthcare,do you think its right that someone is denied healthcare because a company has to make a profit.
Now im not saying the US system is the only one that is faulty,all healthcare systems have their faults,however,the US system is the only one were people are denied healthcare because companies must make a profit.
T
timcfc
Guest
I came across this article and i thought it would add to the debate on here
Catholic Socialism
I was driving home when I heard on my car radio a minister say that “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” was a Looney-tune idea. I don’t make a habit of speaking back to the radio, but I couldn’t help but scream, “It’s in the Bible!” Acts 2: 44-45 reads: “And all those who had believed were together, and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions, and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need.” The dying gasp of the McCain-Palin campaign tried to make ‘sharing the wealth’ into Obama socialism, apparently without any more awareness than the radio preacher that socialized wealth is in the bible.
Marx and Engels repeatedly refer to Early Christianity as a touchstone for the socialist ideal - although they complain that a non-religious “scientific” socialism (i.e. Communism) is needed. (That historical footnote explains why persons unfamiliar with scripture get confused about socialism and Christian discipleship.) Wisely, Catholicism has always held up the example of the communalism of Early Christianity as a choice, rather than a requirement for living the Gospel. We call the holding of all things in common and the practice of giving according to one’s ability an evangelical counsel. It is a charism in Catholicism, exemplified in religious life and committed ministry. But even if it is to be practiced by a few, it is considered to be a more intense form of Christianity that mirrors the values preached by Christ.
The Catholic Church is not for or against any economic system on the basis of ideology. The focus has always been upon the climate for social relationships that an economic system generates. Thus, for instance, at the time of Aquinas it was decided that demanding interest was legitimate because the borrower was “renting money.” Usury was incurred only if the interest rate for the loan was excessive. Likewise private property was to be respected, but it was not an absolute right. The TV character in Star Trek echoes Catholic teaching on private property when he states: “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”
At stake in contemporary Catholic America is a growing awareness that the U.S. economic system has serious flaws. In addressing the financial system, “socialism” is not a dirty word for Catholics. As explained in an earlier piece, Catholic teaching on the economy favors mixing elements of Capitalism and Socialism. The Church usually reserves its criticisms or support for economic measures by examining how they affect social relationships. People must be placed before profits when there is a conflict between the gains of Capitalism and the general social welfare. Perhaps the best example of this socializing principle is in health care. If there is a choice between running a hospital as a business or taking care of those in need, there is no choice for a Catholic.
All of these principles are clearly stated in myriad documents, but what makes them particularly important in the immediate future is the likely persistence of massive governmental funding of industries and social programs in the US. If there is not enough money for both the corporations and the people, the latter should take priority. Moreover, today’s crisis in the US has parallels with Europe in the 1930s and much of Latin America even today. Will the government intervene with public money to preserve the power of those with capital? If there is not enough funding to provide services to all, will some persons be cut off because of their race, religion or ethnicity?
These are not idle questions. Historically, German Capitalism in crisis opted for a form of socialism to bail out the major corporations, but restricted the ownership and the benefits of citizenship to those whose nationality was “pure German.” The intention was to have government use social programs to benefit the few. It was a National Socialism, and just as surely as we condemn how it ended, we should recognize how it began.
I think U.S. Catholic social teaching will become a valuable resource for evaluating the reasons for and against massive intervention in both private industry and social programs. Socialism is not a dirty word to Catholics
Catholic Socialism
I was driving home when I heard on my car radio a minister say that “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” was a Looney-tune idea. I don’t make a habit of speaking back to the radio, but I couldn’t help but scream, “It’s in the Bible!” Acts 2: 44-45 reads: “And all those who had believed were together, and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions, and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need.” The dying gasp of the McCain-Palin campaign tried to make ‘sharing the wealth’ into Obama socialism, apparently without any more awareness than the radio preacher that socialized wealth is in the bible.
Marx and Engels repeatedly refer to Early Christianity as a touchstone for the socialist ideal - although they complain that a non-religious “scientific” socialism (i.e. Communism) is needed. (That historical footnote explains why persons unfamiliar with scripture get confused about socialism and Christian discipleship.) Wisely, Catholicism has always held up the example of the communalism of Early Christianity as a choice, rather than a requirement for living the Gospel. We call the holding of all things in common and the practice of giving according to one’s ability an evangelical counsel. It is a charism in Catholicism, exemplified in religious life and committed ministry. But even if it is to be practiced by a few, it is considered to be a more intense form of Christianity that mirrors the values preached by Christ.
The Catholic Church is not for or against any economic system on the basis of ideology. The focus has always been upon the climate for social relationships that an economic system generates. Thus, for instance, at the time of Aquinas it was decided that demanding interest was legitimate because the borrower was “renting money.” Usury was incurred only if the interest rate for the loan was excessive. Likewise private property was to be respected, but it was not an absolute right. The TV character in Star Trek echoes Catholic teaching on private property when he states: “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”
At stake in contemporary Catholic America is a growing awareness that the U.S. economic system has serious flaws. In addressing the financial system, “socialism” is not a dirty word for Catholics. As explained in an earlier piece, Catholic teaching on the economy favors mixing elements of Capitalism and Socialism. The Church usually reserves its criticisms or support for economic measures by examining how they affect social relationships. People must be placed before profits when there is a conflict between the gains of Capitalism and the general social welfare. Perhaps the best example of this socializing principle is in health care. If there is a choice between running a hospital as a business or taking care of those in need, there is no choice for a Catholic.
All of these principles are clearly stated in myriad documents, but what makes them particularly important in the immediate future is the likely persistence of massive governmental funding of industries and social programs in the US. If there is not enough money for both the corporations and the people, the latter should take priority. Moreover, today’s crisis in the US has parallels with Europe in the 1930s and much of Latin America even today. Will the government intervene with public money to preserve the power of those with capital? If there is not enough funding to provide services to all, will some persons be cut off because of their race, religion or ethnicity?
These are not idle questions. Historically, German Capitalism in crisis opted for a form of socialism to bail out the major corporations, but restricted the ownership and the benefits of citizenship to those whose nationality was “pure German.” The intention was to have government use social programs to benefit the few. It was a National Socialism, and just as surely as we condemn how it ended, we should recognize how it began.
I think U.S. Catholic social teaching will become a valuable resource for evaluating the reasons for and against massive intervention in both private industry and social programs. Socialism is not a dirty word to Catholics
T
tjm190
Guest
Let’s say I invent a pill. This pill cures most diseases, can repair man organ failures, can can keep an individual healthy well into is 100-teens. However, the pill costs 350,000 dollars to manufacture, and must be taken monthly. Do you think everybody should get this pill? Even if it bankrupts the government providing it?
T
timcfc
Guest
Why should i answer that question,its totally unrealistic,its not worth answering.
Answer me this,i am in charge of a health insurance company,my company must deny 20% of applicants so that i can make a profit. Some of the people that i must deny could die if they dont recieve the care needed. Now i make you an offer to come and work for me,i will double your wages and double your holidays,compared to your previous job. The only stipulation is that you must meet the people that you will deny healthcare to,will you come and work for me?
T
tjm190
Guest
Oh? Well one hundred years ago that’s what they would have said about chemotherapy, dialysis, and organ transplants. Take a step back- the complexity and effectiveness of today’s health care costs are no less unreal than the pill i just pretended to invent.
The question is built to get at this point- If a cure for a potentially fatal ailment exists, is everyone entitled to it no matter how much it costs?
Unless I’m working with thousands of claims, sure.
T
timcfc
Guest
Well i look at it quite simply,take the money from Nasa and other things.It has been estimated that the 2 wars will have cost the US $1.6 trillion by the end of 2009. You can prioritize.
If diseases are killing people and the government spends that money on things that are not a priority then i think that should be questioned.
T
tjm190
Guest
1.6 trillion in 8 years?
U.S. Health care spending is 16 percent of GDP- GDP is about 13.5 trillion.
.16*13.5=2.16
So two wars over eight years cover just under 3/4 of one year’s worth of health care.
How much do you know about the economics of supply and demand? I would assume not the most, because then you’d know that economics aren’t kind when you want to reduce cost.
F
fish90
Guest
Profits allow the health care industry lower the costs of procedures and medicines. Profit by itself encourages competition.
There are free market solutions to lower the cost of insuring high risk people, yet that is evil thinking.
T
tjm190
Guest
Well there no real free market way to go about it- an insurance company that distributes the cost of high risk individuals to its other customers would be at a serious competitive disadvantage.Profits allow the health care industry lower the costs of procedures and medicines. Profit by itself encourages competition.
There are free market solutions to lower the cost of insuring high risk people, yet that is evil thinking.
The ideal solution, in my opinion, would be allowing competition across state lines but the companies would have to ‘split’ the number of high risk individuals to sell in each state. (hmmm… where have I heard of that before?)
If we didn’t want rates to go up any higher as a result of this, the government would have to compensate the insurance companies for the added burden.
F
fish90
Guest
Was not risk pools argued as a good alternative?
The consumer would still be paying a higher rate due to taxes.
MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!
C
cecilia97
Guest
You didn’t notice that I said “And until the very recently in US history, many people did just fine without health insurance”. I’m talking about a time when insurance was used according to its original intent…not to cover ALL costs, but to cover the catastrophic costs. In the 1950s, when you went to to doctor and paid cash, and the price was reasonable because the overuse of insurance and social programs like Medicare had not artificially inflated prices.
And, by the way, figures from Reuters and Harvard are not “released from our own government”. The “WASHINGTON (Reuters)” doesn’t mean the government said this. It means this is the Washington office of the Reuters news agency speaking. The quote says people die “in large part”…which part is that? 30%, 59%, 100%? It’s not a very specific or scientific statement. Sounds rather editorial to me.
- Status