Sarah Palin- Healthcare Czar

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Mercor, Sep 8, 2009.

  1. Sarah is controlling the debate anyways.
    Without her death panels health care passes, no Obama tomorrow night. She has saved the union.

    Sarah has authored a very intelligent article about whats happening with this Democratic plan.


    Writing in the New York Times last month, President Barack Obama asked that Americans "talk with one another, and not over one another" as our health-care debate moves forward.

    I couldn't agree more. Let's engage the other side's arguments, and let's allow Americans to decide for themselves whether the Democrats' health-care proposals should become governing law.

    Some 45 years ago Ronald Reagan said that "no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds." Each of us knows that we have an obligation to care for the old, the young and the sick. We stand strongest when we stand with the weakest among us.

    We also know that our current health-care system too often burdens individuals and businesses—particularly small businesses—with crippling expenses. And we know that allowing government health-care spending to continue at current rates will only add to our ever-expanding deficit.

    How can we ensure that those who need medical care receive it while also reducing health-care costs? The answers offered by Democrats in Washington all rest on one principle: that increased government involvement can solve the problem. I fundamentally disagree..........more
  2. here is the real death panel that is in force now:

    California's Real Death Panels: Insurers Deny 21% of Claims
    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.

    California Blues rejected 28 percent of claims in the first half of 2009.

    Kaiser Permanente, which denied 28 percent of all claims in the first half of

    SOURCE California Nurses Association
  3. Ricter


    We do not know that about government health-care spending. It does not follow, because it implicitly assumes a premise, that health-care spending is the only government spending.

    As health-care spending is not the only government spending, it is plausible that other spending could be cut, while maintaining current levels of health-care spending, and still effect a shrinking deficit. And that's assuming the economy adds nothing more to government revenue. Add to revenue and it becomes even more plausible.

    Other developed nations have made a more public health-care system work, is it really something "a little Yankee ingenuity" can't make work here?
  4. What are the claims being denied and who's getting denied, the doctor or the patient?

    My health insurance denies stuff all the time, but to the doctor. Of course, there is stuff they flat out won't cover, like cosmetic surgery.

    It would help a great detail if there was some actual data supporting the numbers.
  5. Obama , speaking to the dumb and dumber followers say the Right has no plans. The Right knows the system needs to be changed. The Right has comprehensive plans. None of the amendments have been approved by committee.

    Here Palin provides a synapse of the plan

    Instead of poll-driven "solutions," let's talk about real health-care reform: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven. As the Cato Institute's Michael Cannon and others have argued, such policies include giving all individuals the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers; providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage; reforming tort laws to potentially save billions each year in wasteful spending; and changing costly state regulations to allow people to buy insurance across state lines. Rather than another top-down government plan, let's give Americans control over their own health care.

    Democrats have never seriously considered such ideas, instead rushing through their own controversial proposals.
  6. you want to give insurance companies a blank check subsidized by the taxpayer. what is the rational for paying extra for a middleman in the system?
    not to mention it does nothing to eliminate the profit motive for insurance companies to find excuses to deny care.

    buying insurance across state lines is a huge potential problem. you allow one state with lax regulations to harbor crooked insurance companies and unsuspecting consumers will think they have coverage until they need it and then find out they have nothing. in any case its a red herring because just a few large companies like blue cross dominate the whole united states now. their rates already reflect nationwide exposure.
  7. I am relatively certain the Blues' rates do not reflect nationwide exposure. There is not one single Blue Cross company. There are numerous ones across the country.

    I think allowing national exposure is a very big item. States of course oppose it because it takes away an important tool to leverage campaign funds out of the insurers. Special interest groups oppose it as well, because they can bribe legislators to force coverage of peripheral issues.
  8. there would have to be national minimum standards or the scammers would have a field day.
  9. And of course, a national Insurance Czar.


  10. I agree that someone has to regulate the financial soundness of insurance companies, but this is not like a life insurance company where you pay in for decades. What is crucial in my mind is competition among various types of plans. Some people are happy with major medical and a fairly hefty annual deductible. Others seem to think it is a crime against humanity if they have to pay even a small co-pay. Give them a choice.

    The problem with too much regulation is the regulators start forcing coverage of peripheral issues, like maybe cosmetic surgery, abortion, chiropractors, homeopathetic, etc.

    I don't think health savings accounts can work in the absence of primary insurance coverage, simply because of the huge fee reductions insurers are able to negotiate. There are some "concierge" practices which do not accept insurance, but the vast majority will not accept a patient without insurance. In addition, show up at an ER without insurance only if you are prepared to pay a year's salary to treat a sprianed ankle.
    #10     Sep 9, 2009