This whole "an attempt to kill your grandparents" thing is a problem. Though clearly it's based on a misinterpretation of one of the potential provisions in the law, probably the best thing to do would be to remove it. In fact, maybe we can put something in its place, like:
Under no circumstances will anyone over 65 be allowed to discuss treatment options with their doctors.
Clear and unambiguous. We could call it the Grassley Amendment! No matter what happens with this reform bill, there's enough people spooked by the notion that we outta put it out there in the current law.
Hey, it's not my idea, it's Sarah Palin's.
Maybe these are some reasons all those crazy right-wing extremists are so upset!
ReplyDeleteWhat are your opinions about these items in HR 3200, please? And why is the Left saying these aren't true, when they're in the bill?
Read Page 30 of HR 3200: Govt will decide who gets treated.
Read Page 72 of HR 3200: All private plans must conform to govt rules.
Read Page 124 of HR 3200: No one can sue the govt health monopoly.
Read Page 149 of HR 3200: 8% payroll tax on large employers.
Read Page 150 of HR 3200: 6% payroll tax on small employers.
Read Page 167 of HR 3200: 2.5% tax on people who don’t go along.
Read Page 272 of HR 3200: Cancer hospital payments will be rationed.
Read Page 318 of HR 3200: Hospital expansions prohibited w/o govt approval.
Read Page 335 of HR 3200: “Outcome-based measures” = Rationing.
I'm going to read all these things tonight and throw more reasonable interpretations at you, but in the meantime, what about my idea? It's sound, right?
ReplyDeleteMore reasonable interpretations?
ReplyDeleteThese are just part of what is in the bill, not interpretation's.
So if that's what you're gonna come back with, your interp's, save the time for something else.
You can't blame me for being wary - you KNOW the Grassley amendment is a crazy idea and you can't even commit to saying so.
ReplyDeleteSo, let's say that half are correct, and half you place your more reasonable interpretations on.
ReplyDeleteEven half of those being true are damn scary, don't you agree?
And if they are all accurate? Wow...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFor starters, on page 30: you are probably referring to Sec 123.a.1, but it specifies "a private-public advisory committee". So why wouldn't the private sector block denial of treatments, the way it does now?
ReplyDeletePg 72: All private plans conform to government rules now.
ReplyDeletePg 124: I can't find anything on this page MENTIONING suing or lawsuits, but you were arguing that forbidding lawsuits would be a good way to keep costs down about six hours ago.
Pgs 149, 150 - a bargain compared to what they're paying for insurance now. And you should know.
ReplyDeletePg 167 - yes, anybody who doesn't opt for insurance will still have to pay for insurance. It keeps the emergency rooms open for when they go there because they won't pay for doctors.
Pg 272 -- this actually provides for a study to determine if an adjustment needs to be made, but the way it's written is seems just as likely that payments to those hospitals would be increased if necessary. It depends on the subsection that it refers to, which I bet you haven't read either.
Pg318 - in certain very specific instances, with an exception provided in the very next paragraph. This is the only one I've seen that's remotely scary and frankly, it's pretty weak.
ReplyDeletePg 335 - yeah, and while we're at it lets admit that No Child Left Behind is a terrible idea too.