This is an example of taking a phrase "Death Panels" and trying to find words to fit. What I saw in the video was an explanation of how certain decisions would be made. No where do I see or hear, "We will decide who shall live or die", which fits to what I understand what a "Death Panel" would do. Of course, whether private or public insurance the individual would always (if he has the money) have the option of paying for treatment out of pocket. A panel that tries to make reasonable decisions on Medicare reimburesments is not a "Death Panel".
Futhermore, this decision process will not begin until 2014, and can be over ruled by Congress. There is plenty of time to make changes if the public so desires. Private health insurance is at least as mercenary, if not more so.
I'm going to call my doctors office and schedule an appointment for three hours from now. When they say they're booked and can fit me in tomorrow instead, I'm going to accuse the secretary of being on a death panel.
"Finding the occasional straw of truth awash in a great ocean of confusion and bamboozle requires intelligence, vigilance, dedication and courage. But if we don't practice these tough habits of thought, we cannot hope to solve the truly serious problems that face us -- and we risk becoming a nation of suckers, up for grabs by the next charlatan who comes along." -Carl Sagan
The last time I had health insurance I had a policy. That's a contract. I could read what I was entitled to receive under the contract. With the government, there is no contract. To paraphrase a recent statement, "You can wait till you make a claim to find out what's covered."
Prior to the government mandating what coverage would be, I could read the policies from various companies and pick what I needed. Not any more. One size fits all.
With insurance, if I'm covered for by-pass surgery, I'm covered. I don't have a bureaucrat saying, "Well, sure, we cover that but not for him." If they do wish to have that option, it has to be in the policy.
The legislature doesn't have to pass the rules the bureaucrats come up with. Actually, when they find an outrageous rule, such as giving drunks SSI, they have to pass a law to stop it.
I would much prefer privte insurance to government insurance. If the government wasn't dictating to the insurance companies I could probably afford it, too.
The "Death Panel" arguement demonstrates what is terribly wrong with our body politic. There are no "Death Panels" but people would rather go on and on about something that really doesn't exist rather than discuss what actually does exist. The arguement is simplistic who wouldn't oppose "Death Panels" so let's twist the meaning of words and intentions in order to create panic in the people who have abdicated their research and thinking to others.
I would like someone to explain clearly to me the difference between a person who gets their checks signed by uncle Sam and a person that gets their checks signed by BCBS deciding what kind of care I should get. And why one is inherently better than the other.
Because......with BCBS...there are alternatives. AND...theoretically...you have the gov't and the courts to turn to, if you've been wronged. As I understand this bill...you CAN'T sue the gov't...and there are NO alternatives. You live, and die (literally) by the whim of a beaurocrat. Are you comfortable with that?