About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Conservative media revive "death panels" yet again with new, false target

December 23, 2009 4:55 pm ET — 52 Comments

The conservative media are now labeling the Independent Medicare Advisory Board created by the Senate health care reform bill a "death panel," even though the board is explicitly prohibited from "modify[ing] eligibility," "restrict[ing] benefits," or "ration[ing] health care" and its recommendations can be overridden by Congress. In falsely declaring the existence of "death panels," right-wing media figures have previously pointed to the House bill's end-of-life counseling provision, out-of-context statements by Obama administration adviser Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, general "rationing" purportedly instituted by the legislation, and nonbinding mammogram guidelines.

Conservative media settle on new target for "death panels" attack

Weekly Standard: "Paging Sarah Palin: the death panel is unkillable." In a December 21 Weekly Standard blog post, John McCormack wrote that Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) "pointed out that the Reid bill declares on page 1020 that the Independent Medicare Advisory Board cannot be repealed by future Congresses" [emphasis in original]. McCormack further wrote: "For any fearmongers out there tempted to call an unelected body that recommends Medicare cuts a 'Death Panel,' let me be clear. According to page 1004, IMAB proposals 'shall not include any recommendation to ration health care' -- you know, just like the bill says there's no funding for abortion. Paging Sarah Palin: the death panel is unkillable" [emphasis in original].

Fox Nation: "Reid Bill: Future Congresses Cannot Repeal 'Death Panel.' " On December 22, the Fox Nation linked to McCormack's Weekly Standard post with the headline: "Reid Bill: Future Congresses Cannot Repeal 'Death Panel.' " From the Fox Nation (accessed on December 23):

Fox Nation death panel

Morris: Medicare Advisory Board "is really the death panel that Sarah Palin was talking about." From the December 23 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

MORRIS: The Medicare Advisory Board you speak about is a particularly dangerous thing, because it's going to set up for Medicare only -- for the elderly only -- protocols and standards of care where they are going to be saying no, you can't give this person a hip replacement; they are too old; and no, you can't treat this person with colon cancer with the best drug available. I know it increases his chance of dying but it's beyond the cost parameters that we are prepared to allow. And this will be done by this federal board which is really the death panel that Sarah Palin was talking about. That's an oversimplification, but the basic concept isn't far wrong.

Palin calls Medicare Advisory Board a "rationing 'death panel.' " In a December 22 Facebook post titled "Midnight Votes, Backroom Deals, and a Death Panel," Palin asserted that the advisory board "is a panel of bureaucrats charged with cutting health care costs on the backs of patients -- also known as rationing." She added that "Democrats are protecting this rationing 'death panel' from future change with a procedural hurdle" and wrote:

Though Nancy Pelosi and friends have tried to call "death panels" the "lie of the year," this type of rationing - what the CBO calls "reduc[ed] access to care" and "diminish[ed] quality of care" - is precisely what I meant when I used that metaphor.

In fact, board is not a "death panel," and provision prohibits "modifying eligibility," "restricting benefits," and "ration[ing] health care"

Independent Medicare Advisory Board is specifically prohibited from rationing health care or modifying benefits. According to the legislation, when the "projected per capita growth rate under Medicare" exceeds "the target growth rate for that year," the board is required to "develop and submit" to Congress a "proposal containing recommendations to reduce the Medicare per capita growth rate to the extent required by this section." But the legislation explicitly states that the board may not include recommendations to "ration health care," "restrict benefits," or "modify eligibility criteria." From Section 3403 of the Senate health care bill:

(ii) The proposal shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums under section 1818, 1818A, or 1839, increase Medicare beneficiary cost sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria.

Congress has authority to reject board recommendations. The bill requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to enact the board's proposals, unless "Congress enacts legislation pursuant" to the procedures laid out in the bill.

CBO confirms advisory board provision "would place a number of limitations on the actions available to the board, including a prohibition against modifying eligibility or benefits." In its December 19 analysis, the Congressional Budget Office found that the advisory board provision "would place a number of limitations on the actions available to the board, including a prohibition against modifying eligibility or benefits":

The legislation also would establish an Independent Payment Advisory Board, which would be required, under certain circumstances, to recommend changes to the Medicare program to limit the rate of growth in that program's spending. Those recommendations would go into effect automatically unless blocked by subsequent legislative action. Such recommendations would be required if the Chief Actuary for the Medicare program projected that the program's spending per beneficiary would grow more rapidly than a measure of inflation (the average of the growth rates of the consumer price index for medical services and the overall index for all urban consumers). The provision would place a number of limitations on the actions available to the board, including a prohibition against modifying eligibility or benefits, so its recommendations probably would focus on:

  • Reductions in subsidies for non-Medicare benefits offered by Medicare Advantage plans; and
  • Changes to payment rates or methodologies for services furnished in the fee-for-service sector by providers other than hospitals, physicians, hospices, and suppliers of durable medical equipment that is offered through competitive bidding.

The right-wing media's ever-shifting explanation for creation of "death panels"

CLAIM 1: End-of-life counseling provision in House bill creates a "death panel." The term "death panel" originated with Palin's statement on her Facebook page that under Democratic health care reform, "my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel.' " Palin's spokeswoman later clarified that Palin was specifically referring to the House bill's "Advance Care Planning Consultation" provision. Over the following days, conservative media figures widely adopted Palin's "death panel" term or advanced or expressed support for her assertion. Numerous media outlets subsequently debunked Palin's claim that the provision, which provides for voluntary, Medicare-subsidized end-of-life counseling sessions, created a "death panel." PolitiFact.com named Palin's statement the 2009 "Lie of the Year."

CLAIM 2: Palin "death panel" claim actually concerned Dr. Emanuel's purported position on rationing. Palin subsequently wrote in an August 12 Facebook post:

My original comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor to President Obama and the brother of the President's chief of staff. Dr. Emanuel has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens. ... An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia." Dr. Emanuel has also advocated basing medical decisions on a system which "produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated."

In a August 24 New York Times article, Jim Rutenberg explained that in a paper Emanuel wrote in 1996 for the Hastings Center bioethics institute -- which Palin cited in her Facebook post - Emanuel "laid out what he called a growing consensus among competing political philosophies about how a society should allocate health care services. In clinical terms, he said that consensus held that those who 'are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens' should not be guaranteed the same level of treatment as others." Rutenberg went on to report that "Dr. Emanuel said he was simply describing a consensus held by others, not himself."

CLAIM 3: "Rationing" makes the entire bill a "de facto" death panel. Following the debunking of Palin's original claim, the right-wing media suggested that while the House bill did not contain actual "death panels," it would have the same effect as a "death panel" through "rationing" of end-of-life care: a "de facto death panel." For example, Fox & Friends featured a discussion with Morris about a column he wrote in the New York Post alleging that Democratic health care reform proposals amount to "one giant death panel." During the segment, on-screen text read: "Defacto Death Panels? Obama Plan Could Result in Rationing." Glenn Beck also said on his Fox News show that "[t]he death panel isn't a firing squad. Sarah Palin made a point -- I guess you could say in an inflammatory way. But when you implement a government health system, as they have found out in the U.K. and everywhere else on the planet, you are left with no other choice. That's just the way it is. Rationing is inevitable, and they know it." Rush Limbaugh and Mark Steyn also adopted the claim that the entire bill amounted to a "death panel."

CLAIM 4: Mammogram guidelines are a "death panel." On the November 18 editions of their respective radio shows, Beck, Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity all linked a task force's recommendation that fewer women younger than 50 receive regular mammograms to the widely debunked smear that Democratic health reform bills include "death panels." On November 19, Palin said that the recommendations are evidence of "the death panels of government bureaucrats." But the task force's recommendations are not legally binding. Moreover, the task force encouraged policymakers to include additional considerations and "individualize decision making to the specific patient or situation." In a Nightly News report on the task force recommendations, NBC chief medical correspondent Dr. Nancy Snyderman stated: "It's important to remember that these new recommendations from this independent task force are just that -- they're recommendations. They don't mandate any changes in who should get mammograms and when."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Bad News (December 23, 2009 4:59 pm ET)
      6 4
      Sarah Palin, "The Death Panel Lady"


      Mr. News
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Bad News (December 23, 2009 5:13 pm ET)
        6 8
        Poor Sarah, Oh the importance of a Good Education.
        It can leave you with no choice but to Quit your Vocation.
        It can expose you as unqualified to Manage Sanitation.
        If lying was a Criminal Offense would Ms. Palin be on Probation?

        Speak truth to power.


        Mr. News
        Report Abuse
        • Author by soneill5880 (December 23, 2009 5:37 pm ET)
             
          Though she deserves a chapter in Shame's Annals,
          you'd think Sarah Palin would love death panels.
          She's shown the world that she is more than willin'
          to jump in planes and do some neat wolf killin'.

          p.s. If lying was a criminal offense, Ms. Palin would not be on probation—she'd be on death row. [Now THAT's a death panel!]

          Report Abuse
        • Author by bilbo_dies (December 23, 2009 9:30 pm ET)
          3 3
          Opps, thumbs down. I think someone doesn't like something you said.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (December 25, 2009 12:55 pm ET)
            1 2
            Or maybe the fact that he didn't really say much of anything at all, but simply posted first so that he could then come up with a rhyme. There were threads about Sarah Palin's lies on this subject, and she is definitely related to this, but I suspect that the thumbs down are related to people being fed up with the rhymes instead of substance and the self-promotion.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by wzwriter (December 23, 2009 5:53 pm ET)
        5 3
        The only thing that died is Caribou Barbie's brain.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by cugagcmu805031 (December 23, 2009 10:16 pm ET)
          2 2
          She's been brain dead for so long that she no longer knows the difference between her own fantasy world and reality. That's why she employs a ghostwriter. It hasn't done her any good because she's still providing the flawed outline for her FB posts.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by bilbo_dies (December 23, 2009 9:34 pm ET)
      4  
      In my fantasy world it would be possible to taser talking heads who make outrageous statements that are not backed up by facts.


      Report Abuse
      • Author by John Paradox (December 23, 2009 10:35 pm ET)
        1  
        How about a 'lie detector' that gives a shock whenever it get 'a hit'?

        Unfortunately, many of them believe the statements.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by angels4light (December 24, 2009 3:01 am ET)
           
        Better yet, put them in a chair that is connected to a power source that delivers a painful but non-lethal jolt when a lie is detected, with increasing intensity the more the lie is repeated.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by rrastro (December 23, 2009 10:09 pm ET)
      2 7
      Either somone will rule on what does not get paid, or if everything is paid expense will be a lot more than 4k/mo
      Report Abuse
      • Author by ScienceBuff (December 23, 2009 10:58 pm ET)
        8  
        Regardless of whether your simplistic description is accurate or not, the Independent Medicare Advisory Board will not serve that purpose. The conservative liars are stating that it will. As pointed out, Palin is also lying when she states that that board is what she was referring to in the first place. Liars, liars and more liars.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by rrastro (December 24, 2009 1:07 am ET)
            8
          What I said is straight out insurance (and hiding the costs in subsidies does not remove the cost)

          No death panel at all yet, if ever. However the idea of remote bureaucrats responsible to no one versus an adjuster with a boss and my state dept of insurance sure is scary
          Report Abuse
          • Author by angels4light (December 24, 2009 3:04 am ET)
               
            I know this is off-topic, but it is in response to the subsidies comment. What bugs me about this legislation is that it will result in the opposite of what was intended - that being to rein in the insurance companies. How are we reining them in by making it possible for them to reap ever greater profit, in the form of a transfer of wealth from those who earn the most directly to the insurance companies in the form of subsidies for those who earn the least? And the pharmaceutical companies, for that matter.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by n'est-ce pas (December 24, 2009 8:39 am ET)
            9  
            However the idea of remote bureaucrats responsible to no one versus an adjuster with a boss and my state dept of insurance sure is scary
            So, that's you default, right? Fear? You know, brain scans have proven that a person's rational executive function is 85% less active when they're afraid.
            ...might explain a great deal about the modern conservative movement, neh?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by rrastro (December 25, 2009 9:58 am ET)
                4
              no fear is not my default. when consumer can choose their insurance company (which you can for all type except health) bad companies take a hit. Consumers can not choose tho....
              Report Abuse
              • Author by n'est-ce pas (December 25, 2009 11:23 am ET)
                2  
                Yeah, that's called "anti-trust exemption." The conservatives put it into place 70 years ago, and it's one of the casualties of the current batch of sausage coming through the Legislature. Large insurance companies should be broken up to create the competition that inevitably drives down costs and gives choices to consumers.
                But that's not really what you're angling at, huh?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by rrastro (December 25, 2009 7:55 pm ET)
                    3
                  there is no need for additional companies. first now you are limited to whoever your employer chooses for you or you cant use your hidden income on premium. Secondly there are a dozen large companies and a couple thousand small ones like physicians health plan (PHP).

                  Obama and company are selling you a bill of goods on the 'no competition' mantra
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by n'est-ce pas (December 25, 2009 10:25 pm ET)
                    3  
                    Really. The lack of competition is health insurance is a bill of goods.
                    Blue Cross/Blue Shield owns 79% of Rhode Island health insurance policies. WellPoint owns 78% of Maine health insurance policies. Those numbers are pretty typical. In 34 states, the top two insurers control 60% or more market share. Can you say "de jure monopoly?"
                    Selling across state lines isn't a viable option, either. Opening up the states will also loosen regulation. Insurers will shop their considerable economic impact to the states willing to regulate the least. That means we all suffer because West Virginia needs the infusion of new corporate taxes and is willing to turn a blind eye on the insurance industry's worst practices. The other danger of this line or argument would manifest when large insurers began buying up their smaller competitors and merging with their peers. Like the short-line railroads in the 1890s, small and non-profit insurers would disappear into the maws of giants like Humana and WellPoint. If you weren't aware of this danger, you're not qualified to speak on this subject.
                    That leaves us with the obvious answer, the same answer that worked to break up the entrenched economic interests like AT&T and Standard Oil, break up these huge insurers and keep them that way.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by rrastro (December 26, 2009 12:47 am ET)
                        5
                      79% is far from a monopoly and the current situation more less requires you to use your employer.

                      I am aware of mergers but the thing is this: you are regulated by your domicile state and the state you do business in. I dont care if a company is in WV they WILL comply with IN law or do no business here.

                      So again, yes the lack of competition is a bill of goods and frankly 6 big competitors is better than 100000 small ones. Market dominance does not equal malfeasance or harm, especially if im allowed to buy from nobody.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by DellDolly (December 26, 2009 1:06 am ET)
                        1  
                        Again you demonstate that you don't understand this subject at all.

                        All you're doing is making a fool of yourself.

                        You claim insider knowledge because you purportedly have handled a lot of insurance claims. That insider knowledge doesn't make you any kind of an expert on the differing offerings in the USA, or in the Senate, or in the House, nor does it make you aware of the legal complications.

                        Not only that, but you seem almost incapable of directly replying to a point that people bring up - you go off on your own little tangent, and when your initial point is refuted, you ignore it and go on as though nothing ever happened.

                        It's really sad and laughable and you are thoroughly disrespected here for those actions of yours.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by rrastro (December 26, 2009 1:16 am ET)
                            3
                          you are no expert dell.

                          so am i to be insulted that unkind people do not respect me?

                          Reread my post, they are on point, just not the answer you want, boo hoo.
                          Report Abuse
                      • Author by foghornleghorn (December 26, 2009 3:08 pm ET)
                        2  
                        frankly 6 big competitors is better than 100000 small ones.

                        Tell that to the thousands of "mom and pop" stores that were forced out of business by Wal-Mart.
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by n'est-ce pas (December 26, 2009 3:57 pm ET)
                        3  
                        79% is far from a monopoly and the current situation more less requires you to use your employer.

                        That's a really weird statement. Monopoly is when a single business or a small group of businesses control a substantial enough share of the market that they dictate the terms of business in their industry. 79% is a monopoly.
                        As for the other thing, we use our employers because that's been the standard of delivery since WWII. To change that practice would be incredibly complicated and would likely result in the rolls of the uninsured increasing. There's really nothing wrong with the employer-provided model.

                        Finally, we come to "6 big competitors is better than 100,000 small ones." Oy, that's quite the statement. First, nobody ever advocated for 100,000 small competitors. That's an ad absurdum argument, and not worthy of your otherwise reasonable (if, in my opinion, completely wrong) conduct in this thread. The number would likely be more like 1,000, as each state component of the larger insurers were broken into more reasonably sized competitors. And no, less competition between large conglomerates is not better than 1,000 or even 100,000 small; that statement runs so counter to all aspects of economic theory and fiscal practice that it deserves no debate.

                        Look, let's not lose sight of the situation. 62% of all bankruptcies are caused by medical expenses. 80% of those people had health insurance. No American should ever lose everything because they got sick.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by rrastro (December 26, 2009 4:16 pm ET)
                            6
                          Agreed that no one should lose everything and if your declare bankruptcy you dont lose everything. I also question your data.

                          In insurance 80% is not enough to dictate prices. You need a high enough percentage that competitors see no advantage to low prices and a mechanism for stopping upstarts. For instance what happens when doctors use their own money to start a mutual insurer?
                          Report Abuse
                • Author by rrastro (December 26, 2009 2:07 am ET)
                    4
                  70 years ago many conservatives were democrats, or rather the solid south
                  Report Abuse
          • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (December 24, 2009 9:06 am ET)
            8  
            However the idea of remote bureaucrats responsible to no one versus an adjuster with a boss and my state dept of insurance sure is scary

            You're kidding, right? You're scared by a "remote bureaucrat"--with no incentive other than to do the job right--and are just fine with an insurance adjuster with not only a boss, but a direct pecuniary interest in denying you as much coverage as they can get away with, since his company's profits--and hence his salary and perhaps even his job--depend on denying as much coverage as possible? You scare at the strangest things, Mr Corporate-Lovin' Boy...
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Contrariandy (December 24, 2009 1:17 pm ET)
              5  
              And, if we get Conned into adopting the phony idea of buying from out of state health insurers, your state dept of insurance isn't going to be able to help you with little things like enforcement of benefits or insurer capitalization and solvency. Lot's of luck!
              Report Abuse
              • Author by rrastro (December 25, 2009 9:51 am ET)
                  5
                nice try, but to do business in my state they have to be licensed by my state doi. same with the other 49 and dc.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Contrariandy (December 25, 2009 10:54 am ET)
                  3  
                  That's the way it is now. But if the Cons allow buying health insurance plans across state lines, the insurers wouldn't have to file the plan with the DOI in your state and would not be subject to the control of your state. Insurers would file in states where the Departments of Insurance apply the least control. You're being Conned.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by rrastro (December 25, 2009 7:58 pm ET)
                      5
                    YES THEY WILL by indiana statute you have to be licensed as a foreign insurance company to play. If they dont register they are done doing business unless congress does something like ban state licensure.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Contrariandy (December 26, 2009 11:57 am ET)
                      3  
                      A company would be a foreign insurer except in the state in which they are domiciled. Under current law and regulations, they would have to be licensed in a state before they could file a program to be sold in that state. But, if they could sell across state lines, licensing and filing in your state would not be required and your DOI would have no control. If an insurer is able to price equal coverage cheaper in State A than in State B, they're not going to let someone in State B buy a price-advantaged State A plan from out of state. And, if they were forced to do so, they would increase the State A pricing and we would get some kind of homogenized national pricing level with a healthy percentage of premium taken out for administration, profit, and bonuses rather than for actual health care. You won't be able to beat the system by buying across state lines. Apparent price advantages wouldn't last.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by rrastro (December 26, 2009 4:18 pm ET)
                          4
                        you miss the true power of doi. They can wrap yopu in red tape based on your policies and how you administer claims. they can dictate all kinds of conditions to play. the feds are not that far sighted
                        Report Abuse
                • Author by DellDolly (December 25, 2009 1:02 pm ET)
                  4  
                  And if they have to be 'licensed' in your state, they have to follow the rules on the minimums that policies can cover.

                  And so they won't be any cheaper than their competitors!

                  The ONLY way that Republicans get to claim that letting insurance companies in some states sell insurance in other states is by allowing them to avoid state mandated minimums. That way, they can sell bare bones policies that only a few states allow in all the other states. That's the ONLY way they can argue (dishonestly argue, I should say) that they can help provide lower premium costs!

                  I've debunked this myth multiple times, dum-dum.

                  If you're not well-enough informed on this topic to know this fact, then you shouldn't be trying to educate US!
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by rrastro (December 25, 2009 7:59 pm ET)
                      5
                    there are no rules on coverage. the rules are on where adjusters can be located, surplus and reserves, and finally complaint resolution.

                    doi's dont exist to lower rates but to assist consumers
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by rrastro (December 25, 2009 8:14 pm ET)
                      5
                    ever priced state minimum auto coverage?
                    Report Abuse
            • Author by rrastro (December 25, 2009 9:50 am ET)
                5
              You are incorrect. Adjusters salaries are based on how quickly they clear claims. Pay the appropriate ones and deny the inappropriate ones.

              Further if a company did like you suggest indiana dept of insurance (one of the most lax) would take over the company.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by DellDolly (December 25, 2009 1:05 pm ET)
                4  
                But the rules they follow about what procedures and medical treatments, etc are covered or not covered are set by people whose paychecks ARE based upon the amount of profit that the company makes.

                And that would NOT happen for a government bureaucrat.

                Right now you have a for-profit business making rules and decisions - and you think it'd be better to have them than a person who's not concerned about making a profit, but is concerned about the health of Americans?

                If it means that I have to pay a little more so that someone gets coverage they should get, I'm okay with that - since I'm human and I have a heart. You, on the other hand, have the Grinch's heart, and only care about the jobs of people in the health insurance business.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by rrastro (December 25, 2009 8:03 pm ET)
                    5
                  ever heard of liberty MUTUAL or MUTUAL of omaha? no profits.

                  Second, 'death panel' or not there will be someone who sets the basis to deny claims or the costs (not premium or out of pocket expense) will go through the roof.

                  The executives of insurance companies set exclusions based on (in order of importance) statutes, court decisions, competitive forces, claim experience. In other words if you deny everything, you go belly up. Of course if your insureds never bother to learn their policy they think the goal is organized fraud.
                  Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (December 25, 2009 12:57 pm ET)
        4  
        But this group won't make those rulings. For a person who claims he was really intelligent at one point in his life, rrastro, you sure aren't now!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by rrastro (December 25, 2009 8:05 pm ET)
            5
          correct this group wont-- probably. Some group will however, or if no group does cost will be unmanageable. I see ads on tv saying you are limited to 50 or so catheters by medicare, and I do believe they are government run.

          ad hominem ad nauseum
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Contrariandy (December 24, 2009 1:11 pm ET)
      7  
      The Democrats should take the Conservatives at their word regarding their concern for "death panels" and rationing; apparently, the Republican Party is offering to vote for any tax increases and new taxes necessary to prevent rationing of health care from ever taking place. Bravo! It sounds like, in the spirit of Xmas, the Cons are finally taking their "Christianity" seriously and moving it from their sleeves to their hard, little hearts. Too bad they didn't join with the Dems to enforce rationing of health insurer expenses, profits, and bonuses.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by rrastro (December 25, 2009 9:54 am ET)
          5
        no i think republicans are willing to vote for anything that gets les fed control of insurance.

        I am amazed at the level of ignorance regarding insurance. You are being led down a path based upon false perceptions with a difficult turning when you discover a mess.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by DellDolly (December 25, 2009 1:07 pm ET)
          4  
          You are the one who has shown his ignorance time after time.

          You don't even know how the Republican proposal for insurance sold in differing states works!

          You have no standing for making any complaints about anyone else's lack of knowledge.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by rrastro (December 25, 2009 8:12 pm ET)
              5
            How many claims have you handled? Have you ver told someone that ten times the fatal level of oxycodone and 20 times the lethal level of morphine is excessive based on a doctors review of their records? Have you ever broken the rules to make a claim go through without proper paper work because you know the policy limits cannot even begin to cover the injury?

            My answers are 5000 features (about 2000 claims), yes and yes.

            I do n=know what the republicans propose, but it runs afoul of current state laws and doesnt matter since the only real discussion is which socialist measures pass.

            Last dell...I said you were ignorant, unlearned not stupid as you have repeatedly called my self among others. Yet again, I deny to give power and credibility.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by DellDolly (December 26, 2009 1:01 am ET)
              4  
              The number of claims I have handled is totally, 100% irrelevant to the discussion about who has more self-interest in approving or denying claims!!! This is not rocket science, yet despite the fact that this has been explained to you many times, you still don't get it. That's your shortcoming, not ours.

              And if you don't know that the Republicans have recently proposed, then you shouldn't talk about their initiative as though you do know. And since there are no restrictions currently that prevent insurance companies from selling insurance in a variety of states, the ONLY thing that is relevant to this discussion IS their idea of allowing insurance policies that are allowed in some states to be sold in other states where they wouldn't normally be allowed to be sold because they wouldn't fulfill basic minimums! Insurance companies are already ALLOWED to go into states they currently aren't in and sell insurance! They CHOOSE to not do so, but they could if they wanted to!

              The Republicans are willing to cede states's rights to the federal gov't to push their 'let insurance policies from less restrictive states be sold in more restrictive states' suggestion in order to CLAIM that they are looking to help the average joe pay lower insurance premiums.

              I have never shown myself to be ignorant or stupid. I am intelligent, and I don't talk about topics I am uninformed about.

              And you have repeatedly, almost exclusively, identified yourself as both ignorant and stupid. That's your burden to bear.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by rrastro (December 26, 2009 1:23 am ET)
                  6
                I have been labeled ignorant and stupid by you dell.

                The bill you talk about is still born and I suspect not supported by more than a few moderates.

                As mentioned state licensure and doi are limits. even if states cant set minimum standards they can force companies out by very strict enforcement of rules regarding surplus, reserves and complaint resolution. Ever hear of zero tolerance?

                No dell, as long as I dont celebrate people like dole and swoon for obama, I will get no respect here, nor courtesy. Not that rudeness ever made anyone pick a side....
                Report Abuse
        • Author by Contrariandy (December 26, 2009 7:07 am ET)
          2  
          1. I was being sarcastic.
          2. I know how insurance regulation works and how they would get around it. Where they can't get around it, they won't play.
          3. You trust too much in the not-for-free market. It's failed our society in regard to health care. We can't afford to let the insurers keep half a trillion dollar$ a year of our insurance premiums.
          4. Medicare-for-all will be necessary because it is far more cost efficient; our society could pay far less in total with no rationing and no paperwork once we are willing to collect our health insurance premiums through Medicare.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Contrariandy (December 26, 2009 7:08 am ET)
             
          1. I was being sarcastic.
          2. I know how insurance regulation works and how they would get around it. Where they can't get around it, they won't play.
          3. You trust too much in the not-for-free market. It's failed our society in regard to health care. We can't afford to let the insurers keep half a trillion dollar$ a year of our insurance premiums.
          4. Medicare-for-all will be necessary because it is far more cost efficient; our society could pay far less in total with no rationing and no paperwork once we are willing to collect our health insurance premiums through Medicare.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by Contrariandy (December 26, 2009 11:38 am ET)
        1  
        Literalists may not understand that I was just being contrarian and sarcastic.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by neckcarjim (December 25, 2009 7:18 am ET)
         
      Now that the tyrannical Obama administration and the congress see fit to mandate health insurance to the American people I would like to put out the next top five mandates that the people will be required to follow.

      5. All Americans who are 10% over their government mandated body weight shall be forced to watch NBC’s Biggest Loser.

      4. All work places shall unionize and be under the direction of Andy Stern and SEIU.

      3. All women who gives birth to a child shall have a tubal ligation after the birth so that we may control the population. (Climate Change)

      2. All Americans are now required to own a General Motors or Chrysler
      electric car.

      1. All oaths of office will no longer have the word Constitution in it this will now be changed to “Government” .

      "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the fact that government knows what is best for the people of the United States."
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.

  • Dick Morris
    Dick Morris
  • The Weekly Standard
    Weekly Standard

    The Weekly Standard
    1150 17th Street, NW
    Suite 505
    Washington, DC 20036