Team Obama keeps insisting that ObamaCare or any kind of nationalized health care is NOT going to deny treatment and allow people who would otherwise live, die.
That is a lie.
Here is Obama himself answering the question of a woman whose mother had a pacemaker installed at age 100 - after the first surgeon said she was too old. She's now 105.
Apparently he did not anticipate that this would become a big issue and answered truthfully, trying to appear to be a prudent manager of health care resources. Now he's denying that he meant what he said.
Exaggeration? Here's what happened under the British national health care system. (via Instapundit)
That is a lie.
Here is Obama himself answering the question of a woman whose mother had a pacemaker installed at age 100 - after the first surgeon said she was too old. She's now 105.
Apparently he did not anticipate that this would become a big issue and answered truthfully, trying to appear to be a prudent manager of health care resources. Now he's denying that he meant what he said.
Exaggeration? Here's what happened under the British national health care system. (via Instapundit)
BRITISH HEALTH CARE: “A MUM suffering chest pains died in front of her young son hours after being sent home from hospital and told to take painkillers. Debra Beavers, 39, phoned NHS 24 twice in two days before getting a hospital appointment. But a doctor gave what her family described as a cursory examination lasting 11 minutes, before advising her to buy over-the-counter medicine Ibuprofen.”
How is the British health care system responding? There is an amazing similarity to Obama's response:
NHS 24 executive nurse director Eunice Muir said: "We can confirm Ms Beavers contacted NHS 24 and that her onward referral was managed safely and appropriately.
The government health care system did the right thing for the government health care system. It will not be spending any more money on Debra Beavers. Don't like the result? Tough.
7 comments:
Hey Ted Kennedy, don't worry about that brain tumor, just take two aspirin and go sailing.
You guys are SO ignorant. While I had my "cadillac" coverage, I had a disc in my neck blow. So I went to the E.R. They told me I had a brain tumor and I'd die soon. They left me thinking that for two hours, THEN a neurologist came in to re-assess. Once I was out of surgery, the plan I had bulked up my deductable, had the audacity to send me a packet asking for home owners insurance info, car insurance info and statements from friends or family. My disc problem was just spontaneous, no underlying problem. My point is, you can pay them $15,000 a year, and you're STILL not "covered", so stop playing the sad fiddle for these greedy, corrupt insurance companies. Just the other day at a town hall meeting, a senator asked who in the audience was on medicare. Then she asked who was willing to give it up. Not ONE hand went up! Socialism my ass. You know what "socialism" is? It funds your police dept., fire dept., and your troops. But you don't mind that do you? How much would Jesus' co-pay be for healing lepers?? Read a book and turn Glen Beck off, kind of like his advertisers are.
The bottom line is that a FOR-PROFIT health insurance company is always going to have far more incentive to deny coverage to someone than the government will have.
Sure, you can find examples of the British health care system making mistakes, but are you trying to say that our current health care system doesn't make mistakes? And that's not counting the 22,000 people who die every year because they don't have health insurance.
And finally, why do you keep calling Obama's plan "nationalized health care" and comparing it to the British system? In the UK, which has "nationalized health care", doctors work for the government. Nobody is proposing that for the US. Even single payer (what they have in Canada, which Obama is definitely not proposing) would leave health care in the hands of private doctors and hospitals.
At least with the insurance companies you have legal recourse. With the government you will not have that avenue. As far as the government not owning the hospitals or employing the doctors, how long do you think hat will last after the government takes over healthcare?
Anonymous said "At least with the insurance companies you have legal recourse. With the government you will not have that avenue. "
Yeah, good luck suing your insurance company anonymous after coverage has been denied and you're dying and/or out of work.
Iron Knee: If the government-run insurance plan has less incentive to deny coverage than private plans, then why does Medicare have the highest claim-rejection rate of any insurance provider in the country?
Fact is, if a private insurance company rejects too many claims for shaky reasons, word leaks out and people start looking for a different provider. With a government plan though, you're stuck with it and they will cheerfully send out men with guns to make sure the premiums are paid by whoever is paying them.
The solution to the problem of bad insurance companies is to reduce the idiotic levels of regulation and make it easier to start new ones. That way you'd have more choices if you don't like your current provider.
Really good job of pulling a quote out of context and making it say the opposite of what was intended. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/03/dan-lungren/lungren-says-obama-would-have-government-require-c/ Obama states quite clearly in his comments that bureaucrats should not be making these decisions but should be facilitating doctors, patients and families making appropriate choices.
Then you pull out some anecdata about an early middle-aged woman in the UK getting inadequate treatment for her chest pains. This is not a problem with the NHS but rather a problem with medical practice in general. There are multiple studies that have shown that women complaining of chest pains are treated less aggressively than men IN THE USA!
Post a Comment