Tree of Eden

Palin’s stance is “downright evil” – Reuters provides Proof

Posted in Uncategorized by T.Salami on September 5, 2009

Palins anti-health reform stance downright evil?

anti national health care stance is 'down right evil'?

Here is proof that Palin’s anti national health care stance is ‘down right evil’. It inexplicable how Palin calls an attempt to prevent the following tragic circumstances from occuring again “downright evil”.

California’s Real Death Panels: Insurers Deny 21% of Claims via Reuters.com
OAKLAND, Calif., Sept. 2 /PRNewswire/ — More than one of every five requests for medical claims for insured patients, even when recommended by a patient’s physician, are rejected by California’s largest private insurers, amounting to very real death panels in practice daily in the nation’s biggest state, according to data released today by the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee.
CNA/NNOC researchers analyzed data reported by the insurers to the California Department of Managed Care. From 2002 through June 30, 2009, the six largest insurers operating in California rejected 31.2 million claims for care – 21 percent of all claims.

Alarmingly some deaths were caused -and could have been prevented- when an insurance company (PacifiCare) refused to cover health costs but then recanted this position; however changing too late and resulting in patient deaths.

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.
PacifiCare, for example, denied a special procedure for treatment of bone cancer for Nick Colombo, a 17-year-old teen from Placentia, Calif. Again, after protests organized by Nick’s family and friends, CNA/NNOC, and netroots activists, PacifiCare reversed its decision. But like Nataline Sarkisyan, the delay resulted in critical time lost, and Nick ultimately died. “This was his last effort and the procedure had worked before with people in Nick’s situation,” said his older brother Ricky.

Thus death brought about by rejection and why do rejections occur?

Rejection of care is a very lucrative business for the insurance giants. The top 18 insurance giants racked up $15.9 billion in profits last year.
“The routine denial of care by private insurers is like the elephant in the room no one in the present national healthcare debate seems to want to talk about,” Burger said.”Nothing in any of the major bills advancing in the Senate or House or proposed by the administration would challenge this practice.”
“The United States remains the only country in the industrialized world where human lives are sacrificed for private profit, a national disgrace that seems on the verge of perpetuation,” she said.

The rest of the report is just as explosive. Read it here.

I would argue that Palin knew very little of what she spoke off when she made the “downright evil” statement.

Advertisements

12 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. […] Palin’s stance is “downright evil” – Reuters provides Proof […]

  2. Sonic Charmer said, on September 5, 2009 at 9:23 am

    And things would be so much better if it were the government making these sorts of decisions?

    • rilwan said, on September 5, 2009 at 2:09 pm

      It will be better to the point that these deaths could be avoided.

      The crucial question is how to prevent such deaths from occurring again. That is the question. A capitalist healthcare system does not place the health of the individual as a priority rather it is profits that are a priority. It is thus Profits OR Health. if you want the best health care system you want a system that makes the health of an individual the first priority above anything else.

      Sure national health care system will have problems everything does but the current system does not and will not make the health of individuals a priority.

      Like your blog by the way.

  3. Sonic Charmer said, on September 6, 2009 at 4:52 pm

    Thanks.

    What evidence is there that these deaths would be avoided with the government in charge?

    ‘Capitalist’ or not, health care is a finite resource with infinite demand. So it WILL be rationed one way or another. What makes you so sure government would ration it in a better way?

    • rilwan said, on September 7, 2009 at 4:32 am

      You are right. Healthcare WILL be rationed.

      Crucially however, the criteria for rationing WILL be humanistic – as it won’t be: “how much money a person has”, their age and the other numerous discriminatory methods insurance companies employ.

      But Healthcare WILL be rationed according to one crucial criteria and that is: the urgency of cases – and this WILL not be determined by Government.

      Government simply acts as financial caretaker to the system but the hospitals themselves are run by the same quality trained medical professionals that run them today- a sample of which this article shows want a national healthcare system.

      Second, if these quality-trained medical professionals identify the urgent cases, it is hard to foresee such deaths occurring again due to the ‘profit motive’ simply because a national healthcare system is allowed to prioritize these cases over other less urgent ones.

      Now not everyone might like that, but it would do a better job preventing such deaths. And at the least you get a basic national healthcare system while those who can afford it can go to the private hospitals.

      In the end, its a Win-Win scenario isn’t it?

  4. Sonic Charmer said, on September 7, 2009 at 9:56 am

    You are right. Healthcare WILL be rationed.

    Crucially however, the criteria for rationing WILL be humanistic

    Again: how do you know that?

    It seems that something about government allows people to just make up fantasies. You wish (understandably enough, I guess) that healthcare were rationed according to something called ‘humanistic’ criteria, and you assume that if the government were to control it, that’s what would happen. Obviously when the government controls things it all goes according to your wishes. (?)

    Government simply acts as financial caretaker to the system but the hospitals themselves are run by the same quality trained medical professionals that run them today-

    More made-up fantasy. This has no basis in fact.

    Second, if these quality-trained medical professionals identify the urgent cases, it is hard to foresee such deaths occurring again due to the ‘profit motive’ simply because a national healthcare system is allowed to prioritize these cases over other less urgent ones.

    Regardless, there will be rationing. As you’ve agreed.

    In the end, its a Win-Win scenario isn’t it?

    No. It’s taking from me, so that you can indulge a fantasy. Which, properly understood, is lose-lose.

    • rilwan said, on September 8, 2009 at 8:08 am

      I find the way you argue to be quite interesting. I think we need to establish our values here.

      “No. It’s taking from me, so that you can indulge a fantasy. Which, properly understood, is lose-lose.”

      1.Question for you since you are a facts sort off person, do you know the health costs per individual in the U.S. and compared to other “industrialized” countries of the world? If you do, tell me who is indugling in a fantasy.

      2. Expecting you to know what the average health costs per American is, if you were given an opportunity to save lives or to help other Americans in need, and who request assistance would you?

      3. Are you interested in health reform or support the status quo? If interested in reform how would you reform the health system?

      I think these questions will establish our values.

      Here is my response to your points/question.

      how do you know that?

      From reading about other health systems in the world. If you think America’s system could not learn from others around the world then kindly go check the numbers again.

      More made-up fantasy. This has no basis in fact

      Again from research, it is more likely that what I described will be the case.

      Regardless, there will be rationing. As you’ve agreed

      I have agreed there will be rationing. But what is not clear to me is what you feel the criteria for rationing should be. Please enlighten me.

      The floor is all yours.

  5. Sonic Charmer said, on September 8, 2009 at 9:18 pm

    1.Question for you since you are a facts sort off person, do you know the health costs per individual in the U.S. and compared to other “industrialized” countries of the world? If you do, tell me who is indugling in a fantasy.

    Offhand, I don’t know exact numbers, but I’m sure you’re going to tell me that the Health Costs Per Individual in the U.S. is higher than in other industrialized countries, and I would not dispute this.

    Why? What do you think this bare statistic proves?

    2. Expecting you to know what the average health costs per American is, if you were given an opportunity to save lives or to help other Americans in need, and who request assistance would you?

    Within reason, I reckon so. What does this have to do with anything? Note: “opportunity to help” is not the same thing as “salary gets garnished by force, and distributed according to the whims of bureaucrats”.

    3. Are you interested in health reform or support the status quo? If interested in reform how would you reform the health system?

    I am interested in health reform, in the sense of making our health care market better. (In that sense, I am interested in [insert anything here] reform.)

    Almost none of the things currently being bandied about would make the health care market better, in my opinion.

    You ask how I would reform the health care system:

    -delink insurance from employment by removing the employer tax credit

    -allow insurance to be purchased across state lines

    -relax restrictions on who can provide health care (i.e. nurse-led clinics for minor things should be fine)

    -eliminate any ‘minimal-coverage’ requirements for what can/can’t be covered by health plans (i.e. it should be possible to buy a cheap, catastrophe-only health coverage)

    [ how do you know that? ]

    From reading about other health systems in the world. If you think America’s system could not learn from others around the world then kindly go check the numbers again.

    I never said American’s system ‘could not learn from others’. Everyone could learn from everyone else, in theory, depending on the context… The specific thing I asked you ‘how do you know’, however, was the claim that under a government plan, the criteria ‘will be humanistic’. I don’t see how you can ‘know’ this from looking at other systems. Are all government health care systems perfectly ‘humanistic’? Are any?

    Come to think of it though, this was a poor tack for me to take. What I really should have done was to ask you what ‘humanistic’ means exactly, in the context of health care. It’s a very ambiguous term, and I’m not sure I’m at all comforted by the notion of ‘humanistic rationing’ now that I think about it, even if that’s what would come to pass… I suspect that in practice ‘humanistic’ would just mean ‘whatever gets decided by some panel of people who have lots of degrees, high salaries, and who think they are very nice people’.

    But what is not clear to me is what you feel the criteria for rationing should be. Please enlighten me.

    Most goods/services that humans provide to each other are rationed according to the price signal. Apart from a bare-bones safety net, I don’t see any reason why ‘health care’ should be a special exception. Best,

  6. rilwan said, on September 10, 2009 at 1:29 am

    I hope you watched the speech yesterday.

    I haven’t had a chance to respond to your last round but in time I will.

    His speech was poignant in demonstrating my basic position as regards health care which is that: ‘the market’ is not by any means as perfect as it is made out to seem and not singularly equipped to provide health care to ALL Americans

    The ‘market’ good is good in providing somethings but not good in providing others like the other public services in any neighborhood.

    Government intervention (and I am inclined to believe that you hate that word, but correct me if I am wrong) is sometimes very necessary.

    And when it comes to the health of Americans government intervention is badly needed.

    As we saw market was not even well equipped to control the excesses of the capitalists and financiers.

    If government intervened to save the bellies of the rich I am sure that it would be only decent of it to assist the vulnerable as well.

    Lets not be ideologues. Some things ‘the market’ is good for. Other things it just isn’t.

    My thoughts anyways now yours?

  7. Sonic Charmer said, on September 10, 2009 at 6:40 am

    I hope you watched the speech yesterday.

    I did not.

    ‘the market’ is not by any means as perfect as it is made out to seem

    Nobody makes out the market to be perfect. The market doesn’t have to be ‘perfect’ to be better than alternatives.

    and not singularly equipped to provide health care to ALL Americans … The ‘market’ good is good in providing somethings but not good in providing others like the other public services in any neighborhood.

    The fact (which I don’t dispute) that the market is not equipped to provide health care to “ALL” Americans is not an argument for nationalized health care. It is an argument for charity, and a safety net – both of which we already have.

    And when it comes to the health of Americans government intervention is badly needed.

    Why’s that exactly?

    As we saw market was not even well equipped to control the excesses of the capitalists and financiers.

    You seem to be under the impression that “capitalists and financiers” have been subject only to control via “the market” and not via government. You are grossly mistaken. In any event the analogy you intend here is quite vague and hand-wavy.

    If government intervened to save the bellies of the rich I am sure that it would be only decent of it to assist the vulnerable as well.

    I was tremendously opposed to all the financial bailouts and “stimulus”‘es of the past year. (Were you?) So I am not beholden to this attempt at a good-for-the-goose-good-for-the-gander argument.

    Lets not be ideologues. Some things ‘the market’ is good for. Other things it just isn’t.

    I don’t disagree. But again, this is not an argument for nationalized health care or anything of the sort. So, take your own advice: don’t be an ideologue, and cease agitating for one.

  8. rilwan said, on September 10, 2009 at 10:05 pm

    You know what Sonic, oranges and apples don’t mix….at least not yet they don’t. And you and I see the world differently.

    I believe that the people make the government and government is and should be responsible to the people – even the vulnerable – which means that when they ask and/or need assistance that government should provide an assured means of assistance.

    You believe the uninsured should get assistance from charity. Understandable, but charity is charity and is neither assured, palatable nor humanizing and if you really wanted to you would consider a government sponsored health system to be in itself a form of charity.

    Besides your safety net argument fails to explain why millions of Americans are left without health insurance.

    I’ve drawn my line in the sand.

    You can send the people to the wolves but I would rather see those who need help be assured of it and not become the victims of failed systems, created based on our limited understanding of social systems – in this case the rationalist economics that you so readily preach – which exists only in the ideal world and the classroom.

    And while you are not beholden to the goose-gander argument it will and shall always exist irrespective of your perspective.

    And regarding the financial bailout package, I wasn’t supportive of bailing out institutions that gave away as bonuses and raises, taxpayers money.

    But I will be very supportive of having taxpayers money cater to those in need.

    Need vs want – that is the crucial difference.

    Call me what you want but this stance would be my definition of what humanism means.

    Take care and Good luck.

  9. Sonic Charmer said, on September 11, 2009 at 12:48 am

    You believe the uninsured should get assistance from charity. Understandable, but charity is charity and is neither assured, palatable nor humanizing

    -I didn’t say the uninsured “should get assistance from charity” (although if they can, shouldn’t they?). I simply mentioned both charity and a safety net as being weapons that can be used to combat the problem of not everyone being able to afford health care. Are they not?

    -No, charity is not assured. Nothing is “assured”. This is life.

    -“palatable”? Are we getting picky and proud about how we get people health care they badly need? Sounds pretty self-centered. Well, I’m concerned about outcome not “palatability”.

    -not humanizing? I couldn’t disagree more, charity is one of the most humanizing things in the world. Was Mother Teresa not humanizing? Weird thing to say.

    and if you really wanted to you would consider a government sponsored health system to be in itself a form of charity.

    This is like saying ‘if you really wanted to you could consider a circle to be a square’. I suppose… however, I prefer to use words according to their actual meaning. Charity by definition is voluntary. Forcible transfer payments by definition cannot be charity. These are words and they have definitions. You can’t just use them any way you want.

    Besides your safety net argument fails to explain why millions of Americans are left without health insurance.

    No it doesn’t. Now you seem really confused. Yes some number of people don’t have health insurance. Hence they would fall into the purview of being covered by the safety net. That’s what the safety net is for. What else exactly do you think the safety net is supposed to do? Your statement here is like complaining that unemployment-insurance doesn’t work because there are still millions of unemployed people. This seems to miss the point of what safety nets are actually for.

    And while you are not beholden to the goose-gander argument it will and shall always exist irrespective of your perspective.

    Lots of bad arguments ‘exist’, yes. I don’t know why this fact alone should compel me to believe or respect them.

    I’ve drawn my line in the sand.

    You can send the people to the wolves but […]

    ???

    The remainder of your post descends into rhetoric and contains little substantive content worth responding to. So I’ll leave it here. Best,


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: