For putting these cases together.

For the past few years (since I watched "Sicko"), I've been pointing out to people who object to government health care "rationing" that their private insurers are already doing so - in spades.

I don't know why, but it always seems to come as a complete shock when they make the connection. Too much trust in the system and not enough skepticism, I suppose.

Seems like a lot of folks will believe anything a guy in a suit tells them.

OT

I am glad someone is reading my posts and taking them seriously.

These are sad stories and things like this should not happen. Nonetheless, there is no argument in here that cannot be fixed with re regulation of the insurance industry (cover everyone, help poor pay, portability, individual tax deduction, and increased competition across state lines) and possibly a slight tax increase.

Nothing in this article screams that a public option is a necessity. Therefore, why are many of the Dems in Congress insisting that the reform must include a public option when they know that is a non starter for Blue Dogs and Repblicans? Seems to me that the left can solve all the problems on the table (which everyone wants) and walk away with a win by giving up the public option, but they are pushing it. Why? More power? Socialism? Who knows. But that is the root cause of all the pushback.

I pray that cooler heads prevail and a public option is removed, but that the new insurance regulations are thoughtful and work.

And as we all know, everything that's a result of the free market is inherently good. That's the normal line the right gives, isn't it?

Insurance companies ARE death panels, which is the whole reason why we need health care reform!

The problem inherent in the private health insurance industry, being controlled by bean counters rather than physicians, is that the people who most desperately need coverage are the people who are least likely to

a) have their medical treatments be approved for coverage by their HMO, or

b) be accepted into an insurance program.

The government would not be running health care for the country. The goal of the public option is to provide more choice -- people can stick with a private plan or opt for the federal plan. And the CBO analysts confirmed that a public option will not drive private companies out of the marketplace.

As for Palin, she is more interested in keeping her name in the press by spewing her typical fear-inciting hyperbole than she is in contributing any meaningful, substantive input to a serious, rational discussion on health care reform legislation.

I simply do not get it. Why aren't we marching in the streets for health care? I've seen minimal notice of marches that have happened but no preplanning of any in different areas. I've also seen the websites for a march in Washington D.C. Well, most people cannot afford to go to Washington D.C. We need them locally in big cities in each state.

This is just fricking crazy! All the liberal organizations I get email from, I NEVER hear anything about this. Or I get an email AFTER THE FACT! AFTER THE TINY LITTLE MARCH HAS HAPPENED. No wonder it was the turnout was small, no one knew about it to be able to show up. The ones I have written say "oh, we're now planning this other meeting to talk about it. blah, blah, blah. The time for talk is OVER! And no media outlet is going to see a stupid meeting. WE NEED TO BE MARCHING IN THE FUCKING STREETS! Not just meeting with each other or writing posts to echo chamber websites pretending that our stupids posts or just complaining to each other is doing anything for real.

God Damn, people are dying here! And the Republicans are winning in this area by organizing people and getting them out there. We need to be shouting louder then they do in the streets!

Anybody with any real organization who is actually doing exactly this, please post.

You say that you "pray" any regulations in new healthcare legislation will work. But you don't have to pray that a public option would force the private insurers to mend their own broken, wasteful system, because conservatives and liberals already agree the public option would give them a run for their money. Liberals think this is a good thing, and of course, the conservatives say it "isn't fair" for the private sector to have to compete against the public sector. But both sides already know that a public option would force the private insurers to change up how they currently do business. You don't need regulations to make them stop paying their administrative officials millions of dollars a year in salary and bonuses. You just have to make them compete with a system where administration costs are drastically lower.

Here's what you need to know about the Death Panel:

http://open.salon.com/blog/robert666/2009/07/23/the_hal_between_you_and_your_doctor

Republicans criticize the Democrats' health plans because they will ration or deny care. As this article points out, we do this already.

Democrats say their new plan won't have any rationing or denial of care. They're lying too.

In order to be fiscally sound, every health plan has to have some form of rationing or denial of care. You can't give everything to everyone and still pay the bills.

We need both parties to be honest about rationing and denial of care. Those on the right need to admit that we have rationing now. Those on the left need to admit that any new plan they propose will also have rationing. Then we can start a much-needed national debate about what kind of rationing we should have, instead of perpetuating the fantasy that we do, or will, or can, have a health system where everybody gets everything all the time.

Britain's NICE is, in my opinion, a more rational and transparent way of rationing. They review different forms of care to determine what gives the best value for the resources spent. That system is not without controversy, and not without its own tragedies and controversies.

Ultimately we are all going to get sick and we are all going to die. No health system can give us immortality. If we're up front and above board about what we're willing to pay for and what we're not, and now we intend to make such decisions, we will be a lot better off than the informal system of ad-hoc, piecemeal, opaque rationing that we have now.