(Prolifer)ations 8-24-10
by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN
- Wesley J. Smith points out a New York Times column which condemns health care rationing “fear mongers” while advocating for health care rationing. Pathetic, but hilarious.
- Barbara at Mommy Life discusses her boycott efforts after receiving the latest list of Planned Parenthood corporate supporters from Life Decisions Int’l. Some companies responded to the list, stating they do not support PP directly – but they support charities like Komen’s Race for the Cure, which funds PP.
- Bryan Kemper discusses a “pro-choice” reminiscent article on a Christian website from someone who claims to be opposed to abortion but resists being called “pro-life.” Bryan responds, “It seems to me that you say you’re against abortion but you would rather not have to act on it so you just make false, outrageous claims against the pro-life movement.”
- Andy at Star Studded Superstep contrasts the outrage toward aborting calves in New Zealand with the apathy toward aborting 18k humans annually.
- ProWomanProLife asks, “when does motherhood begin?”
- Pro-Life Action League reports on the ACLU’s mixed messages regarding abortion, free speech, and parental notification.
Aug.24, 2010 3:30 pm |
Blogs |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
The Wesley Smith blog misses the difference between rationing and pointing people towards best care.
LOL. When feds determine (or in EGV speak “point people toward”) the “best care,” that’s rationing from the top down. The NYT piece notes that Berwick wants to use CER data to determine which medications/procedures are cost-efficient. Budget friendly treatments aren’t necessarily the most effective treatments or the most prudent treatment for a given patient. When cost overrides other clinical decision making factors, that’s rationing. The other problem is that research is often funded by groups seeking a favorable outcome for a particular drug or device, which opens the door to others who seek financial gain having more say in what your insurance policy covers than you do.
I can’t wait until Election Day 2010. I’ll be beaming from ear to ear as I cast my vote against every one of my reps who voted for PPACA.
So, if “cost overrides other clinical decision making factors” means rationing – what happens when private companies drive the decision making factors? Not rationing? They all just open up a blank checkbook?
Oh wait, I’ll just ask my friend who couldn’t get coverage because of a pre-existing condition – I’m sure she’ll have a great definition of rationing for me.
If health care reform had permitted or, dare I say it, encouraged private insurance companies to offer a flexible array of benefits instead of dictating what benefits are to be covered, your friend would have been able to select a plan covering what she needs. She wouldn’t be subject to federal dictates based on cost-efficiency and other factors. If she requires an expensive drug, for example, her newfound coverage under Obamacare isn’t going to help her unless she is able to meet her deductible and the feds have approved the drug for her based on her diagnosis and any other factors they want to throw into the protocol for care. Coverage under PPACA doesn’t mean your friend will have access to care or will receive the form of care she seeks. Has your friend applied for coverage under the new PCIP program?
If you think federalized hellth scare is a good think, just wait til federalized ‘daycare’ arrives.
<a href=”http://s575.photobucket.com/albums/ss198/kbhvac/?action=view¤t=elian_gonzalez.jpg” target=”_blank”><img src=”http://i575.photobucket.com/albums/ss198/kbhvac/elian_gonzalez.jpg” border=”0″ alt=”Elian Gonzalez”></a>
Ex-GOP Voter August 24th, 2010 at 10:11 pm
“Oh wait, I’ll just ask my friend who couldn’t get coverage because of a pre-existing condition – I’m sure she’ll have a great definition of rationing for me.”
==============================================================
RINO,
It appears that you are operating under the illusion that ‘health care’ is a basic human right or entitlment.
I know that socialists believe that it should be a right, but they cannot find this right in the United States Constitution or their respective state constitutions.
Health care is a ‘commodity’ which we purchase when we need it.
The free market provides many different alternatives to pay for health care. Health insurance is just one of them. [I once payed for wifes pre-natal care in firewood.]
Your ‘friend’ is not prevented from purchasing health care because of her ‘pre-existing’ sickness except by her inability and/or unwillingness to pay for it.
What you want is for me to pay for her health care and you want to use the power of the state to extract the wealth from me.
Why don’t YOU pay for your friends health care?
The inherent and unescapable problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other peoples money to steal and spend and/or at some point the victims of your thievery come to their senses and say, “No mas.”
Excellent information at the Mommy Life link above regarding the Komen Foundation’s funding of Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the U.S.
The Fall season is an important fundraising time of the year for SG Komen. High schools and colleges sponsor “For the Cure” volleyball tournaments (many schools ARE CATHOLIC!) and many sports enthusiasts are unknowingly supporting Komen/ABORTION.
Check with your local school’s athletic department and suggest other charities to receive the donations which don’t support Planned Parenthood/abortion. There are suggestions at a link provided at Mommy Life.
FedUp – are you talking about the thought of deregulating plans and letting competition happen between states?
Ken – She could not get insurance because companies would not accept her. It wasn’t a matter of money.
And yes – health care isn’t a fundamental right – but I think it is stupid public policy to not have it as such. We’ll cover all old people…we’ll pay for anybody if they are near death – we just won’t pay for them to keep them in good health along the way. So you are right, it is not a fundamental right, but it is short-sighted and stupid policy.
RINO,
Most ‘old’ people or their spouse, who qualify for medicare and medicaid have paid into the system all their working life. They were forced to pay the government mandated premium and the are ‘entitled’ to the benefit.
I believe you are mistaken about your friends situation. If she could pay the premium the insurance company demands then she could buy ‘insurance’ to cover her health care costs.
Either she can’t or won’t pay the premium or she is unwilling to buy insurance which excludes coverage for her pre-exisitng condition, but may cover other illnesses or conditions which does not presently have.
Insurance providers are for-profit corporations, not charitable organizations.
You could start your own health insurance company and make the decision to insure anybody and everybody, regardless of their phyical condition.
But in order to stay in business and provide coverage for everyone, your premiums would be so high no one could afford your insurance and you would go bankrupt in short order unless you had someone to keep a steady infusion of cash coming into your company or you could print your own money.
Oh wait. I have just described the federal government and social security. or the b o hellth scare scam.
Or you could start setting traps to capture fairy god mothers, genies, or leprechauns and they could magically make the money appear whenever you neede or wanted it.
Either she can’t or won’t pay the premium or she is unwilling to buy insurance which excludes coverage for her pre-exisitng condition, but may cover other illnesses or conditions which does not presently have.
Hi Ken. I understand what you’re saying, but it isn’t that simple for a lot of people. If this woman pays a premium for a policy that doesn’t cover her preexisting condition, it’s true she may have coverage for some of her needs. But remember she’s probably looking at a fairly high premium because of the preexisting condition.
On top of this, she may be in a position of having to finance ongoing care and prescription costs if her preexisting condition(s) are chronic and require continued treatment. She may be paying off debt from care she received after losing coverage. Not everyone has the resources to afford debt payoff, costs of current care/medications, and high monthly premiums on top of that.
If something has to go, it’s often the monthly premium because the docs she’s currently seeing want to be paid and so does the bank or the credit card company if she’s paying off prior debts from medical care. This is the trap that catches a lot of people. They could afford the premium if they weren’t having to finance ongoing care on top of it and/or pay off costs of prior care.
Good ol’ PPACA hasn’t forgotten her though. Before she can claim a tax deduction for her medical expenses, her threshhold will rise from 7.5% to 10% of her gross adjusted income. Those progressives think of everything, don’t they?
There are a number of fairly simple things that health care reform could have done to immediately assist this woman but unfortunately, helping people like her wasn’t the goal. If it had been, this woman would now be able to access care (paying out of pocket) at reduced rates such as those negotiated with providers by the large insurance companies. As it is, she’s forced to pay the very highest rates for care. They could have lowered the threshhold she has to meet for a tax deduction for medical expenses until reform kicks in in 2014. These are just a few of the things that could have been done to assist her now, not in 2014. But people like her were just propaganda pawns that got trotted out for cost-shifting and restructuring to pave the way for single payer.
FedUp –
She’s pretty excited quite frankly. She has coverage now, but is glad others won’t fall into the same pre-existing condition trap. The couple points in the change in any sort of deduction has never been in issue brought up – she’s healthy now so her spending isn’t high – it is simply an issue of getting coverage at all that’s stumped her.
Ken –
See – everyone wants there on welfare and is mad about everybody else’s entitlement programs!
She’s pretty excited quite frankly.
Well, gee, if she has coverage and isn’t spending a lot, no wonder she’s excited. She didn’t need PPACA after all. The current system met her needs. Imagine that!
She has coverage now, but is glad others won’t fall into the same pre-existing condition trap.
If she is a PPACA supporter, how very generous of her to support dismantling the very system that allowed her to find coverage but force others to wait until 2014.
The couple points in the change in any sort of deduction has never been in issue brought up
No doubt her failure to mention it is a great comfort to those for whom it is an issue.
In any case, thank you for demonstrating that the massive reforms of PPACA weren’t necessary to help your friend.
FedUp – Don’t be an a** – she’s a good friend of mine and went through years of cancer (as a teenager) and horrible times. She hit the max cap when she was insured, and after getting married, wasn’t insurable for a long time. The mere fact that she finally broke through and found coverage doesn’t mean the system works.
Again – reform is not going to solve everything – but these stories aren’t few and far between.
I know, I shouldn’t throw out examples I’m going to be sensitive about, but this whole “well great, the system works even though she went through hell and back”. That’s just crap and you are usually better than that.
“well great, the system works even though she went through hell and back”.
Please don’t put words in my mouth, EGV. I merely stated what you pointed out. She found coverage under the current system and, according to your description, was excited for others despite the fact that reform won’t impact them for years. I have a difficult time fathoming support for a law that imposes a years-long delay on people who need reform now. Of all people, I would hope that someone formerly uninsured would be advocating for timely reform. But what do I know? I’m just an ass :)
Just what I have been thinking. Your writing was 100% correct. To get your lover back is not the easiest of the accomplishments But it for sure can take some effort