Jun 26 2009

ObamaCare Would Not Have Tried To Resuscitate Michael Jackson

Published by at 1:30 pm under All General Discussions,Obamacare

And interesting thought experiment is to think about Michael Jackson’s treatment under ObamaCare. We know a large group of doctors spent over an hour trying to resuscitate Jackson.  Think of all that expense spent on trying to save a drug user. Under ObamaCare it would seem to be a waste of money. Think of how Jackson should be one of those who would be denied care because he partook in a dangerous life style. 

Think about the world under ObamaCare. And realize Jackson is one of those special people we normal human beings would be subsidizing through our taxes.

BTW – I agree with Jonah Goldberg when it comes to Michael Jackson, is ‘icon’ days were over a couple of decades ago. Since then he has clearly been an example for people to avoid, not emulate or cherish. My original post on Michael’s passing can be found here.

20 responses so far

20 Responses to “ObamaCare Would Not Have Tried To Resuscitate Michael Jackson”

  1. WWS says:

    Okay, well in SPITE of that I still don’t think Obamacare is a good idea.

    Let’s get serious – under any form of politically controlled, rather than economically controlled, rationing of care, levels of access and service will be determined by how politically well connected someone is.

    Perhaps in a few years the best hospitals will be reserved for the relatives of top party officials only. Might as well call them the Nomenklatura.

  2. conman says:

    AJ,

    Your suggestion that any of the health care reform proposals being considered right now would result in doctors not making every effort to resuscitate a person in cardiac arrest is stupid. You know that someone has a weak position when they need to start making things up to advance their argument.

    Maybe you can answer this question, since it actually has to do with reality and real issues people are debating on health care reform. The main argument against the public plan option is that private companies won’t be able to compete with it. But if the public plan will be so bad, wouldn’t private health insurance companies presumably be able to easily beat it? Why are they so afraid of competing against a plan that they say will be a complete failure?

  3. WWS says:

    Conman, you should change your name to Strawman.

    Any government plan can put private plans out of business because a government plan has the luxury of running at a loss – a MASSIVE loss – forever. Therefore, the government plan’s rates do not have to reflect loss rates or market reality. Those rates will be set at politically popular levels, not at actuarily realistic levels. They have to be – that is the entire point of having a public option.

    No private company in any field can stand up against a competitor willing and able to take infinite losses.

    And AJ’s argument comes into play because once you have established that the plan will be charging loss-guaranteeing rates, the only way to cut the losses will be to apply massive pressure to cut services.

    This is what has happened in the UK, in Canada, in France – it has happened in every country that has tried the public option. It is worse than foolish to claim that it won’t happen here.

  4. kathie says:

    The next part of the argument that you would love Conman, is where the government gets the money that they need to put into the public plan, more and more and more as more and more people sign up? Well they take it from defense, just like Canada, France, England, and all of the other enlightened, progressive Countries have done. I know you would love that because it would make us just as feckless as Europe. But not to worry, China, Russia and the Muslim countries, who don’t care how many people die, will be in charge. So there you go Conman, the President just gave up his primary responsibility……..to protect and defend this Nation. He wants to be a social worker instead! How admirable!

  5. WWS says:

    In other news, apparently Kim Il Jong has successfully called Obama’s bluff.

    The North Koreans can now send anything they want anywhere and they know we won’t do anything about it. So much for a robust national security policy.

  6. [...] their “serious debate” on national healthcare with their Unicorn In Charge – Baaaaaaaaaarack ObamaCare Would Not Have Tried To Resuscitate Michael Jackson – strata-sphere.com 06/26/2009 And interesting thought experiment is to think about Michael [...]

  7. conman says:

    WWS,

    So apparently we agree that a public option would be much cheaper for Americans. For some reason you seem to think that cheaper health care is a bad thing for Americans, but that is a different topic.

    The main argument against a public health care option is that the services would be so much worse than what we get under our private health care system. Supposedly it will be so bad that people would be much better off paying more for their private health care than having to resort to the pathetic socialist public health care system. So your argument is a strawman unless you are willing to admit that the public option plan would not be that bad and people would be willing to switch to it in order to save money on their health care costs. Additionally, it would provide health care for the 50 million Americans who either cannot get coverage through private insurers or who cannot afford it. Not that you care about those people, but it is an added benefit.

    Lastly, all these same arguments were made when Medicare was introduced in the 1960′s. It would destroy the private health care system who cannot compete with a publicly funded plan and lead to a socialist system that provides poor services for all Americans! We have seen how that argument played out – can we say crying wolf?

    As for pressures to cut services and procedures, that has been going on in the private health care industry for quite some time. While you complain about bureacrats meddling in health care decisions, you overlook the fact that a bunch of bean counters in the private industry whose whole goal is to cut expenses are doing that right now.

  8. conman says:

    Kathie,

    Why don’t you think adequate health care is an essential requirement to America’s security and well being? 50 million Americans are without health care and rising. Our employer based health care system is killing small businesses and resulting in more and more employers dropping health care options for their employees. Why is this current and growing threat to our security and well being less important than the military threat of countries that our way behind us militarily. Keep in mind that the US spends more on its military annually than the rest of the world combined.

    Your response raises an issue that I truly do not understand about conservatives. Conservatives complain about wasteful government spending on just about everything – education, health care, infrastructure, etc. All basic elements that are important to the continuing growth and prosperity of our country.

    Everything but defense spending. We spend billions and billions of dollars every year on defense spending. Many of the defense programs are hugely wasteful, go way over budget and never even produce the promised end product. And yet conservatives never complain about how much money we spend on defense or how wasteful many of these programs are. In fact, they only complain if someone proposes to scale back military spending. Conservatives are even okay with spending over 1 trillion dollars in Iraq because it was worth that enormous amount of money to oust a dictator who COULD have or MIGHT have restarted his WMD program.

    Honestly, why is it that conservatives believe that the only thing that matters to our national security and well being is our ability to militarily defend ourselves against outside threats?

  9. kathie says:

    Completely bogus Conman and you know it.

  10. WWS says:

    Again you lie, Strawman. “So you agree” NO I DO NOT STRAWMAN!

    The nominal price is lower, making it look cheaper to fools and useful to demagogues. But it is hardly “cheaper” when you consider that the true price is destroying the economic foundation of the nation!

  11. kathie says:

    Conman our constitution was specifically written to LIMIT government. To protect and defend is specifically written in the constitution as one of the powers of the President.

    Government provided Medical insurance is limited to the INDIVIDUAL TO TAKE CARE OF as a freedom of choice, kinda like the freedom over your body to choose if you want to abort or not. Remember how important it is to have the freedom to choose and not have government choose for you? Let’s let people choose to take care of themselves or not.

  12. AJStrata says:

    Conman,

    If cheaper is better why do so many people prefer a Lexus over Ford Escort?

    Duh!

    You know what’s worse, is we will be paying Lexus level costs, and getting Escort level quality.

    That’s why cheap bastards make poor leaders. They think the only reason to live is to pinch pennies and suffer.

    You definitely fit that bill.

  13. kathie says:

    Look Conman there are always people who can’t help themselves. We choose as a people to help them, their medical needs, food, job training, housing, and the alike hoping one day they will be free to fly away. That is way different then the government in charge of every single persons health decisions, weather they can have an operation, or a life saving drug or procedure.

    Freedom is a choice no man should give up. It is precious beyond words.

  14. owl says:

    There are holes in the system. Bush tried to fix one with meds for elders. Another one, 50+ with bad medical history. Impossible to get reasonable rates without something like $5-10K deductibles. That translates into zero care unless you are employer covered or dirt poor. Bush tried to address the Dem Lawyer’s Goldmine to no avail. That’s what broke it and and only that will help fix it.

    Nope, Jackson would have received treatment. If Obamacare passes, that makes it official. There will be two levels of medical care. The Haves and the Little People. That is when the Government officially controls everything. When they can get control of your body, what else is left?

  15. Redteam says:

    Conguy
    Why don’t you think adequate health care is an essential requirement to America’s security and well being? 50 million Americans are without health care and rising.

    what an utterly stupid statement. There is no person in this country without healthcare, American or illegal alien alike, health care is as near as the nearest hospital.
    There are people without health insurance, but they don’t need it because almost every hospital in the country will treat people without being paid for it buy the consumer. Taxpayers (and people with insurance) pay.

    We all know you are stupid, quit displaying it so proudly.

  16. conman says:

    AJ,

    “You know what’s worse, is we will be paying Lexus level costs, and getting Escort level quality.”

    Yeah, that is why the private health care industry is claiming they won’t be able to compete with a public option. That is why they are spending millions of dollars lobbying against it. I guess the current health care system is so bad that they are afraid to even compete against a failed alternative!!!

  17. conman says:

    Kathie,

    “That is way different then the government in charge of every single persons health decisions, weather they can have an operation, or a life saving drug or procedure. ”

    What the hell do you think the private health insurance companies do right now? They decide what operations, procedures or drugs they are going to cover right now.

    I understand your distrust of government bureacrats, but I don’t understand why you have zero distrust in a bean-counter making those same decisions.

  18. kathie says:

    Because Conman, when the government runs it for everybody there will be no more choice. I have owned my health insurance and have shopped to get what I wanted. I don’t know what kind of insurance those have that you are talking about, but I have never had a problem with my insurance. But then I have always paid for a PPO. I chose to buy my insurance because when it was offered through an employer they were always looking for the cheapest insurance that money could buy. I value my life and the lives of my 2 children, and would never choose the cheapest money could buy. Maybe that is the problem, that employers are not looking after those who they must insure. If each individual found the best policy for their family maybe they would be more satisfied.

  19. kathie says:

    Because Conman, when the government runs it for everybody there will be no more choice. I have owned my health insurance and have shopped to get what I wanted. I don’t know what kind of insurance those have that you are talking about, but I have never had a problem with my insurance. But then I have always paid for a PPO. I chose to buy my insurance because when it was offered through an employer they were always looking for the cheapest insurance that money could buy. I value my life and the lives of my 2 children, and would never choose the cheapest money could buy. Maybe that is the problem, that employers are not looking after those who they must insure. If each individual found the best policy for their family maybe they would be more satisfied.

  20. conman says:

    Kathie,

    “I don’t know what kind of insurance those have that you are talking about, but I have never had a problem with my insurance. ”

    Let me provide just a few documented examples for you to consider.

    1. Private insurance companies routinely retroactively cancel coverage after the policyholder undergoes an expensive procedure and leave the policyholder (whom paid all of their premiums) left holding the bag under a policy they call rescission:

    “An investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations showed that health insurers WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant Inc. canceled the coverage of more than 20,000 people, allowing the companies to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims over a five-year period. It also found that policyholders with breast cancer, lymphoma and more than 1,000 other conditions were targeted for rescission and that employees were praised in performance reviews for terminating the policies of customers with expensive illnesses.” http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rescind17-2009jun17,0,5870586.story

    These are three of the largest national health care providers, they do not deny that they are using this practice and they refuse to discontinue. So apparently you haven’t experienced this problem because you haven’t had expensive health care needs. Be careful, if you do, then your policy could be retroactively cancelled and you will unlikely be able to get a new policy with anyone.

    2. Health care premiums are expected to increase 9% next year, pretty much consistent with the most recent annual increases.

    “U.S. employers will see health care costs rise 9% in 2010 and they expect their workers to pay a greater share of their health plans, consultant PricewaterhouseCoopers said Thursday.” http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/18/news/economy/health_care_costs.reut/index.htm

    So you do the math, how many years of 9% increases until your health care insurance becomes unaffordable?

    Lastly, you state that you would never buy the cheapest policy money can buy. But what if you lost your employment and were no longer able to afford it? Are you comfortable going without coverage for an extended period of time? What happens if one or both of your kids had a pre-condition that health insurance providers used as a basis for denying coverage when you tried to get new coverage? These are real life problems happening all over the country today, some to friends of mine.

    That is why over 70% of Americans want health care reform. Because an increasing number of Americans are running into these problems and don’t see the current system as sustainable.