Thank you for the clarification.

You are saying that the government in wanting to overstep the position of the family, correct? I guess I have a problem with that. That is exactly why I would not want the Government in the financial/treatment/decision-making process. If the Government is in the financial portion of the medical process, they must be allowed in all of the portions.

Exactly why I would want to have the choice. If people choose to have the assistance of the government along with all the strings, I am OK with that.

bbauska

you are saying that the government in wanting to overstep the position of the family, correct? I guess I have a problem with that. That is exactly why I would not want the Government in the financial/treatment/decision-making process. If the Government is in the financial portion of the medical process, they must be allowed in all of the portions.

Exactly why I would want to have the choice. If people choose to have the assistance of the government along with all the strings, I am OK with that.

What strings are these you refer to?
I didn't say anything about the government, nor does the news article. . The government was not involved with this battle over this man's care. In any way. Other than that the courts were asked to rule on the case.
The doctors at Sunnybrook, as private practionners and the primary care givers for the man wanted to stop his life support. Not the government.
After the processes in place to find resolution or compromise failed, they eventually sued to the courts to be given the final say ... His relatives resisted .
It seems to me that you are horribly confused about the difference between a health insurance program and the relationship between the care givers and the family.
The health insurance was never a factor in this decision. Neither did anyone representing the health insurance plan ever become involved. They just kept paying the bills.
So where are those "strings" you seem to think exist?

I think that doctors are pledged to act in the best interests of their patients. In this case what the doctors perceived were the best interests were opposed by his family. Other than the involvement of the courts...to resolve a law suit, there was no government involvement. A situation that could occur between doctor and family in this case regardless of who the patients insurance company was.... In fact my guess is that in the case of a for profit insurance company, they'd more likely choose to side with the doctors who wanted to end life support. Because OHIP have no profit motive, they are far less likely, and haven't, been involved.
So whats your problem?

I am not confused, thank you for asking.

The strings are the courts. They are Government entities, are they not? The family paying the bills, the insurance paying for the treatment, power of attorney resides with the family; WHY doe the doctors feel the need to sue? I understand they care. It makes perfect sense and is admirable. If they do not agree with the requests of the family (who has POA), then they should ask the client to find someone else. That would be the doctor's choice.

To me it always comes down to that.

The people should have choice to decide care (yes that included end of life choices, abortion et. al.)
The doctor should have a choice to terminate care if they do not agree with the principals.

I never said anything about Government's role, Courts role, Prime Minister's role, Churches role. Just people and doctors. When you give other entities power of decision, you must accept that people's power is diminished.

bbauska wrote:I am not confused, thank you for asking.

Well you are confusing.

Why did you say "You are saying that the government in wanting to overstep the position of the family, correct? I guess I have a problem with that." when the facts of the case are that the only government involvement was to judicially side with the position of the family? It was pretty clear from ricky's post and quote that was what had happened. If you were not confused, why did you ask a question and assume the total opposite answer to the truth?

The strings are the courts. They are Government entities, are they not? The family paying the bills, the insurance paying for the treatment, power of attorney resides with the family; WHY doe the doctors feel the need to sue? I understand they care. It makes perfect sense and is admirable. If they do not agree with the requests of the family (who has POA), then they should ask the client to find someone else. That would be the doctor's choice.

The doctors felt (wrongly or rightly) that the family were not acting in the best interests of their patient. What if it had been the other way around - that the family wanted to cease treatment and have the machines turned off, but a doctor or someone else believed otherwise? Doctors have a duty of care to their patients (not the the relatives of patients, even those with POA), and are morally and often legally bound to act in that duty. So it's not simply them being bleeding hearts.

The people should have choice to decide care (yes that included end of life choices, abortion et. al.)
The doctor should have a choice to terminate care if they do not agree with the principals.

Problem is that sometimes people do not act in the best interests of others (or even themselves - but it's worse when it is others), and leaving it down just to them may not be a good idea. We also, as a society, define certain medical matters as legal issues, eg: abortion (and reasons for it), ending a life (suicide, euthanasia, manslaughter or murder?), etc.

I never said anything about Government's role, Courts role, Prime Minister's role, Churches role. Just people and doctors. When you give other entities power of decision, you must accept that people's power is diminished.

Two disputing parties going to court is not exactly unusual is it, though? When two neighbours have a property dispute, and one sues the other, then the 'government' through the judiciary becomes the arbiter of that dispute.

Also, the same thing happens now, in the USA, regardless of who pays for the care. Way before the ACA was being written, you had the Terri Schiavo case, where the family split and disagreed with each other and Karen Ann Quinlan, where the family asked for active treatment to cease and the doctors opposed them.

This is a long standing and generally accepted government function, that all bar the most extreme libertarians/anarchists would agree to in most spheres. So what is it that makes medicine - particularly questions of 'life' any less important than where a boundary line goes, or whether a contract was upheld?

danivon

This is a long standing and generally accepted government function,

Indeed:
Conflict resolution was one of the prime reasons for the creation of government. Prior to states, man kind had the rule of the chief or the "strong man" or the community (in hunter/gatherer bands). Conflicts often were resolved by appeal to these arbiters who generally held their position through violence or the threat of violence...
With the creation of state governments and the rule of law, society became much more secure and peaceful because there was a resort to something other than violent means when conflicts arose...
Its annoying that anti-government rants always ignore the basic reasons state governments arose, evolved and have been maintained... They offered a far better system for most people in every day existence in things like conflict resolution...

geojanes wrote:[The Corvair had an issue with swing axle so that when you'd take a tight turn at a high speed the rear tire would tuck under the car and the car would roll at high speed. Ironically, by the time Ralph's book came out, that problem was fixed, and it was just typical 1960s era safety problems.

I'll defer to your elder-ness.

So to carry forward your analogy: The Corvair was very popular but had a serious problem. The problem was fixed, but the brand was damaged and it was killed. That could still happen. ACA is popular but flawed, it gets fixed over the next 3 years and after 2016 a republican admin would kill it.

It's unpopular and flawed.

Around 14 million people buy their own health insurance on the individual markets, which is actually about the same as the true number of Americans uninsured by circumstance rather than choice. Half of those insured will lose that insurance thanks to the mandates imposed by ObamaCare, and will get forced to buy new policies. UCLA public health policy director Gerry Kominski says that they will get a better product with more protection, but don’t tell that to Natalie Willes:

Many people are finding out it's not so great, including a liberal writer who generally supports the law:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLtu8axeX2w

I'm sure it has flaws. But the minimal standards are probably not one of them. Poor insurance product that seem alright to people, because the premiums are cheap - until they need the insurance - aren't necessarily comparable.
whats missing from the Hot Air synopsis and the oringinal CBS story Hot Air partly cribs from ... is a complete comparison between the plan Ms Wiles had, and what she's getting.
In what way did her previous plan fail to meet the minimum standards?

Gerry Kominski, director of public health policy at UCLA said: "About half of the 14 million people who buy insurance on their own are not going to be able to keep the policies that they had previously."
He says higher premiums help insurers pay for new requirements including accepting patients with pre-existing conditions and providing preventative care like check-ups and vaccines.
Gerry Kominski / CBS News
"You're paying more for a better product and for more protection -- and you won't understand the value of that until you need it," he said.
But many can't get past the sticker shock

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/10/25/c ... insurance/

One of the reasons consumers need protection from companies like credit card companies,, financial services, and insurance is the complexity of the product offering. Often people think they are getting a helluva deal until they make a claim ....
That may have been the problem with Ms. Wiles ....
But we won't know from the article or from MS Wiles. Incomplete information can often lead to misunderstanding. Also complex information, delivered in a complex and difficult fashion. (Like insurance agreements etc.)

rickyp wrote:I'm sure it has flaws. But the minimal standards are probably not one of them.

What tripe!

Why do 64 year-olds need maternity coverage? Single men?

Poor insurance product that seem alright to people, because the premiums are cheap - until they need the insurance - aren't necessarily comparable.

You just ignore the broken promises and the problems--like a good socialist.

Obama said, "If you like your insurance, you can keep it. Period."

Read that. It's just not true.

Obama said the bill would foster competition. But, that's not true either. For example, how many companies are competing in West Virginia?

One.

There's a word for that, and I don't think it's "competition."

whats missing from the Hot Air synopsis and the oringinal CBS story Hot Air partly cribs from ... is a complete comparison between the plan Ms Wiles had, and what she's getting.
In what way did her previous plan fail to meet the minimum standards?

No, what's missing is your comprehension. People are required to pay for coverage they don't need. It's like owning a home without a pool and being forced to pay as if you do have a pool.

"But, I can't have kids."

"Too bad. Pay for the coverage."

It's "one size fits all." If the size doesn't fit, you must . . .

Fullerton resident Jennifer Harris thought she had a great deal, paying $98 a month for an individual plan through Health Net Inc. She got a rude surprise this month when the company said it would cancel her policy at the end of this year. Her current plan does not conform with the new federal rules, which require more generous levels of coverage.

Now Harris, a self-employed lawyer, must shop for replacement insurance. The cheapest plan she has found will cost her $238 a month. She and her husband don't qualify for federal premium subsidies because they earn too much money, about $80,000 a year combined.

"It doesn't seem right to make the middle class pay so much more in order to give health insurance to everybody else," said Harris, who is three months pregnant. "This increase is simply not affordable."

One of the reasons consumers need protection from companies like credit card companies,, financial services, and insurance is the complexity of the product offering. Often people think they are getting a helluva deal until they make a claim ....
That may have been the problem with Ms. Wiles ....

Speculation.

Meanwhile, there's no telling how "popular" Obamacare will be a few months from now as more and more of these situations pop up:

In California, Kaiser Permanente terminated policies for 160,000 people. In Florida, at least 300,000 people are losing coverage.

That includes 56-year-old Dianne Barrette. Last month, she received a letter from Blue Cross Blue Shield informing her as of January 2014, she would lose her current plan. Barrette pays $54 a month. The new plan she’s being offered would run $591 a month — 10 times more than what she currently pays.

Barrette said, “What I have right now is what I am happy with and I just want to know why I can’t keep what I have. Why do I have to be forced into something else?”

You just keep digging though. The hole can always get deeper.

fate

No, what's missing is your comprehension. People are required to pay for coverage they don't need. It's like owning a home without a pool and being forced to pay as if you do have a pool.

No. Its more like being forced to buy sufficient liability insurance before being allowed to operate a car.
And Americans are used to doing that aren't they?

Some states require drivers to carry at least liability insurance coverage to ensure that their drivers can cover the cost of damage to other people or property in the event of an accident. Some states, such as Wisconsin, have more flexible "proof of financial responsibility" requirements.[1]

fate

Speculation

.
yes. But the entire nature of the article you quote is speculative because they haven't said why the policy she had no longer met the standard. Do you know why?

People are generally happy with low cost health insurance, until they actually have to use it and find out first hand that its crappy....Too many exclusions, etc.
Its really only the crappy types that aren't meeting standard.
Go back to your Corvair analogy. People were happy with the Corvair, ignorant of its design flaws that made it unsafe. When the standards improved and the
design improved , no one would buy used Corvairs... And anyone who had been invovled in an accident .... suddenly the car they were happy with for years wasn't so great.

rickyp wrote:fate

No, what's missing is your comprehension. People are required to pay for coverage they don't need. It's like owning a home without a pool and being forced to pay as if you do have a pool.

No. Its more like being forced to buy sufficient liability insurance before being allowed to operate a car.
And Americans are used to doing that aren't they?

Some states require drivers to carry at least liability insurance coverage to ensure that their drivers can cover the cost of damage to other people or property in the event of an accident. Some states, such as Wisconsin, have more flexible "proof of financial responsibility" requirements.[1]

fate

Speculation

.
yes. But the entire nature of the article you quote is speculative because they haven't said why the policy she had no longer met the standard. Do you know why?

People are generally happy with low cost health insurance, until they actually have to use it and find out first hand that its crappy....Too many exclusions, etc.
Its really only the crappy types that aren't meeting standard.
Go back to your Corvair analogy. People were happy with the Corvair, ignorant of its design flaws that made it unsafe. When the standards improved and the
design improved , no one would buy used Corvairs... And anyone who had been invovled in an accident .... suddenly the car they were happy with for years wasn't so great.

Epic fail on your part.

Again, why should a post-menopausal woman have to pay for maternity coverage?

Simple question. Answer it.

That's hilarious--I couldn't have picked a more perfect example, DF. A woman of child-bearing age paying $98 a month for individual coverage? Want to bet that $98 policy does not cover for pregnancy? This article indicates that a lot of policies don't cover pregnancy.http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/feature ... enses.aspx
Oh, and she is three months pregnant and she is whining that she now has to pay almost $300 for health insurance. Think about the situation she would be in without the ACA--she would pay 10-25K or more to have her baby and she is complaining about $3K or so. So she would be exhibit "A" of people who pay more for health insurance under the ACA because they need that coverage. Thanks DF--I needed a good laugh.

freeman3 wrote:That's hilarious--I couldn't have picked a more perfect example, DF. A woman of child-bearing age paying $98 a month for individual coverage? Want to bet that $98 policy does not cover for pregnancy? This article indicates that a lot of policies don't cover pregnancy.http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/feature ... enses.aspx
Oh, and she is three months pregnant and she is whining that she now has to pay almost $300 for health insurance. Think about the situation she would be in without the ACA--she would pay 10-25K or more to have her baby and she is complaining about $3K or so. So she would be exhibit "A" of people who pay more for health insurance under the ACA because they need that coverage. Thanks DF--I needed a good laugh.

Speculation, as indicated by "want to bet?"

In any event, this situation is an illustration of the need for transparency. It is NOT an argument for you, or post-menopausal women needing maternity coverage.

fate

In any event, this situation is an illustration of the need for transparency. It is NOT an argument for you, or post-menopausal women needing maternity coverage.

Transparency is a good thing.
First in the way the article were written. As I've said twice you have no idea why the womans plan didn't meet the ACA standards. You speculate. A comprehensive examination would have published the comparison and explained why the woman's original plan failed the standard...She wouldn't be the first person to buy crappy insurance then find out what a big mistake she'd made only when she had an accident or became ill.... .

Second, lack of transparency is the greatest complaint about the current US insurance system. People end up surprised by the actual terms of their crappy insurance plans.... By introducing minimal standards, insurance companies become more transparent and ordinary consumers have a chance at actually understanding the complex financial instruments.

One of the things that is more expensive about the US health insurance system is that there is so much complexity. Although it seems counter intuitive to include pregnancy in the coverage for older women .... its actually easier and more efficient to simply cover everybody the same way. As I explained to Ray earlier the Canadian system covers every body the same way and covers pretty much everything medical. And yet delivers this for 11 to 12 percent of GDP versus the 17% of the US. Part of the reason is that administrative costs are 3% versus 10%.... Its the complexity, in pursuit of "fairness" that drives up that administrative costs ...

Interestingly its the conservative contributions to the ACA that make it more complex (Means tests etc.) . Which also made the execution of the web site and computer systems more difficult... All in the ;pursuit of "fairness"....
What would be eminently fairer is to simplify and drive down administrative costs and difficulty and simply plans to a universal offering. But that wouldn't accomodate the current insurance industry quite the same way ....

Doctor Fate wrote:
Again, why should a post-menopausal woman have to pay for maternity coverage?

Simple question. Answer it.

Several reasons...

1) There have been cases of pregnancy in women who were believed to be post-menopausal. In such cases, the chances of complications are much higher. So while the likelihood is low, the impact is high.

2) It will be balanced out by other standard risks. Women who are older are at increased risk of cervical and breast cancer.

3) As ricky is trying to explain, it reduces overheads to avoid complicated options for 'bespoke' plans, and it will sometimes save money on premiums. Similarly, when the Catholoc Bishops were agitating to take contraception and abortion out of plans, it was found that this would increase premiums.

rickyp wrote:fate

In any event, this situation is an illustration of the need for transparency. It is NOT an argument for you, or post-menopausal women needing maternity coverage.

Transparency is a good thing.
First in the way the article were written. As I've said twice you have no idea why the womans plan didn't meet the ACA standards. You speculate. A comprehensive examination would have published the comparison and explained why the woman's original plan failed the standard...She wouldn't be the first person to buy crappy insurance then find out what a big mistake she'd made only when she had an accident or became ill.... .

And, she won't be the last person to lose a policy she was PERFECTLY happy with in CONTRADICTION to the President's EXPLICIT promises.

Second, lack of transparency is the greatest complaint about the current US insurance system.

Speculation.

One of the things that is more expensive about the US health insurance system is that there is so much complexity. Although it seems counter intuitive to include pregnancy in the coverage for older women .... its actually easier and more efficient to simply cover everybody the same way.

Oh, it's "easier" all right.

One size fits all is "easy," comrade.

How is it necessarily "more efficient?" Should 64 year-old women really be mandated to pay for pediatric coverage?

As I explained to Ray earlier the Canadian system covers every body the same way and covers pretty much everything medical. And yet delivers this for 11 to 12 percent of GDP versus the 17% of the US. Part of the reason is that administrative costs are 3% versus 10%.... Its the complexity, in pursuit of "fairness" that drives up that administrative costs ...

As has been explained to you a thousand times, we are not Canada.

Oh, and btw, Obamacare is NOT the Canadian system.

Is that clear?

Interestingly its the conservative contributions to the ACA that make it more complex (Means tests etc.) . Which also made the execution of the web site and computer systems more difficult... All in the ;pursuit of "fairness"....

Interestingly, there really are no "conservative contributions" to a left-wing, redistribution of wealth program.

What would be eminently fairer is to simplify and drive down administrative costs and difficulty and simply plans to a universal offering. But that wouldn't accomodate the current insurance industry quite the same way ....

Blame Democrats.