You have repeatedly entered words like murderers, that I never used, to portraying my arguments. You have repeatedly used extreme polarized statements to portray my position. THAT is dishonest and ignorant. I tried to explain what reasonable adults should expect from a competent doctor in cases where the prognosis is poor. But that is not acceptable to your demands for polarized black or white yes/no responses.
I asked you if you watched the interview, because death panels do exist. But it's not about 'forcing the insurance companies to provide unlimited funding for any life prolonging measure, regardless of the time prolonged', it is about insurance companies denying coverage to patients because if they don't cower to Wall Street investors demands to keep their medical loss ratio down, the companies are severely punished by those investors.
If you want to keep this conversation at a polarized, childish and uninformed level, take it up with someone else.
I looked back over this thread, and you actually said very little. You posted a lot of other people's words. So if you will not post your own words, people will respond to the words you copy & paste as if they are what you believe.
Of course there are "death panels". A "death panel" is a group who decides who gets life saving/prolonging medical care financed and who does not. Every insurance company has limits to what they will cover. Even medicare or medicaid has them. Because there is not a medical system in th world that provides unlimited life prolonging medical procedures to everyone. Now perhaps you understand what I was saying when you were throwing a fit about me "telling you what you believe". I'll accept your apology for calling me an asshole, since you completely misunderstood the point.
I am polarizing the issue because any institution tasked with funding medical care must have clear lines concerning what they will cover and what they will not. It would be nice to think every case is decided wholely on its individual merits. But that is not how it will ever work. They
must provide clear limits, which requires avoiding the kneejerk, emotional reactions and deciding on clear, concise words in black & white. Since you are obviously of the opinion that Cigna was wrong in this case, I was trying to get you to take a stand on what you consider good limits to be. But, once again, you refused to actually debate with your own words and refused to state you own position. I know that it makes it easier for you to claim people are misstating what you said, or are telling you what you believe. But that technique, not mine, is the one that is childish. And since you refused to discuss any limits of any kind (despite repeated requests), the only conclusion I can come to is that you want no limits of any kind.
And your statement "insurance companies denying coverage to patients because if they don't cower to Wall Street investors demands to keep their medical loss ratio down" is just an inflammatory way of saying the insurance companies have limits on what they will spend.
As for your remark of "take it up with someone else", I can see you did not start this topic to actually discuss the issue, but instead just want to bash the "evil corporations" as usual.
I have still not seen any logical reason why the insurance company is to blame, but the drs, surgeons, and the hospital are not.
