• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

60,000 patients put on death pathway without being told...

If the government is paying the bill, why isn't it their decision to make? You can't have someone else pay your bills and still expect to retain full authority over every decision about your life. Don't like it? Don't have socialized medicine.
The people who would be put down have been paying into medicare for their entire working lives. When it comes time to cash a bit of that out, it's "Sorry homie, we mismanaged your money and are facing bankruptcy, we're going to have to put you down."

Germany has socialized medicine, and their entire system costs half of what ours does, from my experience is better quality in a lot of aspects, and they don't put down anybody.
 
To some extent you can harp about the LEAN a particular piece of news takes. Yes, you can project something in a good or bad light.


Are you, however, suggesting there are outright lies in the OP? Because last I checked, a lie, once printed, is libel, and that's illegal. At least, it is in the US.

I'm not going to get in the middle of your discussion over the details, but to me a lie IS where something is put in an inappropriate context thereby pushing an agenda. Even if the facts are not "incorrect" without their proper context, they are a lie.
 
The people who would be put down have been paying into medicare for their entire working lives. When it comes time to cash a bit of that out, it's "Sorry homie, we mismanaged your money and are facing bankruptcy, we're going to have to put you down."

Germany has socialized medicine, and their entire system costs half of what ours does, from my experience is better quality in a lot of aspects, and they don't put down anybody.

Huh? Who said we were putting people down over cost?

UNH only does it over terminal illness, where the cost of treatment is not worth the chances of a cure and the additional years of life that would be added. This is so they maximize care being directed to those who have the greatest chance to survive and have the most to benefit from it. Their goal is to maximize quality and minimize cost and there are going to be some people who are marginalized because of that.

Now, if they were actually putting people down for just being old, then I would be pissed as hell, but as far as I know, it is only in terminal illness situations; regardless of if it is consented or not.


Personally, I don't agree with the system from a scientific standpoint. By marginalizing those groups, we could possibly be turning a blind eye to research opportunities for treating terminal diseases that might lead the diseases to not be terminal. But its hard to say whether we can afford the enormous health care expenditures on terminal illness in the meantime.
 
What is it that you think is happening? What do you fear for the inferior US "system"?
Why? Because the government has never been so large it has so much power, what i fear is a total take over by the government, we are losing our freedom for our security.
 
I'm not going to get in the middle of your discussion over the details, but to me a lie IS where something is put in an inappropriate context thereby pushing an agenda. Even if the facts are not "incorrect" without their proper context, they are a lie.

Lie by omission. I won't disagree with this, but I will state that trying to enforce that would kill the media. People, as a general rule, have very short attention spans. They don't want to have to read something that gets 9 inches of text in the paper, 4 inches of which is back ground info. Typically.

Editing down is important, and often, it's the context, and not the actual "news" itself, that gets axed. Editors assume, usually rightly so, that a person is willing to read, say, 150 words on a story. The one present, because of context, has 230 words. What would you rather they cut, the piece of news itself, or the back ground story that provides context?
 
If the government is paying the bill, why isn't it their decision to make? You can't have someone else pay your bills and still expect to retain full authority over every decision about your life. Don't like it? Don't have socialized medicine.

Where does the government get the money to "pay the bill"?
 
Lie by omission. I won't disagree with this, but I will state that trying to enforce that would kill the media. People, as a general rule, have very short attention spans. They don't want to have to read something that gets 9 inches of text in the paper, 4 inches of which is back ground info. Typically.

Editing down is important, and often, it's the context, and not the actual "news" itself, that gets axed. Editors assume, usually rightly so, that a person is willing to read, say, 150 words on a story. The one present, because of context, has 230 words. What would you rather they cut, the piece of news itself, or the back ground story that provides context?

If you are merely reporting, its not as much a lie. If you are making a political statement however, it is a lie.
 
To some extent you can harp about the LEAN a particular piece of news takes. Yes, you can project something in a good or bad light.

Are you, however, suggesting there are outright lies in the OP? Because last I checked, a lie, once printed, is libel, and that's illegal. At least, it is in the US.

LOL if saying lie's was illegal in the US, then Fox News would constantly be in court.

And libel laws in the UK are far far more strict... but it is pretty much only the private person who uses those laws.. and since the NHS is not exactly private, then they cant or wont sue the newspaper regardless of the facts being a lie.

Also a fact can easily be formed into something it is not.. which is most likely what they are doing. They do it constantly when it comes to the EU and Europe.
 
Why? Because the government has never been so large it has so much power, what i fear is a total take over by the government, we are losing our freedom for our security.

We're discussing a British NHS clinical management of a terminal patient's final hours. (at least that's whats at the root of these American paranoid fantasies) How does that overlap with the actions or not of the US government?
 
The reality is that not everything is about money. And there is a stark difference between those that cannot and will not support themselves and a those who at the moment are unable to pay for life saving medical care.

No. Not life saving, life prolonging. Agony prolonging. It's utterly pointless. Are we going to take money from education and put it towards the care of terminally ill people? It's got to come from somewhere.

You mentioned reality, as if there is no way to intervene in reality. Myself I aim higher I dont give in so easily that I would accept that today in modern times that we should let people die at of need of money to pay for medical care. And fortunately your way of thinking is in the minority. BTW it is only people like you that are talking about the lazy idiots the rest of us have observed that compassion can be met with sacrifices. Your problem is that all you are concerned about is deadbeats but I am not even talking about deadbeats, I am talking about the reality that some people are just not available to pay huge amounts of money for a service that would save their life. We are actually talking about people that worked very hard all their lives or children that could not chose their parents nor their families.

That wouldn't surprise me. People don't use logic, they use emotions. And when emotions dictate policy, we end up on a financial cliff.

But then compassion is the last thing on your mind when it comes to your bank account isnt Evenstar?

I don't have enough money to be compassionate.

These people paid into medicaid for their entire working lives, and when it comes time to pay for a single life support machine and a cot, medicaid tells them to **** off. Tell me again how not getting something you paid for makes you a deadbeat.

Almost no one who has paid into social security, medicaid, or medicare will pay enough into these systems to cover their costs. Fact. Of course exceptions exist, but this remains fact for a majority of people. In fact, most people are receiving benefits they never paid for. This isn't about compassion, it's about math. Either the money is there, or it's not. And I'm sorry to inform you- it is not. The money to pay for terminally ill people to eke out another several miserable months on the tax payer's dime simply doesn't exist. According to a source cited in this thread a few pages back, it costs $10,000 a day to maintain someone in the intensive care unit. $50 billion a year to maintain terminally ill patients, and up 30% of that cost has no meaningful impact. If people want to think with their emotions, fine, but at some point they need to come back down here to reality and understand that everything has a cost.
 
If someone wants to fight for their life, then that is NOBODY else's business. It is up to that person and their family to decide on whether or not they want to go through the "agony" and not anyone else's, especially the government. If they are going to refuse to pay for medical care, then they should NOT be getting their grubby hands into the medical business.

It's a personal decision and should be made solely by the individual without pressure from outside sources over "money." That is just sick!
 
It is exceedingly difficult for family to make that decision. Most families? They can't do it. Actually? Loving pet owners are sometimes kinder to their dogs than they are to their mothers.

My dog bit me, but only once, when I was cleaning a cut on his foot. My mother treated me bad for much of my teen years, til I moved out, then she just forgot about me....until she discovered I had money. Didn't do her any good, though.
So, yeah, I treated my dog better...:2razz:
 
If someone wants to fight for their life, then that is NOBODY else's business. It is up to that person and their family to decide on whether or not they want to go through the "agony" and not anyone else's, especially the government. If they are going to refuse to pay for medical care, then they should NOT be getting their grubby hands into the medical business.

It's a personal decision and should be made solely by the individual without pressure from outside sources over "money." That is just sick!

ok. Who should pay for it? The money has to come from somewhere.
 
ok. Who should pay for it? The money has to come from somewhere.

The same way any OTHER medical care is paid for. Whether one self-pays or has insurance.

How can people not realize how dangerous it is for the government to put limitations on our healthcare choices? Unreal! :shock:
 
The same way any OTHER medical care is paid for. Whether one self-pays or has insurance.

How can people not realize how dangerous it is for the government to put limitations on our healthcare choices? Unreal! :shock:

What if the person can't cover the additional costs? Then who pays?
 
What if the person can't cover the additional costs? Then who pays?

The same way we pay for it now.

Are you actually saying that poor people should NOT have the privilege of choice, simply because they don't have money? So basically if you can't BUY your life, the government can decide to deny possible life-saving treatments just because they're expensive?
 
The same way any OTHER medical care is paid for. Whether one self-pays or has insurance.

How can people not realize how dangerous it is for the government to put limitations on our healthcare choices? Unreal! :shock:

Insurance companies have been putting limitations on our healthcare choices since the very first health insurance policy was sold. I don't know what people don't understand about this. Doctors have protocols they follow, in part, because of insurance company restrictions on payment. This is nothing new.
 
Insurance companies have been putting limitations on our healthcare choices since the very first health insurance policy was sold. I don't know what people don't understand about this. Doctors have protocols they follow, in part, because of insurance company restrictions on payment. This is nothing new.

They don't turn away people who WANT treatment for cancer. Insurance companies will refuse to pay, but a patient can STILL get treatment. Also, a lot of times chemotherapy is a palliative procedure and is NEVER expected to be curative at all.

Are we going to deny cancer patients palliative chemotherapy too? It's just as expensive.
 
The same way we pay for it now.

Are you actually saying that poor people should NOT have the privilege of choice, simply because they don't have money? So basically if you can't BUY your life, the government can decide to deny possible life-saving treatments just because they're expensive?

That's the way it's always been. Everything has a cost, and those who have more money get better care. It may not be fair, but fairness and justice are only abstract and subjective concepts. I'm not saying it's right, it just is. We simply can't afford to keep people alive with expensive procedures when death is eminent. It's foolish and emotion driven.
 
Americans want to keep the very rich dead breathing so that they can rule the mugs as before. Nutters!
 
That's the way it's always been. Everything has a cost, and those who have more money get better care. It may not be fair, but fairness and justice are only abstract and subjective concepts. I'm not saying it's right, it just is. We simply can't afford to keep people alive with expensive procedures when death is eminent. It's foolish and emotion driven.

I'll bet you would be singing a different tune if it was one of YOUR loved ones. And like I said a lot of times chemo is a palliative treatment. Are we going to let people with esophageal cancer choke to death on their own tumors because the treatment might be "expensive?" How cold!
 
I'll bet you would be singing a different tune if it was one of YOUR loved ones. And like I said a lot of times chemo is a palliative treatment. Are we going to let people with esophageal cancer choke to death on their own tumors because the treatment might be "expensive?" How cold!

I don't expect other people to pay for their treatment, but if it were me and I didn't have the funds I would do whatever was necessary to get them care.
 
No. Not life saving, life prolonging. Agony prolonging. It's utterly pointless. Are we going to take money from education and put it towards the care of terminally ill people? It's got to come from somewhere.
You are generalizing a subject that can only be addressed on a case by case level.

Money spent on terminally ill people does not come from money earmarked for education, that is not how it works. The money simple does not exist for the other subject, what you said makes no sense, since money must be properly appropriated etc, there is a process earmarks money for certain things and you cannot legally use it for anything else.



That wouldn't surprise me. People don't use logic, they use emotions. And when emotions dictate policy, we end up on a financial cliff.
Not letting people suffer is completely logical on all levels.



I don't have enough money to be compassionate.
Ok good then perhaps you could save us all a little money and kill yourself now?



Almost no one who has paid into social security, medicaid, or medicare will pay enough into these systems to cover their costs. Fact. Of course exceptions exist, but this remains fact for a majority of people. In fact, most people are receiving benefits they never paid for. This isn't about compassion, it's about math. Either the money is there, or it's not. And I'm sorry to inform you- it is not. The money to pay for terminally ill people to eke out another several miserable months on the tax payer's dime simply doesn't exist. According to a source cited in this thread a few pages back, it costs $10,000 a day to maintain someone in the intensive care unit. $50 billion a year to maintain terminally ill patients, and up 30% of that cost has no meaningful impact. If people want to think with their emotions, fine, but at some point they need to come back down here to reality and understand that everything has a cost.


The mistake that you are making is that it can cost up to $10,000 a day to stay in a SCU/ECU. That does not mean that it costs that much for everyone all the time.

Medicare is a government ran insurance company. Medicare makes as much sense as private insurance companies. Which is none. People seem to like to blame the hospitals the doctors and even the patients for whats wrong with medical care in the US but most of the (not always though) they ignore insurance companies. The problem is that the system of using insurance companies in healthcare is really what is called privatized socialism. The Socialistic principles are the same and they do not work in the private sector any better than they work in the public sector. Of course those promoting socialism will tout countries with socialized medical care as they are medical utopias but they lack in many aspects just like privately owned insurance companies do. The only real difference is that in the socialized public version generally more people get ****ty coverage and they cut out the profits of private insurance companies. It is a half ass solution that really is only partially better than the current system in the US. There is a huge amount of room for improvement in those nation with socialized medical care.

If you ask me what I think the solution is, I will tell you that private insurance and government paid medical care both suck. If I had the solution I would make my own thread or start a movement to get it going. But I am only one individual and there are many minds that could figure this out if they were not stagnant minds locked in the battle over two screwed up systems. Because to those people it isnt really about improving the healthcare system its about promoting their ideologies. The healthcare issue is yet just another tool of propaganda for them.
 
They don't turn away people who WANT treatment for cancer. Insurance companies will refuse to pay, but a patient can STILL get treatment. Also, a lot of times chemotherapy is a palliative procedure and is NEVER expected to be curative at all.

Are we going to deny cancer patients palliative chemotherapy too? It's just as expensive.

Nobody is going to turn away cancer patients who want what they believe is curative treatment for their terminal disease. That does not mean that society has to foot that bill. It's horrible medicine. Terrible treatment of patients. And society cannot afford it.

Palliative medicine utilizes a multidisciplinary approach to patient care, relying on input from physicians, pharmacists, nurses, chaplains, social workers, psychologists, and other allied health professionals in formulating a plan of care to relieve suffering in all areas of a patient's life. This multidisciplinary approach allows the palliative care team to address physical, emotional, spiritual, and social concerns that arise with advanced illness.

I'm all for palliative medicine. You notice who isn't in the mix of experts, do you not? The patient and his family.

Palliative care:

  • provides relief from pain, shortness of breath, nausea, and other distressing symptoms;
  • affirms life and regards dying as a normal process;
  • intends neither to hasten nor to postpone death;
  • integrates the psychological and spiritual aspects of patient care;
  • offers a support system to help patients live as actively as possible;
  • offers a support system to help the family cope;
  • uses a team approach to address the needs of patients and their families;
  • will enhance quality of life;
  • is applicable early in the course of illness, in conjunction with other therapies that are intended to prolong life, such as chemotherapy or radiation therapy.

I don't think anyone is arguing against palliative care here.
 
Back
Top Bottom