Page 14 of 38 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 380

Thread: Should We Allow The Uninsured To Die?

  1. #131
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Should We Allow The Uninsured To Die?

    Quote Originally Posted by atrasicarius View Post
    Well, there are none in Obamacare. That was just a myth. Such things do (sort of) exist, though. Basically, in a universal health care system, you can't pay for all the treatments everyone needs, so you've got to make some choices about who gets treated and who doesn't. They can still pay for it themselves if they want to, of course, and in most systems, they can also buy private insurance if they don't like the public.
    We do that now already. Biological qualification is an aspect but so is financial qualification.

  2. #132
    Professor
    atrasicarius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    12-23-12 @ 05:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    2,227

    Re: Should We Allow The Uninsured To Die?

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    We do that now already. Biological qualification is an aspect but so is financial qualification.
    So poor people don't deserve to live?
    For: legalizing drugs, gay marriage, abortion, guns, universal health care, public sector jobs, nuclear power, free education, progressive taxation
    Against: corporations, make-work, the 40 hour work week, intellectual property, imperialism, "homeland security," censorship

  3. #133
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,460
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Should We Allow The Uninsured To Die?

    Quote Originally Posted by atrasicarius View Post
    Well, there are none in Obamacare. That was just a myth. Such things do (sort of) exist, though. Basically, in a universal health care system, you can't pay for all the treatments everyone needs, so you've got to make some choices about who gets treated and who doesn't. They can still pay for it themselves if they want to, of course, and in most systems, they can also buy private insurance if they don't like the public.
    Thanks! I knew that, but "death panel" is on my PR ****list. "Deadly Spin" by Wendell Potter (former health insurance industry PR exec) is an excellent dissection of the anti-healthcare PR campaign.

    What the term was referring to was "end of life counseling". Blood Libel, anyone? Palin sucks.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  4. #134
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Should We Allow The Uninsured To Die?

    Quote Originally Posted by atrasicarius View Post
    So poor people don't deserve to live?
    I think "it" goes beyond a question like that.

  5. #135
    Sage
    lpast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fla
    Last Seen
    05-21-16 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,565

    Re: Should We Allow The Uninsured To Die?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    By making insurance really insurance, and not a "catch all payment plan", the costs would go down as would premiums, making them more affordable to those who may not today, be able to purchase them. Such a move would also cut the exorbitant costs of hospital stays, procedures and treatments since the inflated costs are being addressed. By allowing people to get insurance from any state and not just within their own would also drive down costs. There are a few measures which would address this, but that's not where we as a country are right now unfortunately.
    What about the people that WONT buy it at any price...thats my entire issue.....who pays for them...since the gop is against any mandates that forces individuals to buy insurance...
    Last year 400,000 illegal immigrants ran over the border and gave us the privledge to pay for their child births...that includes all extended stays and issues...who pays for them.
    They say 40,000,000 americans dont have insurance...10 to 20 % are out of work....millions more are under employed...walmart is the biggest employer in the country and most of their workers are partime....dont try and hand me that we can make it affordable because thats just not true...the same people that cant afford now wont afford it then...and the same people that wont buy it now ...wont buy it then...

  6. #136
    Professor
    atrasicarius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    12-23-12 @ 05:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    2,227

    Re: Should We Allow The Uninsured To Die?

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    I think "it" goes beyond a question like that.
    Alright, that was a cheap shot. Seriously though, are you suggesting that rich people are inherently more valuable and more worth saving than poor people?
    For: legalizing drugs, gay marriage, abortion, guns, universal health care, public sector jobs, nuclear power, free education, progressive taxation
    Against: corporations, make-work, the 40 hour work week, intellectual property, imperialism, "homeland security," censorship

  7. #137
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

    Re: Should We Allow The Uninsured To Die?

    Quote Originally Posted by What if...? View Post
    Seriously, show me the "death panels" Palin was teferring to or lose all credibility with me. (Not that you care, I'm sure, but and you'll gain substantial credibility if you do.)
    Notorious Right Wing Propaganda Machine, THE NEW YORK TIMES:


    When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off a political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from legislation to overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1. . . . .

    The rule was issued by Dr. Donald M. Berwick, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and a longtime advocate for better end-of-life care.

    “Using unwanted procedures in terminal illness is a form of assault,” Dr. Berwick has said. “In economic terms, it is waste. Several techniques, including advance directives and involvement of patients and families in decision-making, have been shown to reduce inappropriate care at the end of life, leading to both lower cost and more humane care.”


    More on Berwick:


    Obama has doubled down on his unpopular Obamacare. The President ducked Senate confirmation and instead used a recess appointment to make Dr. Donald Berwick administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Berwick will be responsible for implementing portions of Obamacare. CMS has an annual budget of some $800 billion and is responsible for the heathcare of 100 million Americans.

    Conservatives are angry that the President used his extraordinary power to avoid a public hearing, which would have generated testimony from Dr. Berwick and may have exposed him as being too extreme to run CMS.

    Berwick’s public statements often raise eyebrows. Regarding end-of-life care, he told the Annals of Internal Medicine in 2002 that “most people who have serious pain do not need advanced methods, they just need the morphine and counseling that have been available for centuries.” This troubling statement doesn’t give much confidence to seniors that, as a bureaucrat, Berwick will care about costly end-of-life treatment when rationing Obamacare’s “benefits.”

    The doctor also professed his love for Britain’s Socialist healthcare system and favors a single-payer government-run system for Americans. He wrote in 1996 that “I admit to my own devotion to a single-payer mechanism as the only sensible approach to healthcare finance that I can think of.” President Obama avoided a public hearing for Dr. Berwick when he used the special appointment power used by President Bush and objected to by Senate Democrats at the time.


    Background on QALY ("quality-adjusted-life-year") that Berwick is instrumental in popularizing in health policy circles:


    If you are under the impression that it is impossible to calculate the value of a human life, you are obviously not a progressive policy expert or health care bureaucrat. This calculation, so elusive for philosophers and sages throughout the millennia, is child's play for such people. They have, in fact, already devised a formula for pricing out your life. It is called the "quality-adjusted-life-year" (QALY), and it assigns a numerical value to a year of life. A year of perfect health, for example, is given a value of 1.0 while a year of sub-optimum health is rated between 0 and 1. If you are confined to a wheelchair, a year of your life might be valued at half that of your ambulatory neighbor. If you are blind or deaf, you also score low. All that remains is to assign a specific dollar value to the QALY and, voilà, your life has a price tag.

    And, lest you imagine that QALY is mere academic concept unlikely to be applied in the real world, it is already being used in countries burdened with socialized medicine. In Great Britain, for example, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) uses "cost per QALY" to determine if patients should receive expensive treatment or drugs. It was with this formula that NICE calculated the precise amount six months of an average Brit's life is worth. As the Wall Street Journal reports, "NICE currently holds that, except in unusual cases, Britain cannot afford to spend more than about $22,000 to extend a life by six months." In other words, patients whose country has guaranteed them "free" health care are in some cases refused treatment because the incremental cost per additional QALY is too high.


    Death Panel type decisions have already started:


    According to Sally Pipes, president of the Pacific Research Institute, the FDA’s decision is not based on the best outcome for patients but instead on the expense of Avastin, produced by Genentech, which can run as high as $90,000 per year for a single patient.

    “The FDA claims its decision had nothing to do with Avastin's cost and was based solely on the drug's medical effectiveness,” Pipes said. “This isn't believable. Every year about 40,000 American women die from breast cancer. Avastin is the last hope for many not to meet that fate. While the drug is costly, it often provides immense benefits to patients.”

    Avastin works by cutting off blood flow to tumors, and it has been used by thousands of women to treat late-stage breast cancer. Pipes points out clinical studies have shown improved survival rates for women who use the drug.

    “By restricting blood flow to tumors, the medicine can decelerate cancer growth. In one clinical trial, 52 percent of women saw their tumors stop expanding or spreading. Some have gained years of extended life.

    “Most major cancer groups think that's enough. Susan G. Komen and the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance urged the FDA to maintain approval of the drug, arguing that treatment choices should be left to patients and doctors—not a government agency,” Pipes added.


    As I noted above, I have no problem with the concept of rationing medical care, my problem is with the centralizing of that decision making authority. This is where I part company with conservatives who oppose ObamaCare - they pretend that we can continue to have a system characterized by no rationing. They're delusional if they actually believe that. My position is to put the rationing decision into the hands of the patient and/or immediate family.

  8. #138
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

    Re: Should We Allow The Uninsured To Die?

    Quote Originally Posted by atrasicarius View Post
    Well yeah, exactly. You claim that if we were the ones being taxed, we wouldn't be in favor of raising taxes. I claim that if it was your kid who was dying and you couldn't afford to save them, you'd be in favor of universal health care.
    If your daughter or wife is raped and murdered should you be allowed to sit as judge for the trail of the accused rapist/murderer?

    Making policy decision based on personal circumstances is extremely unwise.

  9. #139
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

    Re: Should We Allow The Uninsured To Die?

    Quote Originally Posted by atrasicarius View Post
    Alright, that was a cheap shot. Seriously though, are you suggesting that rich people are inherently more valuable and more worth saving than poor people?
    In a social welfare state, **** YEAH. There's no debate when you use objective measures. In a non social welfare state the issue doesn't come up at all because no one but them is paying for their own care and in such a society everyone's life is worth the same.

  10. #140
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Should We Allow The Uninsured To Die?

    Quote Originally Posted by atrasicarius View Post
    Alright, that was a cheap shot. Seriously though, are you suggesting that rich people are inherently more valuable and more worth saving than poor people?
    No absolutely not.

    At the ripe old age of 44 I'm facing a heart transplant and I do not know how any family could not do this with out the help of Social Security. I collect benefits including Medicare.

Page 14 of 38 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •