• 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!

Bill Kevorkian Gates on Death Panels

Vicki said:
I truly understand your view and understand what you are saying. I just wish they could lower medical costs so no one would have to make a decision like this. Seems there are steps that would help so much. Maybe that is something I should write my representatives about.
Click to expand...

It would be nice. I have seen studies on tort reform though and they only seem to make a 3-5% difference on costs. While any lowering is good, we need to revolutionize the system if we are going to see major positive change.
 
winston53660 said:
In y situation it is not so much about money but it is about the availability of a heart. There is only so many of the things around ya know?
Click to expand...

Yes you are right, just can't imagine being the person that tells the mother they are going to let her baby die cuz they would rather save somebody else.




megaprogman said:
It would be nice. I have seen studies on tort reform though and they only seem to make a 3-5% difference on costs. While any lowering is good, we need to revolutionize the system if we are going to see major positive change.
Click to expand...
 
Vicki said:
Yes you are right, just can't imagine being the person that tells the mother they are going to let her baby die cuz they would rather save somebody else.
Click to expand...

It sucks, I agree and I am glad I am not the one who has to make that kind of choice. It would be like a military commander who has to choose who is going to die in the next assault.

However, the way I see it is that I would rather have to make the choice between who's life to save over whether to save a life or protect an insurance company's profits. The second one truly is putting a price on life.
 
megaprogman said:
It would be nice. I have seen studies on tort reform though and they only seem to make a 3-5% difference on costs. While any lowering is good, we need to revolutionize the system if we are going to see major positive change.
Click to expand...

I agree we do need to revolutionize the system but needs to be done with more thought on the impacts of the changes. What concerns me the most is we are allowing the government handle this and they really haven't done that well with VA or medicare. I can't imagine it getting any better anytime soon. I appreciate the talk with you about this...never realized this was going on until today.
 
megaprogman said:
It sucks, I agree and I am glad I am not the one who has to make that kind of choice. It would be like a military commander who has to choose who is going to die in the next assault.

However, the way I see it is that I would rather have to make the choice between who's life to save over whether to save a life or protect an insurance company's profits. The second one truly is putting a price on life.
Click to expand...

AMEN megaprogman, it really is sick how the insurance companies are benfitting from this.
 
I'm speechless...I feel there should be no price on life.
Click to expand...

Were you unaware of the millions of people around the world who die because they can't afford the costs of the basic medical care or clean drinking water? Resource distribution is a zero-sum game. That nice computer you are typing is probably worth enough money to save a dozen lives in Somali. Ultimately, you do have to decide how much a human life is worth one way or another. I frankly find it a lot easier to justify not paying tens of thousands of dollars to get a few extra-months of pain-wracked existence for someone who has lived a long life than it is to not pay one hundred to save a kids life just because they were born in the wrong country.
 
There has to be a price on life, because you can't spend an infinite amount of money on one person. Resources are limited and the efficiency of spending must be a priority. It's a waste of resources to keep 1 person alive for ten extra minutes when that same amount of money can do far more good elsewhere. The only way that a life can be of infinite value and have no price is if resources are post-scarce. And that's not going to happen.
 
rathi said:
Were you unaware of the millions of people around the world who die because they can't afford the costs of the basic medical care or clean drinking water? Resource distribution is a zero-sum game. That nice computer you are typing is probably worth enough money to save a dozen lives in Somali. Ultimately, you do have to decide how much a human life is worth one way or another. I frankly find it a lot easier to justify not paying tens of thousands of dollars to get a few extra-months of pain-wracked existence for someone who has lived a long life than it is to not pay one hundred to save a kids life just because they were born in the wrong country.
Click to expand...

I am very aware of the millions in other countries that die because they don't have the money. I was referring to the United States. I can see you are very passionate about your stance on this. So we will leave it at that.
 
I am very aware of the millions in other countries that die because they don't have the money. I was referring to the United States. I can see you are very passionate about your stance on this. So we will leave it at that.
Click to expand...

Not really. I just hate the absurd fantasy that "there is no price on life". Especially when you we have life insurance companies who do exactly that.
 
Vicki said:
Instead of having a group of people decide who will get to live or die, gawd that is a horrible thought, why doesn't the government put a cap on what a person can sue a doctor, make insurance companies non-profit, stop allowing illegals to receive free health care, and loosen the rules allowing nurses and aides to provide some of the simple services? This would decrease costs and not turn into a hitler nation where a group of people get to say I'm not going to extend your life because I want to pay some teacher a better salary. The thought is just sickening, reminds me of a court deciding if a person should get the death penalty and these people haven't done a crime but setenced to die.
Click to expand...

If I lose my leg to an incompetent doctor amputating the wrong leg off, their should be no limit to how much I can sue the moron for

If the doctor does a compentent job, but for some reason the treatment does not go well I should not be able to sue and win
 
rathi said:
Not really. I just hate the absurd fantasy that "there is no price on life". Especially when you we have life insurance companies who do exactly that.
Click to expand...
Hate is pretty strong word for someone else's absurd fantasy. I agree with you on the insurance companies and it should be a crime imo.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
If I lose my leg to an incompetent doctor amputating the wrong leg off, their should be no limit to how much I can sue the moron for

If the doctor does a compentent job, but for some reason the treatment does not go well I should not be able to sue and win
Click to expand...

Personally I would rather have a limit on suit and live without legs if I knew the money would save someone else's life.
 
MaggieD said:
There are Doctor Death Panels. There are Insurance Company Death Panels. UHC will change nothing.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I don't quite understand why people think it's better for death panels to be completely closed off from public review, without any public transparency rather then having public input and oversight. Really, sunlight is the best disinfectant and people like Zimmer are arguing for no sunlight. Do we want to know how these decisions are being made? Absolutely. Well, that goes for me. I don't think having life and death decisions made in some back office of an insurance agency who fights tooth and nail to prevent you from knowing anything is a good idea. Maybe some people do?
 
Vicki said:
I'm speechless...I feel there should be no price on life.
Click to expand...
If life is priceless then things like cars should be banned because they're dangerous. Of course it would harm the economy but that's OK because life is pricelless, right? But wait, the negative impact on the economy would have a negative impact on health and longevity. In reality, life does have a price.
 
obvious Child said:
Indeed. I don't quite understand why people think it's better for death panels to be completely closed off from public review, without any public transparency rather then having public input and oversight. Really, sunlight is the best disinfectant and people like Zimmer are arguing for no sunlight. Do we want to know how these decisions are being made? Absolutely. Well, that goes for me. I don't think having life and death decisions made in some back office of an insurance agency who fights tooth and nail to prevent you from knowing anything is a good idea. Maybe some people do?
Click to expand...
Insurance companies don't have death panels because they can't determine who gets what treatment. They merely decide what they're going to pay for, and that doesn't prevent people from using other options. Currently in the US, patients have multiple options. You can buy insurance that covers everything, you can pay for all of your medical costs out of pocket, you can do a combination of the first two options, or you can also go through bankruptcy if it comes down to it. The only reason that they don't have medical bankruptcy in single payer countries like Canada, is because it isn't an option. If you get turned down for treatment, your only recourse is to leave the country for treatment. That's closer to a death panel than anything we have in the US.
 
mpg said:
Insurance companies don't have death panels because they can't determine who gets what treatment.
Click to expand...

Say what? Really? Insurance companies deny coverage all of the time to people for treatment. Where did you get the idea that insurance companies don't deny coverage?

They merely decide what they're going to pay for, and that doesn't prevent people from using other options.
Click to expand...

Say what? Are you really arguing that insurance companies never flat out deny certain treatments?

Currently in the US, patients have multiple options. You can buy insurance that covers everything, you can pay for all of your medical costs out of pocket, you can do a combination of the first two options, or you can also go through bankruptcy if it comes down to it.
Click to expand...

But that doesn't address my point. Insurance companies denying treatment and fighting for years to deny treatment is effectively a death panel. By stating policy of not covering X, Y and Z and then fighting against claims until the patient is dead, they have effectively acted as a death panel.

The only reason that they don't have medical bankruptcy in single payer countries like Canada, is because it isn't an option. If you get turned down for treatment, your only recourse is to leave the country for treatment. That's closer to a death panel than anything we have in the US.
Click to expand...

Not quite. If you can't get the surgery in the first place to even declare bankrupcy, that's functionally the same as the Canadian problem.
 
I canceled the collision insurance on my car, but that doesn't stop me from taking my car to a body shop. I've done the same thing with my health.
 
mpg said:
Insurance companies don't have death panels because they can't determine who gets what treatment. They merely decide what they're going to pay for, and that doesn't prevent people from using other options. Currently in the US, patients have multiple options. You can buy insurance that covers everything, you can pay for all of your medical costs out of pocket, you can do a combination of the first two options, or you can also go through bankruptcy if it comes down to it. The only reason that they don't have medical bankruptcy in single payer countries like Canada, is because it isn't an option. If you get turned down for treatment, your only recourse is to leave the country for treatment. That's closer to a death panel than anything we have in the US.
Click to expand...

Except we do not "turn down" anyone for treatment

With a rider

IF you have a terminal condition like extreme old age you will not be admitted to ICU unless you will only be there for a short time - i.e. overnight stay post op

But of course in America where it pays to put Great great grandma, who has been quietly dying in a local nursing home the last 29 years through 6 months of ICU interventions because ICU is refunded really really well and the hospital makes $$$$$$$ from each admission like this
 
mpg said:
I canceled the collision insurance on my car, but that doesn't stop me from taking my car to a body shop. I've done the same thing with my health.
Click to expand...

ICU STARTS at $3,000 per day
 
bowerbird said:
Except we do not "turn down" anyone for treatment

With a rider

IF you have a terminal condition like extreme old age you will not be admitted to ICU unless you will only be there for a short time - i.e. overnight stay post op

But of course in America where it pays to put Great great grandma, who has been quietly dying in a local nursing home the last 29 years through 6 months of ICU interventions because ICU is refunded really really well and the hospital makes $$$$$$$ from each admission like this
Click to expand...
So you're saying that ICUs are being overused? If so, then I guess you agree that we don't currently have death panels in the US.
 
mpg said:
So you're saying that ICUs are being overused? If so, then I guess you agree that we don't currently have death panels in the US.
Click to expand...

One in five deaths in the USA happen in ICU - that is not one in five patients die in ICU - that is one in five deaths

That suggests that you are admitting EVERYONE to ICU regardless of effectiveness of treatment or prolongation of agony.

And if you think there is nothing worse than death you have NEVER seen what ICU can do to a patient
 
Dr. Jack Kevorkian is a great man. He did a great thing for people. The fcat he was imprisoned is a travesty.
 
bowerbird said:
One in five deaths in the USA happen in ICU - that is not one in five patients die in ICU - that is one in five deaths

That suggests that you are admitting EVERYONE to ICU regardless of effectiveness of treatment or prolongation of agony.

And if you think there is nothing worse than death you have NEVER seen what ICU can do to a patient
Click to expand...
I don't think it made it into the final bill, but when reform was being debated, there were those who wanted doctors to discuss other options with their terminally ill patients. I thought that that was a good idea, but I don't see why the doctors need to be prodded by the government. They should be doing it already, but if government prodding is needed to get doctors to do it, that's fine by me.
 
mpg said:
I don't think it made it into the final bill, but when reform was being debated, there were those who wanted doctors to discuss other options with their terminally ill patients. I thought that that was a good idea, but I don't see why the doctors need to be prodded by the government. They should be doing it already, but if government prodding is needed to get doctors to do it, that's fine by me.
Click to expand...

There is a method of assessing the patients probable survival - although it is a little time consuming so can't be done in an emergency situation. Basically we will not admit to ICU if the APACHE III score is less than a certain number although that is a little age and circumstance dependent. I.e. a young mother would get admitted no matter how near or even beyond certainty that she would not survive because we have to give them a chance

We will admit someone sometimes for palliative care because it is the only single room available and the family want to be with the person

Compassion plays a BIG part in decision making - and that goes BOTH ways - ICU can be a messy, horrible death
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom