• 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!

Arizona Death Panel Claims Another Victim

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
30,531
Reaction score
14,937
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
 Arizona Death Panel Claims Another Victim  :      Information Clearing House: ICH

Tucson University Medical Center has confirmed that a patient who was refused a liver transplant due to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s decision to cut the state benefit that would have made the transplant possible, has died. The patient had been scheduled for the needed transplant but was dropped from the waiting list on October 1st when the cuts went into effect.
Please allow the preceding paragraph to sink into your consciousness for a moment.

The Arizona budget that previously provided transplants to people in need was $1.4 million. As there were 99 people on the waiting list for transplants at the time the cuts went into effect, the net result is that the State of Arizona valued each of these lives at something less than $14,000 a person.

Today, there are only 97 on the waiting list as two have passed away.

Where was the charity we are told would assist people like this?
 
What makes you think its the government's job to assist in transplants to begin with?
 
What makes you think its the government's job to assist in transplants to begin with?

Did I say it was?

Notice how I asked where was the charity that conservatives so like to state will take care of the unfortunate, eliminating the need for governmental assistance. Given the conservative nature of Arizona I was suprised that millions of people did not donate to assist this person a fellow american could live.

Overall I am dissappointed at the individuals of Arizona who decided this person should die because they were too cheap to donate a few cents each to allow this person to get a transplant
 
Last edited:
Why did this person need a new liver?


There are various reasons a person might need a new liver. I need a new heart because I was born with isolated left ventricular non compaction.
 
Did I say it was?

Notice how I asked where was the charity that conservatives so like to state will take care of the unfortunate, eliminating the need for governmental assistance. Given the conservative nature of Arizona I was suprised that millions of people did not donate to assist this person a fellow american could live.

NFT
Transplant Living: Organ Donation and Transplantation Information for Patients
Financial Assistance for Transplant Patients
Home
http://www.kidney.org/transplantation/livingdonors/pdf/FinancialResourcesLivingDonation.pdf
Transplant Support Organization
Financial assitance with Liver Transplant - Gastroenterology - MedHelp
Financial Matters: Liver Transplant Costs

That's just page one of a google search.
 
How much is each person's life worth? Give me a dollar figure.

To the person dieing quite alot.

Of course this is more about death panels then what a persons life is worth. Given the outrage of Obama's death panels by many conservatives, I had thought that a conservative state would not decide to let a person die over the cost of a liver transplant
 
To the person dieing quite alot.

That's not really useful though - I'm asking for a number.

Of course this is more about death panels then what a persons life is worth. Given the outrage of Obama's death panels by many conservatives, I had thought that a conservative state would not decide to let a person die over the cost of a liver transplant

I'm 100% pro-death panel, so I'm not really concerned with hoe AZ chooses to allocate their limited resources. I'm mostly just wondering where you would come down on the scale. You're attacking them for saying that they couldn't afford to spend this money - how much do you think they should be spending?
 
That's not really useful though - I'm asking for a number.



I'm 100% pro-death panel, so I'm not really concerned with hoe AZ chooses to allocate their limited resources. I'm mostly just wondering where you would come down on the scale. You're attacking them for saying that they couldn't afford to spend this money - how much do you think they should be spending?

1 billion dollars

If the US governmengt is willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars each year to protect american lives, should not keeping americans alive to be defended be just as worthy a cause?
 
1 billion dollars

If the US governmengt is willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars each year to protect american lives, should not keeping americans alive to be defended be just as worthy a cause?

No, but I assume you knew that.
 
Yes of course

And this thread is not particularly meant for you, but those throwing the Death Panel term around, which I expect you knew that as well

You're criticizing AZ because they weren't willing to spend X dollars on medical procedures for people. I'm asking you for a realistic number of how much a reasonable state should be willing to spend.
 
You're criticizing AZ because they weren't willing to spend X dollars on medical procedures for people. I'm asking you for a realistic number of how much a reasonable state should be willing to spend.

Is that what I am doing?

Or perhaps I am pointing out that Death Panels exist prior to Obama care. Something that I know will shock some posters. That the state decided this person was not worthy of having money spent on him, that each person in Arizona felt this person was not worthy spending money on. That rationing of health care exists in socialized healthcare and in private health care. The only difference is who decides what is to be rationed or not
 
Why do you oppose transplants?

Two basic reasons that aren't even morally-involved (many people oppose have 'right or wrong' view or something of that nature - I don't. Ethically - I have no problems with transplants in certain cases . . so maybe saying 'period' is too drastic)

1) It deters more significant advances in the healing and curing side of the medical-end of the whole issue. I honestly believe that it has become an acceptable choice or alternative to scientists/doctors and patients making a further push into actually preventing and curing said ailments.
2) It has created a vast black-market system in some areas for those who have a significant amount of money *or* those who don't have enough - which brings harm to the innocent which overall defeats the purpose of the donation-system.

Now - per the OP - coining this as a 'death panel' issue is misleading by far. The reality is: organ donation is EXPENSIVE and to purport that the state not only *can* but *must* pay for each and every case is extreme. It is not the state's fault that one is suffering an ailment - they cannot be blamed for the loss-of life or reduced value of life.

The 'death panel' issue centered around *people* (one or more) actually making decisions concerning individual patients on an individual basis - case by case - to determine the course of future action - and end of life planning.
An overall budget-cut is NOT remotely the same . . . to suggest so (as is done in the linked blog) is more ridiculous than the larger 'death panel' issue altogether.

While they're sitting around blaming the state government - and accusing people of being selfish. Why aren't they pointing fingers at the hospital itself? Could it have swallowed the cost of *two* patients seeing as how the program was cut from 99 to 97?

Why aren't they to blame? Why aren't they at fault? They're the ones actually letting money interfere with saving a life - violating their oath, are they not? (ok - so I don't think so either but if one's willing to blame the state government then they might as well go all-out and blame the hospital, too).

Further misleading is the author's assumption that the two which have died would have lived long enough to receive a transplant.
Why were they dropped? What number did they rank on the list? #1 = next in line? or #99 and #98?
Did a donation come through - and go to someone else on the list rather than them?

The link provides none of that information - therefor making it impossible to actually decide what could have been done to save them (if anything).

The Arizona budget that previously provided transplants to people in need was $1.4 million. As there were 99 people on the waiting list for transplants at the time the cuts went into effect, the net result is that the State of Arizona valued each of these lives at something less than $14,000 a person.

This is all we have cost wise to debate. What does this tell us? nothing, really - was the $1.4 million a yearly budget? is $1.4 million actualy spent every cycle ON transplants? If there were only 99 people on the list why would $1.4 million (yes - that's $14,000 ish per person IF this is paid out every year and IF that goes to exactly 99 people EVERY year) - so - is that HIGH or is that LOW? Where is all that cost going? How much is waste, excess - where could they have actually reduced cost *to* the government in this?

What if - within a year - only 20 people receive a transplant - does the government still GIVE them 1.4Million?
If yes - where does the extra go if it's not applied to transplant surgeries and recovery costs, etc?
If no (and they pay out ONLY the cost per patient - and *no more* than $1.4 million total throughout the course of a year for the program) then WHY is there even a problem? They couldn't reduce the cost of the procedure at all to make the newly adjusted budget work for everyone (which is how much? The article doesn't tell us this).

so - this case is smoke. It is nothing but someone ignoring facts and details for the sake of blaming the government rather than the many other people who are also just as 'guilty'
 
Last edited:
Is that what I am doing?

You quoted this:

Tucson University Medical Center has confirmed that a patient who was refused a liver transplant due to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s decision to cut the state benefit that would have made the transplant possible, has died. The patient had been scheduled for the needed transplant but was dropped from the waiting list on October 1st when the cuts went into effect.
Please allow the preceding paragraph to sink into your consciousness for a moment.

The Arizona budget that previously provided transplants to people in need was $1.4 million. As there were 99 people on the waiting list for transplants at the time the cuts went into effect, the net result is that the State of Arizona valued each of these lives at something less than $14,000 a person.

in your OP. I assumed that you were talking about the amount of money that AZ was spending on transplants.

Or perhaps I am pointing out that Death Panels exist prior to Obama care. Something that I know will shock some posters. That the state decided this person was not worthy of having money spent on him, that each person in Arizona felt this person was not worthy spending money on. That rationing of health care exists in socialized healthcare and in private health care. The only difference is who decides what is to be rationed or not

I might just be pissing into the wind, but I think a large part of the objections to the concept of "death panels" is associated with the fact that many believe that the expansion of government insurance that some dems want would push private insurance out of the market, making the government's "death panels" a person's last resort for getting health care. That is very different from the current system, where people can obtain private insurance that would also cover the things in the OP. Accordingly, I think there's a pretty substantial distinction that is being glossed over.
 
To the person dieing quite alot.

Of course this is more about death panels then what a persons life is worth. Given the outrage of Obama's death panels by many conservatives, I had thought that a conservative state would not decide to let a person die over the cost of a liver transplant

How 'bout you head on down to AZ and donate your liver?
 
To the person dieing quite alot.

Of course this is more about death panels then what a persons life is worth. Given the outrage of Obama's death panels by many conservatives, I had thought that a conservative state would not decide to let a person die over the cost of a liver transplant

The state did nothing but concern itself with state-issues.

The hospital itself who charges the state is at fault for letting a reduction in the budget interfere with their priority: saving lives.
 
The state did nothing but concern itself with state-issues.

The hospital itself who charges the state is at fault for letting a reduction in the budget interfere with their priority: saving lives.

So regardless of how far the state cuts its funding, the hospital should just keep performing these surgeries? That's a bit absurd.
 
You quoted this:



in your OP. I assumed that you were talking about the amount of money that AZ was spending on transplants.



I might just be pissing into the wind, but I think a large part of the objections to the concept of "death panels" is associated with the fact that many believe that the expansion of government insurance that some dems want would push private insurance out of the market, making the government's "death panels" a person's last resort for getting health care. That is very different from the current system, where people can obtain private insurance that would also cover the things in the OP. Accordingly, I think there's a pretty substantial distinction that is being glossed over.

All so called death panels deal with affordability. Private insurance companies limit the type and amount of health care they provide and have to to ensure they remain profitable. Government run health care in the same way has limited funds avaliable for health care.

In all such cases due to limited funds some people will not receive the health care they require to live. I dont think it particularly matters if it is a government that decides it, an insurance company or someones lack of insurance or money to pay for it personally.
 
So regardless of how far the state cuts its funding, the hospital should just keep performing these surgeries? That's a bit absurd.

We're not talking about a continual budget-cutting . . . how much cutting, I don't know - the article doesn't discuss that (I guess it didn't matter too much)
They dropped one person. . . one (at least according to article it's just one) - if the system couldn't flex and make it happen for just one person then I seriously question their actual values.

But we don't have the details - the article is drastically biased and actually provides no solid information. From forbes, of all places, I'd expect something far more substantial.
 
Back
Top Bottom