• 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!

Should We Allow The Uninsured To Die?

Is that a question or a statement? I cannot tell, because it doesnt stem directly from anything I said.
Maybe you could show a little honesty and ask a question that doesn't suppose someting about my position.

No need to get defensive. I was just asking.
 
Because he has no intention of living with a diminished quality of life. Watching several people waste away and die in pain did quite a number on him and he doesn't want it for himself. He's made it pretty clear he won't stay around for long once things start to decline.

people have treatable diseases that once treated do not diminish quality of life. people get cancer and are cured with no diminished quality of life. good god, he's only 47.
 
Non sequitur, red herring.

You may want to look up those words, and reapply logic. When denying someone treatment which can save their life because they do not have money or insurance coverage, it naturally follows that the value of their life is equal to the monetary value of the treatment needed to keep them alive. Also, one cannot separate the question posed in the OP from an ethical discussion. So-you're wrong on both accounts.

You're pulling that out of your ass. People are hospitalized when it's medically necessary and discharged when it's no longer medically necessary. If you're going to claim the same doctors in hospitals discriminate on the basis of funding source, you've got a big claim to support.

Not really. Patient dumping is a well documented phenomenon. Try googling it.



I assure you it does not. Read the link.

I only just noticed your link since you later edited your post.

However, as I said, if preventative care is low cost and not abused, it can reduce costs.

There are variables to consider here: how much it costs to administer the preventive measure, how effective the preventive measure is in preventing the condition, whether preventing the condition results in the patient surviving longer, thus having even more time to consume healthcare resources for other medical conditions. OF COURSE, allowing sick people to die is a cheaper option. Not treating people with costly conditions to begin with is also cheaper. But this is where we run into ethical issues.

Apparently, many people in this thread find such a discussion to be a "red herring." My, how they'd change their minds if their health problems and lives were in question. So often, people only apply their "ubermensch" mentalities to others. Of course, people with that mentality are either healthy at the time, or do not yet realize their own need for care.
 
I'm sorry, but we don't need to give congress power beyond that provided to them by the consitution to mandate the sale of a product until we look at every other option. Forcing a product on to somebody because it seems like a magical cure-all....isn't. On my MRI, the insurance paid the hospital $80. The billed price of the MRI was $700. I paid nothing. So where'd the other $620 go? On the backs of other patients? Onto the government? Out of the hospital's pockets? The system is inherently flawed. Universal coverage or mandated insurance don't fix the flaws. It's like putting a bandaid over a severed limb. You think even with insurance that my dad could cover his portion of a bypass surgery? That'd be several thousand dollars, if not several tens of thousands of dollars.
Medical costs are driven up in large part -because- of the insulation of the consumer from the true cost of the goods/services he receives.
-Eliminating- 3rd-party payment will reduce costs and improve quality of care by forcing providers to compete for the pool of customers who only have $X to spend.
 
You may want to look up those words, and reapply logic. When denying someone treatment which can save their life because they do not have money or insurance coverage, it naturally follows that the value of their life is equal to the monetary value of the treatment needed to keep them alive.
No. It doesn't. There's no judgement whatsoever on the value of the person in question in the post you responded to, and thus, non sequitur.

However....It DOES naturally follow that by forcing others to prvovide medical treatment to somoene who cannot pay, that the life of that someone -is- more valuable than the labor that produced the wealth that is then taken to provide for that same someone.
So... According to you...the life of person who cannot pay > the right of someone else to retain the fruits of their labor.
Please - support that position.

Also, one cannot separate the question posed in the OP from an ethical discussion. So-you're wrong on both accounts.
I am wrong on neither.
You are trying to discuss a position of a judgement of value of a person in respose to a post that you did not otherwise address in an effort to avoid the substance of said post - which you have still not addressed. Thus, red herring.
 
Last edited:
No. It doesn't. There's no judgement whatsoever on the value of the person in question in the post you responded to, and thus, non sequitur.

However....It DOES naturally follow that by forcing others to prvovide medical treatment to somoene who cannot pay, that the life of that someone -is- more valuable than the labor that produced the wealth that is then taken to provide for that same someone.
So... According to you...the life of person who cannot pay > the right of someone else to retain the fruits of their labor.
Please - support that position.


I am wrong on neither.
You are trying to discuss a position of a judgement of value of a person in respose to a post that you did not otherwise address in an effort to avoid the substance of said post - which you have still not addressed. Thus, red herring.

Wait- you tell me that my position is a non sequitur, but then turn around apply the exact opposite, and claim that it isn't a logical fallacy? :lamo
 
Wait- you tell me that my position is a non sequitur...
From the post you responded to? Yes. Absolutely. No way to argue otherwise.

but then turn around apply the exact opposite, and claim that it isn't a logical fallacy?
-You- brought up the idea of judging the value of on person over another. I merely applied what you said to the 'must provide treatment' argument, which does exactly that. Thus, it was NOT a non sequitur from YOUR response.
:shrug:

And... you have STILL not responded to the actual point I made in my post - thus, you continue the red herring.
 
Last edited:
people have treatable diseases that once treated do not diminish quality of life. people get cancer and are cured with no diminished quality of life. good god, he's only 47.

And right now he's in perfect health. But you don't know my dad. He's convinced Chemo is a waste (and at 5% success rates, who could blame him?). His grandmother and grandfather died from dementia. His father had a host of health issues (and a dining room table quite literally FULL of medications he had to take). His brother fought cancer for 4 years and was pretty much skeletal when he passed.

If it can't be cured with antibiotics or 1-time surgery my dad isn't going to do it. So why should he be forced to buy insurance he doesn't have any intention of using?
 
So why should he be forced to buy insurance he doesn't have any intention of using?
No one should - no one CAN - be forced to buy good or services of any kind as a basic requirement of citizenship.
 
And right now he's in perfect health. But you don't know my dad. He's convinced Chemo is a waste (and at 5% success rates, who could blame him?). His grandmother and grandfather died from dementia. His father had a host of health issues (and a dining room table quite literally FULL of medications he had to take). His brother fought cancer for 4 years and was pretty much skeletal when he passed.

If it can't be cured with antibiotics or 1-time surgery my dad isn't going to do it. So why should he be forced to buy insurance he doesn't have any intention of using?

so many things could happen, that's why. but oh well.
 
Because the vast majority of non-insured holdouts change their mind at the moment of truth and get treated. We all pay in the form of higher premiums.

Sure, there might me a couple ideological holdouts who actually do pick dying of treatable disease instead because they feel passionately about not having insurance. Most won't. So if we are going to insist on sticking to our "private"system, then everyone is going to have to be covered.
 
Because the vast majority of non-insured holdouts change their mind at the moment of truth and get treated. We all pay in the form of higher premiums.

Sure, there might me a couple ideological holdouts who actually do pick dying of treatable disease instead because they feel passionately about not having insurance. Most won't. So if we are going to insist on sticking to our "private"system, then everyone is going to have to be covered.

I would say, yet again, that mandating insurance for everybody doesn't solve anything. Prices are still high, people will still not be covered, the system will still be abused by idiots who go to the ER because their kid sneezed three times in 24 hours. Instead of avoiding the real issues, we want to allow congress to violate the limits of their authority because.....why, exactly?
 
I would say, yet again, that mandating insurance for everybody doesn't solve anything. Prices are still high, people will still not be covered, the system will still be abused by idiots who go to the ER because their kid sneezed three times in 24 hours. Instead of avoiding the real issues, we want to allow congress to violate the limits of their authority because.....why, exactly?

Certainly seems a much better idea to expand Medicare to cover everyone. This is just one more example of an essential service with inelastic demand not being best served by for-profit companies.

Mandating private insurance is one of the most inefficient ways to address the problem, but people think offering health services equals communism. So if you want to keep your "free market" for every non-communist under age 65, you'll have to buy in.
 
Certainly seems a much better idea to expand Medicare to cover everyone. This is just one more example of an essential service with inelastic demand not being best served by for-profit companies.

Mandating private insurance is one of the most inefficient ways to address the problem, but people think offering health services equals communism. So if you want to keep your "free market" for every non-communist under age 65, you'll have to buy in.

Single payer doesn't address the problem either. All it does is set artificial pricing levels, which will lead to rationed care and limited access to the more expensive (but often best) diagnostic tools and treatmeant options.
 
Single payer doesn't address the problem either. All it does is set artificial pricing levels, which will lead to rationed care and limited access to the more expensive (but often best) diagnostic tools and treatmeant options.

we will certainly need to address cost. there are a lot of potential ways to do this, and in my opinion, this is the discussion we should be having. for example, we need a lot more doctors, and it shouldn't cost a billion dollars to bring a drug to market. both sides are going to have to give; the current pricing system is unsustainable.
 
Single payer doesn't address the problem either. All it does is set artificial pricing levels, which will lead to rationed care and limited access to the more expensive (but often best) diagnostic tools and treatmeant options.

I concede your point completely, but I happen to think this is just what we need...and in fact, what is inevitable. My preference would be that the rationing be done on a basis we at least have a voice in.
 
When you write policy based on the mental image of your child dying, it's not going to be a cost-effective policy.

Wanna know why? Because watching children die makes people extremely emotional and not always rational.

In other words, the left's appeals to pity do not strengthen their arguments, they weaken them.

Right. Because making money is obviously a higher goal than saving children.
 
which would be fine IF, repeat IF, ALL the members of society pitched in. problem is, the ones getting the most benefit are the ones who pitch in the least.

That may be true in this system, but that's because this system is poorly designed. Here's something to consider. A blue collar worker benefits from having universal health care, and he doesn't pay that much in taxes. A wealthy business owner pays more taxes to be covered by universal health care. But the business owner also benefits from having all his employees covered by universal health care, so he doesn't have to worry about them getting sick. That's why it's called the common good.
 
I would say, yet again, that mandating insurance for everybody doesn't solve anything. Prices are still high, people will still not be covered, the system will still be abused by idiots who go to the ER because their kid sneezed three times in 24 hours. Instead of avoiding the real issues, we want to allow congress to violate the limits of their authority because.....why, exactly?

So instead, just get universal health care. Simple.
 
So instead, just get universal health care. Simple.

I took a neighbor to the ER Saturday night about 10:30 pm. We left at 4 am the next day. The place was about half full with babies....there can't be much more soul-crushing than not being able to get access to well-baby care.

I'm tired of allowing the poor to go without care -- especially the children. Universal care is the only sane option to me.
 
Right. Because making money is obviously a higher goal than saving children.

That's not what he said.

He said that raw emotion should not be our main driver when crafting policy because we could end up with a very ineffective system that will end up collapsing on itself in a number of years, perhaps because people will want to help everyone for everything when in reality that just might not be feasible.
 
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.

You do realize that what YOU are referring to as death panels is already fully extant in private insurance, right.

"Lifetime limits" is one term used.

End of life COUNSELING is just that. "Got your **** in order? How much effort do you want expended extending your life? Shall we spend just your entire estate or bankrupt your family as well."

For profit insurance fulfills its legal mandate to its shareholders in one of two ways.

Raising premiums.

Reducing care.

Everything else is peanuts.

And the top payed CEO in health insurance earned $23,000 an HOUR one year. Authorized by stockholders. Tidy profits. Enough so ya gotta wonder how much waste would have to be commited by govt to affect actual cost of care, when profits justify salaries of this magnitude. How many thousands an hour OVER 23,000 are they pulling down to authorize a compensation package that large?
 
Back
Top Bottom