Death Panels Of A Single Payer System

[vegas giants]

I would? No. However, such a decision has been legally upheld in more than one case.

Parents' convictions in 'prayer healing' death upheld - USA Today
Court upholds mother's right to let child die Parent's right to refuse ...

In full disclosure, there are other cases where the court has upheld the right of the State to administer treatment, and / or has held the parents accountable for the consequences of their beliefs.

Parents' convictions in 'prayer healing' death upheld - USA Today
Courts Take Away Parents Rights to Treat Terminally Ill Child - CBN.com
High court upholds convictions of 2 who let daughter die as they prayed

And Charlie Gard has not gone anywhere yet

 

[eohrnberger]

And Charlie Gard has not gone anywhere yet

Good.

It's not a simplistic decision to be made here, and it IS rather telling that the UK single payer system would deny the parents their right to make medical decisions about their child, one that I'm afraid would be used as a precedent for any following similar cases, and it does drag in, as you so aptly have pointed out in your post, a number of rather difficult ethics questions that really need to be examined in the context of potential similar government run single pay healthcare systems.

From my view, if there are no public monies at stake, the State really has very little to say abut the matter.

 

[vegas giants]

Good.

It's not a simplistic decision to be made here, and it IS rather telling that the UK single payer system would deny the parents their right to make medical decisions about their child, one that I'm afraid would be used as a precedent for any following similar cases, and it does drag in, as you so aptly have pointed out in your post, a number of rather difficult ethics questions that really need to be examined in the context of potential similar government run single pay healthcare systems.

From my view, if there are no public monies at stake, the State really has very little to say abut the matter.

Happens here in the states too.

 

[nota bene]

No legal guardian has the right to torture their child.

You keep referring to what the parents are doing as "torture." You're certainly entitled to your opinion, harsh and judgmental as it is, but I wonder about your own experience. Are you yourself a parent? If so, has your child faced a life-threatening or terminal illness? Do you have experience making impossible choices? I'm curious because you've asked whether parents can deny their child cancer treatments.

 

[vegas giants]

You keep referring to what the parents are doing as "torture." You're certainly entitled to your opinion, harsh and judgmental as it is, but I wonder about your own experience. Are you yourself a parent? If so, has your child faced a life-threatening or terminal illness? Do you have experience making impossible choices? I'm curious because you've asked whether parents can deny their child cancer treatments.

No child is allowed to force or deny their child medical treatments against medical advice

 

[radcen]

anyone in America has access to a doctor and medical help if they need it.
I do not believe handing my healthcare over to a moron in Washington as "healthcare"
more of a form of slow suicide.

I've generally thought of you as conservative. Conservatives generally seek fiscal responsibility. Herding people into the ER is expensive and not fiscally responsible, and you end up paying for it as much as the next guy, anyway.

 

[nota bene]

No child is allowed to force or deny their child medical treatments against medical advice

Well, it's good to know that children with children can't make adult decisions.

 

[eohrnberger]

Happens here in the states too.

Yes, it does, and it doesn't make it any less an ethics challenging and moral challenging an issue for the immediate family to grapple with.

My personal opinion is that the immediate family needs to grapple with which decision, and doesn't need government or legal meddling to make it any more difficult for them. Its already a tragic enough situation without that to make it even more tragic, even more difficult for them.

Leave them in peace to come to their own resolution on this, I think, is the wisest of positions to take.

I wish God's speed and God's wisdom for the immediate family, whatever the eventual outcome.

 

[vegas giants]

Well, it's good to know that children with children can't make adult decisions.

Clearly my mistake

 

[eohrnberger]

Ya know, I really don't disagree with you at all, but... if it's only 2% shouldn't it then be not all that much extra cost? Even with the highest of the highest costs.

At that point it becomes the purview of the actualarists. Not enough and you are boorish and cruel. Too much, and you go broke.

 

[ataraxia]

If the free market, supply and demand, and competition are free to provide such proper treatment, at market pricing without long waiting times, often providing treatment too late, to find a terminal condition. Timely access is the key.

In emergency medicine there's the 'golden hour' in which remarkable recoveries from severe and traumatic injuries can occur. The same is with many medical ailments, if you wait too long, the survival rates plummet.

Single payer, with government dictated supply and demand, cannot compete with the free market, supply and demand, and competition.

And besides all that, which is it that drives innovation? Supply and demand, competition? Or government dictated supply and demand and lack of competition?

No one is arguing against the free market in healthcare. Just like no one argues against private schools. If you can afford a private school, great. You have a lucky kid. But there is something about basic human rights, like healthcare and education, which make them a little different than other commodities on the free market, like Rolex watches and sports cars.

The free market does not provide access to everyone. The day everyone can afford a Porsche is the day everyone will be able to afford cancer treatment. It's OK if not everyone can afford a Porsche. But healthcare is different. We people in civilized societies cannot bear to live in a place where we just watch our fellow citizens just die off from easily treated conditions just because they have happened to hit hard times. We find it barbaric and inhumane- unworthy of he human dignity of the citizens of a great country.

As you may know, the prototype of the ACA, a universal health plan with individual mandate, was originally proposed by the Heritage Foundation, perhaps the most elite conservative think tank, back in 1989. I have found their defense of it most interesting, and stated more eloquently than I ever could:

"If a young man wrecks his Porsche and has not had the foresight to obtain insurance, we may commiserate but society feels no obligation to repair his car. But health care is different. If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance. If we find that he has spent his money on other things rather than insurance, we may be angry but we will not deny him services — even if that means more prudent citizens end up paying the tab.
Many states now…require anybody driving a car to have liability insurance. But neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement…Mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance."

 

[eohrnberger]

No one is arguing against the free market in healthcare. Just like no one argues against private schools. If you can afford a private school, great. You have a lucky kid. But there is something about basic human rights, like healthcare and education, which make them a little different than other commodities on the free market, like Rolex watches and sports cars.

The free market does not provide access to everyone. The day everyone can afford a Porsche is the day everyone will be able to afford cancer treatment. It's OK if not everyone can afford a Porsche. But healthcare is different. We people in civilized societies cannot bear to live in a place where we just watch our fellow citizens just die off from easily treated conditions just because they have happened to hit hard times. We find it barbaric and inhumane- unworthy of he human dignity of the citizens of a great country.

I'm terribly sorry, but you've not demonstrated that that the healthcare market is any different, subject to the same market forces as supply and demand and others, as any other market.

If there are so many that find it "barbaric and inhumane- unworthy of he human dignity of the citizens of a great country", it's not unreasonable to expect them put their money where their mouth is. If they find it so barbaric and inhumane, contribute to the any number of charitable organizations which support your values. Might I suggest https://www.charitynavigator.org/ to guide your efforts?

It is, however, unreasonable, to expect others who are not of like mind to be forced to contribute to what they don't believe in (regardless of what you think) by the force of the barrel of the government gun. The rights of those who wish not to contribute to such need to be respected as much as those that do. Forcing such a large part of the electorate to contribute to what they don't believe is a solution by force of the government gun is fundamentally, fascist, mob rule, the imposition of the policy of the minority onto the greater whole.

As you may know, the prototype of the ACA, a universal health plan with individual mandate, was originally proposed by the Heritage Foundation, perhaps the most elite conservative think tank, back in 1989. I have found their defense of it most interesting, and stated more eloquently than I ever could:

An often dispelled narrative. It is one thing to study such a situation, propose such a possible solution, and quite another, a significant difference, to cast it into public policy.

 

[ludin]

again is rushing to an ER "healthcare"? Can you get chemotherapy in an ER?

depends if they have an oncologist on call. if anything they can get you to someone that can help you.
there are plenty of non-profits out there that would help you treat your cancer.

 

[HenryChinaski]

depends if they have an oncologist on call. if anything they can get you to someone that can help you.
there are plenty of non-profits out there that would help you treat your cancer.

It's completely said that you deny reality just so you can hold your political position.

 

[JamesBY]

depends if they have an oncologist on call. if anything they can get you to someone that can help you.
there are plenty of non-profits out there that would help you treat your cancer.

Any argument support HC in a free market system as advantageous always fails.

Any plan that passes out of the Senate will require Dem support and will be much narrower, basically cost containing through subsidies and supports for patients and providers.

 

[katzgar]

depends if they have an oncologist on call. if anything they can get you to someone that can help you.
there are plenty of non-profits out there that would help you treat your cancer.

you have never been in an ER have you. chemo is not administered in an ER

 

[ludin]

No one is arguing against the free market in healthcare. Just like no one argues against private schools. If you can afford a private school, great. You have a lucky kid. But there is something about basic human rights, like healthcare and education, which make them a little different than other commodities on the free market, like Rolex watches and sports cars.

having government control healthcare is pretty much arguing against a free market.

The free market does not provide access to everyone. The day everyone can afford a Porsche is the day everyone will be able to afford cancer treatment. It's OK if not everyone can afford a Porsche. But healthcare is different. We people in civilized societies cannot bear to live in a place where we just watch our fellow citizens just die off from easily treated conditions just because they have happened to hit hard times. We find it barbaric and inhumane- unworthy of he human dignity of the citizens of a great country.

you are making assumption that you can't support. your first mistake is you think that government healthcare is going to cover everything. I hate to tell you that it doesn't. even in European countries it doesn't cover everything.
so you will need a supplemental plan to fill in the gaps. next there are co-pays and even deductibles that have to be paid. People aren't using obamacare now because the deductible is so they can't afford it.

you appeal to emotion is dismissed for what it is.

As you may know, the prototype of the ACA, a universal health plan with individual mandate, was originally proposed by the Heritage Foundation, perhaps the most elite conservative think tank, back in 1989. I have found their defense of it most interesting, and stated more eloquently than I ever could:

I will let the person that helped design the heritage plan say you are wrong.

Don't Blame Heritage for ObamaCare Mandate | The Heritage Foundation

 

[calamity]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-tweets-u-apos-155454733.html

This is what liberals want.

lol...your title is parroting exactly what they talked about on Hannity Radio last night, exploiting this unfortunate situation by spinning it into something it is not. Bravo.

 

[ludin]

Any argument support HC in a free market system as advantageous always fails.

Any plan that passes out of the Senate will require Dem support and will be much narrower, basically cost containing through subsidies and supports for patients and providers.

it is because of that free market that we have developed some of the worlds best lifesaving drugs that exist today.
in fact you can't get some of those life saving drugs elsewhere in the world because their government deems them too expensive.

For years and years you couldn't get Herceptin in Europe which is a huge drug to fight breast cancer. it has saved millions of women.
why couldn't you get it in Europe? their government said it was too expensive. I am sure the women that needed it didn't think it was too expensive.

both plans suck and need to be gotten rid of.

 

[ludin]

It's completely said that you deny reality just so you can hold your political position.

I am not denying anything. you can get treatments if you need them or you can get pointed to a place that you can.
the fact is that even government healthcare isn't going to help you.

How to Navigate Medicare/Medicaid With Cancer | HuffPost

current government healthcare doesn't help you.

you people do not live in reality when it comes to national healthcare. everything government does is at the LCD. that is how everything is done.
every time I call a doctor I get asked if my healthcare is Medicaid or not if it is they don't accept it.

doctors and hospitals are dropping out of the government healthcare business. they can't operate on it. it costs them more to treat than it does what they get paid
if they get paid.

A doctor friend of mine stopped taking Medicaid as well. it paid nothing and it cost him a ton of money to try and get paid when they paid it.

 

[HenryChinaski]

I am not denying anything. you can get treatments if you need them or you can get pointed to a place that you can.
the fact is that even government healthcare isn't going to help you.

How to Navigate Medicare/Medicaid With Cancer | HuffPost

current government healthcare doesn't help you.

you people do not live in reality when it comes to national healthcare. everything government does is at the LCD. that is how everything is done.
every time I call a doctor I get asked if my healthcare is Medicaid or not if it is they don't accept it.

doctors and hospitals are dropping out of the government healthcare business. they can't operate on it. it costs them more to treat than it does what they get paid
if they get paid.

A doctor friend of mine stopped taking Medicaid as well. it paid nothing and it cost him a ton of money to try and get paid when they paid it.

Word of advice, read your links clearly before using them to support your position, It makes you look foolish. And in the same breath you say that doctors won't accept Medicaid and then post a link on how to treat cancer with Medicaid. Just stop, you epitomize exactly what's wrong with this country.

 

[ludin]

I've generally thought of you as conservative. Conservatives generally seek fiscal responsibility. Herding people into the ER is expensive and not fiscally responsible, and you end up paying for it as much as the next guy, anyway.

that isn't what is said. I said that people have access to treatment if they need it.
I hate the ER and I get onto my wife every time she runs there for something. I am like go to the urgent clinic up the road before you go to the emergency room.

they take our insurance and it is way cheaper than the emergency room.

the fact is there are other ways to cover people and make a truly free market. the thing is both sides would not like it but i don't see any other way.
going back is not going to happen. having the government control our healthcare is simply not an option either.

 

[ludin]

Word of advice, read your links clearly before using them to support your position, It makes you look foolish. And in the same breath you say that doctors won't accept Medicaid and then post a link on how to treat cancer with Medicaid. Just stop, you epitomize exactly what's wrong with this country.

actually it does support my position. if you had actually read the article like I did. it shows that current government healthcare doesn't help people either.
they can't afford the treatment even with government healthcare. they need additional insurance or charity help.

there are doctors and hospitals dropping out. some will still take it.

nope I point out the problems of government run healthcare that you deny exist. even with government healthcare you can't force a hospital or doctor to accept it.
so who cares if you have coverage if no one takes it.

who cares if you have coverage if your coverage doesn't cover what you need.
and even under government healthcare people still can't afford it.

why do you continue to deny reality?

 

[slo1111]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-tweets-u-apos-155454733.html

This is what liberals want.

No we prefer to let health insurance companies make life or death decisions just like our fellow Republicans.


BTW, it is absurd to suggest that there are not life and death decisions made by US doctors every day. Doctors are obligated to "Do No Harm" and they weight the costs of performing surgeries or procedures on patients versus odds of survival.

It absolutely blows me away that Republicans admit there is no possible way to pay for healthcare for everyone, so some will just not get care as a reality of life, yet they will latch on to one case and are willing to spend billions on it.

Let people who you can save die while we try to save just one who is extremely unlikely to be saved.

That is sound logic, NOT!

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

 

[HenryChinaski]

actually it does support my position. if you had actually read the article like I did. it shows that current government healthcare doesn't help people either.
they can't afford the treatment even with government healthcare. they need additional insurance or charity help.

there are doctors and hospitals dropping out. some will still take it.

nope I point out the problems of government run healthcare that you deny exist. even with government healthcare you can't force a hospital or doctor to accept it.
so who cares if you have coverage if no one takes it.

who cares if you have coverage if your coverage doesn't cover what you need.
and even under government healthcare people still can't afford it.

why do you continue to deny reality?

In other countries it does help tremendously Other nations with some form of government system have better care and coverage by far and it's way cheaper. And that's the conservatives solution for everything. Hungry? go to a church or a soup kitchen, maybe they haven't run out. Need chemotherapy? try to find a charity that may or not be able to help. I ****ing hope that you never end up on the skids without health insurance with prostate cancer and no means to treat it. Because then reality will hit you in the face.