Death Panels Plus?

[Madeline]

That attitude, right there, is why people in the government SHOULD NOT be allowed to have panels deciding such things!!!!

Sure, baby, sure. So let us deprive a five year old of the care needed to prevent a dihibilitating illness so some old man or woman can live another three weeks.

wow, just wow. You didn't think that through rocks.

if you really want to get into the discussion as to who qualitatively brings more to the table ala the collective, and how deserves what based on that, well, I don't think you want to have that argument.

if you do please let me know. Please.

I'm game, Trajan. I have to run out to the store now but please....explain to me why a 100 year old's health is more valuable than a 5 year old's?

 

[editec]

It's a finite HC world with an near infinite HC demand.

Private insurance companies ALREADY HAVE DEATH PANELS, Sinatra.

AS do the government's HC providers.

So its a tad late to freak out about it, don't you think?

 

[Madeline]

Please don't put up a strawman and knock it down when responding to me, its lame.

Since we are on the strawman thing right now let me try.

The governments regulations will be to reduce the bottom line to an extent that goes further than what insurance companies currently do in search of profits leaving EVERYONE with less care. So you want people to have less care then they do now.

Man strawmen make arguing so much easier.

It is my contention that a for-profit health insurance industry is bad for the nation.

there is no other way to go, like it or not some earn the right to more provisions than some and a seat at the fire.....

I'm okay with that. A policy that offers more bells and whistles than government-furnished care can provide is fine by me. What I am not okay with is depriving the poor, working poor and middle class of health care because they cannot afford to pay for or keep insurance.

Your system concentrates more and more care on fewer and fewer people. Mine does the opposite, and I suppose it is a question of values. I'm fine with admitting I want more care for more people.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Speaking of gasbags....

No one is calling for killing the elderly, but why should we spend millions to buy some old person a few more months or even years of crappy life? Can anyone explain to me how this makes sense...and yet we are conflicted about whether to even feed the young?

This country's conservatives strike me sometimes as completely out of touch with reality.

So who judges if the person's life quality is "crappy" or "good". Is it just based on their age?

Why do you want the government to have the power to make that decision?

No one is going to stop you from getting treatment of ANY kind if you can pay for it yourself.
This is about who decides how much someone ELSE is going to pay for your care.

If you have unlimited cash/assets, you can have unlimited healthcare.

If you buy private insurance, you will be limited by the limits of the coverage you purchased.
If you have government funded insurance, you will be limited SOMEHOW because the government does not have unlimited resources...

...unless of course you want to grant the government access to unlimited resources through taxation, etc.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

No one is calling for killing the elderly, but why should we spend millions to buy some old person a few more months or even years of crappy life? Can anyone explain to me how this makes sense...and yet we are conflicted about whether to even feed the young?

This country's conservatives strike me sometimes as completely out of touch with reality.

So who judges if the person's life quality is "crappy" or "good". Is it just based on their age?

Why do you want the government to have the power to make that decision?

No one is going to stop you from getting treatment of ANY kind if you can pay for it yourself.
This is about who decides how much someone ELSE is going to pay for your care.

If you have unlimited cash/assets, you can have unlimited healthcare.

If you buy private insurance, you will be limited by the limits of the coverage you purchased.
If you have government funded insurance, you will be limited SOMEHOW because the government does not have unlimited resources...

...unless of course you want to grant the government access to unlimited resources through taxation, etc.

Interesting response to my questions but I dont see an answer in there. I'll move forward once you answer what I asked.

So who judges if the person's life quality is "crappy" or "good"?
Is it just based on their age?
Why do you want the government to have the power to make that decision?

 

[Madeline]

So who judges if the person's life quality is "crappy" or "good". Is it just based on their age?

Why do you want the government to have the power to make that decision?

No one is going to stop you from getting treatment of ANY kind if you can pay for it yourself.
This is about who decides how much someone ELSE is going to pay for your care.

If you have unlimited cash/assets, you can have unlimited healthcare.

If you buy private insurance, you will be limited by the limits of the coverage you purchased.
If you have government funded insurance, you will be limited SOMEHOW because the government does not have unlimited resources...

...unless of course you want to grant the government access to unlimited resources through taxation, etc.

Interesting response to my questions but I dont see an answer in there. I'll move forward once you answer what I asked.

So who judges if the person's life quality is "crappy" or "good"?
Is it just based on their age?
Why do you want the government to have the power to make that decision?

Why would you prefer some corporate drone with an eye on the bottom line make the decision instead of the government?

Bottom line is, no matter how much you may crave every medical feat possible be performed for your granny, if you cannot pay cash, the answer will have to be "no". It already is, though not often enough, and this will only be more necessary as the population ages. People are hearing "no" now, and more will be hearing it in the future. I suggest we say it more often to the elderly and less often to the young.

As for quality of life, how about we begin by asking the patient? I know I do not want to live in a persistent state of severe mental impairment and/or pain and/or severe physical impairment as I grow old.....and I dunno anyone who does.

Do you?

 

[Trajan]

Why would you prefer some corporate drone with an eye on the bottom line make the decision instead of the government?


Do you?

yes I would. I would take a "corp. drone' any day over the gov.

should I explain why?

 

[Madeline]

Why would you prefer some corporate drone with an eye on the bottom line make the decision instead of the government?


Do you?

yes I would. I would take a "corp. drone' any day over the gov.

should I explain why?

Yes, please.

 

[Trajan]

Sure, baby, sure. So let us deprive a five year old of the care needed to prevent a dihibilitating illness so some old man or woman can live another three weeks.

wow, just wow. You didn't think that through rocks.

if you really want to get into the discussion as to who qualitatively brings more to the table ala the collective, and how deserves what based on that, well, I don't think you want to have that argument.

if you do please let me know. Please.

I'm game, Trajan. I have to run out to the store now but please....explain to me why a 100 year old's health is more valuable than a 5 year old's?

a) who decides?
b) how do they decide where does it end and begin? 18 35 45? vs. 65, 75, 90?
c) at the end of the day IF the collective were to enact processes along these lines, realizing/calculating individual worth to the collective we would not be having this conversation.
If I earn more and contribute more on the whole that is realized by those via progressive taxing than those “below me” than the guy assembling widgets, lets say I walk into a hospital or was sent heir by my doctor with my daughter who is in need of treatment, a very expensive time consuming one, and say the guy who makes widgets in a factory comes in at exactly the same time and his son or daughter requires same and there is only enough resources for one of them, who gets the treatment? I ask you. Who should get the treatment?

 

[Trajan]

Why would you prefer some corporate drone with an eye on the bottom line make the decision instead of the government?


Do you?

yes I would. I would take a "corp. drone' any day over the gov.

should I explain why?

Yes, please.

Because a corp drone is driven by a know quantity, that is or should be market driven there fore malleable. The gov. drone is driven by ideology.

You tell me; which in the end is the more constant and dependable?

 

[NYcarbineer]

yes I would. I would take a "corp. drone' any day over the gov.

should I explain why?

Yes, please.

Because a corp drone is driven by a know quantity, that is or should be market driven there fore malleable. The gov. drone is driven by ideology.

You tell me; which in the end is the more constant and dependable?

If I was a person of modest means, with children, would I want a government school system with a mandate (aka 'ideology') to make every reasonable effort to educate all children without regard to their ability to pay,

or would I want my only educational option to be a private sector for-profit system with the bottomline as its primary concern?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So who judges if the person's life quality is "crappy" or "good". Is it just based on their age?

Why do you want the government to have the power to make that decision?

No one is going to stop you from getting treatment of ANY kind if you can pay for it yourself.
This is about who decides how much someone ELSE is going to pay for your care.

If you have unlimited cash/assets, you can have unlimited healthcare.

If you buy private insurance, you will be limited by the limits of the coverage you purchased.
If you have government funded insurance, you will be limited SOMEHOW because the government does not have unlimited resources...

...unless of course you want to grant the government access to unlimited resources through taxation, etc.

Interesting response to my questions but I dont see an answer in there. I'll move forward once you answer what I asked.

So who judges if the person's life quality is "crappy" or "good"?
Is it just based on their age?
Why do you want the government to have the power to make that decision?

I answered your question.

 

[Madeline]

yes I would. I would take a "corp. drone' any day over the gov.

should I explain why?

Yes, please.

Because a corp drone is driven by a know quantity, that is or should be market driven there fore malleable. The gov. drone is driven by ideology.

You tell me; which in the end is the more constant and dependable?

I dunno what you mean by "malleable" Trajan. It's damned near impossible for a policyholder to alter an insurance company decision on approval or denial of coverage in the health care arena. These people are "constant and dependable" only in the sense that profit is the only real consideration, yes.

I want the crappy health system a government-run single payer can deliver, not the illusory one a for-profit one does. I'm just annoying that way.

 

[Trajan]

Yes, please.

Because a corp drone is driven by a know quantity, that is or should be market driven there fore malleable. The gov. drone is driven by ideology.

You tell me; which in the end is the more constant and dependable?

If I was a person of modest means, with children, would I want a government school system with a mandate (aka 'ideology') to make every reasonable effort to educate all children without regard to their ability to pay,

or would I want my only educational option to be a private sector for-profit system with the bottomline as its primary concern?

if we are discussing something as flexible and comparatively benign as education you'd have a point, but we are not.

 

[NYcarbineer]

wow, just wow. You didn't think that through rocks.

if you really want to get into the discussion as to who qualitatively brings more to the table ala the collective, and how deserves what based on that, well, I don't think you want to have that argument.

if you do please let me know. Please.

I'm game, Trajan. I have to run out to the store now but please....explain to me why a 100 year old's health is more valuable than a 5 year old's?

a) who decides?
b) how do they decide where does it end and begin? 18 35 45? vs. 65, 75, 90?
c) at the end of the day IF the collective were to enact processes along these lines, realizing/calculating individual worth to the collective we would not be having this conversation.
If I earn more and contribute more on the whole that is realized by those via progressive taxing than those “below me” than the guy assembling widgets, lets say I walk into a hospital or was sent heir by my doctor with my daughter who is in need of treatment, a very expensive time consuming one, and say the guy who makes widgets in a factory comes in at exactly the same time and his son or daughter requires same and there is only enough resources for one of them, who gets the treatment? I ask you. Who should get the treatment?

Who should decide whether or not you get food stamps? Who should decide whether or not you can deduct your pet cat as a dependent on your income taxes?

 

[Madeline]

wow, just wow. You didn't think that through rocks.

if you really want to get into the discussion as to who qualitatively brings more to the table ala the collective, and how deserves what based on that, well, I don't think you want to have that argument.

if you do please let me know. Please.

I'm game, Trajan. I have to run out to the store now but please....explain to me why a 100 year old's health is more valuable than a 5 year old's?

a) who decides?

Mother Nature. We know what a normal;, average lifespan is.

b) how do they decide where does it end and begin? 18 35 45? vs. 65, 75, 90?

I'm not sure what you're asking here.

c) at the end of the day IF the collective were to enact processes along these lines, realizing/calculating individual worth to the collective we would not be having this conversation.
If I earn more and contribute more on the whole that is realized by those via progressive taxing than those “below me” than the guy assembling widgets, lets say I walk into a hospital or was sent heir by my doctor with my daughter who is in need of treatment, a very expensive time consuming one, and say the guy who makes widgets in a factory comes in at exactly the same time and his son or daughter requires same and there is only enough resources for one of them, who gets the treatment? I ask you. Who should get the treatment?

My argument is that both children should be treated, but that your 98 year old auntie with Alzheimer's who has been in diapers for a decade should not be getting a kidney transplant.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Because a corp drone is driven by a know quantity, that is or should be market driven there fore malleable. The gov. drone is driven by ideology.

You tell me; which in the end is the more constant and dependable?

If I was a person of modest means, with children, would I want a government school system with a mandate (aka 'ideology') to make every reasonable effort to educate all children without regard to their ability to pay,

or would I want my only educational option to be a private sector for-profit system with the bottomline as its primary concern?

if we are discussing something as flexible and comparatively benign as education you'd have a point, but we are not.

Ok then, if I was a person of modest means would I want a government healthcare system with a mandate (aka 'ideology') to make every reasonable effort to provide healthcare to all without regard to their ability to pay,

or would I want my only healthcare option to be a private sector for-profit system with the bottomline as its primary concern?

Happy now?

 

[Trajan]

Yes, please.

Because a corp drone is driven by a know quantity, that is or should be market driven there fore malleable. The gov. drone is driven by ideology.

You tell me; which in the end is the more constant and dependable?

I dunno what you mean by "malleable" Trajan. It's damned near impossible for a policyholder to alter an insurance company decision on approval or denial of coverage in the health care arena.

markets and profits and margins are all malleable. If co. A provides the coverage you are looking for and B does but charges $50 more a month?

if you contract for a major injury cap at 2 Million dollars and reach that cap, your coverage ends. if you pay for one at 3 mill...? see? No ideology, the gov. not saying hey they have reached 85, lets spend that on the 5 year old....

These people are "constant and dependable" only in the sense that profit is the only real consideration, yes.

thats right and there fore it is an equalizer.

I want the crappy health system a government-run single payer can deliver, not the illusory one a for-profit one does. I'm just annoying that way.

I'll ask you that agon if ever you have prt. coverage that would have provided for a treatment for you at 80, but the gov. has told stakeholders via regs not to......we'll see how brave you are then

 

[Madeline]

At 80, I have no doubt my concern will be to die with dignity, not to live another twenty years.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Because a corp drone is driven by a know quantity, that is or should be market driven there fore malleable. The gov. drone is driven by ideology.

You tell me; which in the end is the more constant and dependable?

If I was a person of modest means, with children, would I want a government school system with a mandate (aka 'ideology') to make every reasonable effort to educate all children without regard to their ability to pay,

or would I want my only educational option to be a private sector for-profit system with the bottomline as its primary concern?

if we are discussing something as flexible and comparatively benign as education you'd have a point, but we are not.

Do you have private sector for-profit health insurance that is unlimited to the point where there is no circumstance in which the insurance company would come between you and your doctor on whether or not a medical procedure or treatment would be paid for?