Death Panels Plus?

[Trajan]

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?

You seem to have bought the line- in that care as it stands now at the average level which is pretty darn good would be able to be extended to everyone on the same basis- that is quality and access....

thats a pipe dream. there is no gov. or bus. model in the world that allows for such, UNLESS you are willing to pay MORE, aside from what you would pay via mandate, taxes whatever vehicle they employ to make you pay so its 'available' to everyone and that means you, as your own access and care degrades.


if thats what you want? hey thats your opinion, good for you, like I said to maddy, lets see how brave you are if you or yours was denied access or care because you would have had now or that you have contarcted for via a prvt co. , but don't get because someone else who could not afford it, got it....and you are left by ideological dictum on the side of the road with lesser care.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You decide - excerpts from Duke Professor John Lewiss on what sections of the bill say, and more importantly, mean...


"1. This section amends the Social Security Act. 2. The government has the power to determine what constitutes an 'applicable [medical] condition.' 3. The government has the power to determine who is allowed readmission into a hospital. 4. This determination will be made by statistics: when enough people have been discharged for the same condition, an individual may be readmitted." In other words, there's nothing personal about this. That's why Obama's answer to the woman with the 100-year-old mother, "Are you gonna take into account the spunk and spirit, the will to live?" was, "I don't think we can do that." It's going to be statistic based. "5. This is government rationing, pure, simple, and straight up."

___


"2. Anyone caught without acceptable coverage and not in the government plan will pay a special tax." Now, this we know. We've seen this ourselves. "3. The IRS will be a major enforcement mechanism for the plan," as written in this bill. The IRS will be a major enforcer. The next section that he analyzed: "What constitutes 'acceptable' coverage?"
...Let me read that again: "1. The bill defines 'acceptable coverage' and leaves no room for choice in this regard. 2. By setting a minimum 70% actuarial value of benefits, the bill makes health plans in which individuals pay for routine services" out of their own pockets, "but carry insurance only for catastrophic events ... illegal." That is one of the solutions to the problem we have now. Pay for what you want -- a standard checkup, a standard visit to the doctor -- and catastrophic insurance for when that could break your bank. Doing that will be illegal in the House bill. In other words, paying for your own routine day-to-day services but only having insurance for catastrophic events will be illegal

___

"5. The Commissioner (meaning, always, the bureaucrats) will determine whether a particular network of physicians, hospitals and insurance is acceptable" even if you do stay private. "6. With private insurance starved, many people enrolled in the government 'option' will have no place else to go" if they don't like it. So all this talk from Obama about adding to competition is the exact opposite, which is what everybody who's read this understands and which is why they know he's lying to them when he says, "If you like your plan you can keep it." Another way to look at that, "If you like your plan, you can keep it," is: What if everybody decided to do that, but he says the health care plan, the system we have now is unsustainable. It's horrible

____

The evaluation: "1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code 2. The bill opens up income tax return information to federal officials. 3. Any stated 'limits' to such information are circumvented by item (v), which allows federal officials to decide what information is needed. 4. Employers are required to report whatever information the government says it needs to enforce the plan," meaning your medical records, your employment records, how you're living your life, what kind of risk that's posing to the health care system



What The Health Care Bill Actually Says | Sweetness & Light

I would rather medical personnel have this type of power than the bean counters at the health insurance companies. And in no way can the laws be construed as death panels except in the mind of a wacko.

 

[Trajan]

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.

than I say to you my dear, enjoy the Soma.

 

[Trajan]

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?

when food stamps or other transfer payment reach critical mass, we'll see. be patient we are almost there. and again you are choosing relatively un-complex issues from which to draw analogies .

 

[Trajan]

I would rather medical personnel have this type of power than the bean counters at the health insurance companies. .

me too.

 

[Madeline]

I would rather medical personnel have this type of power than the bean counters at the health insurance companies. .

me too.

Yes, we'd all like a perfect world in which all medical care was available to all people. That ain't possible, so we get to quibble over choice #2.

 

[Trajan]

I would rather medical personnel have this type of power than the bean counters at the health insurance companies. .

me too.

Yes, we'd all like a perfect world in which all medical care was available to all people. That ain't possible, so we get to quibble over choice #2.

whats choice 2 again?

 

[boedicca]

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?

You seem to have bought the line- in that care as it stands now at the average level which is pretty darn good would be able to be extended to everyone on the same basis- that is quality and access....

thats a pipe dream. there is no gov. or bus. model in the world that allows for such, UNLESS you are willing to pay MORE, aside from what you would pay via mandate, taxes whatever vehicle they employ to make you pay so its 'available' to everyone and that means you, as your own access and care degrades.


if thats what you want? hey thats your opinion, good for you, like I said to maddy, lets see how brave you are if you or yours was denied access or care because you would have had now or that you have contarcted for via a prvt co. , but don't get because someone else who could not afford it, got it....and you are left by ideological dictum on the side of the road with lesser care.

Indeed. NYC appears to think that price controls and unlimited demand will automatically increase supply.

Good luck with that.

 

[Trajan]

hey, I have the answer!!!


the tiny Chrystal!!!

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WUUnc1M0TA[/ame]

 

[Madeline]

me too.

Yes, we'd all like a perfect world in which all medical care was available to all people. That ain't possible, so we get to quibble over choice #2.

whats choice 2 again?

Various models based on either the government or the for-profit sectors.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The libs, centrists, and cons here all reinforce my belief that the second half of the century is going to witness state-imposed euthanasia on the elderly and the quite ill. However, kiddos, the issue will not be con or lib; it will be the young trying to push out the old.

 

[Trajan]

Yes, we'd all like a perfect world in which all medical care was available to all people. That ain't possible, so we get to quibble over choice #2.

whats choice 2 again?

Various models based on either the government or the for-profit sectors.

the problem is one wants to strangle the other.

 

[finebead]

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?

Well I can pretty well say the decision should not be based on "how much you make" or on "how important you think you are".

There are medical ethics guidelines, and the doctors know better, they have centuries seeing these issues:

Resource Allocation

Medical care is delivered within social and institutional systems that must take overall resources into account. Increasingly, decisions about resource allocations challenge the physician's primary role as patient advocate. This advocacy role has always had limits. For example, a physician should not lie to third-party payers for a patient in order to ensure coverage or maximize reimbursement. Moreover, a physician is not obligated to provide all treatments and diagnostics without considering their effectiveness (89) (see also the "The Changing Practice Environment" section). The just allocation of resources and changing reimbursement methods present the physician with ethical problems that cannot be ignored. Two principles are agreed upon:

1. As a physician performs his or her primary role as a patient's trusted advocate, he or she has a responsibility to use all health-related resources in a technically appropriate and efficient manner. He or she should plan work-ups carefully and avoid unnecessary testing, medications, surgery, and consultations.

2. Resource allocation decisions are most appropriately made at the policy level rather than entirely in the context of an individual patient-physician encounter. Ethical allocation policy is best achieved when all affected parties discuss what resources exist, to what extent they are limited, what costs attach to various benefits, and how to equitably balance all these factors.

Physicians, patient advocates, insurers, and payors should participate together in decisions at the policy level; should emphasize the value of health to society; should promote justice in the health care system; and should base allocations on medical need, efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and proper distribution of benefits and burdens in society.

Ethics Manual, Annals Apr 2005

So, your wealth has nothing to do with whether or not your son should be treated before a poor mans son (even though you may be a conceited selfish snob who actually thinks that because you have more money than someone, you are better than they are). Suppose a "richer" person than you also arrives with an ill son, how would you feel if they withheld treatment from your kid to treat the richer guys son?

 

[Greenbeard]

The libs, centrists, and cons here all reinforce my belief that the second half of the century is going to witness state-imposed euthanasia on the elderly and the quite ill. However, kiddos, the issue will not be con or lib; it will be the young trying to push out the old.

Sunset Squad?

 

[Trajan]

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?

Well I can pretty well say the decision should not be based on "how much you make" or on "how important you think you are".

There are medical ethics guidelines, and the doctors know better, they have centuries seeing these issues:

Resource Allocation

Medical care is delivered within social and institutional systems that must take overall resources into account. Increasingly, decisions about resource allocations challenge the physician's primary role as patient advocate. This advocacy role has always had limits. For example, a physician should not lie to third-party payers for a patient in order to ensure coverage or maximize reimbursement. Moreover, a physician is not obligated to provide all treatments and diagnostics without considering their effectiveness (89) (see also the "The Changing Practice Environment" section). The just allocation of resources and changing reimbursement methods present the physician with ethical problems that cannot be ignored. Two principles are agreed upon:

1. As a physician performs his or her primary role as a patient's trusted advocate, he or she has a responsibility to use all health-related resources in a technically appropriate and efficient manner. He or she should plan work-ups carefully and avoid unnecessary testing, medications, surgery, and consultations.

2. Resource allocation decisions are most appropriately made at the policy level rather than entirely in the context of an individual patient-physician encounter. Ethical allocation policy is best achieved when all affected parties discuss what resources exist, to what extent they are limited, what costs attach to various benefits, and how to equitably balance all these factors.

Physicians, patient advocates, insurers, and payors should participate together in decisions at the policy level; should emphasize the value of health to society; should promote justice in the health care system; and should base allocations on medical need, efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and proper distribution of benefits and burdens in society.

Ethics Manual, Annals Apr 2005

So, your wealth has nothing to do with whether or not your son should be treated before a poor mans son (even though you may be a conceited selfish snob who actually thinks that because you have more money than someone, you are better than they are). Suppose a "richer" person than you also arrives with an ill son, how would you feel if they withheld treatment from your kid to treat the richer guys son?

if he has purchased a policy or means to enhance his ability to garner access and care before/over me, thats out side my 'pay grade'. I do what I can do.

and using money in your 'perhaps' is not quite honest, thats not quite what I said.

 

[Trajan]

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?

Well I can pretty well say the decision should not be based on "how much you make" or on "how important you think you are".

There are medical ethics guidelines, and the doctors know better, they have centuries seeing these issues:

Resource Allocation

Medical care is delivered within social and institutional systems that must take overall resources into account. Increasingly, decisions about resource allocations challenge the physician's primary role as patient advocate. This advocacy role has always had limits. For example, a physician should not lie to third-party payers for a patient in order to ensure coverage or maximize reimbursement. Moreover, a physician is not obligated to provide all treatments and diagnostics without considering their effectiveness (89) (see also the "The Changing Practice Environment" section). The just allocation of resources and changing reimbursement methods present the physician with ethical problems that cannot be ignored. Two principles are agreed upon:

1. As a physician performs his or her primary role as a patient's trusted advocate, he or she has a responsibility to use all health-related resources in a technically appropriate and efficient manner. He or she should plan work-ups carefully and avoid unnecessary testing, medications, surgery, and consultations.

2. Resource allocation decisions are most appropriately made at the policy level rather than entirely in the context of an individual patient-physician encounter. Ethical allocation policy is best achieved when all affected parties discuss what resources exist, to what extent they are limited, what costs attach to various benefits, and how to equitably balance all these factors.

Physicians, patient advocates, insurers, and payors should participate together in decisions at the policy level; should emphasize the value of health to society; should promote justice in the health care system; and should base allocations on medical need, efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and proper distribution of benefits and burdens in society.

Ethics Manual, Annals Apr 2005

So, your wealth has nothing to do with whether or not your son should be treated before a poor mans son (even though you may be a conceited selfish snob who actually thinks that because you have more money than someone, you are better than they are). Suppose a "richer" person than you also arrives with an ill son, how would you feel if they withheld treatment from your kid to treat the richer guys son?

Physicians, patient advocates, insurers, and payors should participate together in decisions at the policy level; should emphasize the value of health to society; should promote justice in the health care system; and should base allocations on medical need, efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and proper distribution of benefits and burdens in society.

that pretty wide open, lots of "shoulds"....
and if they already do this then there is no need to change or infuse it with any further influence then.

 

[finebead]

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?

Well I can pretty well say the decision should not be based on "how much you make" or on "how important you think you are".

There are medical ethics guidelines, and the doctors know better, they have centuries seeing these issues:

Resource Allocation

Medical care is delivered within social and institutional systems that must take overall resources into account. Increasingly, decisions about resource allocations challenge the physician's primary role as patient advocate. This advocacy role has always had limits. For example, a physician should not lie to third-party payers for a patient in order to ensure coverage or maximize reimbursement. Moreover, a physician is not obligated to provide all treatments and diagnostics without considering their effectiveness (89) (see also the "The Changing Practice Environment" section). The just allocation of resources and changing reimbursement methods present the physician with ethical problems that cannot be ignored. Two principles are agreed upon:

1. As a physician performs his or her primary role as a patient's trusted advocate, he or she has a responsibility to use all health-related resources in a technically appropriate and efficient manner. He or she should plan work-ups carefully and avoid unnecessary testing, medications, surgery, and consultations.

2. Resource allocation decisions are most appropriately made at the policy level rather than entirely in the context of an individual patient-physician encounter. Ethical allocation policy is best achieved when all affected parties discuss what resources exist, to what extent they are limited, what costs attach to various benefits, and how to equitably balance all these factors.

Physicians, patient advocates, insurers, and payors should participate together in decisions at the policy level; should emphasize the value of health to society; should promote justice in the health care system; and should base allocations on medical need, efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and proper distribution of benefits and burdens in society.

Ethics Manual, Annals Apr 2005

So, your wealth has nothing to do with whether or not your son should be treated before a poor mans son (even though you may be a conceited selfish snob who actually thinks that because you have more money than someone, you are better than they are). Suppose a "richer" person than you also arrives with an ill son, how would you feel if they withheld treatment from your kid to treat the richer guys son?

if he has purchased a policy or means to enhance his ability to garner access and care before/over me, thats out side my 'pay grade'. I do what I can do.

and using money in your 'perhaps' is not quite honest, thats not quite what I said.

Please enlighten us with your dissertation on medical ethics!

 

[Trajan]

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

You seem to have bought the line- in that care as it stands now at the average level which is pretty darn good would be able to be extended to everyone on the same basis- that is quality and access....

thats a pipe dream. there is no gov. or bus. model in the world that allows for such, UNLESS you are willing to pay MORE, aside from what you would pay via mandate, taxes whatever vehicle they employ to make you pay so its 'available' to everyone and that means you, as your own access and care degrades.


if thats what you want? hey thats your opinion, good for you, like I said to maddy, lets see how brave you are if you or yours was denied access or care because you would have had now or that you have contarcted for via a prvt co. , but don't get because someone else who could not afford it, got it....and you are left by ideological dictum on the side of the road with lesser care.

You didn't answer the question. You know, employing ever more incomprehensible rhetoric on your part does not strengthen your arguments.

Simple question.

Why do Americans on Medicare buy supplemental insurance policies?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

when food stamps or other transfer payment reach critical mass, we'll see. be patient we are almost there. and again you are choosing relatively un-complex issues from which to draw analogies .

You didn't answer the questions. Since you seem to take a dim view of anyone who won't answer questions,
at this point you should have a VERY dim view of yourself.

Let me make the question harder for you to avoid looking ridiculous by not answering:

Who should decide whether or not you should be able to get your healthcare paid for by Medicaid?