N.Y. Times columnist: Death panels will save 'a lot of money'

[Ravi]

Why didn't one of the other panelists start pummeling that fucking Nazi Krugman?

Well, here we have a classic class of needing to RTFA .

Did you not notice that the article surreptitiously adds that it was another panelist that said that, without denoting it with a space and a separate line to indicate it was another speaker?

Or did you notice how he's talking about advisory panels that are discussing MEDICAL treatments, not PATIENT reviews. The death panels you refer to would be individual, case by case studies on which drug affected each individual patient.

Not only would this make "death panels" cost MORE, but it would be completely inefficient and contradictory to the purpose of a "death panel." Do you know how long it would take to individually screen 150mil+ people?

Please learn to read, annual reviews of the merits of generic vs name brand drugs, the efficacy of certain drugs, etc., are commonplace in the medical community. These advisory panels are the same thing.

I've never heard of anyone AGAINST screening and vetting the medication we'll be taking, but then again, recently there are many crazy things i've been hearing that could be solved with simple reading skills.

Good post but it isn't really worth the bother. The partisans on this thread are either very stupid or are blatant liars.

 

[Bfgrn]

Is anyone still unclear about why Obama needs an armed Medical Corps?

Is anyone still unclear that Frank is on a crusade to win the Foil Hat Trophy of the year?

 

[hyakku]

Why didn't one of the other panelists start pummeling that fucking Nazi Krugman?

Well, here we have a classic class of needing to RTFA .

Did you not notice that the article surreptitiously adds that it was another panelist that said that, without denoting it with a space and a separate line to indicate it was another speaker?

Or did you notice how he's talking about advisory panels that are discussing MEDICAL treatments, not PATIENT reviews. The death panels you refer to would be individual, case by case studies on which drug affected each individual patient.

Not only would this make "death panels" cost MORE, but it would be completely inefficient and contradictory to the purpose of a "death panel." Do you know how long it would take to individually screen 150mil+ people?

Please learn to read, annual reviews of the merits of generic vs name brand drugs, the efficacy of certain drugs, etc., are commonplace in the medical community. These advisory panels are the same thing.

I've never heard of anyone AGAINST screening and vetting the medication we'll be taking, but then again, recently there are many crazy things i've been hearing that could be solved with simple reading skills.

You keep yapping, I need to figure out the quickest way to pick up an AK-47

Oh, try looking at the attached video you fucking retard

MMM, ad hominem for breakfast . Unfortunately for you, either you must be watching some other video, or, once again, lacking in the proper reading faculties to realize that the article transcribed what the video says.

Regardless, you didn't present a logical argument against what I just said.

Do you disagree that the kind of individual, case by case death panels you claim the bill proposes would not only be unfeasible but nearly impossible to carry out? This would also require you denying that somehow screening 150-300mil people and then individually diagnosing each of them with which drug is suitable for them or to death would cost FAR more than it could possibly save.

These are facts, which is why the idea of patient reviewed death panels is an astoundingly stupid concept for any actor. Unless you were COMPLETELY irrational, death panels for a nation of our size aren't economically feasible, which is why I never even have to begin to argue the ethical side, the materialist side generally suffices for those of your political leanings.

Edit: Pubeless, I joined this site for that reason. As a very skewed political idealist (an english school of IR proponent, pluralist, realist, economic liberal and social centrist) I don't think partisanship can be battled with more partisanship. Only allowing them to fully unravel their own logic will allow them to feel they have made the discovery for themselves and then change on their own. Let's see if I'm right during my stay .

 

[boedicca]

You don't get how this is going to work. They don't need to review each individual case. By making certain procedures and drugs "non standard", they pre-deny coverage and/or create an incredibly long appeals process designed to delay care as long as possible.

The politically connected will move to the front of the appeals process line - the expensive procedures and medicines will be plums with which the political class rewards its cronies.

 

[ihopehefails]

Let me get this straight. The hole point of this was to provide healthcare for all but then they stick in a panel that decide to remove life saving medical treatment?

 

[boedicca]

Correction: 159 panels, departments, review boards, and agencies.

Good luck figuring out who does what and how to get anything approved.

 

[hyakku]

You don't get how this is going to work. They don't need to review each individual case. By making certain procedures and drugs "non standard", they pre-deny coverage and/or create an incredibly long appeals process designed to delay care as long as possible.

The politically connected will move to the front of the appeals process line - the expensive procedures and medicines will be plums with which the political class rewards its cronies.

Can you name any procedures or drugs that one could deem non standard that would create incredibly long appeals processes without also including substantial political ramifications?

Currently, the FDA insensibly outlaws many international, generic drugs, especially cancer treatments, because of the "politically connected". Many of our standard drugs are outdated in their efficacy, and could be replaced by internationally standardized, generic medications that are both cheaper and just as, if not more efficacious.

What you suggest isn't really possible without doing EXTENSIVE research on individuals. How could you deny treatments and and nonstandard drugs to patients without some form of census? How would you know which drugs and treatments were efficacious without testing? And then, how would removing nonstandard drugs or superfluous treatments translate into killing people? It's not as if there are limited supplies of generic drugs or machines, we can MAKE more of these things, which is again why a death panel notion is just silly in its economic feasibility and political feasibility.

As per your second assertion, you are stating that as if we live in some world where doctor's are rare sightings and medical care is some type of limited black gold that will soon run out. How are politicians going to offer their cronies enhanced medical care for future favoritism? What politician would even take that, as most of them have more than enough money to pay for PRIVATE health care?

Logic people, logic.

 

[Xenophon]

I'd rather go back to the point that there are 'death panels' in this, after the hysterical big government stooges swore up and down that was 'fear mongering.'

BTW, yes someone else says death panels save money, Krugman agrees calling it an 'advisory panel.'

Its a tad hard to spin that Krugman didn't say what the vid shows he said.

And yes, that is the same lunatic that believes the USA can spend its way out of debt and into prosperity.

 

[boedicca]

Can you name any procedures or drugs that one could deem non standard that would create incredibly long appeals processes without also including substantial political ramifications?

The government has complete latitude to make anything non-standard. They won't do this with one big fiat - it will be a slow drip drip drip of eliminating a few things at a time.

The biggest risk involves new drugs and procedures which are in the early release stage.

If the political risk of decreasing availability were too high, Canada and the UK would not have the low ratios of MRIs and other equipment per population compared to the high ratios in the U.S.

It wouldn't hurt you to use some logic and think about how all of this affects supply. The panels will, eventually, be forced to deal with decreased supply, and that will drive how the "allocations" work.

 

[Bfgrn]

Yes, death panels for the elderly was originally a Republican idea...but Democrats rejected it and passed Medicare anyways...

That is a Leftwing Meme being spread to smear the opposition to the bill.

You might fool the already converted, but the rest of us know it is a lie.

Really?

Medicare is a social insurance program administered by the United States government, providing health insurance coverage to people who are aged 65 and over, or who meet other special criteria. The program also funds residency training programs for the vast majority of physicians in the United States. Medicare operates as a single-payer health care system. The Social Security Act of 1965 was signed into law on July 30, 1965, by President Lyndon B. Johnson as amendments to Social Security legislation. At the bill-signing ceremony President Johnson enrolled former President Harry S. Truman as the first Medicare beneficiary and presented him with the first Medicare card, and his wife Bess, the second.
wiki

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FzNTB1qtFA]YouTube - Ronald Reagan - Medicare Myth Of Dictatorship[/ame]

 

[Truthmatters]

Where is the part that says these panels will outlaw certain treatments?

 

[hyakku]

Can you name any procedures or drugs that one could deem non standard that would create incredibly long appeals processes without also including substantial political ramifications?

The government has complete latitude to make anything non-standard. They won't do this with one big fiat - it will be a slow drip drip drip of eliminating a few things at a time.

The biggest risk involves new drugs and procedures which are in the early release stage.

If the political risk of decreasing availability were too high, Canada and the UK would not have the low ratios of MRIs and other equipment per population compared to the high ratios in the U.S.

It wouldn't hurt you to use some logic and think about how all of this affects supply. The panels will, eventually, be forced to deal with decreased supply, and that will drive how the "allocations" work.

Like what? currently this IS happening with the FDA, I can't post the link as I don't have enough posts, but this is from a USAtoday article from about a year ago:

New cancer drugs took about seven years to get approved, whether they were part of the accelerated process or not, researchers found. Nineteen new cancer drugs have gotten accelerated approval since 1995, along with 32 given regular approval, the study says.

"This is a disappointment," says main author Charles Bennett, a professor at Chicago's Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine.

The accelerated approval program is supposed to allow promising drugs to go on the market early, in order to save the lives of people with a short time to live, Bennett says. People with advanced cancer are often willing to accept a higher level of risk — and the potential for serious side effects — if they have no other hope for extending their lives, he says.

"We're not talking about people with skin conditions," Bennett says. "These people are going to die."

Bennett notes that none of the cancer drugs given accelerated approval were recalled for safety.

Although the program began well, its progress has stalled in recent years, Bennett says.

When the program began, the FDA approved many drugs based on smaller studies without comparison groups. Today, the agency prefers that companies perform larger studies with comparison groups, although it may accept interim results, says the FDA's Richard Pazdur.

Only these kinds of large studies can show if drugs have rare but serious side effects, Pazdur says. They provide other important information as well, such as how long patients live before their tumors get worse.

But with so many more patients, these large-scale studies, which measure results such as overall survival, may cost more than $600 million and take an additional five years to complete, Bennett says. Many small biotech companies can't afford to spend that much. And patients may not be able to wait that long, he says.

This is PRECISELY why large scale, governemnt run death panels would just FAIL on every level. The amount of money, time and resources it would take would be shot down by the American public before the outrage over the actual concept over death panels even emerged.

I have another more recent article, in which the FDA purports that it's delayed cancer medication that's been proven to be efficient internationally for over ten years based off arbitrary, nonsensical factors.

The truth of the matter is, whether you are for or against death panels, it doesn't really matter, there's no economically or politically viable means of pulling it off within a liberal democratic state. Even authoritarian governments have difficulties introducing population control schemes. Unless you live in a rather totalitarian state, there's really no feasible way of pulling off population control through medicine, sorry to burst your bubble.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, Sarah Palin was not right. Sarah Palin said explicitly that they were going to decide whether you lived or died based on your value to society.

Which proves that only the existence of Michelle Bachmann keeps her from being the the most ignorant conservative woman in politics.

 

[saveliberty]

No, Sarah Palin was not right. Sarah Palin said explicitly that they were going to decide whether you lived or died based on your value to society.

Which proves that only the existence of Michelle Bachmann keeps her from being the the most ignorant conservative woman in politics.

Must depend on your definition of "value to society". Sound like a value judgement to me if your considering life expectancy.

 

[jillian]

You fucking assholes might want to look up: Ezekiel Emanuel's "Complete Lives System"

and you rightwingnuts might want to stop lying about death panels....

 

[Vast LWC]

Well, you know what? Aside from all the hyperbolic crap, lets address the thought of what "Death Panels" would supposedly do.

Not that there are "death panels", but hypothetically:

Shall we spend $100,000 Dollars to keep a 105-year-old person alive for another year, or shall we use that money to save the lives of 20 children down the road?

Since we're already borrowing to pay for Medicare, etc, this is a very real question, unless of course we get rid of Medicare, which would create a hell of a lot more death among old people than any "death panels" ever would.

 

[Political Junky]

It's obvious that Sarah Palin was right about the death panels. If you think about it, ridding the folks who are able bodied workers who don't from recieving welfare checks in America would save even more money. Obama has found his lawful way within this bill to commit genocide upon the elderly.


N.Y. Times columnist: Death panels will save 'a lot of money'

Left-leaning New York Times economic columnist Paul Krugman says the so-called "death panels" established by President Obama's trillion-dollar nationalized health-care plan will end up saving "a lot of money" for the government.
The comments from Krugman, who also writes on the New York Times blogs, came during a discussion of "Obamacare" on the ABC News Sunday program "This Week."

"People on the right, they're simultaneously screaming, 'They're going to send all the old people to death panels,' and 'It's not going to save any money,'" he said.
Another panelist interjected, "Death panels would save money," to which Krugman responded:

The advisory panel which has the ability to make more or less binding judgments on saying this particular expensive treatment actually doesn't do any good medically and so we are not going to pay for it. That is actually going to save quite a lot of money. We don't know how much yet. The CBO gives it very little credit but, but most, most of the health care economists I talk to think that's going be a really, uh a really major cost saving.

The video has been posted on the Conservatives4Palin website, and it was Palin who was among the first to denounce the "death panel" concept in the Democrats' government-run health care plan. That's the idea that appointed government officials who under the plan will have access to medical records will determine if a treatment will be provided to a needy patient. Theoretically, that could be a death sentence for a patient denied a treatment.

Video:
YouTube - TW Paul Krugman death panels a cost saver.mov

Way to lie about what Krugman said. You're so predicatable.

 

[saveliberty]

Well, you know what? Aside from all the hyperbolic crap, lets address the thought of what "Death Panels" would supposedly do.

Not that there are "death panels", but hypothetically:

Shall we spend $100,000 Dollars to keep a 105-year-old person alive for another year, or shall we use that money to save the lives of 20 children down the road?

Since we're already borrowing to pay for Medicare, etc, this is a very real question, unless of course we get rid of Medicare, which would create a hell of a lot more death among old people than any "death panels" ever would.

If greatgrandma has great private insurance, government has no say. You apparently want to tell her how long she can live and under what circumstances. This sort of value judgement is exactly what the left wants to be able to make.

 

[Vanquish]

This post is so easy to debunk:

No, Krugman doesn't think there are death panels | Media Matters for America

you might hate the source, but you can't argue with the explanation.

 

[hyakku]

Well, you know what? Aside from all the hyperbolic crap, lets address the thought of what "Death Panels" would supposedly do.

Not that there are "death panels", but hypothetically:

Shall we spend $100,000 Dollars to keep a 105-year-old person alive for another year, or shall we use that money to save the lives of 20 children down the road?

Since we're already borrowing to pay for Medicare, etc, this is a very real question, unless of course we get rid of Medicare, which would create a hell of a lot more death among old people than any "death panels" ever would.

If greatgrandma has great private insurance, government has no say. You apparently want to tell her how long she can live and under what circumstances. This sort of value judgement is exactly what the left wants to be able to make.

Ok...then if she has private insurance what's the issue? If death panels existed they would only apply to people that are being subsidized or covered BY the government. Therefore your point is invalid, if she has private insurance she wouldn't even be subject to the death panels in the first place.

See, this is the great fallacy in death panels in a liberal democratic economy. Unless everyone was on the public option (which, even if the democrats introduced one, everyone wouldn't change. Obviously you and I are quite satisfied with our private health care), death panels would only be applicable who would logically die WITHOUT the existence of the public option if their ailment is such that they require immediate medical attention.

That is to say, the only people that would be subject to death from death panels would just die if there was no safety net there in the first place. Hence, the reason why death panels are COMPLETELY pointless and economically unfeasible.