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

[beowolfe]

Didn't I hear over and over there were no 'death panels' in the bill?

According to Krugman they are not "death panels". They are "advisory panels"

Don't ask me what the difference is because I haven't figured it out yet.

Immie

It means they have Power to decide who gets what care without being bothered with actual accountability.

And that's different from the old system, how?

 

[WillowTree]

Why don't you volunteer to be reviewed by the Death Panel?

I take back whatever it was I said about Jillian being intellligent.. I was momentarily confused.. See where her endorsments lie?? Right between jack and shit's.. unbelievable..

 

[Immanuel]

According to Krugman they are not "death panels". They are "advisory panels"

Don't ask me what the difference is because I haven't figured it out yet.

Immie

It means they have Power to decide who gets what care without being bothered with actual accountability.

And that's different from the old system, how?

Hey, do you think you are so smart because you can say it in fewer words than I did? See post #60

Immie

 

[WillowTree]

Didn't I hear over and over there were no 'death panels' in the bill?

do the Walton's take too long to say goodnight?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Liberal are reincarnated Nazis but they're much better at selling their Fascism

"You'll love Auschwitz this time of year! Death Camp? Ha! You're talking crazy! It's a spa where you'll be under the supervision of Ezekiel Emanuel, he's a real doctor, you know. Death Camp? You rightwingers sure are funny. Come on, all aboard, women and children first."

NY State goes through extraordinary lengths to keep citizens from legally procuring meaningful firepower, but I think I'm on the right track now.

"Death camps? Ha!"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

I took the time to very carefully reread this to see if I missed something and I retract my quick decision that you're a "fucking retard". You're worse.

A simple fucking retard would just be parroting stuff he picked up at DU, you my goose stepping friend have all the making of a fine Minister of Propaganda.

 

[Vast LWC]

If we get rid of Medicare? Okay, put the worms back in that can. IF that happened, they would offer granny a big whopping credit for having to get her own insurance.

Actually, that is not a bad idea at all.

Just pay out all the money that is currently devoted to medicare and tell the old people to get their own insurance and fend for themselves. That would put everyone on a level playing field.

Of course, if this were to happen, I think you would find that the opposition that is currently prevalent among older people to a "Public Option" would disappear overnight.

With that in mind, I would fully support such a proposition, knowing that it would, in all probability, lead to the choice of a public option available to everyone.

 

[boedicca]

And that's different from the old system, how?

The government currently does not decide what our health care is.

If you can't see the difference between the government making these decisions vs. the individual dealing with his health care providers and insurance, then there is no explaining it to you.

Claiming insurance companies have the equivalent power to the government is a Red Herring.

 

[hyakku]

I took the time to very carefully reread this to see if I missed something and I retract my quick decision that you're a "fucking retard". You're worse.

A simple fucking retard would just be parroting stuff he picked up at DU, you my goose stepping friend have all the making of a fine Minister of Propaganda.

You haven't countered anything. I don't even like Krugman but its obvious that he was saying that even if death panels were real, they would SAVE money, not COST money. Essentially he was just attempting to point out the blatant idiocy in the contradictory statements that many extremist members of the right wing branch have espoused. This isn't all members, but you don't add any credence to your cause by your simple minded ad hominem attacks.

Unfortunately for you, I'm not a lay down liberal, but i'm not going to just start calling you names when I don't have logical arguments.

As for other members, I'm not quite sure what you mean I swalled the con talking points, but I can only presume that you mistake me when I was speaking in hypothetical situations. Obviously death panels are not real, but I simply meant that if such a mechanism were to attempted to be instilled, it's failure would be almost immediate due to the structure of a liberal democratic state (i.e., the transparency of institutions, open debate, democratic processes, etc.) being an obstruction to the very idea of death panels.

And again, if greatgrandma had PRIVATE health insurance, why would she be subject to government death panels designed for those supported by government subsidies/programs? That question is invalid in a situation like this, and if somehow, death panels bypassed all the measures of a liberal democratic state, they would only unfortunately result in the death of the "lowest common denominator" of our society (i.e., the very poor), which seems to be the agenda of some of the most extreme faction of the right wing lately.

 

[Vast LWC]

Actually, they have mentioned Nationalize Health Care via intent.

Pelosi has admitted that this is a first step to getting to full socialized medicine. Obama is on record as that being his ultimate goal.

Nothing in the health bill that was just passed "leads to socialized medicine", period.

Whatever dubious claims you may make about anyone's individual "intent" are inconsequential, as the legislation is not furthering that cause.

In addition, a "Public Option" which was mentioned is not "Socialized Medicine", period.

What matters is control - and this bill expands government control over all of the health care system.

On point #2 - that is a crock. The statistics are not comparable due to:

- In the U.S., we count premature babies as live births, i.e., fully human. Most countries with socialized medicine do not - and refuse care to such babies, which they consider miscarriages or still births.

Bernadine Healy, M.D.: Behind the baby count - US News and World Report

Even considering these numbers, which would equal roughly 70,000 deaths in 2005 (1.8% of 4 million), has little effect on the overall lifespan in a country of 350 million people. It might move us up a rank or two, which would still put us behind just about every non-third-world country with socialized medicine on the face of the planet.

- The death rate in the U.S. is distorted by gang violence. Black on black male violence is at epidemic levels. This distorts the figure down as a whole.

Research shows who dies when and where

And this is just absolute nonsense.

US violent crime statistics have been steadily DECREASING for the past 25 years, especially among young people.

- We have an auto culture, which also distorts stats due to the fact that we have far more driving miles per capita (resulting in higher auto deaths per capita).

Adjusted for the above, Americans do not have a statistically lower lifespan.

Yes, they do.

The US falls behind in survivability in every single category of disease, except for cancer.

I have posted multiple threads devoted to these very statistics, let me just give you Canada as a quick example:


Circulatory disease deaths per 100,000:
Canada: 219
United States: 265

Original Source: OECD Health Data 2003 and Health Data 2002. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Australia's Health 2002

Digestive disease deaths per 100,000:Canada: 17.4
United States: 20.5

Original Source: World Health Organization

Infant mortality rate per 1,000 live birthsCanada: 5.08
United States: 6.3

Original Source: CIA World Factbooks

Intestinal diseases death rate
Canada: 0.3%
United States: 7.3%

Original Source: World Health Organization

Respiratory disease child death rate per 100,000Canada: 0.62
United States: 40.43

Original Source: World Health Organization

Heart disease deaths per 100,000:Canada: 94.9
United States: 106.5

Original Source: World Health Organization

HIV deaths per million people:Canada: 47.423
United States: 48.141

Original Source: CIA World Factbooks

And here's an interesting fact:

Proability of not reaching age 60:Canada: 9.5%
United States: 12.8%

Original Source: CIA World Factbooks

 

[saveliberty]

If we get rid of Medicare? Okay, put the worms back in that can. IF that happened, they would offer granny a big whopping credit for having to get her own insurance.

Actually, that is not a bad idea at all.

Just pay out all the money that is currently devoted to medicare and tell the old people to get their own insurance and fend for themselves. That would put everyone on a level playing field.

Of course, if this were to happen, I think you would find that the opposition that is currently prevalent among older people to a "Public Option" would disappear overnight.

With that in mind, I would fully support such a proposition, knowing that it would, in all probability, lead to the choice of a public option available to everyone.

Of course your for it. It simple changes one form of entitlement into another. The problem with your plan is, once granny can buy the best type of coverage for herself, you are going to switch her to a government plan. Your messing with granny again.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Didn't I hear over and over there were no 'death panels' in the bill?

I think it was more like:

You conservative bastards are making death panels up.

You must be pretty stupid to believe Palin about death panels.

Where does it say death panels in the bill?

That doesn't mean death panel fool.

Good news libs. My forgiveness can be bought for $20 a head. Just donate it to USMB in my name. Thanks in advance.

A government panel that gets to decide who receives life saving medical treatment sounds a lot like a death panel to me. Are you just arguing semantics? What a fraud you are.

 

[saveliberty]

Didn't I hear over and over there were no 'death panels' in the bill?

I think it was more like:

You conservative bastards are making death panels up.

You must be pretty stupid to believe Palin about death panels.

Where does it say death panels in the bill?

That doesn't mean death panel fool.

Good news libs. My forgiveness can be bought for $20 a head. Just donate it to USMB in my name. Thanks in advance.

A government panel that gets to decide who receives life saving medical treatment sounds a lot like a death panel to me. Are you just arguing semantics? What a fraud you are.

I agree you it is a death panel. I was just replaying stupidity I have heard on here before from libs. Thanks for the friendly fire. I ducked, no harm, no foul.

 

[Charles Stucker]

I agree you it is a death panel. I was just replaying stupidity I have heard on here before from libs. Thanks for the friendly fire. I ducked, no harm, no foul.

Sorry my bad.

 

[saveliberty]

I agree you it is a death panel. I was just replaying stupidity I have heard on here before from libs. Thanks for the friendly fire. I ducked, no harm, no foul.

Sorry my bad.

I'd like to say I have never done that, but it would be a lie.
Shoot what your aiming at, check the background first. Good hunting.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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 .

It's very curious that you popped up here relatively recently right after Dingell and Krugman drop the facade and the little mustachioed fascist face of ObamaCare is revealed. And, whattyaknow, you have a sackful of "Who are you going to believe: Obama or your lying eyes" explanations to convince me that, gosh darn it, it's just too much hard work to look at ALL of those people and decide who lives and who dies.

See, when Obama met the Rabbis and told them "We are God's partners in matters of life and death" he either a) misspoke, b) was tired or c) was talking about insurance companies. We have nothing to fear from a Sociopathic US President with God delusions, I mean what's he gonna do, get control of our health care? Ha.

I've been paying VERY CLOSE attention to how Obama has handled "Health care reform" starting off with the curious choice of his top adviser Eugenicist Ezekiel Emanuel, I'm assuming you've heard of him, no? I'm also willing to bet that you have a ready explanation of how we've nothing to fear from his "Complete Lives System" as well.

Every time a Democrat "Slips" in discussing the real agenda to ObamaCare I see a Goosestepping Nazi, I see Pol Pot's Mass Graves as Democrats eradicate the Greatest Generation first and try to set Obama's Inauguration as "Year Zero"

Because you guys have great theme songs, pithy explanations and colorful banners you think it's going to go down easy and trust me, it's not.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

"The Complete Lives System" - by Dr. Emmanuel - Advisor to Prez - In The News - Comcast.net Community

Read it so you won't be so ignorant

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Bravo! That's the Complete Lives System! Bravo! Go round up the elderly and you'll reduce your carbon footprint in the process.

Instead of a gold star, you get a swastika for every old person you turn in.

 

[GWV5903]

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.

Granted this is more of your hyperbolic defense, but please expand more on this crystal ball you have and how you can guarantee the $100,000 you save letting the old person die now and how it translates into keeping 20 kids alive? Are you sitting at the foot of God or are you God himself or do you just have the same God complex Obama and Alec Baldwin share?

I suggest you get back on the Sesame Street boards until you reach puberty......

 

[GWV5903]

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.

Better yet, let's see if you can answer the follow five questions correct:

1. How could adding 32 million people to the health rolls save us money?

2. How is hiring thousands of new IRS agents to enforce this not an expansion of government?

3. How can you be considered a "child" until you are 26 years old?

4. How is forcing everyone to buy something constitutional?

5. How could there be no tort reform in this?

You have 216 days to give us your answer, be careful.....