Terminally ill 29 yo mom denied treatment coverage — but gets suicide drug approved

[hadit]

Would that be worse than a group of unaccountable bureaucrats deciding who gets treated and who does not based on their own biases?

that is the question.

but if you're the poor joe who can't compete with the rich guy for medical care you'll probably take your chances with the biases of a committee.

Should a wealthy man be prevented from having a private contract with a doctor to exclusively treat his family, to be on call 24/7/365, to do house calls once a month?

do you think that is the most equitable use of health care resources?

That doesn't address the question. Should such a scenario be illegal?

I'm honestly not sure. ethically just as far as health care is concerned i would say no. allowing someone to monopolize a resource at a sub-optimum level is not ethically acceptable

Then why is it ethically acceptable for a biased government power to monopolize a resource for those in favor? That WILL happen if government controls healthcare. It is inevitable. Do you for a moment think that a bureaucrat is going to allow his mother to die just because she meets criteria that deny other people care?

 

[ogibillm]

that is the question.

but if you're the poor joe who can't compete with the rich guy for medical care you'll probably take your chances with the biases of a committee.

Should a wealthy man be prevented from having a private contract with a doctor to exclusively treat his family, to be on call 24/7/365, to do house calls once a month?

do you think that is the most equitable use of health care resources?

That doesn't address the question. Should such a scenario be illegal?

I'm honestly not sure. ethically just as far as health care is concerned i would say no. allowing someone to monopolize a resource at a sub-optimum level is not ethically acceptable

Then why is it ethically acceptable for a biased government power to monopolize a resource for those in favor? That WILL happen if government controls healthcare. It is inevitable. Do you for a moment think that a bureaucrat is going to allow his mother to die just because she meets criteria that deny other people care?

ethically if the government isn't utilizing resources optimally they are wrong... but i still believe that the waste presented there would be less than a rich family having an exclusive private doctor.

 

[Iceweasel]

... but i still believe that the waste presented there would be less than a rich family having an exclusive private doctor.

Who are you to decide what someone else can have?

 

[hadit]

Should a wealthy man be prevented from having a private contract with a doctor to exclusively treat his family, to be on call 24/7/365, to do house calls once a month?

do you think that is the most equitable use of health care resources?

That doesn't address the question. Should such a scenario be illegal?

I'm honestly not sure. ethically just as far as health care is concerned i would say no. allowing someone to monopolize a resource at a sub-optimum level is not ethically acceptable

Then why is it ethically acceptable for a biased government power to monopolize a resource for those in favor? That WILL happen if government controls healthcare. It is inevitable. Do you for a moment think that a bureaucrat is going to allow his mother to die just because she meets criteria that deny other people care?

ethically if the government isn't utilizing resources optimally they are wrong... but i still believe that the waste presented there would be less than a rich family having an exclusive private doctor.

Not so. There are many more in powerful positions who would make sure their own families were cared for at the expense of others than there are wealthy people who could afford and would want to buy an exclusive contract with a doctor. Think about it. Do you for a moment believe that all those rich and powerful legislators and bureaucrats in Washington are going to stand by and let their families wait in line with the little people? Absolutely not. I can guarantee that any single payer legislation would carve out exemptions for them. They wouldn't have to wait in line and they would never be denied care. We saw it with obamadon'tcare until public outcry forced them to drop the exemptions.

And, the contract wouldn't even have to be exclusive to be of tremendous benefit to the family. They could merely be the doctor's top priority. Whenever they called for care, they would get it immediately. Thus, others would still have access to the doctor.

 

[Weatherman2020]

treatment is rationed no matter what. the question is how do we decide how to ration care

Which means 'how do we decide who to kill?"

If the wealthy are allowed to pay for expensive new treatments and procedures, they will help to lower the price for everyone else, for the same reason the new IPhone costs $700 when it comes out, then drops to commodity prices.

that analogy doesn't really work...
so it is acceptable to deny treatment based on means because someday that treatment will be cheaper?

Would that be worse than a group of unaccountable bureaucrats deciding who gets treated and who does not based on their own biases?

that is the question.

but if you're the poor joe who can't compete with the rich guy for medical care you'll probably take your chances with the biases of a committee.

So you admit Obamacare has no advantages, it just forces people to lose the doctors they liked and doubled their healthcare costs.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Should a wealthy man be prevented from having a private contract with a doctor to exclusively treat his family, to be on call 24/7/365, to do house calls once a month?

do you think that is the most equitable use of health care resources?

That doesn't address the question. Should such a scenario be illegal?

I'm honestly not sure. ethically just as far as health care is concerned i would say no. allowing someone to monopolize a resource at a sub-optimum level is not ethically acceptable

Then why is it ethically acceptable for a biased government power to monopolize a resource for those in favor? That WILL happen if government controls healthcare. It is inevitable. Do you for a moment think that a bureaucrat is going to allow his mother to die just because she meets criteria that deny other people care?

ethically if the government isn't utilizing resources optimally they are wrong... but i still believe that the waste presented there would be less than a rich family having an exclusive private doctor.

That is worth a howling good laugh.

Ethically ???? So our Army should be invading other countries so they are optimally being used. I mean our ROI on some of those invasions would be incredible.