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

[Political Junky]

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.

You swallowed the Con talking points, hook, line and sinker.

 

[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.

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.

Are you done yet? Calmed down? See the bold part I noted in Vast's post? "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?" The shall WE pay part? As in government panels determining if coverage will be allowed in a government insurance plan? At the risk of getting you all jacked up again, Medicare is a government plan. *Throws arms up in the air as he walks away shaking head*

 

[boedicca]

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.

You still don't get it.

The complexity and the lack of accountability will mask much of what is going on. The Death Panels won't be hearings which deny specific people specific care. The system will create a climate of Inertia in which getting care is much more difficult than it is now.

You also continue to neglect the impact on supply. The incentive to invest in and create new drugs and technology is being taxed out of the system; as is the desirability of a medical career. Lower supply will be overwhelmed by the demand for Free Health Care - again making wait times much longer.

It's happened everywhere else nationalized health care has been attempted - this time won't be different.

 

[xotoxi]

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

Ravi...we won't have to worry.

He and all of the other conservatives will be mandated to appear before the death panels and they will all be executed and buried in those mass graves that Terral has been telling us about.

 

[Vast LWC]

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.

If great-grandma had private insurance, she would have never had any reason to have her case looked over by hypothetical "death panels" in the first place.

Not even the crazy right-wingers screaming about "death panels" ever even addressed the issue of them affecting PRIVATE insurers, because it was never even mentioned.

But if we get rid of Medicare, Great-Grandma isn't going to be able to afford private health insurance anyway, now is she?

 

[Vast LWC]

You swallowed the Con talking points, hook, line and sinker.

He's right. You're allowing them to pretend there were actually "death panels" in the first place.

 

[Ravi]

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

Ravi...we won't have to worry.

He and all of the other conservatives will be mandated to appear before the death panels and they will all be executed and buried in those mass graves that Terral has been telling us about.

Let's force them to live in FEMA camps first!

 

[Vast LWC]

You still don't get it.

The complexity and the lack of accountability will mask much of what is going on. The Death Panels won't be hearings which deny specific people specific care. The system will create a climate of Inertia in which getting care is much more difficult than it is now.

You also continue to neglect the impact on supply. The incentive to invest in and create new drugs and technology is being taxed out of the system; as is the desirability of a medical career. Lower supply will be overwhelmed by the demand for Free Health Care - again making wait times much longer.

It's happened everywhere else nationalized health care has been attempted - this time won't be different.

1. Nobody mentioned "Nationalized Health Care".

2. Where there is actual "Nationalized Health Care", the health care system is statistically better and lifespans are longer in almost every single case, in countries with comparable economies.

 

[Stephanie]

oh well hell yah, if MediaMatters says it isn't true, than it MUST be SETTLED.
don't forget folks, mediamatter is a propaganda arm for the Commie party.

 

[beowolfe]

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

Still have that reading comprehension problem, huh?...

 

[Vast LWC]

oh well hell yah, if MediaMatters says it isn't true, than it MUST be SETTLED.
don't forget folks, mediamatter is a propaganda arm for the Commie party.

Err, what is this referring to?

 

[saveliberty]

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.

If great-grandma had private insurance, she would have never had any reason to have her case looked over by hypothetical "death panels" in the first place.

Not even the crazy right-wingers screaming about "death panels" ever even addressed the issue of them affecting PRIVATE insurers, because it was never even mentioned.

But if we get rid of Medicare, Great-Grandma isn't going to be able to afford private health insurance anyway, now is she?

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.

 

[Immanuel]

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

 

[beowolfe]

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.

You all just don't get it, do you?

 

[Vanquish]

oh well hell yah, if MediaMatters says it isn't true, than it MUST be SETTLED.
don't forget folks, mediamatter is a propaganda arm for the Commie party.

As predicted you assailed the source...but didn't discuss the meat of the argument contained therein

The amazing thing is...I predicted you'd take this mindless approach and you STILL DID IT. :clap2

The guy didn't say this so your "gotcha" just went up in smoke.

Now, if you'd care to address the points in the article... ... I'm still here and waiting.

 

[boedicca]

1. Nobody mentioned "Nationalized Health Care".

2. Where there is actual "Nationalized Health Care", the health care system is statistically better and lifespans are longer in almost every single case, in countries with comparable economies.

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.

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.

http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/060924/2healy.htm

- 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

- 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.

 

[boedicca]

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.

 

[Stephanie]

oh well hell yah, if MediaMatters says it isn't true, than it MUST be SETTLED.
don't forget folks, mediamatter is a propaganda arm for the Commie party.

As predicted you assailed the source...but didn't discuss the meat of the argument contained therein

The amazing thing is...I predicted you'd take this mindless approach and you STILL DID IT. :clap2

The guy didn't say this so your "gotcha" just went up in smoke.

Now, if you'd care to address the points in the article... ... I'm still here and waiting.

The AMAZING thing is you have a crystal ball.

 

[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.

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

You can spend as much of your own money to stay alive as long as you can. Do conservatives really want to fund Medicare to a level that will pay for every single treatment anyone wants under any circumstances, period?

Trust me, if what conservatives are calling 'death panels' actually exist, there isn't one conservative in a thousand who's willing to have his taxes raised to pay for the alternative.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

In actuality it means that they get to decide what procedures will be paid for and which won't... according to what Krugman said, it is not on a case by case basis, but rather based upon a particular procedure.

That is not any different than what we have today with private insurers. They already tell you they won't cover experimental or unapproved procedures. I forget the particular language, but I hope you get the gist of it.

However, I don't like the idea of having a governmental bureaucrat make such decisions.

Immie