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

[oreo]

It's obvious that Sarah Palin was right about this.


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

conservative death panels;


low income, uninsured and homeless will just HAVE to die

there will be NO MEDICAL TREATMENT for THEM.

Nope there is no discrimination in Obamacare-- We'll all eventually end up with the same medical insurance.

I really don't know why Americans that went through 3rd grade math couldn't understand--that you can't cut 500 BILLION out of Medicare with millions of Baby boomers entering the system now & will continue to do so for the next 15 years--"without doing some major health care RATIONING."

I clearly remember Obama's comments: "Sometimes it's just better to take those pain pills, versus have the surgery."---

That to me means--if you need any type of SURGERY----DO IT NOW!

 

[hyakku]

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.

Ah yes , you've found me out, i'm no US college student, no no, i'm some russian communist fascist jihadi zionist spy (I hope I can be all of those at once, they make it seem so easy on TV).

And, I mean, good job discussing something that is COMPLETELY irrelevant to what I said, but I'll rebut this dribble as well for good measure.

The first thing you need to realize, is that there IS NO PUBLIC OPTION. Most of what we are talking about isn't even possible because there is no public option, but ideological boxing seems to be characterize all political discussion today.

Second, that paper you took your complete lives excerpt from is talking about the allocation of scarce medical interventions (e.g., VITAL organs, limited vaccines during pandemics, etc). That wouldn't even apply to standard drugs and generic things. It would be employed for things like organ transplants, vaccines that often run out during flue season, etc.

This is of course problematic, but I don't see how you could deride ANY government (democratic or republican) for this. An increase in supply and ample providers is needed, and until that time we better have efficient allocation for scarce medical treatments like vital organ transplants.

In today's market you can't BUY an organ, or a bed in the ICU, or a vaccine that's out of supply. These are all things that are already relegated to legislation and resource allocation techniques. They have been for decades now, don't know where some of you have been, which is especially questionable and slightly scary considering that some of you have three times my life experience but half of the ability to observe your surroundings and see that this is an issue that is simply irrelevant because it's impossible in any fashion that the media has fearmongered you into.

That complete lives system bs is a study; a study that admits its shortcomings and need for more research. It's a study that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the current inception of healthcare post-bill considering it would be applicable in a public option scenario, and while I realize that since you're attacks on my character and entertaining conspiracy theories really strengthen your arguments in your head, try to step out of the box and argue the issues of the healthcare bill from a legit angle.

I mean, I can give you some pretty solid points. The fact that it doesn't go far enough to deregulate cross state insurance policies, the fact that the education reform tacked onto it could have been more comprehensive, and the fact that it's cost containing methods could have been bolstered by additional deregulation mechanisms are all reasons to be incensed over the HC bill if you're going to be, not imaginary death panels where five "Obamacare" judges preside over and drop people into Abaddon's abyss if they cough too many times.

 

[Xenophon]

Be interesting to hear how this is a 'conspiracy theory' when its about several economists all agreeing that there are death panels in the bill.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

The only death panels are the insurance companies that deny coverage and care.

Go back to sleep, USAR.

 

[Care4all]

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?

gawd

if it is LIFE SAVING it would not be removed.....so no, you are not getting it straight, nor are the others....

just melodrama, ONCE AGAIN....you guys are GREAT AT IT!

 

[Immanuel]

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?

gawd

if it is LIFE SAVING it would not be removed.....so no, you are not getting it straight, nor are the others....

just melodrama, ONCE AGAIN....you guys are GREAT AT IT!

Actually, I am not sure that is quite true. I believe that there are medical treatments available that are not approved by insurance companies that can or may save lives, such as some AIDS treatments that have not been accepted yet and cancer?

It seems that it is truthful that these panels will decide that there are some important medical procedures that will not be funded by ANY insurance puppet... er company, Which will mean that people who might be helped by a particular procedure will simply be out of luck. However, the claim that the panel will decide these things on an individual basis seems to be far-fetched.

Immie

 

[Vanquish]

This entire thread is another example of something being debunked...but the OP decides to dig in his heels and keep the insane train going. It's ridiculous. There ARE NO death panels.

 

[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.

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......

"We are God's partners in matters of life and death"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

The only death panels are the insurance companies that deny coverage and care.

Go back to sleep, USAR.

I haven't seen you for a while, I thought you got called back to the home office for reprogramming.

Did you actually look at the video in question?

 

[JakeStarkey]

But the great advantage of these OPs is that the thinking individual comes to realize is just how stupid the OP and the arguments become. This great for their OP opponents as they push educational awareness. Will it change the whackos. Not at all. That's why they are whacko and wingnuts. But allows thinking people to process the whacko arguments and come to the conclusion: what a twisted, dark, dangerous, and at times, nasty road the reactionary right walks.

 

[hyakku]

Glad to see this was moved to where it rightfully should be and happy to have been able to contribute to its proper allocation .

Now there's just 90% of that politics and current events section and real debate might start occurring here .

 

[saveliberty]

Glad to see this was moved to where it rightfully should be and happy to have been able to contribute to its proper allocation .

Now there's just 90% of that politics and current events section and real debate might start occurring here .

When you wake up in college and realize YOU need to form opinions and stop listening to the professor's point of view, education begins. You got a thread moved. You must be very proud. Just how did you expect that to change the opinons of those posting?

When you reduce the rewards of working as a doctor and increase the required workload, how does that increase the supply of doctors? If that supply is reduced and the number with more access to the system increases, how does that increase response time and quality of care?

 

[boedicca]

When you reduce the rewards of working as a doctor and increase the required workload, how does that increase the supply of doctors? If that supply is reduced and the number with more access to the system increases, how does that increase response time and quality of care?

Well, now we know why that new Reserve Service was put into the bill.

Are we going to DRAFT medical personnel once the supply shortage reaches critical stages? And who would want to be cared for by such Forced Labor?

 

[hyakku]

Glad to see this was moved to where it rightfully should be and happy to have been able to contribute to its proper allocation .

Now there's just 90% of that politics and current events section and real debate might start occurring here .

When you wake up in college and realize YOU need to form opinions and stop listening to the professor's point of view, education begins. You got a thread moved. You must be very proud. Just how did you expect that to change the opinons of those posting?

When you reduce the rewards of working as a doctor and increase the required workload, how does that increase the supply of doctors? If that supply is reduced and the number with more access to the system increases, how does that increase response time and quality of care?

These are my opinions mate, i'm not even a poli sci major. Again, gotta love the mentality up here, "Let's try to use something COMPLETELY irrelevant so that we don't have to argue facts." This thread isn't a question of rationing of health care in a PUBLIC option, it was that death panels were not only present in the bill, but going to be enforced. Of course I'm happy to debunk that idiocy, because it's pure, biased nonsense.

As for your second question, where in this bill would you reduce the rewards of working as doctors? If anything, we should reduce the costs of training them so that they didn't need to be paid so much to offset high medical school costs. Increasing the workload shouldn't be problematic, who wants LESS business. Increased demand leads to increased supply, according to the economic model your using (pure capitalist), this would result in the salaries of doctor's being RAISED and doctoring becoming a MORE attractive career after a brief recessive period, that certainly wouldn't ravage America's health care system.

Technological innovation and automated systems will handle the rest. This is what humanity has always done in times of seeming scarcity of resources and abundance of people; you innovate. The agricultural and industrial revolution are perfect ways to show that. Similarly, the scientific revolution of the middle east was largely a result of them needing new techniques to satisfy an increasingly growing and diverse community.

The medical community is no different, they are beginning to adopt more efficient tests, conducting more comprehensive, but targetted research into specific disorders, etc. all of this combined with the newfound access to global markets will result in medical innovations that will easily help deal with the supply and demand of health care, as long as we are willing to regulate where regulation is needed, and allow the market to work its course when it is needed (for example, cross state insurance competition).

 

[GWV5903]

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.

Excuse me, but your not serious are you? The fact that today prior to this legislation the argument was that the insurance companies could perform this, but some how the Fed's can't? Now that is astoundingly stupid, you win OK?

 

[saveliberty]

These are my opinions mate, i'm not even a poli sci major. Again, gotta love the mentality up here, "Let's try to use something COMPLETELY irrelevant so that we don't have to argue facts." This thread isn't a question of rationing of health care in a PUBLIC option, it was that death panels were not only present in the bill, but going to be enforced. Of course I'm happy to debunk that idiocy, because it's pure, biased nonsense.

As for your second question, where in this bill would you reduce the rewards of working as doctors? If anything, we should reduce the costs of training them so that they didn't need to be paid so much to offset high medical school costs. Increasing the workload shouldn't be problematic, who wants LESS business. Increased demand leads to increased supply, according to the economic model your using (pure capitalist), this would result in the salaries of doctor's being RAISED and doctoring becoming a MORE attractive career after a brief recessive period, that certainly wouldn't ravage America's health care system.

Technological innovation and automated systems will handle the rest. This is what humanity has always done in times of seeming scarcity of resources and abundance of people; you innovate. The agricultural and industrial revolution are perfect ways to show that. Similarly, the scientific revolution of the middle east was largely a result of them needing new techniques to satisfy an increasingly growing and diverse community.

The medical community is no different, they are beginning to adopt more efficient tests, conducting more comprehensive, but targetted research into specific disorders, etc. all of this combined with the newfound access to global markets will result in medical innovations that will easily help deal with the supply and demand of health care, as long as we are willing to regulate where regulation is needed, and allow the market to work its course when it is needed (for example, cross state insurance competition).

Make up your mind. You try to hide behind ignorance of the subject, but are ready to debunk the idocy? You don't understand, that is a true statement. Case in point, "where in this bill would you reduce the rewards of working as doctors?" They are reducing reimbursements on Medicare patients. It is in the bill, read it, educate yourself.

I see you made no effort to defend yourself against the charge of expecting the government to be your nanny.

 

[hyakku]

These are my opinions mate, i'm not even a poli sci major. Again, gotta love the mentality up here, "Let's try to use something COMPLETELY irrelevant so that we don't have to argue facts." This thread isn't a question of rationing of health care in a PUBLIC option, it was that death panels were not only present in the bill, but going to be enforced. Of course I'm happy to debunk that idiocy, because it's pure, biased nonsense.

As for your second question, where in this bill would you reduce the rewards of working as doctors? If anything, we should reduce the costs of training them so that they didn't need to be paid so much to offset high medical school costs. Increasing the workload shouldn't be problematic, who wants LESS business. Increased demand leads to increased supply, according to the economic model your using (pure capitalist), this would result in the salaries of doctor's being RAISED and doctoring becoming a MORE attractive career after a brief recessive period, that certainly wouldn't ravage America's health care system.

Technological innovation and automated systems will handle the rest. This is what humanity has always done in times of seeming scarcity of resources and abundance of people; you innovate. The agricultural and industrial revolution are perfect ways to show that. Similarly, the scientific revolution of the middle east was largely a result of them needing new techniques to satisfy an increasingly growing and diverse community.

The medical community is no different, they are beginning to adopt more efficient tests, conducting more comprehensive, but targetted research into specific disorders, etc. all of this combined with the newfound access to global markets will result in medical innovations that will easily help deal with the supply and demand of health care, as long as we are willing to regulate where regulation is needed, and allow the market to work its course when it is needed (for example, cross state insurance competition).

Make up your mind. You try to hide behind ignorance of the subject, but are ready to debunk the idocy? You don't understand, that is a true statement. Case in point, "where in this bill would you reduce the rewards of working as doctors?" They are reducing reimbursements on Medicare patients. It is in the bill, read it, educate yourself.

I see you made no effort to defend yourself against the charge of expecting the government to be your nanny.

What? It's easy to debunk something that you can read but again, I don't expect too much from your camp already.

Medicare reimbursements have been reduced to the point of no return in many states. Many doctors since 2002 had begun turning aware medicaid patients. Hence the goal of the subsidies in this package, designed to hopefully offset those costs by providing subsidies which will allow people to pay the doctor's themselves, reducing a reliance on early medicare and medicaid subscribers, allowing those still on it to have better access as well.

I'm not sure if you can see this link because of my post count or w/e yet, but here's just one claim from 2002 of state controlled medicare cuts affecting medicaid and medicare proponents before. Taken alone, I would agree, pure cuts to these programs DO represent a moral and practical failing, but this is why they have included other measures designed at shoring up doctor's compensation in this bill as opposed to simple cost containing measures.

ACP-ASIM Observer, January 2003 - Medicare cuts forcing some hard choices

(It's ironic that in 2002 they were cost containing measures that had to have been done, now, in the form of a way to help fund more care for people as well as reform the obviously flawed system, its blasphemy!)

I don't claim this bill will work completely or be a panacea for America's economic situation, but I present both sides of this argument, you prefer to cherry pick. I've been here for less than a day and you've already decided that i'm a neo-facist socialist that loves big government. I'm not interested in your name calling, it doesn't bother me, but i'm disappointed because I use this site in class to attempt to elicit good debates to past time, not have to lecture a grown man on how to employ proper rhetoric to support his argument.


As per your, "OMG you luv big guvernment" assertions, I answered that in the other thread, not gonna retype the thing again.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nah, the reactionaries are blow hards, stubborn, and who cares. They are a very small, insignificant minority of the voting public. They will have no impact this fall.

 

[rikules]

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

refusing to treat the homeless, the uninsured and the poor will ALSO save a lot of money.