The "Death Panels" are already here

[Gudrid]

The "death panels" are already here | Salon News

Long before anyone started talking about government "death panels" or warning that Obama would have the government ration care, 17-year-old Nataline Sarkisyan, a leukemia patient from Glendale, Calif., died in December 2007, after her parents battled their insurance company, Cigna, over the surgery. Cigna initially refused to pay for it because the company's analysis showed Sarkisyan was already too sick from her leukemia; the liver transplant wouldn't have saved her life.

That kind of utilitarian rationing, of course, is exactly what Palin and other opponents of the healthcare reform proposals pending before Congress say they want to protect the country from. "Such a system is downright evil," Palin wrote, in the same message posted on Facebook where she raised the "death panel" specter. "Health care by definition involves life and death decisions."

 

[Yukon]

You are ridiculous !

 

[chanel]

I guess we can't accuse Palin of hyperbole then.

 

[Fatality]

The "death panels" are already here | Salon News

Long before anyone started talking about government "death panels" or warning that Obama would have the government ration care, 17-year-old Nataline Sarkisyan, a leukemia patient from Glendale, Calif., died in December 2007, after her parents battled their insurance company, Cigna, over the surgery. Cigna initially refused to pay for it because the company's analysis showed Sarkisyan was already too sick from her leukemia; the liver transplant wouldn't have saved her life.

That kind of utilitarian rationing, of course, is exactly what Palin and other opponents of the healthcare reform proposals pending before Congress say they want to protect the country from. "Such a system is downright evil," Palin wrote, in the same message posted on Facebook where she raised the "death panel" specter. "Health care by definition involves life and death decisions."

wow so you want to continue the practice, what a chump

 

[Gudrid]

You are ridiculous !

And you're an idiot. Thanks for your contribution.

 

[Gudrid]

I guess we can't accuse Palin of hyperbole then.

Why not? She employed hyperbole, as does this article. Sometimes hyperbole is quite effective. The danger that Palin pointed out is already here and what we need to find a way to control. One of doing that is by creating an option that is more directly answerable to the people in the most direct manner possible. She pinned the problem, in my opinion, she just pinned it to the wrong shirt. Partisans have a tendency to do that.

 

[tigerbob]

You are ridiculous !

And you're an idiot. Thanks for your contribution.

Maybe if you posted your views rather than just a link to someone else's you might get a more considered response.

 

[Gudrid]

wow so you want to continue the practice, what a chump

No, I wish to end the practice by spreading that decision making power around some, rather than concentrating it in the hands of a few private entities that bypass free market controls due to the nature of the business. The people who have no alternative plan but just blindly bitch and moan about the plan presented - those are the folks who are chumps. Grow a pair and don't be so afraid of using your brain.

Insults rather than discussion with valid points shows nothing but fear of using your brain. Following your leaders. Amazing, the first three posts - no points, no discussion, just knee-jerk insults because someone you've never really even talked to posted an article that isn't on your "side." I've read Hoffer's "True Believer" but I'm always surprised when the evidence of his theories rears itself up so blatantly.

 

[Gudrid]

You are ridiculous !

And you're an idiot. Thanks for your contribution.

Maybe if you posted your views rather than just a link to someone else's you might get a more considered response.

lol. I did post my views - they were well reflected in that article, which is why I posted it. Then I prepared for discussion, for people who agree and disagree to discuss. But several on this board seem to have a knee-jerk reaction of throwing out middle-school level comments as habit and calling themselves clever for it. I haven't been around long - Chanel I have no idea about - but the other two, that seems to be their status quo.

Trying to blame me for nasty people throwing out nastiness - as they've clearly done since before I ever got here - is pretty lame as well, just so you know.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The "death panels" are already here | Salon News

Long before anyone started talking about government "death panels" or warning that Obama would have the government ration care, 17-year-old Nataline Sarkisyan, a leukemia patient from Glendale, Calif., died in December 2007, after her parents battled their insurance company, Cigna, over the surgery. Cigna initially refused to pay for it because the company's analysis showed Sarkisyan was already too sick from her leukemia; the liver transplant wouldn't have saved her life.

That kind of utilitarian rationing, of course, is exactly what Palin and other opponents of the healthcare reform proposals pending before Congress say they want to protect the country from. "Such a system is downright evil," Palin wrote, in the same message posted on Facebook where she raised the "death panel" specter. "Health care by definition involves life and death decisions."

When Obama says the fact that different doctors prescribe different treatments for the same conditions means the federal government must decide on the comparative effectiveness and cost effectiveness of the various treatments, he is talking about how much money we should spend to keep this girl alive, not just whether a treatment will actually keep her alive.

When the House votes to increase Medicare spending for end of life counseling, they are intending this as a soft sell approach to persuading seniors with terminal illnesses to choose less expensive palliative care in a hospice rather than more expensive intensive care in a hospital.

One can argue that since Medicare is a government run program it is appropriate for politicians to try to influence life and death decisions in order to save money, but the question we should all be considering now is whether we want these same politicians to try to influence life and death decisions for us before we go on Medicare?

 

[midcan5]

Good find, don't expect the wingnuts on here to consider that irony, they need, actually require an enemy in order to feel alive. Death for them would be common sense.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama wants to use Ezekiel Emanuel's Competitive Effectiveness Research Council to kill off the mostly white elderly and veterans in this country and replace them with Illegal Aliens

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Good find, don't expect the wingnuts on here to consider that irony, they need, actually require an enemy in order to feel alive. Death for them would be common sense.

A 17 year old with leukemia is a "Good find"

What a sick fuck you are

 

[Gudrid]

When Obama says the fact that different doctors prescribe different treatments for the same conditions means the federal government must decide on the comparative effectiveness and cost effectiveness of the various treatments, he is talking about how much money we should spend to keep this girl alive, not just whether a treatment will actually keep her alive.

I'm not sure precisely what words of his you're referring to?

One can argue that since Medicare is a government run program it is appropriate for politicians to try to influence life and death decisions in order to save money, but the question we should all be considering now is whether we want these same politicians to try to influence life and death decisions for us before we go on Medicare?

One can argue that, but that doesn't nullify the point that we're stuck in a worse system right now, and we have more control over the government than we do over the private insurers. The more options you open, the better, in my opinion. Not to mention the fact that a bunch of people have no healthcare at all, so the choice for them is already made. I would personally be opposed to purely socialized medicine, with the government as the sole provider. However, I'm equally opposed to continuing under our current system. A government option is really just a more equal treatment of Medicaid, in many ways. Meaning, right now medicaid is open to a few citizens based on income. It should be an option open to everyone. This isn't the huge change that it's being played up to be. It's being used as a political team issue by politicians on both sides, in my opinion, and as a result we end up with no real discussion or consideration of the end results both ways.

 

[tigerbob]

And you're an idiot. Thanks for your contribution.

Maybe if you posted your views rather than just a link to someone else's you might get a more considered response.

lol. I did post my views - they were well reflected in that article, which is why I posted it. Then I prepared for discussion, for people who agree and disagree to discuss. But several on this board seem to have a knee-jerk reaction of throwing out middle-school level comments as habit and calling themselves clever for it. I haven't been around long - Chanel I have no idea about - but the other two, that seems to be their status quo.

Trying to blame me for nasty people throwing out nastiness - as they've clearly done since before I ever got here - is pretty lame as well, just so you know.

You appeared to be unhappy that people hadn't taken your post seriously enough. I don't like silly middle school responses either, so offered a suggestion on how to move forward.

I wasn't blaming you for anything. I don't know why you would think that, unless you thought that my post should be read as having a sarcastic tone. It wasn't typed that way.

Perhaps I should have typed 'no sarcasm intended', but why should I need to? Remember that point you were making about getting to know someone before making snide comments to them?

 

[Gudrid]

You appeared to be unhappy that people hadn't taken your post seriously enough.

It has nothing to do with taking anything seriously or not seriously. I have no doubt the people who thew out the lame responses take the issues seriously, or they wouldn't bother being on a message board like this one. It has to do with each and every one of us examining, thinking, and sharing the results of that examination - even on that with which we think we'll disagree.

Perhaps I should have typed 'no sarcasm intended', but why should I need to?

Perhaps because tone doesn't convey well on the internet. However, I didn't read it as sarcasm. I simply read it as mistaken. Do you honestly believe that two of the above posters would have responded with depth had I expanded on the article?

Remember that point you were making about getting to know someone before making snide comments to them?

Make all the snide comments they or you want; just include some actual points about issues in there. You're reading it as personal insult or personally wanting my individual post to be taken "seriously." That's not it at all. I could care less about people I don't online throwing insults at me personally. I care a lot about the fact that this seems to be what our national dialogue is moving toward. No discussion or valid points, just middle school name calling. There's only one group of folks in this country that benefits from that mentality, and it sure isn't the populace.

 

[Yukon]

There really is no point whatsoever in discussing Health Care with people who believe in "death panels", "rationing","euthanasia", etc. Your belief in the GOP paid-liers knows no bounds and your gullibility is comical beyond words. What more can be said?

Health care reform will be upon you shortly. Obama said he would do it and he WILL do it. The lies, and hyberbole will not stop it.

Long Live Obama !

 

[tigerbob]

You appeared to be unhappy that people hadn't taken your post seriously enough.

It has nothing to do with taking anything seriously or not seriously. I have no doubt the people who thew out the lame responses take the issues seriously, or they wouldn't bother being on a message board like this one. It has to do with each and every one of us examining, thinking, and sharing the results of that examination - even on that with which we think we'll disagree.

Perhaps I should have typed 'no sarcasm intended', but why should I need to?

Perhaps because tone doesn't convey well on the internet. However, I didn't read it as sarcasm. I simply read it as mistaken. Do you honestly believe that two of the above posters would have responded with depth had I expanded on the article?

Remember that point you were making about getting to know someone before making snide comments to them?

Make all the snide comments they or you want; just include some actual points about issues in there. You're reading it as personal insult or personally wanting my individual post to be taken "seriously." That's not it at all. I could care less about people I don't online throwing insults at me personally. I care a lot about the fact that this seems to be what our national dialogue is moving toward. No discussion or valid points, just middle school name calling. There's only one group of folks in this country that benefits from that mentality, and it sure isn't the populace.

I'll leave you to discuss it with Yukon.

 

[toomuchtime_]

When Obama says the fact that different doctors prescribe different treatments for the same conditions means the federal government must decide on the comparative effectiveness and cost effectiveness of the various treatments, he is talking about how much money we should spend to keep this girl alive, not just whether a treatment will actually keep her alive.

I'm not sure precisely what words of his you're referring to?

One can argue that since Medicare is a government run program it is appropriate for politicians to try to influence life and death decisions in order to save money, but the question we should all be considering now is whether we want these same politicians to try to influence life and death decisions for us before we go on Medicare?

One can argue that, but that doesn't nullify the point that we're stuck in a worse system right now, and we have more control over the government than we do over the private insurers. The more options you open, the better, in my opinion. Not to mention the fact that a bunch of people have no healthcare at all, so the choice for them is already made. I would personally be opposed to purely socialized medicine, with the government as the sole provider. However, I'm equally opposed to continuing under our current system. A government option is really just a more equal treatment of Medicaid, in many ways. Meaning, right now medicaid is open to a few citizens based on income. It should be an option open to everyone. This isn't the huge change that it's being played up to be. It's being used as a political team issue by politicians on both sides, in my opinion, and as a result we end up with no real discussion or consideration of the end results both ways.

It is the government, not private insurers or free markets that is limiting your choices for health insurance. The tax exemption for employer provided health insurance limits your choice of health insurance coverage to those your employer has chosen and so shrinks the market for individual insurance so that there is no price competition there to drive the price down. We can increase consumer control of health insurance choices by diminishing the role of government, not by increasing it.

If we want to keep the cost of health insurance tax exempt, the government can increase consumer choices by loosening its grip on the market by making the cost of health insurance tax exempt for employers only if they provide employees the choice of using the employer contribution for the group plan(s) the employer provides or for another health insurance plan they might choose. This will increase the market for individual health insurance policies, which will increase price competition for these policies making them more competitive with group plans and giving consumers the ability to buy a plan that suits their individual needs rather than settle for one that best suits the needs of his/her employer.

If the government further frees the market by allowing health insurers to compete across all state boundaries, the problem of portability of health insurance will be solved and price competition to drive down health insurance rates will be increased, allowing even more people to afford health insurance policies that best suit their needs and further allowing them to take advantage of better employment opportunities without fear of losing their health insurance, and this freedom to move to more highly valued employment will also serve to increase the efficiency of our economy.

The government can further free us from the bizarre medical malpractice system we have with meaningful tort reform by replacing the spectacle of a judge with no medical background presiding over a trial in which lawyers with no medical backgrounds try to persuade jurors with no medical backgrounds about how to decide complex medical issues with panels of medical experts empowered to fairly but not excessively compensate patients for accidents or negligence and to protect the public by suspending or revoking medical licenses for physicians who are found to be careless or negligent. The US spends between $100 billion and $200 billion a year on defensive medical tests and referrals out of fear of litigation, and these costs are passed on to health insurers and then to consumers in the form of higher health insurance premiums. This kind of meaningful tort reform would lower costs to insurers and in the context of the freer markets I described above would lower costs to consumers, making it possible for more people to be able to afford health insurance and making it cheaper for the government to provide financial aid to low income people and those with pre existing conditions that still can't afford it.

The lack of choice, portability and affordable access are all results of government interference in the health care market, not the result of decisions by insurers or the workings of free markets. If we want to rein in costs while increasing choice, portability and affordable access, we need to begin by getting the government out of health care markets, not by allowing politicians and bureaucrats in Washington to create even more problems than they already have.

 

[Jay Canuck]

GOP govs sidestep Palin 'death panel' comments
The Associated Press - 8-11-09
NEW YORK - Republican governors said Monday that Americans are justifiably frightened by health care proposals but stopped short of embracing Sarah Palin's..

​