PDA

View Full Version : Does Ted Kennedy deserve extended health care?



Robmill0605
07-22-2009, 12:01 PM
If Obamacare applied to Ted Kennedy.

Is Senator Kennedy's life valuable enough to dedicate millions of dollars to extending it another month, another day, another year?




http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/does_ted_kennedy_deserve_his_e.html

rbgarr
07-22-2009, 12:12 PM
From the article link...

"I don't know enough about Senator Kennedy's condition (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Ted_Kennedy_diagnosed_with_brain_tumor), but I would suppose that he has "a recurrent disease or ... a terminal progressive disease." That would be the case if his brain cancer is not curable. In the socialist Netherlands Kennedy would be a perfect candidate for passive euthanasia.

Has anyone raised this question with Senator Kennedy? I know it seems to be in bad taste to even mention it. But if ObamaCare passes in the coming weeks, you can be sure that that question will be raised for you and me, and our loved ones. And no, we will not have a choice."

I am in favor of having a national health care budget. There is essentially none now and I also favor passive euthanasia.

Kaa
07-22-2009, 12:14 PM
But if you are trying to imply that people like him (76 year olds with brain cancer, that is) should just be left to die, why not just come out and say it?

That's a real and serious question with no good answers.

How much are you willing to pay to keep an old person with a terminal disease alive for a few more days or weeks? And who gets to decide when enough is enough?

Kaa

pefjr
07-22-2009, 12:15 PM
This thread triggered a memory.
http://www.nytimes.com/1984/03/29/us/gov-lamm-asserts-elderly-if-very-ill-have-duty-to-die.html

High C
07-22-2009, 12:17 PM
These are the questions that will have to be asked, and answered, if we allow the government to control our health care.

Do you trust them with your life?

Keith Wilson
07-22-2009, 12:21 PM
How much are you willing to pay to keep an old person with a terminal disease alive for a few more days or weeks? And who gets to decide when enough is enough?These are questions that will have to be asked and answered if we are to be able to afford heath care, however we organize or pay for it.

Do you trust insurance companies with your life? Unless you have multiple millions in the bank, right now you do.

ccmanuals
07-22-2009, 12:23 PM
These are the questions that will have to be asked, and answered, if we allow the government to control our health care.

Do you trust them with your life?

These questions are answered daily by insurance companies right now. How many horror stories would you like to hear about how medical procedures are currently being denied by insurance companies.

By the way, the Gov't control's myself and my wife's health care right now! I have a single payer system through Military TriCare and I am allowed to chose my doctor and hospital and I'm one very happy SOB with this system!!

Bruce Hooke
07-22-2009, 12:24 PM
These are the questions that will have to be asked, and answered, if we allow the government to control our health care.

Do you trust them with your life?

More than I trust many insurance companies...by a mile!

Right now, the way this question often gets answered in a few ways:

1. If you have no insurance, good luck finding charity care, especially good luck finding it relatively quickly if your cancer is moving fast.

2. If you get insurance through your employer and have to quit due to the cancer and run out of Cobra coverage, good luck finding insurance coverage or see #1 above.

3. If you have insurance but the cancer treatment is expensive and you hit the lifetime limits on your insurance, good luck.

I'd much prefer a rational system that at least attempts to make these sorts of decisions based first on the medical information available rather than have the decision be under the control of corporations that are in the business of trying to find a way to avoid paying for my care.

Kaa
07-22-2009, 12:25 PM
but if you're presuming that an either a health insuror, OR a government agency, should be empowered to make that decision, we will disagree...

Simply put, I don't think it would be reasonable, or even ethically correct, to put a cap or limit on medical care... even when imminent death is seemingly obvious. It's a cost that has to be figured into the entire structure.

Depends on the cost, wouldn't it?

Face it, we as a society are not rich enough to provide the best possible health care for everyone. There WILL be rationing/triage. As I said before, the issue is who gets to decide and what basis.

Kaa

Kaa
07-22-2009, 12:32 PM
Compared to that, my answer is wholeheartedly yes indeed...

The answer to how much are you willing to pay is "yes indeed"? :D


I'd rather have the government, aided by law, make those hard decisions, than having them made by insurance companies.

You have just said "but if you're presuming that an either a health insuror, OR a government agency, should be empowered to make that decision, we will disagree."

Could you please pick ONE position? :-)

Kaa

High C
07-22-2009, 12:37 PM
....I'd much prefer a rational system that at least attempts to make these sorts of decisions based first on the medical information available rather than have the decision be under the control of corporations that are in the business of trying to find a way to avoid paying for my care.

You might want to look into the heavy handed way the Federal government pays for its Medicare patients, from a provider's perspective. Medicare pays less than private insurers for everything..cost shifting. Medicare sometimes refuses to pay after care has already been provided...cost shifting. Medicare sometimes goes back into the bank accounts of providers and takes out money for care already given, approved, and paid for...cost shifting. If those practices spread to the rest of us, there will be no one left to shift costs to. The government is very much in the business of trying to find a way to avoid paying for care. Just wait 'til they're responsible for all of it.

Bruce Hooke
07-22-2009, 12:41 PM
You might want to look into the heavy handed way the Federal government pays for its Medicare patients, from a provider's perspective. Medicare pays less than private insurers for everything..cost shifting. Medicare sometimes refuses to pay after care has already been provided...cost shifting. Medicare sometimes goes back into the bank accounts of providers and takes out money for care already given, approved, and paid for...cost shifting. If those practices spread to the rest of us, there will be no one left to shift costs to. The government is very much in the business of trying to find a way to avoid paying for care. Just wait 'til they're responsible for all of it.

Yes, but overall I still think the government does and would do a better job than the average insurance company.

However, I think it is also worth noting that all Obama is trying to do is give people the choice of going with a government plan.

High C
07-22-2009, 12:45 PM
Yes, but overall I still think the government does and would do a better job than the average insurance company.

However, I think it is also worth noting that all Obama is trying to do is give people the choice of going with a government plan.

Well, we differ in where we'd place our trust. As a consumer, I have the power to take my business elsewhere if I'm not happy with the product. As a constituent, I have far less influence.

The government plan alternative is but a camel's nose under the tent. You don't really think it would end there, do you? Just Washington offering a competing product?

Kaa
07-22-2009, 12:47 PM
I thought I made it clear that I'd prefer that neither one was empowered to make the decision... but if I were FORCED to chose, I'd pick the gov't over the insurance companies.

So you'd prefer that there be no triage/rationing?

Again, how much are you willing to pay for that? It's not a question about the cost of procedures, but a question about your preferences. Do you have some dollar limit? If you do, in about which range is it?


then the value of treatments would be a lot clearer to the families trying to make the decisions....

But if the families are not paying, why would they care about the cost?

If the choice is between a few more days of having your beloved grandpa live and, say, saving a few million dollars for the Federal government, why in the world would you prefer to save the Feds' money?


In short, I'm not convinced that expensive treatments near the very end of life are that big of an indfuence on overall health care.

I believe you're factually wrong.

Kaa

oznabrag
07-22-2009, 01:00 PM
I think this whole 'end of life', 'terminal care', 'extraordinary measures' crap could be dealt with very handily if we simply accept that we are all gonna die.

It really is that simple. Loved ones, criminals, indifferent strangers, we are all going to die.

'Extending' someone's life while they are terminally bedridden and so doped up that they can't respond to anything is, simply, idiotic. That person will die, and soon. Nothing you can do will stop it. Everybody does it. Everybody. We cannot, ultimately, cheat Death.

Many ancient traditions speak to this, but I think Tolkien's Elves had it best. They said that Death was a precious gift that the Gods reserved for Men.

Robmill0605
07-22-2009, 01:07 PM
Yes, but overall I still think the government does and would do a better job than the average insurance company.

However, I think it is also worth noting that all Obama is trying to do is give people the choice of going with a government plan.


How is a private insurance co. that has to show a profit going to compete with a gov. that does not?
Further, they (gov.) will set the rules.
By the way, if you do not go with the government plan, there a $2500 penalty for opting out of it.
Per year.

Bruce Hooke
07-22-2009, 01:07 PM
Well, we differ in where we'd place our trust. As a consumer, I have the power to take my business elsewhere if I'm not happy with the product. As a constituent, I have far less influence.

The government plan alternative is but a camel's nose under the tent. You don't really think it would end there, do you? Just Washington offering a competing product?

If the government plan is so much better than the private plans that everyone strongly prefers it then I could see this going further, but if many people continue to strongly prefer private plans I don't see Washington being able to actually run private plans out of the market any time soon. Among other things, as we've seen, the private plans have enough money to greatly influence the political process.

Once again, I trust government much more than you do... :D

Robmill0605
07-22-2009, 01:17 PM
Try to read the bill Norman.

Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!

Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benes u get

Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!!

Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread484491/pg1#) Choices Commissioner will choose UR HC Benefits 4 you. U have no choice!

PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill - HC will be provided 2 ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise

Pg 58HC Bill - Govt will have real-time access 2 individs finances & a National ID Healthcard will b issued!

Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access 2 ur banks accts 4 elect. funds transfer

PG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan 4 retirees and their families in Unions & community orgs (ACORN).

Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Govt is creating an HC Exchange (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread484491/pg1#) 2 bring priv HC plans under Govt control.

PG 84 Sec 203 HC bill - Govt mandates ALL benefit pkgs 4 priv. HC plans in the Exchange

PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs for of Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt will ration ur Healthcare!

PG 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill - Govt mandates linguistic approp svcs. Example - Translation 4 illegal aliens

Pg 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Govt will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps 2 sign up indiv. for Govt HC plan

PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs of Ben Levels 4 Plans. #AARP members - U Health care WILL b rationed

PG 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill - Medicaid Eligible Indiv. will b automat.enrolled in Medicaid. No choice

pg 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Govt Monop

pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill - Doctors/ #AMA - The Govt will tell YOU what u can make.

Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into pub opt plan. NO CHOICE

Pg 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay 4 HC 4 part time employees AND their families.

Pg 149 Lines 16-24 ANY Emplyr w payroll 400k & above who does not prov. pub opt. pays 8% tax on all payroll

pg 150 Lines 9-13 Biz w payroll btw 251k & 400k who doesnt prov. pub. opt pays 2-6% tax on all payroll

Pg 167 Lines 18-23 ANY individual who doesnt have acceptable HC accrdng 2 Govt will be taxed 2.5% of inc

Pg 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from indiv. taxes. (Americans will pay)

Pg 195 HC Bill -officers & employees of HC Admin (GOVT) will have access 2 ALL Americans finan/pers recs

PG 203 Line 14-15 HC - "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax" Yes, it says that

Pg 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Govt will reduce physician svcs 4 Medicaid. Seniors, low income (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread484491/pg1#), poor affected

Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill - Doctors, doesnt matter what specialty u have, you'll all be paid the same

PG 253 Line 10-18 Govt sets value of Dr's time, prof judg, etc. Literally value of humans.

PG 265 Sec 1131Govt mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries

PG 268 Sec 1141 Fed Govt regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs

PG 272 SEC. 1145. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!

Page 280 Sec 1151 The Govt will penalize hospitals 4 what Govt deems preventable readmissions.

Pg 298 Lines 9-11 Drs, treat a patient during initial admiss that results in a readmiss-Govt will penalize u.

Pg 317 L 13-20 OMG!! PROHIBITION on ownership/investment (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread484491/pg1#). Govt tells Drs. what/how much they can own.

Pg 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion- Govt is mandating hospitals cannot expand

pg 321 2-13 Hospitals have oppt to apply for exception BUT community input required. Can u say ACORN?!!

Pg335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339 - Govt mandates estab. of outcome based measures. HC the way they want. Rationing

Pg 341 Lines 3-9 Govt has authority 2 disqual Medicare Adv Plans, HMOs, etc. Forcing peeps in2 Govt plan

Pg 354 Sec 1177 - Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs ppl! WTF. My sis has down syndrome!!

Pg 379 Sec 1191 Govt creates more bureaucracy - Telehealth Advisory Cmtte. Can u say HC by phone?

PG 425 Lines 4-12 Govt mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life

Pg 425 Lines 17-19 Govt will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of atty. Mandatory!

PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Govt provides apprvd list of end of life resources, guiding u in death

PG 427 Lines 15-24 Govt mandates program 4 orders 4 end of life. The Govt has a say in how ur life ends

Pg 429 Lines 1-9 An "adv. care planning consult" will b used frequently as patients health deteriorates

PG 429 Lines 10-12 "adv. care consultation" may incl an ORDER 4 end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOV

Pg 429 Lines 13-25 - The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.

PG 430 Lines 11-15 The Govt will decide what level of treatment u will have at end of life

Pg 469 - Community Based Home Medical Services=Non profit orgs. Hello, ACORN Medical Svcs here!!?

Page 472 Lines 14-17 PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORG. 1 monthly payment 2 a community-based org. Like ACORN?

PG 489 Sec 1308 The Govt will cover Marriage & Family therapy. Which means they will insert Govt in2 ur marriage

Pg 494-498 Govt will cover Mental Health Svcs including defining, creating, rationing those svcs

http://economicpolicyjournal.com/

paladin
07-22-2009, 01:18 PM
An interesting (to me) situation played out these last few days at Holy Cross Hospital.
I was in the Dialysis unit for my very first treatment, and because of the heart they wanted to keep me under observation. It took about 10 minutes to process me in.
I was wheeled to the unit, not allowed to walk. There was one other Caucasian in the unit, all the rest were African American/Nigerian etc with one exception.
They were very nice to me. I had insurance. I had secondary insurance. And...I think I have medicare as a backup...although I don't know exactly how it works.
I was "serviced" and was brought back the next day...and I now Have a unit assigned in Annapolis for regular visits...BUT!
The nurse was telling me that I was lucky to have the insurance because the folks that were there on medicare would have the service cut off after two years. Medicare stops paying. I don't know what treatments would cost outside...but at 3 times a week, if someone were on medicare/social security or similar relatively low retirement pay, how would they pay for it......so the government just cuts you off and you die.
I paid into my base insurance fund for 35 years...now I understand the weenies when I got the call suggesting I cancel my existing insurance and convert to AARP...who wouldn't cover pre existing conditions....and the insurance company would have 35 years of premiums and no responsibility. My 3 life insurance policies are paid up for about 5 more years......I wanna collect every nickle from those s.o.b.'s that I can...

Robmill0605
07-22-2009, 01:19 PM
Pg 167 Lines 18-23 ANY individual who doesnt have acceptable HC accrdng 2 Govt will be taxed 2.5% of inc

an average of $2500.

High C
07-22-2009, 01:20 PM
...Once again, I trust government much more than you do...

Did you feel that way when those awful Republicans were in charge in the past? Will you still feel that way when they are again in charge in the future?

Kaa
07-22-2009, 01:23 PM
We were talking (as per the very title of this thread) about the ethics and merits of spending health care money for someone like Ted Kennedy, who is elderly and has terminal brain cancer. Any judgment I might make about that specific circumstance has NOTHING to do with the necessity of triage/rationing across the entire spectrum of health care.

We're not talking about the entire spectrum. But limiting care to elderly people with terminal diseases is triage and rationing. So, should we do it?


I'll give you the universal answer: if it were MY relative, no amount of money would be too much. If it were YOUR relative, I wouldn't want to be wasteful.

Oh, good. So, you want the government to be in charge of that, right? :D

Kaa

Robmill0605
07-22-2009, 01:27 PM
I'd love to... but your long C&P obviously isn't the bill. Why don't you tell us:

1) Where did that C&P come from?

and

2) Where is the actual bill that you read? (After all, you are claiming that you actually read the bill, aren't you?)

EDITED TO ADD: Does the bill actually refer to ACORN? :p:p:p

1) I posted the link

2) I obviously am more informed about what is actually in the bill than you since you claim it is NOT in the bill and my post even shows the page and lines of what is in the bill.

Robmill0605
07-22-2009, 01:29 PM
By the way, apparently Obama has no clue what is in this bill either, so you are in good company.

Morning Bell: Obama Admits He’s “Not Familiar” With House Bill (http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/21/morning-bell-obama-admits-hes-not-familiar-with-house-bill/)


With the public’s trust in his handling of health care tanking (50%-44% of Americans disapprove (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-07-20-obama-poll-economy_N.htm)), the White House has launched a new phase of its strategy designed to pass Obamacare: all Obama, all the time. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/19/AR2009071901465.html?nav=rss_email/components) As part of that effort, Obama hosted a conference call with leftist bloggers (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/20/obama-calls-on-bloggers-t_n_241570.html) urging them to pressure Congress to pass his health plan as soon as possible.
During the call, a blogger from Maine said he kept running into an Investors Business Daily article (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=332548165656854) that claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance. He asked: “Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?” President Obama replied: “You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about.” (quote begins at 17:10) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/20/obama-calls-on-bloggers-t_n_241570.html)
This is a truly disturbing admission by the President, especially considering that later in the call, Obama promises yet again: “If you have health insurance, and you like it, and you have a doctor that you like, then you can keep it. Period.” How can Obama keep making this promise if he is not familiar with the health legislation that is being written in Congress? Details matter.

Robmill0605
07-22-2009, 01:39 PM
What you posted was someone's opinion about what was in the bill... it's his conclusions, not the bill itself. Obviously, you haven't read the bill either. I don't know if those page numbers are correct... nor do I know if the conclusions of the guy you're C&P'ng are correct or not (He seems to think that ACORN is actually in the bill, itself.... I'd love to see that).

If you claim to be more informed about what is actually in the bill, thne please tell us where you've read it.

You want to play this game Norman ok, you said it was not in the bill. I just posted the actual page numbers and line numbers showing iit is.
So you do NOT know that this provision is in this bill.
NO ONE has read this bill including Obama. I said it was in the bill and suggested YOU read it. I never said I read it.
So, since you claim it is NOT in the bill.

PROVE IT.

Flying Orca
07-22-2009, 01:41 PM
One thing those of you discussing triage and rationing might bear in mind is that in the system with which I am most familiar, triage and rationing are done by doctors and hospitals, NOT by the government. I suppose you could set things up so that the government did it, but I'm not sure why you'd want to...

TomF
07-22-2009, 01:44 PM
These are the questions that will have to be asked, and answered, if we allow the government to control our health care.

Do you trust them with your life?Sure. The default up here, is that people get care ... and get triaged for it. My grandmother died from Alzheimer's at 96, and had a hip replaced at 90. Good value? She was showing signs of Alz. when the hip surgery happened, after all...

My F-I-L was 76 when he had a major heart attack, but his first-rate and swift medical care means that he's as active as ever, despite being almost 80. Still pursuing research projects, still travelling the world to meet with (now much younger) colleagues.

It's bogus to assume that old people, or already sick people, or ____ people won't get care if government determines how things are shared out. Doesn't happen that way in the health systems of any of your First World allies ...

Kaa
07-22-2009, 01:45 PM
One thing those of you discussing triage and rationing might bear in mind is that in the system with which I am most familiar, triage and rationing are done by doctors and hospitals, NOT by the government.

I think you're mistaken about that.

The doctors make the actual decisions as to who gets to the front of the line and who is left behind, but the size of that line is determined by resource allocation decisions made by the government.

Kaa

Keith Wilson
07-22-2009, 01:47 PM
Once again, does anyone have a link to a source that summarizes what's actually in the bill without the propaganda? There are plenty of web sites that tell you it will guarantee perpetual happiness and health for everyone, and others claiming it will cause the continents to sink into the sea, but I haven't found one yet that just gives the facts.

Captain Intrepid
07-22-2009, 01:52 PM
It's bogus to assume that old people, or already sick people, or ____ people won't get care if government determines how things are shared out. Doesn't happen that way in the health systems of any of your First World allies ...

Please don't confuse ever rationality with American assumptions on healthcare. They're usually so far out they can't even see left field anymore.

High C
07-22-2009, 01:54 PM
Once again, does anyone have a link to a source that summarizes what's actually in the bill.....

If you find it, please forward it to your Congressman. He likely has the same question.

TomF
07-22-2009, 01:57 PM
I think you're mistaken about that.

The doctors make the actual decisions as to who gets to the front of the line and who is left behind, but the size of that line is determined by resource allocation decisions made by the government.

KaaMade by government reflecting the desires of the electorate.

Today, our electorate's will is that something approaching half of all government expenditures goes to health care, and we still pay less per capita than you guys.

I think the electorate would do well to wise up, and take some decades-old advice on how to reduce their risks for acute disease, or the whole thing will go "boom." But yours will go "boom" sooner.

Bruce Hooke
07-22-2009, 01:59 PM
Did you feel that way when those awful Republicans were in charge in the past? Will you still feel that way when they are again in charge in the future?

Yes and yes.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
07-22-2009, 02:07 PM
These are the questions that will have to be asked, and answered, if we allow the government to control our health care.

Do you trust them with your life?


Why don't you ask the socialized/two tier systems of health care that are the world leaders? They are so far ahead of your health care system that it isn't even worth comparing yours to theirs.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
07-22-2009, 02:09 PM
If Obamacare applied to Ted Kennedy.

Is Senator Kennedy's life valuable enough to dedicate millions of dollars to extending it another month, another day, another year?




http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/does_ted_kennedy_deserve_his_e.html


It's hard for a country who murders more convicted criminals than almost any other nation in the world to ask questions about the value of life.;)

Robmill0605
07-22-2009, 02:09 PM
:D:D

I see some page numbers... and I see some right wing guy's opinion. In order to prove ANYTHING, I'd need to see the bill itself, right? How do I know those page numbers are real? Where did that guy get the info?

So, where is the bill? You read it, right? After all, YOU have no more reason to believe that guy's opinions than I do....

...or do you believe him simply because you want to? :p

:D:D

So excuse the pun, we have a Mexican stand off.:p

The real issue here and a very scary one is that Obama is pushing this bill to be fast tracked ,and NO ONE has read it.
The American people do not know whats in it , cant' find the bill anywhere and yet we have this hurry hurry push from Obama and a deadline?
I want to know just what the hell is really in this thing. The discussion here shows that no one has read it, and no one knows what is really in it.

Captain Intrepid
07-22-2009, 02:09 PM
It's hard for a country who murders more convicted criminals than almost any other nation in the world to ask questions about the value of life.;)

Oh SNAP!

pefjr
07-22-2009, 02:18 PM
It's hard for a country who murders more convicted criminals than almost any other nation in the world to ask questions about the value of life.;) You are a "brain dead man walking"

Bob Adams
07-22-2009, 02:19 PM
I think it's somewhat more valuable than yours.

That's kinda crass doncha think? What criteria to you use to put a value on a life? I'm sitting here awaiting a call about the CT scan I had yesterday. Is Teddy's life more valuable than mine? Than Chuck's? Meer's?

elf
07-22-2009, 02:32 PM
Medicaid kept my mother alive for 7 years after she had no cognizance of anything around her. It kept her alive for 4 years after she gave no evidence of being able to recognize food or respond to caregivers who came to feed her. It even kept trying to feed her after she lay in bed curled up in a fetal position and had to be awakened.

Her desires, as spelled out in the required forms, were ignored and my right, as spelled out in the same forms, to stop the caregivers from extending her life when it was obvious that there was no point did not include consultation with me.

Personally, I'm in favor of being able to choose for myself when I wish to die, as well as being able to appoint someone else to do that for me if I am no longer able.

Flying Orca
07-22-2009, 02:47 PM
The doctors make the actual decisions as to who gets to the front of the line and who is left behind, but the size of that line is determined by resource allocation decisions made by the government.

Er, no, the size of the line is determined by the number of people referred to the line by doctors. Well, and by the throughput of whatever is at the end of the line, but that's also determined by the local health authorities, who decide how to allocate their budgets. At least around here, the government's part (in this context) largely consists of allocating large pots of money to the regional health authorities.

As TomF rightly points out, even that is not at the government's sole discretion - people are very touchy about their medical care, and governments have fallen because they did not look after it effectively.

htom
07-22-2009, 02:58 PM
I would say that the Senator -- and indeed all of the Congress Critters, the President and VP, the Cabinet, and all of their immediate family (parents and children ) should be limited to the health care provided by the Indian Health Service.

elf
07-22-2009, 03:03 PM
Once again, does anyone have a link to a source that summarizes what's actually in the bill without the propaganda? There are plenty of web sites that tell you it will guarantee perpetual happiness and health for everyone, and others claiming it will cause the continents to sink into the sea, but I haven't found one yet that just gives the facts.

Jeez, Keith. Look a little:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:h956:

Keith Wilson
07-22-2009, 03:07 PM
Lordy, Elf that's the whole damn bill. I was hoping to avoid wading through that much legalese.

elf
07-22-2009, 03:14 PM
Yes, but we were talking about whether Congress had done so.

The actual fact of that bill is that I believe it's in the ongoing process of modification, or marking up. It's pretty good to have access to the entire bill online, but keeping track of the changes is yet another problem, for congress as well as for you and me.

htom
07-22-2009, 03:14 PM
Part of the problem is that that isn't the whole damn bill. They add to it every day, and will continue to do so until it's passed (I assume that they will stop, then, but I may be too trusting.)

Robmill0605
07-22-2009, 03:43 PM
That's kinda crass doncha think? What criteria to you use to put a value on a life? I'm sitting here awaiting a call about the CT scan I had yesterday. Is Teddy's life more valuable than mine? Than Chuck's? Meer's?


"I think it's somewhat more valuable than yours."

Nope, Norman just thinks mine is less valuable.

elf
07-22-2009, 04:15 PM
These are the questions that will have to be asked, and answered, if we allow the government to control our health care.

Do you trust them with your life?

Who do you trust with decisions about your life? Government? Insurance companies? The doctor you've only had for 6 months because your family doctor retired? Yourself? Whatever sort of spiritual system you believe in? Your great grandchildren who don't really know you because they've been too far away for most of their life?

And why do you assume that a public health plan would include complete goverment control over your health decisions? Don't you realize that you are the government? Why are you sitting on your ass doing nothing?

There's just no logic to this sort of discussion. The people asking all these sorts of questions are not interested in finding a way through the current mess to a system which would serve the common good better. Most of them don't even believe in serving the common good, because if they did they wouldn't be asking simplistic questions at all. They'd be asking the complicated questions like "how can we create a health care system which takes into consideration the full spectrum of hopes, fears and needs of the population while not aggravating economic catastrophe?".

Instead they're asking "what do I have to say to keep getting the money I need to be reelected?".

Or, even more unproductive, "how can I keep Mr. Obama from getting anything that might make him look like a success?".

elf
07-22-2009, 04:21 PM
If Obamacare applied to Ted Kennedy.

Is Senator Kennedy's life valuable enough to dedicate millions of dollars to extending it another month, another day, another year? [/URL]

Who's millions?

For most who have health insurance, especially those in Teddy's age cohort on public insurance (Medicare), the real millions won't come from the public system. They'll come from the supplemental insurance which most retirees purchase.

Questions like these are straw men. They deliberately ignore reality in order to get people like Rob all puffed up with self-righteousness.

And they play into the stingyness of people like him as well.

Stingy and self-righteous.

High C
07-22-2009, 04:38 PM
....And why do you assume that a public health plan would include complete goverment control over your health decisions? Don't you realize that you are the government?...

No, I am not the government. I am a servant of our government. Government is almost hopelessly corrupted, at least at the Federal level, and well beyond my influence or yours.

It's really funny, after years of listening to you libs carry on about how corrupt the government is, to see you suddenly trust it with your very lives now that yourmobsters are temporarily in control.

Robmill0605
07-22-2009, 04:50 PM
Who's millions?

For most who have health insurance, especially those in Teddy's age cohort on public insurance (Medicare), the real millions won't come from the public system. They'll come from the supplemental insurance which most retirees purchase.

Questions like these are straw men. They deliberately ignore reality in order to get people like Rob all puffed up with self-righteousness.

And they play into the stingyness of people like him as well.

Stingy and self-righteous.

That is an arrogant statement, and rude.
I would expect nothing less than that from you. You do not know ANYTHING about me, or my character other than I am a conservative.
If you do not like my views, then please use your ignore button.

Flying Orca
07-22-2009, 05:42 PM
You do not know ANYTHING about me, or my character other than I am a conservative.

You forgot that people also know you're a troll. :p

mmd
07-22-2009, 06:16 PM
It strikes me that the Americans think that universal, government-funded health care will operate exactly like HMO healthcare, but with a different entity writing the cheques and making decisions on behalf of the patient. While those of us in other countries with a UHC system know this is not so, I suppose the Americans be forgiven for not being able to imagine that the new system won't behave just like the old system, because they have not experienced anything different.

Not to belittle a complex and important issue, but a lot of the rhetoric here and in other media sounds at times like trying to get a youngster to try a new food that he will most likely like, and it will be good for him, too:

Try some of this,
No
Why not?
I don't like it.
Have you ever tried it?
No.
Why not?
I don't like it.
How do you know?
I don't. I just know I won't like it.

Bob Adams
07-22-2009, 07:59 PM
I'm not putting any absolute value on human life... I'm only pointing out that, for ALL of us, the value of human life is different for loved ones than strangers.

And I sincerely hope that your CT scan doesn't reveal anything serious.

Thanks, CT came back negitive for lung cancer, I am thanking the Lord for answering a prayer. I owe the big guy one!

Milo Christensen
07-22-2009, 08:58 PM
Who's millions?

For most who have health insurance, especially those in Teddy's age cohort on public insurance (Medicare), the real millions won't come from the public system. They'll come from the supplemental insurance which most retirees purchase.

Questions like these are straw men. They deliberately ignore reality in order to get people like Rob all puffed up with self-righteousness.

And they play into the stingyness of people like him as well.

Stingy and self-righteous.

Get off your sanctimonious horse and take a walk in the real freakin' world. This is a valid question. Senators and Representatives like Ted voted, again and again and again, for more and more fantastic health care insurance for themselves and their families. Give us all the Congressional health plan.

elf
07-22-2009, 10:00 PM
Anybody know the details of the health plan available to members of congress?

Links?

Never mind. Here's the link:

http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/

Notice - the "plan" is the opportunity to select among plans offered by health insurance companies depending on the state you live in or come from. The federal government picks up 75% of the cost.

Anybody want to wade through all the info and determine what happens when the congressperson reaches Medicare age?

Bob (oh, THAT Bob)
07-22-2009, 10:04 PM
These are the questions that will have to be asked, and answered, if we allow the government to control our health care.

Do you trust them with your life?

More or less than a profit-driven company with a history of denying legitimate benefits? You need regulatory safeguards for both the corporate and government sectors, and real, huge penalties, including prison time, for corporate or government officials that deny legitimate (earned or purchased) benefits.

High C
07-22-2009, 10:13 PM
More or less than a profit-driven company with a history of denying legitimate benefits? You need regulatory safeguards for both the corporate and government sectors, and real, huge penalties, including prison time, for corporate or government officials that deny legitimate (earned or purchased) benefits.

Agreed. Enforcement should not be left to the civil courts. And it has to happen fast when health and lives are on the line. This is one of the greatest challenges of any reform plan.

Keith Wilson
07-22-2009, 10:18 PM
Every other wealthy country has universal heath care coverage paid for at least in part by taxes. Everybody is insured, whether or not they are employed. While these systems are not perfect, there is effectively zero political support in any of these countries for switching to a US-style private system. Nobody even contemplates the idea. These people are as intelligent as we are. You think we might be able to learn from their experience?

Ian McColgin
07-23-2009, 06:32 AM
The fundamental premis of the article, like so much of the reactionary support of medical insurance industry profits, is false. Nothing in any plan before Congress prevents people who can afford it to purchase additional care.

Which they might need. My HMO, one of the "best" in the nation, would absolutely not pay for me to obtain the treatment that I am so glad my senator could afford. I understand and am ok with that.

My only real question is, Does the author know that his fundamental assertion about the health reform proposals is false or was he misled by his own propaganda? In existential terms, is he deliberatly lying or is he writing in bad faith?

Peter Malcolm Jardine
07-23-2009, 08:36 AM
No, I am not the government. I am a servant of our government. Government is almost hopelessly corrupted, at least at the Federal level, and well beyond my influence or yours.

It's really funny, after years of listening to you libs carry on about how corrupt the government is, to see you suddenly trust it with your very lives now that yourmobsters are temporarily in control.

Where did you live again?

Peter Malcolm Jardine
07-23-2009, 09:04 AM
You are a "brain dead man walking"

Are you confused about what I said? Your country executes people for crime. Look at who your company is globally. Hmmm Mongolia, Rwanda, Togo, Butan... yep, world leaders in soooo many ways.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
07-23-2009, 09:05 AM
Back to the thread header, Teddy, who I have nothing against because I don't know him, isn't in need of government largess. Mary Joe's family probably has a different perspective. His poppa made a bundle from illegal booze during alcohol prohibition, and nearly went broke when he took the show to Hollywood.

Teddy has always been the weak kitten in that litter. The youngest. Joe, John, and Bobby. What a crew of siblings to measure oneself against! He's been sitting, fat and happy in that senate seat for what, thirty five years? I can't see that he's done much with such a silver spoon, but who am I to judge?

Yep, a lifetime in the senate, a leader in innovative legislation, a brother who was president, a brother who would have been president, and so on and so forth. Yep, definitely a "weak kitten"

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Ian McColgin
07-23-2009, 10:02 AM
Anyway, the thread header is the health care reform proposals before Congress, veiled in the utterly false assertion that under the proposals some government official would decide who'd get what treatment and whether Sen Kennedy's life is worth more than someone else's.

Kaa
07-23-2009, 10:08 AM
...utterly false assertion that under the proposals some government official would decide who'd get what treatment and whether Sen Kennedy's life is worth more than someone else's.

So you think there will be no triage/rationing of health care whatsoever?

And that people with political connections will not get a personally better deal out of the system than some random prole?

Hey, would you be interested in a bridge, by any chance...?

Kaa

Ian McColgin
07-23-2009, 10:13 AM
Under all the proposals there will be about the same triage/rationing as there is now with one huge exception: The folk now triaged right out of any useful care will get access. But people who can afford supplimental insurance or can pay outright for uncovered services will still get them. People will still be denied services, just as I can be now by my HMO, based on actuarial formulae, sometimes false assumptions, and medical prejudice.

"Free care" through the ER is a disgusting myth perpetrated by people who are also active in trying to find ways for hospitals to evade the job to the limited extent they do. Yeah you can get some treatment, but the real follow-up needed for a return to health is just not available from the ER.

John Smith
07-23-2009, 10:13 AM
From the article link...

"I don't know enough about Senator Kennedy's condition (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Ted_Kennedy_diagnosed_with_brain_tumor), but I would suppose that he has "a recurrent disease or ... a terminal progressive disease." That would be the case if his brain cancer is not curable. In the socialist Netherlands Kennedy would be a perfect candidate for passive euthanasia.

Has anyone raised this question with Senator Kennedy? I know it seems to be in bad taste to even mention it. But if ObamaCare passes in the coming weeks, you can be sure that that question will be raised for you and me, and our loved ones. And no, we will not have a choice."

I am in favor of having a national health care budget. There is essentially none now and I also favor passive euthanasia.


I, too, support being able to choose when we end our lives and avoiding the pain, suffering, and expense of needlessly prolonging life. It was not hard for me to fulfill my mom's wishes as per her advanced directive, and simply allow her to pass. Doctor agreed.

I have some friends who seem to believe that continued care will prevent death entirely. Fact was, my mom was dying. Their best efforts would have bought her a few weeks, which would have been extremely uncomfortable. She clearly expressed that would not be her wish.

As to the value of Kennedy's life, I'd have to say it's equal to anyone else's.

I like to repeat a previously made point that when we discuss health care, and include Medicare in that discusstion, it is imperative, if we are to be honest, that we are aware that Medicare insures age 65 till death, which is generally the most medically expensive part of lifel.

TomF
07-23-2009, 10:25 AM
... that people with political connections will not get a personally better deal out of the system than some random prole?

Hey, would you be interested in a bridge, by any chance...?

KaaOur Deputy Minister of Health had to wait in line just like the random proles to get minor elective surgery done. No reason why it should be any different in your shop, if the person in question is choosing to go with a fully public route.

Kaa
07-23-2009, 10:41 AM
...utterly false assertion that under the proposals some government official would decide who'd get what treatment


People will still be denied services...

Um. Make up your mind :-)

Kaa

Ian McColgin
07-23-2009, 10:51 AM
I made up my mind and stated it clearly. Kaa is like the author of the thread starting C&P in deliberatly misrepresenting a position for his rhetorical purpose. Pity those whose agenda is to perpetuate the insurance industry's profits and to deny care to a major chunk of our population can't actually use truthful arguments.

Bob Adams
07-23-2009, 10:54 AM
Our Deputy Minister of Health had to wait in line just like the random proles to get minor elective surgery done. No reason why it should be any different in your shop, if the person in question is choosing to go with a fully public route.

A few years back, I was at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore with my wife who was recieving cancer treatment. There, I met a Canadian women revieving treatment for a brain tumor. I asked her why she traveled so far, she noted Hopkins stellar reputation, and the fact that had she waited for the Canadian system, she would already have been dead.

Kaa
07-23-2009, 11:18 AM
I made up my mind and stated it clearly.

So, services will be denied, but that will happen automagically? :D No one in particular will be denying the services, and no government official will decide on which services to deny and which services to approve?


Pity those whose agenda is to perpetuate the insurance industry's profits and to deny care to a major chunk of our population...

You mean me, right..? :D

Kaa

Ian McColgin
07-23-2009, 11:47 AM
I love "automagically".

Every model has its perversions. Some of us recall the Nixon established "Medicare/Medicade Mills" that were incorporated as HMOs but were really systems for bilking the capitation while denying services. Today some of the investor-owned and even a few physician-owned HMOs are corruptly organized and run, while even the better large HMOs become hagridden with procedural bureaucracy that gets in the way of medicine. Still, the HMO model is not just dominant today, but remains an important force for reform. About all any of the proposals do is two things: Make something available to about everyone; and provide a publicly owned back-up for those who can't afford what's investor or consumer owned.

Since the publicly owned entity has to provide the service and stay solvent, if it costs less than the private plans, it will exert some serious (and well deserved) market pressure on the privates. The currently unregulated market does not actually operate on price competition and the overheads in the private companies (in spectacular contrast to overhead in either Medicade or Medicare) are a major price driver. They rightly fear public competition as a threat to their bloated greed.

pcford
07-23-2009, 11:48 AM
These are the questions that will have to be asked, and answered, if we allow the government to control our health care.

Do you trust them with your life?

Yes! Much better to trust lives to the tender mercies of for-profit corporations.

If there is a better indication of the intellectual bankruptcy of the cornservative movement I don't know what it is.

elf
07-23-2009, 12:06 PM
So you think there will be no triage/rationing of health care whatsoever?
Kaa

Ah, black and white thinking again.

Keith Wilson
07-23-2009, 12:08 PM
We have some control over the government. We much much less over insurance companies.

Kaa
07-23-2009, 12:15 PM
Every model has its perversions.

Truth. And I think we can agree that the current system is very broken.

But I also think that it's a disservice to paint the government(-funded) healthcare as a paradise. As I said many times by now, triage/rationing is inevitable. Given that, it's much better not to throw around demagoguery along the lines of "There will be a government bureaucrat standing between you and your doctor! No, no government official will ever take a decision which will lead to denial of service!", but rather take a hard look at the hard reality. Bioethics choices are not easy and sometimes horrible to make, but we still will have to make them.

Kaa

Peter Malcolm Jardine
07-23-2009, 12:52 PM
I see very little.

You won't get any argument from me on this one

ccmanuals
07-23-2009, 01:42 PM
I'll say it again. I for one am very happy with my "government" backed health care plan. It's fairly inexpensive, I choose my own doctor and hospital and I have yet to see a Gov't beaurocrat involved in any way with any decision between me and my doctor.

elf
07-23-2009, 04:27 PM
I'd differ slightly... the word 'inevitable' seems to presume that we've never had triage/rationing. I maintain that we've had it for decades, but it's been ruled by insurance companies, primarily, with the objective being cost containment, not better health or smarter allocation of resources.

Cost containment? No. Their goal has always been profit for their stockholders. That has been their only goal.

downthecreek
07-24-2009, 03:55 AM
These are the questions that will have to be asked, and answered, if we allow the government to control our health care.


No, they are not. The vast majority of systems offering universal coverage also allow for individuals to take out supplementary insurance if they wish. In the respect, Canada is exceptional.

The premiums for such insurance are, literally, a small fraction of those routinely paid in the USA. Some policies available here make provision to pay you if you choose to use the NHS rather than making a claim.

It is a great pity this important debate is so often conducted on the basis of ill informed notions, propaganda and scare mongering.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
07-24-2009, 04:51 AM
Just so, I have such a policy, for self and family. Not sure if it is worth while, though, as the NHS covers pretty much all our needs.