Welcome to PatsFans.com

Death Panels

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by State, Jan 20, 2011.

  1. State

    State Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,516
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    #70 Jersey

    Funny how the idea that socialized medicine would employ them--that's where the majority of the heath care spending occurs, end-of-life issues--in order to save money.

    Barack Obama's death-panel bungling--Jim Towey - NYPOST.com

    Looks like a lot of libs need to apologize to Sarah Palin. But I predict they're not man enough.
  2. Titus Pullo

    Titus Pullo Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    2,613
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    oh look, everyone! a birther! in his natural habitat!

    :rolleyes:
  3. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,778
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +170 / 4 / -4

    Yeah, let's get rid of death panels, but let's do it for the entire insurance industry. The insurance industry should not be involved in determining what services an individual is entitled to. If someone is dying and wants experimental care, nonstandard care, high risk surgery, etc., the insurance companies should be forced to pay. We should have gotten rid of death panels decades ago. Let's not let experts be involved in deciding what kind of treatment people can get--after all, those experts are all bureaucrats who are simply interested in the bottom line, and we all know those liberals in government are more interested in the bottom line than are the insurance company bureaucrats who run today's death panels.

    State, which is it, do you not understand the issue, or do you think insurance companies should be forced to provide whatever services the individual wants regardless of cost?
  4. chicowalker

    chicowalker On the Roster

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,952
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +195 / 2 / -2

    It's interesting how things are ok if dictated by companies, isn't it? (Preferably unregulated companies, of course)

    Personally, I disagree with what you say here -- but the terms of an insurance policy should be spelled out very clearly, either in terms of types of care or $ amounts. And that should be the same whether it's insurance provided through a company or the government.
  5. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,778
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +170 / 4 / -4

    I think "death panels" is simply a politically conceived phrase for something that necessarily must exist. After all, even as liberal as I am, I would not be for insurance spending $250,000 to give a 95 year old a heart transplant. That said, I do think if there must be death panels (and there always have been), then it's better to put it in the hands of government experts than insurance experts.

    While I agree the terms must be spelled out very carefully, there shouldn't be restrictions on medically acceptable and proven treatments. If a child needs a $250,000 operation, then it should be covered, as it would be in all civilized nations. I guess that's the sort of thing we disagree on. You'd let the child die if the terms didn't cover that amount; so would insurance companies.
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2011
  6. chicowalker

    chicowalker On the Roster

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,952
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +195 / 2 / -2

    I wouldn't force the child to die, but I also wouldn't force the insurance company to pay for it, if it clearly was not provided for as part of the policy.

    If that's where we decide the government should play a role, that's an argument I can accept -- but why force it on a particular third party that clearly didn't take on that responsibility?
  7. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,778
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +170 / 4 / -4

    With health care reform, there is no limit to what insurance companies will cover for medically acceptable procedure, and they are allowed to charge rates accordingly. The theory is that economies of scale, administrative streamlining, better coordination between providers, and demand for services will drive costs down (or actually drive them up at a slower rate than would happen without health care reform). If the CBO is correct, health care reform will save tens of billions of dollars (relative to the absence of reform) and provide better coverage than is provided today.

    But, it still sounds like you're saying that we should allow the uninsured and people with poor policies to needlessly die. I gather, then, that you don't consider health care a right, but a luxury instead. So, you don't think the U.S. should be a member of this group?

    List of Countries with Universal Healthcare True Cost – Analyzing our economy, government policy, and society through the lens of cost-benefit
  8. chicowalker

    chicowalker On the Roster

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,952
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +195 / 2 / -2

    Apparently you didn't read in my prior post where I said, "If that's where we decide the government should play a role, that's an argument I can accept"


    I don't consider it a right or a luxury.

    But, no, I don't consider something a right when it requires somebody else to provide it -- and that includes healthcare.

    -----

    By the way, I find your tone here to be amusing in what's coming across as criticism simply because I don't think a 3rd party should be forced to pay for somebody else's healthcare. You've already acknowledged that all procedures aren't justifiable for all people -- what about their "rights"? Why would you allow them to needlessly die?
  9. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,778
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +170 / 4 / -4

    Does that include interstate highways and sewer systems, too?

    I think a healthcare is as much a right as are clean water, sewer systems, highways, police protection, a secure currency, and so on. At the same time, I recognize that we have to base our services on some sort of model. I would not support using healthcare money to hire teams of people to pray for a person and I would not support using healthcare money to pay for a heart transplant for a 95 year old, unless a sensible economic model could be found support such services. Our healthcare system costs at least twice as much as that of France, which is considered the best in the world. An effective healthcare system not only helps people, it operates in the interests of the economy at large. A healthy population is important to every face of nationhood in my opinion.

    As far as my tone goes, I tried to present you with a stark choice (allowing a child to die), to which you responded, "I wouldn't force the child to die, but I also wouldn't force the insurance company to pay for it, if it clearly was not provided for as part of the policy." I think expecting a poor, uneducated person to know the details of an insurance policy is unrealistic, and to understand the medical implications of those details is even more unrealistic. I think the idea of healthcare reform is to allow the market to set insurance rates (with some limits set of profiteering), but to provide unlimited coverage according to a medically acceptable set of guidelines.
  10. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,726
    Likes Received:
    73
    Ratings:
    +154 / 7 / -13




    The difference of course cheeky is that you aren't forced to do business with any insurance company, had the government not gotten involved many years ago the system would be one where health insurance was provided by employers (thanks FDR).

    The solution to the mess created by government is not more government especially when the entitlement states around the globe are failing due to unsustainable government programs.
  11. chicowalker

    chicowalker On the Roster

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,952
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +195 / 2 / -2

    I don't think those are "rights."

    I think there is a vast difference between rights, on one hand, and things we decide the government should provide. I'm fine with what you listed as government services.


    As things currently exist, I agree with you -- that's why I said it "clearly" needs to be set out as part or not part of the policy.

    It's also why I said I'm OK with the government then providing the safety net if somebody is too poor, stupid, uneducated or unfortunate to have bought a policy that doesn't provide the coverage they need to save their or their family members' lives.
  12. chicowalker

    chicowalker On the Roster

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,952
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +195 / 2 / -2

    I'll take your post seriously when people are forced to "do business with" the government, but, no, that isn't the difference. Some people on the right have tried to portray "death panels" as something new and scary, that is out to kill grandma, when the truth is that the same exists now. Instead of a legitimate discussion of the proper role of government, many on the right have instead gone for the emotional cheap shot (just like the left does on issues -- including healthcare).

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>