Repeat After Me: There Are No Death Panels in Socialized Heathcare...
There are no DeathEaters in the Government. There are no DeathEaters in the Government. There are no DeathEaters in the Government...
Give Sarah Palin her due: "death panels," whether an actual board of ghouls or a less-direct but no less final demand for a reduction in cost on a beancounter's ledger, are a very real part of socialized health-care. Resources are finite; governments are wasteful. Patients that are already diagnosed as terminal (rightly or wrongly) are... expendable. What's not to love?
In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, a group of experts who care for the terminally ill claim that some patients are being wrongly judged as close to death. Under NHS guidance introduced across England to help doctors and medical staff deal with dying patients, they can then have fluid and drugs withdrawn and many are put on continuous sedation until they pass away. But this approach can also mask the signs that their condition is improving, the experts warn. As a result the scheme is causing a "national crisis" in patient care, the letter states. It has been signed palliative care experts including Professor Peter Millard, Emeritus Professor of Geriatrics, University of London, Dr Peter Hargreaves, a consultant in Palliative Medicine at St Luke's cancer centre in Guildford, and four others. "Forecasting death is an inexact science," they say. Patients are being diagnosed as being close to death "without regard to the fact that the diagnosis could be wrong. "As a result a national wave of discontent is building up, as family and friends witness the denial of fluids and food to patients." The warning comes just a week after a report by the Patients Association estimated that up to one million patients had received poor or cruel care on the NHS.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:03 PM
Comments
1
Since nobody is proposing anything even remotely similar to the NHS, why are you complaining about the NHS ?
Posted by: One Of These Things at September 02, 2009 09:42 PM (IRC/t)
2
Lets see if I got this correct. People who are compassion enough to want coverage for everyone are ghoulish enough to kill grandpa and grandma? Hmmm, that sounds like a lifetime goal for those entering politics.
Posted by: MICHAEL SPENCER at September 02, 2009 09:45 PM (UdU5Y)
3
To: One OF These Things
Once government gets a public option the game is over and the government will be able to do as they wish. You also need to go and take another look at the bill. Much of the language is vague and gives power to the secretary of health with no congressional approval. This is all wrong..
Once government gets a public option the game is over and the government will be able to do as they wish. You also need to go and take another look at the bill. Much of the language is vague and gives power to the secretary of health with no congressional approval. This is all wrong..
Posted by: Terry H at September 02, 2009 09:51 PM (PZ9Uu)
4
"People who are compassion enough to want coverage for everyone are ghoulish enough to kill grandpa and grandma?"
It is not the people who want coverage for everyone, it is the idiots that want to control it.
I recently had a conversation with a neighbor who is for this idiotic bill. She believes that the government, advised by doctors, should deny care to people who have a slim chance of surviving in order to free up funds for those who are easier to save.
My son was born at 21 week 6 days gestation. Because of the complications he had after birth, the doctors didn't think he would make it. (A good doctor will not give you a percentage, because they are arbitrary). But they kept him alive, and he carried on.
He starts school tomorrow, and is one of the healthiest, and strongest boys his age that I have ever seen. At three years old he is already writing his own name, and can read simple sentences. Yes he is small for his age, but boy is he tough.
I would love to see every American CITIZEN have health insurance. But not at the expense of so many productive Americans. About 8% of the American citizens are without health insurance and cant afford it. The 47 or 50 million you keep hearing about is a farce. Many of them can afford it, but choose not to buy it. Most of the uninsured are either legal resident aliens or illegal aliens, and as such shouldn't be getting any government help anyway. In 03 the uninsured accumulated 36 billion in uncovered health care costs. That same year the government issued out about 30 billion in grants for the uninsured. Do the math, and that equates to about 80% of their medical costs.
30 billion is a hell of a lot less than the 1.7 trillion over a few years.
You guys are arguing a non problem. Get government out of the equation (to an extent).
Pills are expensive because they advertise to the patient instead of the doctor. Doctors are expensive because they went to school for a long time and have a job that carries a lot of responsibility (that and the hundred k to three hundred k a year they have to spend on malpractice insurance doesn't help any). Then you have medicare/caid caps that force doctors and hospitals to transfer the costs to others. Then the fact that insurance companies often can not cover people U.S. wide does not help (the larger the pool they can pull from, the lower the cost).
Yes, I had insurance when my boy was born, and I am still paying doctor bills (he was in the NICU for four months). But out of curiosity I asked the fellow about what would happen if I didn't have insurance. Would they kick my boy out of the NICU? He answered almost as if he was offended. A simple, but harsh NO was his answer.
It is not the people who want coverage for everyone, it is the idiots that want to control it.
I recently had a conversation with a neighbor who is for this idiotic bill. She believes that the government, advised by doctors, should deny care to people who have a slim chance of surviving in order to free up funds for those who are easier to save.
My son was born at 21 week 6 days gestation. Because of the complications he had after birth, the doctors didn't think he would make it. (A good doctor will not give you a percentage, because they are arbitrary). But they kept him alive, and he carried on.
He starts school tomorrow, and is one of the healthiest, and strongest boys his age that I have ever seen. At three years old he is already writing his own name, and can read simple sentences. Yes he is small for his age, but boy is he tough.
I would love to see every American CITIZEN have health insurance. But not at the expense of so many productive Americans. About 8% of the American citizens are without health insurance and cant afford it. The 47 or 50 million you keep hearing about is a farce. Many of them can afford it, but choose not to buy it. Most of the uninsured are either legal resident aliens or illegal aliens, and as such shouldn't be getting any government help anyway. In 03 the uninsured accumulated 36 billion in uncovered health care costs. That same year the government issued out about 30 billion in grants for the uninsured. Do the math, and that equates to about 80% of their medical costs.
30 billion is a hell of a lot less than the 1.7 trillion over a few years.
You guys are arguing a non problem. Get government out of the equation (to an extent).
Pills are expensive because they advertise to the patient instead of the doctor. Doctors are expensive because they went to school for a long time and have a job that carries a lot of responsibility (that and the hundred k to three hundred k a year they have to spend on malpractice insurance doesn't help any). Then you have medicare/caid caps that force doctors and hospitals to transfer the costs to others. Then the fact that insurance companies often can not cover people U.S. wide does not help (the larger the pool they can pull from, the lower the cost).
Yes, I had insurance when my boy was born, and I am still paying doctor bills (he was in the NICU for four months). But out of curiosity I asked the fellow about what would happen if I didn't have insurance. Would they kick my boy out of the NICU? He answered almost as if he was offended. A simple, but harsh NO was his answer.
Posted by: Matt at September 02, 2009 10:14 PM (54Fjx)
5
Would they kick my boy out of the NICU? He answered almost as if he was offended. A simple, but harsh NO was his answer.
You can stay, sure. But you would still get billed for it. They don't comp nights in the hospital.
You can stay, sure. But you would still get billed for it. They don't comp nights in the hospital.
Posted by: This Ain't Vegas at September 02, 2009 11:46 PM (IRC/t)
6
Repeat After Me: There Are No Death Panels in Socialized Heathcare...
The Senate made double sure and removed the non-existent death panels from their bill. . .
The Senate made double sure and removed the non-existent death panels from their bill. . .
Posted by: JP at September 03, 2009 03:58 AM (VxiFL)
7
If the governemnt - any government - assumes control of a resource, they will ration it. Lefties counter this with the asinine claim that "the, uh, like, free market totally rations all the time, man."
It's possible that they are so stupid as to believe this. It's also possible that they are lying through their teeth.
Being that they are lefties and thus inclined toward utopian totalitarianism, ends justifying means and so on, I'd give it a fifty/fifty which one it is. Save for the sad fact that Obama himself was for single-payer before he was against it, and that many on the left, including the advisors that help craft this bill, admit that it is intended to force us all into a single payer system.
So I'll take "Lying through their teeth" for a thousand, Alex.
It's possible that they are so stupid as to believe this. It's also possible that they are lying through their teeth.
Being that they are lefties and thus inclined toward utopian totalitarianism, ends justifying means and so on, I'd give it a fifty/fifty which one it is. Save for the sad fact that Obama himself was for single-payer before he was against it, and that many on the left, including the advisors that help craft this bill, admit that it is intended to force us all into a single payer system.
So I'll take "Lying through their teeth" for a thousand, Alex.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at September 03, 2009 04:44 AM (Vcyz0)
8
You can stay, sure. But you would still get billed for it. They don't comp nights in the hospital.
Well gee: what's better? A massive bill or death decided by a bureaucratic council? Is this even a serious point/objection??
Well gee: what's better? A massive bill or death decided by a bureaucratic council? Is this even a serious point/objection??
Posted by: ECM at September 03, 2009 05:35 AM (q3V+C)
9
Repeat after me.
There are no proposals in Congress that would "socialize" health care.
And somehow, I suspect you know that, which makes this a deeply dishonest post.
There are no proposals in Congress that would "socialize" health care.
And somehow, I suspect you know that, which makes this a deeply dishonest post.
Posted by: JoeCitizen at September 03, 2009 10:09 AM (I/GPD)
10
The legislation doesn't have to explicitly set up death panels nor does it have to explicitly "socialize" health care.
We already have the comparative analysis panels that were established under the cover of the $787 billion stimulus crap. Once the government controls the health care purse, it's not a big leap to use the comparative analysis to justify lack of coverage for particular procedures or the lack of payment to providers who perform the procedures against the panel recommendations.
"Socialized" health care can be achieved with the current proposals without explicitly calling for it. A public option is the mechanism. Mandate insurance (which, BTW, violates my right to free association), make the public option "cheap" for the consumer, mandate employer provided coverage, and make the penalty for not providing coverage cheaper than providing coverage. At the same time, mandate all kinds of minimum coverage of private insurance, limit the market to an exchange (sound familiar?), and add in guaranteed insurability which will necessarily make the price of private insurance prohibitively high. Pretty soon, there are no private insurers and the only option is socialized health care.
It will take time but socialized health care will be a reality with the public option.
The biggest problem with the current system is 3rd (and 4th) party payer. The insurance company pays the doctor bill and sometimes the employer pays for the insurance. The consumer is too far removed from the cost of the product. The government option takes what's bad in the current system and makes it worse.
The one who pays the bills has the power and control. The current health care proposals are not about health care. This is all about money, power, and control.
We already have the comparative analysis panels that were established under the cover of the $787 billion stimulus crap. Once the government controls the health care purse, it's not a big leap to use the comparative analysis to justify lack of coverage for particular procedures or the lack of payment to providers who perform the procedures against the panel recommendations.
"Socialized" health care can be achieved with the current proposals without explicitly calling for it. A public option is the mechanism. Mandate insurance (which, BTW, violates my right to free association), make the public option "cheap" for the consumer, mandate employer provided coverage, and make the penalty for not providing coverage cheaper than providing coverage. At the same time, mandate all kinds of minimum coverage of private insurance, limit the market to an exchange (sound familiar?), and add in guaranteed insurability which will necessarily make the price of private insurance prohibitively high. Pretty soon, there are no private insurers and the only option is socialized health care.
It will take time but socialized health care will be a reality with the public option.
The biggest problem with the current system is 3rd (and 4th) party payer. The insurance company pays the doctor bill and sometimes the employer pays for the insurance. The consumer is too far removed from the cost of the product. The government option takes what's bad in the current system and makes it worse.
The one who pays the bills has the power and control. The current health care proposals are not about health care. This is all about money, power, and control.
Posted by: gruntle at September 03, 2009 10:48 AM (zw8QA)
11
Repeat after me.
Any program, agency, or law that takes from one person through and involuntary means (eg taxes) to provide goods, services, or redistribute wealth to another is a socialized/socialist program, agency, or law.
So yeah there are bills before Congress that will socialize medicine. If you don't understand that you haven't read HR 3200.
Any program, agency, or law that takes from one person through and involuntary means (eg taxes) to provide goods, services, or redistribute wealth to another is a socialized/socialist program, agency, or law.
So yeah there are bills before Congress that will socialize medicine. If you don't understand that you haven't read HR 3200.
Posted by: Scott at September 03, 2009 10:53 AM (sQmd1)
12
What ever happened to the sanctity of Life? Are we not made in the image of God? Man is the crown jewel of God's creation, not an evolutionary product of chance and time.
Posted by: vinny bobo at September 03, 2009 11:33 AM (pYSrH)
13
"But you would still get billed for it. They don't comp nights in the hospital."
Imagine that. Actually paying for a service you received.
"There are no proposals in Congress that would "socialize" health care."
Actually, you must have not read the bill.
Sure you can keep your insurance if you want to. But if you change jobs, and as such loose employee provided insurance, you would be forced onto the government's insurance.
It is a way of, over time forcing everyone onto the program.
Imagine that. Actually paying for a service you received.
"There are no proposals in Congress that would "socialize" health care."
Actually, you must have not read the bill.
Sure you can keep your insurance if you want to. But if you change jobs, and as such loose employee provided insurance, you would be forced onto the government's insurance.
It is a way of, over time forcing everyone onto the program.
Posted by: Matt at September 03, 2009 01:53 PM (54Fjx)
14
Sounds like these claims of "socialization" are a dreadful slur. Perhaps one of those objecting to this distortion (if it is more than one) can tell me, just what is wrong with socialism in medicine or anything else? Shouldn't we be socializing EVERYTHING? I am confused....
Posted by: megapotamus at September 03, 2009 04:44 PM (r3tSH)
15
There was a time in the 60's (the 1860's) when we had private fire fighters. Today we have socialized fire fighters, socialized police, socilaized libraries and socialized education.
As an industrialized nation, we are the only ones who don't have "socialized" health care. So why do we fall so far down the in the list of quality compared to cost?
As an industrialized nation, we are the only ones who don't have "socialized" health care. So why do we fall so far down the in the list of quality compared to cost?
Posted by: David L Terrenoire at September 03, 2009 10:26 PM (Bx4FB)
16
Let me remind you that the VA is considered one of the best purveyors of health care in the US.They have problems, yes, as any large organization does, but in ever measure, patients are better cared for and happier than in our for-profit health insurance plan.
Substitute Palin's "death panels" for living wills and you'll see how fear-mongering and irresponsible those claims are.
I have an organ donor alert on my license. Oh my!
Substitute Palin's "death panels" for living wills and you'll see how fear-mongering and irresponsible those claims are.
I have an organ donor alert on my license. Oh my!
Posted by: David L Terrenoire at September 03, 2009 10:41 PM (Bx4FB)
17
You don't talk to too many vets do you David.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at September 04, 2009 10:01 AM (9C63i)
18
Living will = voluntary.
Government by definition not voluntary.
What color is the sky on your planet?
Government by definition not voluntary.
What color is the sky on your planet?
Posted by: SDN at September 04, 2009 12:09 PM (F3wAI)
19
David sounds like he watched a video produced for economic illiterates that's been sweeping the liberal intertubes recently. He also doesn't recognize the difference between state and local control of police, fire and library resources versus the federalization of healthcare contemplated by Obama. Moron.
Posted by: daleyrocks at September 04, 2009 06:02 PM (3O5/e)
20
"You don't talk to too many vets do you David."
No he doesn't. I had so many problems with them that I choose to deal totally with my own insurance.
No he doesn't. I had so many problems with them that I choose to deal totally with my own insurance.
Posted by: Matt at September 06, 2009 08:41 AM (54Fjx)
21
Personally, I understood Palin's comment as hyperbole. The proposed sections dealing with what to do about certain cases, and who is to make those decisions, could be called a death panel. So what?
Unfortunately, when you use hyperbole your more fanatical opponents will either not understand that is IS hyperbole or they will intentionally misrepresent your point. Ask Rush if THAT'S ever happened to him.
Unfortunately, when you use hyperbole your more fanatical opponents will either not understand that is IS hyperbole or they will intentionally misrepresent your point. Ask Rush if THAT'S ever happened to him.
Posted by: DoorHold at September 06, 2009 01:09 PM (EeTHH)
Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0169 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0129 seconds, 29 records returned.
Page size 19 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.