Healthcare is not a right!?

[jimmyle]

My friend’s dad was 82 year old when he suffered a stroke and was brain dead. He also had severe liver disease. My friend’s family decided to keep him on life support for two years. All expenses paid by the gov’t. I wonder if it costs the family even at 10% of the total cost, would they have kept him ‘alive’?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=davelj]So, to get to your question, overall medical costs would be reduced if certain (expensive) procedures were simply made unavailable to the population at large, because “we the people” would not be paying for them. So, yes, the cost at the high end will decline if it is rationed because these procedures will be unavailable – we simply won’t pay for them. And, no, there would be no increase in prices because the services would simply not be made available. To use a specific example, the price to Society of “treating” folks with pancreatic cancer would decline dramatically because we simply wouldn’t treat them – they would die before spending god-only-knows-how-much money on them.[/quote]

Dave: I’m going to veer off into the philosophical
side of the argument here. While I see your point above and can agree from a cost/benefit analysis angle, does this not open up a whole different can of worms, and from the ethical/bioethical vantage?

While Palin’s “Death Panel” assertion was ham-handed, the underlying logic was sound regarding rationing and quality of life calculus. The British NHS maintains NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence), an Orwellian bureau name, if there ever was one. NICE is responsible for “Quality” and “Outcomes” standards and functions, in essence, as the arbiter of who gets what and why.

Are we not ceding certain questions to the government that we really don’t want them answering? I’m not trying to sound alarmist or sensationalist, but the heavy hand of government is slowly and inexorably sweeping away our civil liberties and, as far as medicine and ethics goes, the US Government doesn’t exactly have the best track record (see eugenics research in the 1920s and 1930s, Tuskegee, LSD testing in the 1960s).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=davelj]So, to get to your question, overall medical costs would be reduced if certain (expensive) procedures were simply made unavailable to the population at large, because “we the people” would not be paying for them. So, yes, the cost at the high end will decline if it is rationed because these procedures will be unavailable – we simply won’t pay for them. And, no, there would be no increase in prices because the services would simply not be made available. To use a specific example, the price to Society of “treating” folks with pancreatic cancer would decline dramatically because we simply wouldn’t treat them – they would die before spending god-only-knows-how-much money on them.[/quote]

Dave: I’m going to veer off into the philosophical
side of the argument here. While I see your point above and can agree from a cost/benefit analysis angle, does this not open up a whole different can of worms, and from the ethical/bioethical vantage?

While Palin’s “Death Panel” assertion was ham-handed, the underlying logic was sound regarding rationing and quality of life calculus. The British NHS maintains NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence), an Orwellian bureau name, if there ever was one. NICE is responsible for “Quality” and “Outcomes” standards and functions, in essence, as the arbiter of who gets what and why.

Are we not ceding certain questions to the government that we really don’t want them answering? I’m not trying to sound alarmist or sensationalist, but the heavy hand of government is slowly and inexorably sweeping away our civil liberties and, as far as medicine and ethics goes, the US Government doesn’t exactly have the best track record (see eugenics research in the 1920s and 1930s, Tuskegee, LSD testing in the 1960s).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=davelj]So, to get to your question, overall medical costs would be reduced if certain (expensive) procedures were simply made unavailable to the population at large, because “we the people” would not be paying for them. So, yes, the cost at the high end will decline if it is rationed because these procedures will be unavailable – we simply won’t pay for them. And, no, there would be no increase in prices because the services would simply not be made available. To use a specific example, the price to Society of “treating” folks with pancreatic cancer would decline dramatically because we simply wouldn’t treat them – they would die before spending god-only-knows-how-much money on them.[/quote]

Dave: I’m going to veer off into the philosophical
side of the argument here. While I see your point above and can agree from a cost/benefit analysis angle, does this not open up a whole different can of worms, and from the ethical/bioethical vantage?

While Palin’s “Death Panel” assertion was ham-handed, the underlying logic was sound regarding rationing and quality of life calculus. The British NHS maintains NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence), an Orwellian bureau name, if there ever was one. NICE is responsible for “Quality” and “Outcomes” standards and functions, in essence, as the arbiter of who gets what and why.

Are we not ceding certain questions to the government that we really don’t want them answering? I’m not trying to sound alarmist or sensationalist, but the heavy hand of government is slowly and inexorably sweeping away our civil liberties and, as far as medicine and ethics goes, the US Government doesn’t exactly have the best track record (see eugenics research in the 1920s and 1930s, Tuskegee, LSD testing in the 1960s).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=davelj]So, to get to your question, overall medical costs would be reduced if certain (expensive) procedures were simply made unavailable to the population at large, because “we the people” would not be paying for them. So, yes, the cost at the high end will decline if it is rationed because these procedures will be unavailable – we simply won’t pay for them. And, no, there would be no increase in prices because the services would simply not be made available. To use a specific example, the price to Society of “treating” folks with pancreatic cancer would decline dramatically because we simply wouldn’t treat them – they would die before spending god-only-knows-how-much money on them.[/quote]

Dave: I’m going to veer off into the philosophical
side of the argument here. While I see your point above and can agree from a cost/benefit analysis angle, does this not open up a whole different can of worms, and from the ethical/bioethical vantage?

While Palin’s “Death Panel” assertion was ham-handed, the underlying logic was sound regarding rationing and quality of life calculus. The British NHS maintains NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence), an Orwellian bureau name, if there ever was one. NICE is responsible for “Quality” and “Outcomes” standards and functions, in essence, as the arbiter of who gets what and why.

Are we not ceding certain questions to the government that we really don’t want them answering? I’m not trying to sound alarmist or sensationalist, but the heavy hand of government is slowly and inexorably sweeping away our civil liberties and, as far as medicine and ethics goes, the US Government doesn’t exactly have the best track record (see eugenics research in the 1920s and 1930s, Tuskegee, LSD testing in the 1960s).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=davelj]So, to get to your question, overall medical costs would be reduced if certain (expensive) procedures were simply made unavailable to the population at large, because “we the people” would not be paying for them. So, yes, the cost at the high end will decline if it is rationed because these procedures will be unavailable – we simply won’t pay for them. And, no, there would be no increase in prices because the services would simply not be made available. To use a specific example, the price to Society of “treating” folks with pancreatic cancer would decline dramatically because we simply wouldn’t treat them – they would die before spending god-only-knows-how-much money on them.[/quote]

Dave: I’m going to veer off into the philosophical
side of the argument here. While I see your point above and can agree from a cost/benefit analysis angle, does this not open up a whole different can of worms, and from the ethical/bioethical vantage?

While Palin’s “Death Panel” assertion was ham-handed, the underlying logic was sound regarding rationing and quality of life calculus. The British NHS maintains NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence), an Orwellian bureau name, if there ever was one. NICE is responsible for “Quality” and “Outcomes” standards and functions, in essence, as the arbiter of who gets what and why.

Are we not ceding certain questions to the government that we really don’t want them answering? I’m not trying to sound alarmist or sensationalist, but the heavy hand of government is slowly and inexorably sweeping away our civil liberties and, as far as medicine and ethics goes, the US Government doesn’t exactly have the best track record (see eugenics research in the 1920s and 1930s, Tuskegee, LSD testing in the 1960s).

[jficquette]

We will have cures for Cancer, Heart Disease, Diabetes within 20-30 years. In 30-50 we will be growing our own Organs for transplantation when, if they wear out.

We should take a long term view on this and create some type of crash program to bring these advances ASAP.

Get rid of disease and we get rid of the burden of these expensive end of life treatments that weigh the system down so much now.

A child born today will have no reason not to be able to live to 120-150.

Sci Fi? Nope.

John

[jficquette]

We will have cures for Cancer, Heart Disease, Diabetes within 20-30 years. In 30-50 we will be growing our own Organs for transplantation when, if they wear out.

We should take a long term view on this and create some type of crash program to bring these advances ASAP.

Get rid of disease and we get rid of the burden of these expensive end of life treatments that weigh the system down so much now.

A child born today will have no reason not to be able to live to 120-150.

Sci Fi? Nope.

John

[jficquette]

We will have cures for Cancer, Heart Disease, Diabetes within 20-30 years. In 30-50 we will be growing our own Organs for transplantation when, if they wear out.

We should take a long term view on this and create some type of crash program to bring these advances ASAP.

Get rid of disease and we get rid of the burden of these expensive end of life treatments that weigh the system down so much now.

A child born today will have no reason not to be able to live to 120-150.

Sci Fi? Nope.

John

[jficquette]

We will have cures for Cancer, Heart Disease, Diabetes within 20-30 years. In 30-50 we will be growing our own Organs for transplantation when, if they wear out.

We should take a long term view on this and create some type of crash program to bring these advances ASAP.

Get rid of disease and we get rid of the burden of these expensive end of life treatments that weigh the system down so much now.

A child born today will have no reason not to be able to live to 120-150.

Sci Fi? Nope.

John

[jficquette]

We will have cures for Cancer, Heart Disease, Diabetes within 20-30 years. In 30-50 we will be growing our own Organs for transplantation when, if they wear out.

We should take a long term view on this and create some type of crash program to bring these advances ASAP.

Get rid of disease and we get rid of the burden of these expensive end of life treatments that weigh the system down so much now.

A child born today will have no reason not to be able to live to 120-150.

Sci Fi? Nope.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=Arraya]Obama made an argument in 2008 when he said he was AGAINST the individual mandate. He joked, “We could solve the homeless problem by requiring that everybody buy a house.” That was Candidate Obama.

The really absurd thing about this is that for years it was the REPUBLICANS who favored the individual mandate – everybody being forced to buy private health insurance – this was their big “reform” idea going back to the 90s. Now all of a sudden the Dems have adopted it, and the Repubs don’t support it anymore.

Bush got everything he wanted and Obama is getting nothing (although he has to pretend to want what he gets to maintain the illusion that he is powerful). The right yells that he is a tyrant, yet the right is getting their way. Politics is too funny.[/quote]

Obama is clueless. He trys to make a joke without realizing the truth to what he was saying.
Everyone getting a house is exactly what Fannie Mae allowed and is what caused this mess.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=Arraya]Obama made an argument in 2008 when he said he was AGAINST the individual mandate. He joked, “We could solve the homeless problem by requiring that everybody buy a house.” That was Candidate Obama.

The really absurd thing about this is that for years it was the REPUBLICANS who favored the individual mandate – everybody being forced to buy private health insurance – this was their big “reform” idea going back to the 90s. Now all of a sudden the Dems have adopted it, and the Repubs don’t support it anymore.

Bush got everything he wanted and Obama is getting nothing (although he has to pretend to want what he gets to maintain the illusion that he is powerful). The right yells that he is a tyrant, yet the right is getting their way. Politics is too funny.[/quote]

Obama is clueless. He trys to make a joke without realizing the truth to what he was saying.
Everyone getting a house is exactly what Fannie Mae allowed and is what caused this mess.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=Arraya]Obama made an argument in 2008 when he said he was AGAINST the individual mandate. He joked, “We could solve the homeless problem by requiring that everybody buy a house.” That was Candidate Obama.

The really absurd thing about this is that for years it was the REPUBLICANS who favored the individual mandate – everybody being forced to buy private health insurance – this was their big “reform” idea going back to the 90s. Now all of a sudden the Dems have adopted it, and the Repubs don’t support it anymore.

Bush got everything he wanted and Obama is getting nothing (although he has to pretend to want what he gets to maintain the illusion that he is powerful). The right yells that he is a tyrant, yet the right is getting their way. Politics is too funny.[/quote]

Obama is clueless. He trys to make a joke without realizing the truth to what he was saying.
Everyone getting a house is exactly what Fannie Mae allowed and is what caused this mess.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=Arraya]Obama made an argument in 2008 when he said he was AGAINST the individual mandate. He joked, “We could solve the homeless problem by requiring that everybody buy a house.” That was Candidate Obama.

The really absurd thing about this is that for years it was the REPUBLICANS who favored the individual mandate – everybody being forced to buy private health insurance – this was their big “reform” idea going back to the 90s. Now all of a sudden the Dems have adopted it, and the Repubs don’t support it anymore.

Bush got everything he wanted and Obama is getting nothing (although he has to pretend to want what he gets to maintain the illusion that he is powerful). The right yells that he is a tyrant, yet the right is getting their way. Politics is too funny.[/quote]

Obama is clueless. He trys to make a joke without realizing the truth to what he was saying.
Everyone getting a house is exactly what Fannie Mae allowed and is what caused this mess.

John

[Author]

Posts