- This topic has 1,015 replies, 36 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 9 months ago by
KSMountain.
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 23, 2009 at 10:04 AM #497566December 23, 2009 at 10:16 AM #496709
davelj
Participant[quote=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[/quote]
And what happens when folks get to be 120, when these organs start to wear out? We’ll have exactly the same problems. Don’t get me wrong, I’m in favor of advancing medical technology. But… even when we’re growing our own organs, etc. we’re just going to keep coming up with new expensive procedures that everyone will feel is their right to have access to. Thus, the cycle will never end.
December 23, 2009 at 10:16 AM #496858Participant[quote=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[/quote]
And what happens when folks get to be 120, when these organs start to wear out? We’ll have exactly the same problems. Don’t get me wrong, I’m in favor of advancing medical technology. But… even when we’re growing our own organs, etc. we’re just going to keep coming up with new expensive procedures that everyone will feel is their right to have access to. Thus, the cycle will never end.
December 23, 2009 at 10:16 AM #497241Participant[quote=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[/quote]
And what happens when folks get to be 120, when these organs start to wear out? We’ll have exactly the same problems. Don’t get me wrong, I’m in favor of advancing medical technology. But… even when we’re growing our own organs, etc. we’re just going to keep coming up with new expensive procedures that everyone will feel is their right to have access to. Thus, the cycle will never end.
December 23, 2009 at 10:16 AM #497330Participant[quote=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[/quote]
And what happens when folks get to be 120, when these organs start to wear out? We’ll have exactly the same problems. Don’t get me wrong, I’m in favor of advancing medical technology. But… even when we’re growing our own organs, etc. we’re just going to keep coming up with new expensive procedures that everyone will feel is their right to have access to. Thus, the cycle will never end.
December 23, 2009 at 10:16 AM #497576Participant[quote=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[/quote]
And what happens when folks get to be 120, when these organs start to wear out? We’ll have exactly the same problems. Don’t get me wrong, I’m in favor of advancing medical technology. But… even when we’re growing our own organs, etc. we’re just going to keep coming up with new expensive procedures that everyone will feel is their right to have access to. Thus, the cycle will never end.
December 23, 2009 at 10:28 AM #496718Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
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).[/quote]
Absolutely, it opens up a whole can of worms. I’m not suggesting that the solution is simple. I’m merely saying that some form of rationing is unavoidable (a la Canada and the UK) if we want to contain costs.
As to your question of “ceding certain questions to the government that we really don’t want them answering”… well… that’s certainly one way to look at it – and a lot of folks would agree with you. I’m not even sure where I stand on this issue, although from a pragmatic standpoint, the Western European health care systems do a much better job of providing inexpensive health care to the vast majority of their citizens than does our system.
Personally, I could live with a European system, even in the knowledge that if I developed some unusual condition, I might not get the treatment I’d get under our system. But that’s just me.
December 23, 2009 at 10:28 AM #496866Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
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).[/quote]
Absolutely, it opens up a whole can of worms. I’m not suggesting that the solution is simple. I’m merely saying that some form of rationing is unavoidable (a la Canada and the UK) if we want to contain costs.
As to your question of “ceding certain questions to the government that we really don’t want them answering”… well… that’s certainly one way to look at it – and a lot of folks would agree with you. I’m not even sure where I stand on this issue, although from a pragmatic standpoint, the Western European health care systems do a much better job of providing inexpensive health care to the vast majority of their citizens than does our system.
Personally, I could live with a European system, even in the knowledge that if I developed some unusual condition, I might not get the treatment I’d get under our system. But that’s just me.
December 23, 2009 at 10:28 AM #497248Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
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).[/quote]
Absolutely, it opens up a whole can of worms. I’m not suggesting that the solution is simple. I’m merely saying that some form of rationing is unavoidable (a la Canada and the UK) if we want to contain costs.
As to your question of “ceding certain questions to the government that we really don’t want them answering”… well… that’s certainly one way to look at it – and a lot of folks would agree with you. I’m not even sure where I stand on this issue, although from a pragmatic standpoint, the Western European health care systems do a much better job of providing inexpensive health care to the vast majority of their citizens than does our system.
Personally, I could live with a European system, even in the knowledge that if I developed some unusual condition, I might not get the treatment I’d get under our system. But that’s just me.
December 23, 2009 at 10:28 AM #497337Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
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).[/quote]
Absolutely, it opens up a whole can of worms. I’m not suggesting that the solution is simple. I’m merely saying that some form of rationing is unavoidable (a la Canada and the UK) if we want to contain costs.
As to your question of “ceding certain questions to the government that we really don’t want them answering”… well… that’s certainly one way to look at it – and a lot of folks would agree with you. I’m not even sure where I stand on this issue, although from a pragmatic standpoint, the Western European health care systems do a much better job of providing inexpensive health care to the vast majority of their citizens than does our system.
Personally, I could live with a European system, even in the knowledge that if I developed some unusual condition, I might not get the treatment I’d get under our system. But that’s just me.
December 23, 2009 at 10:28 AM #497583Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
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).[/quote]
Absolutely, it opens up a whole can of worms. I’m not suggesting that the solution is simple. I’m merely saying that some form of rationing is unavoidable (a la Canada and the UK) if we want to contain costs.
As to your question of “ceding certain questions to the government that we really don’t want them answering”… well… that’s certainly one way to look at it – and a lot of folks would agree with you. I’m not even sure where I stand on this issue, although from a pragmatic standpoint, the Western European health care systems do a much better job of providing inexpensive health care to the vast majority of their citizens than does our system.
Personally, I could live with a European system, even in the knowledge that if I developed some unusual condition, I might not get the treatment I’d get under our system. But that’s just me.
December 23, 2009 at 10:33 AM #496704Arraya
Participant[quote=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[/quote]
I agree and completely powerless and ineffectual. Probably the most irrelevant president ever. He’s just kind of there while the grown ups take care of business behind the scenes. Keeping up the illusion, relaying and filtering information. A lot like GW but with a different audience. The fact that the president has very little control creates either an “idiot” or “liar” effect. GW played the idiot like a champ, Obama will most likely play the liar.
December 23, 2009 at 10:33 AM #496853Participant[quote=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[/quote]
I agree and completely powerless and ineffectual. Probably the most irrelevant president ever. He’s just kind of there while the grown ups take care of business behind the scenes. Keeping up the illusion, relaying and filtering information. A lot like GW but with a different audience. The fact that the president has very little control creates either an “idiot” or “liar” effect. GW played the idiot like a champ, Obama will most likely play the liar.
December 23, 2009 at 10:33 AM #497236Participant[quote=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[/quote]
I agree and completely powerless and ineffectual. Probably the most irrelevant president ever. He’s just kind of there while the grown ups take care of business behind the scenes. Keeping up the illusion, relaying and filtering information. A lot like GW but with a different audience. The fact that the president has very little control creates either an “idiot” or “liar” effect. GW played the idiot like a champ, Obama will most likely play the liar.
December 23, 2009 at 10:33 AM #497325Participant[quote=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[/quote]
I agree and completely powerless and ineffectual. Probably the most irrelevant president ever. He’s just kind of there while the grown ups take care of business behind the scenes. Keeping up the illusion, relaying and filtering information. A lot like GW but with a different audience. The fact that the president has very little control creates either an “idiot” or “liar” effect. GW played the idiot like a champ, Obama will most likely play the liar.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.