What are the death panels

[jasd]

goin’ tah do with Senior clunkers?

Don’t you know? They’ll be packaged into High Energy bars called

soylent green.

Now, that’s a PC twofer! Get rid of useless eaters and think Green! Kinda puts me tah mind of fascists...

Tomorrow, Tomorrow, it’s only a nightmare away! [/allegro con brio]

[Bravus]

The utterly and entirely mythical 'death panels', you mean? They're not going to do anything with anyone, because they don't exist and never will.

[Neil D]

The utterly and entirely mythical 'death panels', you mean? They're not going to do anything with anyone, because they don't exist and never will.

Hate to break this to you, Bravus, but here in the US they do exist...only they are NOT goverment run...they are run by insurance people and they take the form of denial of coverage. And I have seen it too often and care not to recount it's existance....Maybe your socialized medicine doesn't have death panels but in our free market society, it is here and under the guise of payment of premiums....

[bonnie]

goin’ tah do with Senior clunkers?

Don’t you know? They’ll be packaged into High Energy bars called

soylent green.

Now, that’s a PC twofer! Get rid of useless eaters and think Green! Kinda puts me tah mind of fascists...

Tomorrow, Tomorrow, it’s only a nightmare away! [/allegro con brio]

Any time government takes over health care,rationing is the result. Reading thru the thousands of pages of health care drafts?? it is fairly obvious that there is absolutely no way except to ration. Obama and his advisors have made that quite clear.

[Dr. Shane]

Hate to break this to you, Bravus, but here in the US they do exist...only they are NOT goverment run...they are run by insurance people and they take the form of denial of coverage.

Thank you. I have been screaming this in our local debates here.

YES, YES, YES!!!

WE HAVE DEATH PANELS NOW.

If government takes over health care insurance, they will also take over the death panels. So that means the government will decide who lives and who dies.

As it is now, the government can over-rule the insurance company's death panel. When a health insurance company denies coverage the customer can appeal to the state's Department of Insurance and the state can force the insurance company to pay for the procedure that was denied. If the government takes over the death panels, who will over rule them?

[bonnie]

Reich Stuff...http://spectator.org/archives/2009/10/27/reich-stuff

Print Email

The Nation's Pulse

Reich Stuff

By Ralph R. Reiland on 10.27.09 @ 6:06AM

I saw two stories last week that had diametrically opposed messages.

The first was pro-life in the broadest sense of the word, a breakthrough against cancer via a new tumor-targeted genetic medicine, Rexin-G, that produced clinical remissions in late-stage cases of three chemotherapy-resistant, otherwise intractable cancers -- prostate cancer, metastatic osteosarcoma, and pancreas cancer.

The second, fundamentally anti-life, was a video of a speech delivered by Robert B. Reich on health care reform at the University of California at Berkeley on September 26, 2007.

Reich, former Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton and more recently a member of President-elect Obama's transition advisory board and an economic adviser to President Obama, told the Berkeley audience what a candidate for President of the United States would say if he was honest about health care reform.

"This is what the truth is," explained former Harvard professor Reich, "what candidates should say if we were in the kind of democracy where citizens were honored in terms of their practice of citizenship, and they were educated in terms of what the issues were, and they could separate myth from reality in terms of what a candidate was telling them."

Reich then plays the role of that straight-talking presidential candidate:

Thank you so much for coming this afternoon. I'm so glad to see you and I would like to be president … Let me tell you a few things on health care. Look, we have the only health care system in the world that is designed to avoid sick people. And that's true, and what I'm going to do is I am going to reorganize it to be more amenable to treating sick people.

But that means you, particularly you young people, particularly you young healthy people, you're going to have to pay more (scattered applause). Thank you, and by the way, we are going to have to, if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of weeks. It's too expensive, so we're going to let you die (heavier applause).

Also, I'm going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government in terms of Medicare, Medicaid -- we already have a lot of bargaining leverage -- to force drug companies and insurance companies and medical suppliers to reduce their costs. But that means less innovation, and less products and less new drugs on the market, which means you are probably going to live not much longer than your parents (scattered applause). Thank you.

California Newswire provided a profile of one of the aforementioned cancer cases:

Remarkably, a Catholic priest who was previously bedridden and in withering pain, suffering from end-stage prostate cancer that had spread to his bones, received successive courses of Rexin-G, during which time the bone pain was relieved, the PSA tumor markers fell, the bone tumors stopped growing, and even the previously inoperable primary tumor disappeared on follow-up CT scans. As the priest's bones began to heal and strengthen, he arose from his bed and is currently saying daily Mass and delivering lectures in the seminary. What is even more remarkable is that this revered man of the cloth was over 90-years-old at the time of his treatment and remission.

For guys like Reich, that sounds like a bad outcome -- too budget-busting, too innovative. Too much life.

[jasd]

>>THAT was a movie called soylent green

that is a old movie<<

Indeed, like, way weird! Who knows? perhaps you’ll see an actualization of it in the soon-coming years – with the exception being conditions as it existed during

the siege of Stalingrad, WWII.

The situation had disintegrated to the point where human flesh was sold in cobbled ‘butcher’ shops. Snatched and butchered children were the equivalent of our designated USDA Prime – with, I suppose, that which was supplied from the piles of frozen carcasses outside the city sold as, mebbe, USDA Select.

One ate – or one died.

Ewww! Yucky-icky... But I suppose fresh would have been better than wafered, yes? :-(

[jasd]

/ What’s in a name?

By any other name ‘twould smell the same.

/ Youse gets what youse pay$ for – sez so in the fine print.

/ Hmm, is the rationing (20,000 troops v requested 40,000) of McChrystal lite a harbinger of things to come – in other areas of major concern; such as pertain those ‘useless eaters’?

/ Except for a few years when I was with Kaiser Permanente, I, like those millions who choose not to purchase health insurance, went without. (I always figured my bar tabs took precedence)

In all that time, I never lacked health care, including testing with such as EKGs, Heart and Vascular Sonograms, X-rays, MRIs, Dye tests, etc... I’ve always been able to get my necessary drugs without purchase, as well. (many Pharmas provide drugs gratis, some even specializing in providing free drugs)

Also, I’ve never had to resort to the services of an Emergency Room for treatment.

Practically all services one might require are already available. Of course,

should one need a heart or kidney transplant – that person is she***e outta luck – in most cases; however, other major medical care can still be obtained – practically free.

It goes without saying that not everyone’s experience would track mine.

[John317]

>>THAT was a movie called soylent green

that is a old movie<<

Yes, the last movie I saw at the Theater. 1973. Edwin G. Robinson last's role-- dying of cancer when he made it. A rather depressing movie if you ask me.

[Neil D]

Originally Posted By: Neil D

Hate to break this to you, Bravus, but here in the US they do exist...only they are NOT goverment run...they are run by insurance people and they take the form of denial of coverage.

Thank you. I have been screaming this in our local debates here.

YES, YES, YES!!!

WE HAVE DEATH PANELS NOW.

[Bravus]

Yes, when I said the death panels were mythical, I was referring to the mythical 'Obama death panels'. And even for the insurance ones, 'death panels' is ridiculously emotive language that is unhelpful in thinking about how we care for people and their lives.

[Amelia]

I'm not sure if Insurance companies still do this or if this qualifies as "death panel" but this use to be a common sernario. Patient A has X problem. Doc 1 recommends Y treatment. Insurance company tells patient A to get another opinion. Doc 2 also recommends Y treatment. Insurance company reviews both opinions and nixs Y treatment in favor of Z treatment because it is less expensive for them to cover. EVEN though Z treatment has a high rate of failure, is more invasive, has a longer recouvery period or has been proven to be far less effective than Y treatment.

Should people who are not doctors be able to override doctors? Personally I want my doctor diagnosing and treating me, not a bean counter.

[Neil D]

it still happens, Mel....

[Neil D]

Yes, when I said the death panels were mythical, I was referring to the mythical 'Obama death panels'. And even for the insurance ones, 'death panels' is ridiculously emotive language that is unhelpful in thinking about how we care for people and their lives.

Thank you to ubber republican conservative Sarah Palin for bringing this to the public conscience where it continues to resonate with the elders of society, children who love their grandparents et others who just happen to love their elders....

[Dr. Shane]

I voted for Obama. I favor health-care insurance reform. I favor health-care insurance co-ops much like the electric co-ops that exist.

there is an example of government insurance currently in place by the government that has a pretty good record AND it is without a death panel...It's called MEDICARE.....

[Dr. Shane]

Personally I want my doctor diagnosing and treating me, not a bean counter.

So if a government-run insurance has only doctors on their death panels would that make everything OK?

At one townhall meeting President Obama was told the story of a lady's grandmother who, at 95 years old had a heart transplant and was still alive at 101. The lady asked Obama if her grandmother would get such a surgery under his plan. Many of you perhaps have seen this same footage. Obama didn't give her a straight answer and basically told her they would look at options including giving her a pill instead of the surgery.

Death panels are not a made-up mythical creature from a vast right wing conspiracy. Death panels are as real as Monica's semen-stained, blue dress. Currently these life and death decisions are made by insurance companies and the insurance companies can be over-ruled by the government. When the government makes the call, it is up to that same government, albeit a different branch, to over-rule it. We see this now with Medicare. Medicare actually denies more claims than private insurance does. These denials can be appealed but ultimately it is the same government that denies the claim that will decide the outcome of the appeal.

[Outta Here]

In regards to treatment Y: Insurance companies do not make health care decisions. They make decisions as to what is covered in the insurance policy which the insured chooses to use. Option Z is always available to those who wish to pay for it out of their own pockets or by choosing an insurance plan which covers that particular procedure.

Actuarial science involves much more than bean counting.

[bonnie]

Most people understood the "death camp remark"

It was not a camp where ill patients are sent. Rather it is a intent to have in the bill a rationing system. It comes out every time Obama is interviewed on the topic. His advisor on this as well as others explain it quite well for those that have read the intent of the health care draft

Obama....

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/01/obamas-health-care-rationing/

President Obama admitted he wants the government to decide what health care Americans receive. "There's always going to be an asymmetry of information between patient and provider," he said. "And part of what I think government can do effectively is to be an honest broker in assessing and evaluating treatment options."

Thanks, but no thanks, Mr. President. Our health is not a commodity to be brokered. Even if not all doctors boast perfect bedside manners, Americans still trust their judgment, their medical training and their ability to interact directly with individual patients in clinical settings far more than they trust government statisticians matching approved treatments to reported illnesses based on lifeless charts.

In an interview published by the New York Times on Tuesday, Mr. Obama continued by saying the need for honest brokers "certainly [is] true when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid, where the taxpayers are footing the bill and we have an obligation to get those costs under control." Some would say that is exactly the problem with government-run health care: Considerations of cost come before care, and sometimes rules before reason.

It's a scary picture the president paints. He stated that "the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here." For them, he said, "I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels."

The time to really worry about your health is when a government bureaucrat, not your personal doctor, tells you what treatment you can have. Yet that's exactly the scenario endorsed by Mr. Obama. This position clearly leads to health care rationing. Nobody in the government or in any "political channels" should tell individuals how to make decisions about "the end of their lives." The only conversations happening should be personal, not democratic. It's not up to government to pull the plug.

[bonnie]

Obama's Grand Strategy

Charles Krauthammer: Obama's health-care strategy -- serve candy before the spinach

Saturday, April 25, 2009

WASHINGTON -- Unified theory of Obamaism, final installment:

Charles Krauthammer is a syndicated columnist for The Washington Post (letters@charles krauthammer.com).

In the service of his ultimate mission -- the leveling of social inequalities -- President Barack Obama offers a tripartite social democratic agenda: nationalized health care, federalized education (ultimately guaranteed through college) and a cash-cow carbon tax (or its equivalent) to subsidize the other two.

Problem is, the math doesn't add up. Not even a carbon tax would pay for Mr. Obama's vastly expanded welfare state. Nor will Midwest Democrats stand for a tax that would devastate their already crumbling region.

What is obviously required is entitlement reform, meaning Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. That's where the real money is -- trillions saved that could not only fund hugely expensive health and education programs but also restore budgetary balance.

Except that Mr. Obama has offered no real entitlement reform. His universal health-care proposal would increase costs by perhaps $1 trillion.

Medicare/Medicaid reform is supposed to decrease costs.

Mr. Obama's own budget projections show staggering budget deficits going out to 2019. If he knows his social agenda is going to drown us in debt, what's he up to?

He has an idea. But he dare not speak of it yet. He has only hinted.

When asked in his March 24 news conference about the huge debt he's incurring, Mr. Obama spoke vaguely of "additional adjustments" that will be unfolding in future budgets.

Rarely have two more anodyne words carried such import. "Additional adjustments" equals major cuts in Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.

Social Security is relatively easy. A bipartisan commission (like the 1983 Alan Greenspan commission) recommends some combination of means testing for richer people, increasing the retirement age and a technical change in the inflation measure (indexing benefits to prices instead of wages). The proposal is brought to Congress for a no-amendment up-or-down vote. Done.

The hard part is Medicare and Medicaid. In an aging population, how do you keep them from blowing up the budget? There is only one answer: rationing.

Why do you think the stimulus package pours $1.1 billion into medical "comparative effectiveness research"? It is the perfect setup for rationing. Once you establish what is "best practice" for expensive operations, medical tests and aggressive therapies, you've laid the premise for funding some and denying others.

It is estimated that a third to a half of one's lifetime health costs are consumed in the last six months of life. Accordingly, Britain's National Health Service can deny treatments it deems not cost-effective -- and if you're old and infirm, the cost-effectiveness of treating you plummets. In Canada, they ration by queuing. You can wait forever for so-called elective procedures like hip replacements.

Rationing is not quite as alien to America as we think. We already ration kidneys and hearts for transplant according to survivability criteria as well as by queuing. A nationalized health insurance system would ration everything from MRIs to intensive care by a myriad of similar criteria.

The more acute thinkers on the left can see rationing coming, provoking Slate blogger Mickey Kaus to warn of the political danger. "Isn't it an epic mistake to try to sell Democratic health-care reform on this basis? Possible sales pitch: 'Our plan will deny you unnecessary treatments!' ... Is that really why the middle class will sign on to a revolutionary multitrillion-dollar shift in spending -- so the government can decide their life or health 'is not worth the price'?"

My own preference is for a highly competitive, privatized health insurance system with a government-subsidized transition to portability, breaking the absurd and ruinous link between health insurance and employment. But if you believe that health care is a public good to be guaranteed by the state, then a single-payer system is the next best alternative. Unfortunately, it is fiscally unsustainable without rationing.

Social Security used to be the third rail of American politics. Not anymore. Health-care rationing is taking its place -- which is why Mr. Obama, the consummate politician, knows to offer the candy (universality) today before serving the spinach (rationing) tomorrow.

Taken as a whole, Mr. Obama's social democratic agenda is breathtaking.

And the rollout has thus far been brilliant. It follows Mr. Kaus' advice to "give pandering a chance" and adheres to the Democratic tradition of being the party that gives things away, while leaving the green-eyeshade stinginess to those heartless Republicans.

It will work for a while, but there is no escaping rationing. In the end, the spinach must be served.

First published on April 25, 2009 at 12:00 am