Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » How the "death panel" thing works (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: How the "death panel" thing works
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm using the term "death panel" because everyone knows what I'm talking about - it's just a way to put this in context. So:
quote:
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across England to help doctors and medical staff deal with dying patients, they can then have fluid and drugs withdrawn and many are put on continuous sedation until they pass away.

<snip>

The scheme, called the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP), was designed to reduce patient suffering in their final hours.

Developed by Marie Curie, the cancer charity, in a Liverpool hospice it was initially developed for cancer patients but now includes other life threatening conditions.

It was recommended as a model by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice), the Government’s health scrutiny body, in 2004.

It has been gradually adopted nationwide and more than 300 hospitals, 130 hospices and 560 care homes in England currently use the system.

Under the guidelines the decision to diagnose that a patient is close to death is made by the entire medical team treating them, including a senior doctor.

They look for signs that a patient is approaching their final hours, which can include if patients have lost consciousness or whether they are having difficulty swallowing medication.

<snip>

When a decision has been made to place a patient on the pathway doctors are then recommended to consider removing medication or invasive procedures, such as intravenous drips, which are no longer of benefit.

So a decision is made by the entire medical team treating them, including a senior doctor. That's a panel. Notice that there is not a family member on that panel.

Obviously, this policy is widespread and it's being followed:
quote:
In 2007-08 16.5 per cent of deaths in Britain came about after continuous deep sedation, according to researchers at the Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry
So this is the example of how we get there, that's how the "death panel" thing works its way into healthcare policies of socialized medicine. Those of you claiming it won't happen are proven wrong, you must move on to the position that it won't happen here because there is a pretty nasty little problem with this policy:
quote:
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."

Nearly 1 in 5 deaths in Britain are a result of this program and they could have been misdiagnosed!?!? Well, isn't that nice.
quote:
“It is supposed to let people die with dignity but it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
“Patients who are allowed to become dehydrated and then become confused can be wrongly put on this pathway.”

He [Dr Peter Hargreaves]added: “What they are trying to do is stop people being overtreated as they are dying.

“It is a very laudable idea. But the concern is that it is tick box medicine that stops people thinking.”

Yeah, what a great idea that was Pete. ObamaCare supoprters say it's not in the bill(s) or won't be in Obama's plan when he finally gets around to doing one. Sure, I don't think it was part of the NHS plan initially either but there it is and it's there for all the same reasons the supporters of socialized medicine will buy into. If you think it won't happen here, can't happen here; then you're not thinking. It's only a matter of time once the government gets involved.

[ September 03, 2009, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
it's there for all the same reasons the supporters of socialized medicine will buy into
What reasons are those, specifically?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
it's there for all the same reasons the supporters of socialized medicine will buy into
What reasons are those, specifically?
Specifically? [Razz]

Sorry, I'm not playing your little game - it's long past stale. Perhaps Gina will come along and humor you for the entertainment value. When you put something meaningful and thoughtful up, perhaps I will grace you with my response but I'm not certain. [Wink]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Little game?
Hardly.

I'm pointing out that you're talking out your ass. You're using blanket generalizations as if you know any of the details, but the thing is: you don't. You don't know the first thing about what you're discussing, and are assuming the worst in every possible case simply because it's more convenient. You assume that speaking loudly in an authoritative tone somehow compensates for not actually knowing anything.

So when you say something like "it's there for all the same reasons the supporters of socialized medicine will buy into," I want to know what reasons, specifically, you think those are. Why is it there? Why would supporters of socialized medicine buy into those reasons?

Do you understand why I ask this? Do you understand, more importantly, why it's actually vital to your argument?

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
God you're a tiresome ass, Tom D: always asking people to back up their claims with specifically relevant data. Get a life. [Wink]
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Great, now show where that's actually proposed anywhere in US legislation.

(Note- there is no proposal for nationalizing the healh industry, so the government will not have any input on care level decisions. And the reforms being proposed to the Health Insurance industry are likewise ones that remove them from care level decisions; they'd have to cover or not cover procedures up front, before you put your money down, and not be allowed to decide after the fact that something isn't covered.)

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
threads
Member
Member # 5091

 - posted      Profile for threads   Email threads   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
I'm using the term "death panel" because everyone knows what I'm talking about - it's just a way to put this in context.

These are the "death panels" that already exist? The ones that will be optionally covered under public insurance provided that assisted suicide is not presented as an option?
Posts: 778 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Nearly 1 in 5 deaths"

Which is a super-smart way of saying "1 in 6". [Razz]

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2 doesn't need evidence. His post is about invoking fear of a possibility, not about showing whether or not that possibility is even likely.
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Do you understand why I ask this?

Yes I do. I know exactly why you ask it which is why I'm not biting on it. Run along and play now. [Roll Eyes]

quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Great, now show where that's actually proposed anywhere in US legislation.

If you read the last paragraph of my post , you see I address this. My post was about why people are talking about it and why they have valid concerns, not that it's in current legislation.

quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
G2 doesn't need evidence. His post is about invoking fear of a possibility, not about showing whether or not that possibility is even likely.

Right back at ya there amigo. You don't need evidence either do you? Not when you got faith in The One (all praise be upon him, right?). The point was this whole thing was claimed by your gang that it could not happen, it was ridiculous paranoia. But it can happen, it is happening in one of the systems you guys point to as a model for us to adopt. It is a real possibility, not an imagined one as ObamaCare advocates want to claim.

The approach here, as shown by posts above, is to shout down and initiate enough personal attacks to shut down debate; trying to intimidate me and others into silence. Why do you think you and everyone here avoids any attempt to address what are very valid concerns and instead opt for the politics of personal destruction? It's probably so hardwired into you guys you do it automatically without any realization but if you look up the thread you'll see it in full swing (you'll see down thread as well).

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:

The approach here, as shown by posts above, is to shout down and initiate enough personal attacks to shut down debate; trying to intimidate me and others into silence. Why do you think you and everyone here avoids any attempt to address what are very valid concerns and instead opt for the politics of personal destruction? It's probably so hardwired into you guys you do it automatically without any realization but if you look up the thread you'll see it in full swing (you'll see down thread as well).

The thing is, your post is simply asserting your suspicions. But we already know you're suspicious of the plan - just as you already know we are not. Unless you contribute new information, what purpose is there to once again saying "this is what I think might happen". Yes, we know, but bring in some evidence or you're just waving your arms about and turning this into your personal blog.

... and incidentally, an "end-of-life counseling session", which is what was coined a "death panel", is precisely where someone would be able to say "I want to be kept alive at any expense". If you value the ability to make that clear, you would support that aspect of the bill, not seek to hinder it because of suspicions due to the current party in power.

[ September 03, 2009, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: JoshCrow ]

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yes I do. I know exactly why you ask it which is why I'm not biting on it.
Wow. I didn't actually expect you to admit that you have no substantive evidence behind your half-assed allegations. I doff my hat to you, sir.

quote:
The point was this whole thing was claimed by your gang that it could not happen, it was ridiculous paranoia.
No, that wasn't the point. In fact, this is why I'm asking you to cite specifics; you have a tendency to invent straw men based on your own complete distortion of reality, and exposing exactly where your train leaves the rails might help you better function in society.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Great, now show where that's actually proposed anywhere in US legislation.

If you read the last paragraph of my post , you see I address this. My post was about why people are talking about it and why they have valid concerns, not that it's in current legislation.

So somehow legislation to establish a fair private health insurance market will be used to implement things that require fully nationalized health services?

You're talking about features of a system that isn't even remotely on the table. Heck we're not even talking about single payer health coverage, never mind nationalized care.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
The thing is, your post is simply asserting your suspicions. But we already know you're suspicious of the plan - just as you already know we are not. Unless you contribute new information, what purpose is there to once again saying "this is what I think might happen". Yes, we know, but bring in some evidence or you're just waving your arms about and turning this into your personal blog.

I am not asserting my suspicions. I am showing that those having those who have concerns about this type of thing have well founded concerns - that's the new information. It is not something that should be dismissed as simple paranoia and those voicing those concerns should not be subject to the lefts typical tactics of personal destruction. The evidence is right in front of you, well, it's in Britain. As Morrisey says, "When government controls all the resources and makes all the decisions, the “death pathway” is an entirely predictable result. Patients and their families no longer control the decisions made in health care, because they no longer control the compensation."

quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
... and incidentally, an "end-of-life counseling session", which is what was coined a "death panel", is precisely where someone would be able to say "I want to be kept alive at any expense". If you value the ability to make that clear, you would support that aspect of the bill, not seek to hinder it because of suspicions due to the current party in power.

First, it has nothing to do with the party in power. Whoever's in power this cycle will be out at some point. This is more a longer term view.

Notice in the NHS plan does not allow the patient or their family to be involved. It's solely up to the medical team to make the cost/benefit analysis and implement the guidelines. This is a predicable and entirely plausible result and is something that should be a concern with any attempt at government run care.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Great, now show where that's actually proposed anywhere in US legislation.

If you read the last paragraph of my post , you see I address this. My post was about why people are talking about it and why they have valid concerns, not that it's in current legislation.

So somehow legislation to establish a fair private health insurance market will be used to implement things that require fully nationalized health services?

You're talking about features of a system that isn't even remotely on the table. Heck we're not even talking about single payer health coverage, never mind nationalized care.

Now c'mon, you know that's not where this thing is heading. Don't pretend you don't It may be backing down to an insurance issue after the beating in the polls over the last month but Obama and virtually every Democrat leader is well on record saying they want to go to some form of nationalized care and NHS is one of the many models for that.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
As Morrisey says, "When government controls all the resources and makes all the decisions, the “death pathway” is an entirely predictable result. Patients and their families no longer control the decisions made in health care, because they no longer control the compensation."
But patients and their families don't control those decisions now. Do you not realize that private insurers already have "death panels?"

quote:
This is more a longer term view.
The correct term is "slippery slope fallacy."
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Yes I do. I know exactly why you ask it which is why I'm not biting on it.
Wow. I didn't actually expect you to admit that you have no substantive evidence behind your half-assed allegations.
LMAO, you know Tom, those kinds of comments quit working somewhere around 5th grade. [LOL]
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
As Morrisey says, "When government controls all the resources and makes all the decisions, the “death pathway” is an entirely predictable result. Patients and their families no longer control the decisions made in health care, because they no longer control the compensation."
But patients and their families don't control those decisions now. Do you not realize that private insurers already have "death panels?"
That is wildly inaccurate. Do you really think a group from an insurance company could come into a hospital and tell the doctors to sedate a patient and deny further care? It's laughable, absurd in the extreme.

Perhaps you're trying to say is an insurance company could potentially claim they won't cover any more care? They could do that I suppose. But you know who would then have the decision to actually continue care? The patient or their family. Would you rather make that call yourself with your family or rely on government guidelines?

And don't get all excited about the money, that fallacy won't hunt.

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
This is more a longer term view.
The correct term is "slippery slope fallacy."
Wrong again. We're talking about the parties in power and how I believe that's irrelevant. You need to quit making up your own imagination.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
c'mon, you know that's not where this thing is heading. Don't pretend you don't It may be backing down to an insurance issue after the beating in the polls over the last month but Obama and virtually every Democrat leader is well on record saying they want to go to some form of nationalized care and NHS is one of the many models for that.

Single payer advocates were't even given a seat at the table, never mind nationalized care.

None of the major proposals have even hinted at nationalized care. Perhaps Bernie Sanders and a few folks at the far left side of the house would go for it, but it's not even remotely part of the discussion.

Your assertion here is pure fanatasy.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
As Morrisey says, "When government controls all the resources and makes all the decisions, the “death pathway” is an entirely predictable result. Patients and their families no longer control the decisions made in health care, because they no longer control the compensation."
But patients and their families don't control those decisions now. Do you not realize that private insurers already have "death panels?"
That is wildly inaccurate. Do you really think a group from an insurance company could come into a hospital and tell the doctors to sedate a patient and deny further care? It's laughable, absurd in the extreme.

Perhaps you're trying to say is an insurance company could potentially claim they won't cover any more care? They could do that I suppose. But you know who would then have the decision to actually continue care? The patient or their family. Would you rather make that call yourself with your family or rely on government guidelines?

I'd rather have the insurance company legally prevented from denying care that it had previously been paid to provide as needed. Otherwise there is no real choice, or you have situations like I referenced in another thread, where people are forced to divorce or go to other irrational extremes to prevent themselves from being compeltely financially destroyed because of such issues.

The only enforcable government guidelines that are being proposed in such situations are ones that require the insurance companies to be honest up front about what will and won't be covered so that they can't pull such tricks and leave people with no real choice when it comes to care.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Athelstan
Member
Member # 2566

 - posted      Profile for Athelstan   Email Athelstan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We have two schools of thought here. The Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient is a system mainly used in hospitals and hospices and is about dying with dignity. The Doctors who signed the letter expressing concerns are in favour of palliative care being given at home and are pressing for more resources for their approach. The point I would like to make is that everybody has a right to that palliative care under the NHS system and in both systems relatives and carers views are paramount. Nobody is saying the NHS is perfect, we’re dealing with human beings after all, yet none of the major political parties in the UK are running the idea of installing an American Healthcare System here.
Posts: 715 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
First, it has nothing to do with the party in power. Whoever's in power this cycle will be out at some point. This is more a longer term view.

Notice in the NHS plan does not allow the patient or their family to be involved. It's solely up to the medical team to make the cost/benefit analysis and implement the guidelines. This is a predicable and entirely plausible result and is something that should be a concern with any attempt at government run care.

The last three words sum up the problem - you are talking about "government run care", when people are debating "optional government covered care", and there's no substantive path from the latter to the former. You are blurring together a system where people are free to choose their doctors and treatments and one where they are not... but have nothing but your lack of confidence in government to point to as "evidence".
Even supposing your worst fears about the government's intentions (or incompetence) were right, the mere fact that the plan being discussed is completely optional means you never have to make that wager personally. You are, in effect, fighting to keep an option out of the people's hands - something that I find it bitterly ironic for a conservative to be doing in the "land of the free".

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Notice in the NHS plan does not allow the patient or their family to be involved. It's solely up to the medical team to make the cost/benefit analysis and implement the guidelines. This is a predicable and entirely plausible result and is something that should be a concern with any attempt at government run care.
I don't see anything in the information you provided where it was a cost/benefit analysis. The alleged "panel" is basically a bunch of doctors deciding that death is immediate and inevitable. Accordingly, they undertake efforts to make the process less uncomfortable. There are no government officials or productivity experts involved.

So this doesn't seem to be the infamous death panels, but rather an insensitive implementation of passive euthanasia.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gina
Member
Member # 6372

 - posted      Profile for Gina   Email Gina   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
None of the major proposals have even hinted at nationalized care. Perhaps Bernie Sanders and a few folks at the far left side of the house would go for it, but it's not even remotely part of the discussion.

Your assertion here is pure fanatasy.

Uh huh. That's why Barney Frank and other Dems have been caught on tape telling their supporters that what they are putting on the table now may not be single payer, but would help pave the way.

The tax cheat who would have been our HHS secretary and who is still advising the President, Tom Daschle, has held up the NHS end-of-life practices as a model to be adopted by American health care. So an examination of how it actually works is not just fair game, it's paramount.

Here we have proof that under the guise of "effectiveness recommendations," families had decisions pushed on them that may have prematurely ended patients' lives.

It's certainly true that this already happens in our current system, but because it is on a more decentralized basis, families can intervene and pressure insurance companies and hospitals to back off. There was an interesting case a couple years back in Texas, Andrea Clark, where the hospital wanted to cut off life support, citing both costs and "death with dignity" pap. Clark's sister was a Democrat, but she ended up appealing to pro-life groups to help her pressure the hospital and insurance company, and they did eventually relent and continued to care for Clark until her natural death.
link

Those of us who see the Democratic Party as the "party of death" have zero interest in seeing these people installed as the arbiters of our health care decisions. Those of you who railed about George Bush etc. should consider the hue and cry that would be made of a Republican administration having greater say in the health care system. The civil rights lawyers are no doubt salivating at the prospect of all those "the government is overlooking X protected victim group" suits.

And please, let's not continue on with the focus-group fiction of "public option" and "if you like your insurance you can keep it." Many of us who are not wealthy and/or who work for small businesses will be forced into a government-run health plan, by circumstance if not by decree. Certain employers who are financially squeezed and not that concerned with holding on to employees will dump their current health plans if their employees can just go to Uncle Sam HMO for "free." Others who are voluntarily uninsured will be forced by the individual mandate to carry a health plan, and won't be able to afford one that is not subsidized by the US taxpayer. The "option" in public option applies only to the rich.

Posts: 476 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Those of us who see the Democratic Party as the "party of death"...
I strongly suspect that this bias informs pretty much every opinion you have on the topic.

quote:
Certain employers who are financially squeezed and not that concerned with holding on to employees will dump their current health plans if their employees can just go to Uncle Sam HMO for "free."
As opposed to the employers who are dumping their health plans now, with no other options on the table?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gina:

And please, let's not continue on with the focus-group fiction of "public option" and "if you like your insurance you can keep it." Many of us who are not wealthy and/or who work for small businesses will be forced into a government-run health plan, by circumstance if not by decree. Certain employers who are financially squeezed and not that concerned with holding on to employees will dump their current health plans if their employees can just go to Uncle Sam HMO for "free." Others who are voluntarily uninsured will be forced by the individual mandate to carry a health plan, and won't be able to afford one that is not subsidized by the US taxpayer. The "option" in public option applies only to the rich.

I love how you dismiss as fiction the very idea being proposed based on:
1)"Certain employers who are financially squeezed and not that concerned with holding on to employees"
... when such an employer is likely to fire employees INSTEAD if a public option didn't exist. It's funny you didn't mention that part.
2)"Others who are voluntarily uninsured will be forced by the individual mandate"
... ok, you don't seem to understand that "mandate" is an obligation, which is the very opposite of the idea of an "option".

An example of this conversation:
Person A: "I'm proposing a law that allows people to own a dog.
Person B: "That's terrible, why would you force people to have dogs!"
Person A: "..."

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gina
Member
Member # 6372

 - posted      Profile for Gina   Email Gina   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:

2)"Others who are voluntarily uninsured will be forced by the individual mandate"
... ok, you don't seem to understand that "mandate" is an obligation, which is the very opposite of the idea of an "option".

And you apparently don't understand that every proposal now on the table contains an individual mandate to purchase health insurance? Private insurance companies are not going to be able to compete with an "option" that is U.S. taxpayer-subsidized, backed by the confiscatory power of the IRS. So by circumstance, some of those voluntarily uninsured are going to have to go into Uncle Sam HMO whether they want to or not.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gina
Member
Member # 6372

 - posted      Profile for Gina   Email Gina   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Those of us who see the Democratic Party as the "party of death"...
I strongly suspect that this bias informs pretty much every opinion you have on the topic.
So what?

quote:
quote:
Certain employers who are financially squeezed and not that concerned with holding on to employees will dump their current health plans if their employees can just go to Uncle Sam HMO for "free."
As opposed to the employers who are dumping their health plans now, with no other options on the table?
So undertake real health care reform that makes insurance portable and individual-based. Like maybe the plan that John McCain was proposing, which Obama demagogued and is thus now not even on the table for discussion.

I'm glad to see at least that some of you are willing to admit that people are going to be forced into a government plan, and as a bonus, you're suddenly sounding to start positively pro-business.

Posts: 476 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"you are talking about "government run care", when people are debating "optional government covered care", and there's no substantive path from the latter to the former. You are blurring together a system where people are free to choose their doctors and treatments and one where they are not... but have nothing but your lack of confidence in government to point to as "evidence"."

What a lovely polite way of saying you are either being deliberately obtuse or are straight-out stupid.

I applaud. You go to the Etiquette Olympics.

The medals suck, btw.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"So a decision is made by the entire medical team treating them, including a senior doctor. That's a panel. Notice that there is not a family member on that panel."

Unlike me. Me, I got cousins and aunts and my mama's ex-old man on the panel at the private insurance I got.

Whatinhighrollinghellyewtawkinbowt, Lewis!?!?!?!

That's not even a STRAW man. That's, like, a post-smoked-by-Aussie-bongheads hemp man.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hey, someone tell me that was good, I gotta ego, y'know.

(assumes Jerry Lewis prayer posture)

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So what?
So I think it's reasonable to point out that someone starting from the position "the Democrats are the party of death" is unlikely to be capable of rationally evaluating a healthcare proposal from the Democrats.

quote:
I'm glad to see at least that some of you are willing to admit that people are going to be forced into a government plan, and as a bonus, you're suddenly sounding to start positively pro-business.
Heh. I am positively pro-business.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gina:
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:

2)"Others who are voluntarily uninsured will be forced by the individual mandate"
... ok, you don't seem to understand that "mandate" is an obligation, which is the very opposite of the idea of an "option".

And you apparently don't understand that every proposal now on the table contains an individual mandate to purchase health insurance? Private insurance companies are not going to be able to compete with an "option" that is U.S. taxpayer-subsidized, backed by the confiscatory power of the IRS. So by circumstance, some of those voluntarily uninsured are going to have to go into Uncle Sam HMO whether they want to or not.
You have basically conceded that there is, in fact, no such "mandate" in the bills by appealing to purely circumstantial reasoning. Moreover, even your circumstantial argument makes no sense - if private insurers are unable to compete, how does that even remotely affect VOLUNTARILY UNINSURED people by driving them into a plan. It's a total non-sequitur. You're talking about people who willfully don't have a plan being forced into one. It doesn't exist, in ANY version of the bill.

[ September 03, 2009, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: JoshCrow ]

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gina
Member
Member # 6372

 - posted      Profile for Gina   Email Gina   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
So I think it's reasonable to point out that someone starting from the position "the Democrats are the party of death" is unlikely to be capable of rationally evaluating a healthcare proposal from the Democrats.

I'm going to look on anything they have to say, particularly at a federal level, particularly where it concerns medical ethics, with decided skepticism. It is a matter of trust.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
natural_mystic
Member
Member # 6328

 - posted      Profile for natural_mystic   Email natural_mystic       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gina:

The tax cheat who would have been our HHS secretary and who is still advising the President, Tom Daschle, has held up the NHS end-of-life practices as a model to be adopted by American health care. So an examination of how it actually works is not just fair game, it's paramount.


Can you provide a quote in which he actually endorses the Liverpool Care Pathway specifically, as against other facets of the NHS end-of-life practices?
Posts: 9 | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But Dems ARE the party of D*E*A*T*H! At least on WoW, Tom. Wanna join mah geeyuild?

Dems: from duh BOW_ELS. dah BOW_ELS.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm going to look on anything they have to say, particularly at a federal level, particularly where it concerns medical ethics, with decided skepticism.
And by "decided skepticism," you mean you'll doubt anything they say that doesn't already conform to your negative opinion. And since we're talking about a federal plan, and pretty much anything medical ultimately involves some discussion of ethics, I think any pretense of objectivity can be discarded.

[ September 03, 2009, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gina
Member
Member # 6372

 - posted      Profile for Gina   Email Gina   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
It's a total non-sequitur. You're talking about people who willfully don't have a plan being forced into one. It doesn't exist, in ANY version of the bill.

Is that you, Arlen?

The individual mandate to purchase health insurance is in every single proposal on the table- Obama's, the House's, the Senate's. It is one of the few things they all have in common. Yes, you will have to buy a dog. The proposals do not say which kennel you have to go to, but if you are forced to buy a dog and one of the kennels is backed by the bottomless pit of a government willing to borrow itself into oblivion and thus can undercut those who have to play fair, you're going to have to go to Uncle Sam's Kennel unless you're rich enough to truly have an option. And that is my point: The only ones who will have an "option" will be the rich.

Posts: 476 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gina
Member
Member # 6372

 - posted      Profile for Gina   Email Gina   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
I'm going to look on anything they have to say, particularly at a federal level, particularly where it concerns medical ethics, with decided skepticism.
And by "decided skepticism," you mean you'll doubt anything they say that doesn't already conform to your negative opinion. And since we're talking about a federal plan, and pretty much anything medical ultimately involves some discussion of ethics, I think any pretense of objectivity can be discarded.
You're the one with a pretense to objectivity. I own my biases quite openly. I want nothing from this government in the way of federal intervention in the health care system but to leave me the hell alone. I certainly do not want a massive overhaul, slapped together and shoved through on partisan arm-twisting.

There is nothing that can be done on the federal level to address health care inequalities that will be without partisan taint. If some reforms (nothing I hear now interests me at all) might be undertaken in the health care system, it's not going to be by this President and this Congress, who positively revel in being divisive and underhanded.

Posts: 476 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
if you are forced to buy a dog and one of the kennels is backed by the bottomless pit of a government willing to borrow itself into oblivion and thus can undercut those who have to play fair...
You know, I understand this sentiment, but it's worth noting that we've recently handed billions of taxpayer dollars to a number of insurance companies willing to borrow themselves into oblivion. So I'm a bit less sympathetic to this scare tactic than I used to be.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1