“It’s more fun talking politics with people who agree with you”

[bjorn_skurj]

Uh ... I never posted in that thread...

Whoops - got you confused with LouieB

[Good Old Neon]

You know, I have to say, I think that's offensive.

 

Is it? Are you suggesting tax payer money should be used to keep terminally ill patients alive indefinitely? With some of the technology now available, we can keep otherwise failing bodies alive for years and years and years, with zero quality of life – many of these people are on or end up on Medicare – at what point should further treatment be denied? One hundred thousand dollars, one million, ten million - ? - cause, if you think there ought to be an upper limit, you’re in favor of rationing.

[bjorn_skurj]

It's a tough question, but one which must be asked as such a large portion of health care costs come near the end of the line. Jane Brody told me this in an interview I did with her this summer: "If we may be crass for a moment, physicians and hospitals don't get paid for doing nothing. Doctors and hospitals get paid for interventions...They get major reimbursements for feeding tubes, but they don't get reimbursements for sitting down and feeding them."

[Good Old Neon]

Peter Singer wrote an article defending rationing, here is his conclusion - which, I tend to agree with:

 

Rationing public health care limits free choice if private health insurance is prohibited. But many countries combine free national health insurance with optional private insurance. Australia, where I’ve spent most of my life and raised a family, is one. The U.S. could do something similar. This would mean extending Medicare to the entire population, irrespective of age, but without Medicare’s current policy that allows doctors wide latitude in prescribing treatments for eligible patients. Instead, Medicare for All, as we might call it, should refuse to pay where the cost per QALY is extremely high. (On the other hand, Medicare for All would not require more than a token copayment for drugs that are cost-effective.) The extension of Medicare could be financed by a small income-tax levy, for those who pay income tax — in Australia the levy is 1.5 percent of taxable income. (There’s an extra 1 percent surcharge for those with high incomes and no private insurance. Those who earn too little to pay income tax would be carried at no cost to themselves.) Those who want to be sure of receiving every treatment that their own privately chosen physicians recommend, regardless of cost, would be free to opt out of Medicare for All as long as they can demonstrate that they have sufficient private health insurance to avoid becoming a burden on the community if they fall ill. Alternatively, they might remain in Medicare for All but take out supplementary insurance for health care that Medicare for All does not cover. Every American will have a right to a good standard of health care, but no one will have a right to unrationed health care. Those who opt for unrationed health care will know exactly how much it costs them.

[bleedorange]

Is it? Are you suggesting tax payer money should be used to keep terminally ill patients alive indefinitely? With some of the technology now available, we can keep otherwise failing bodies alive for years and years and years, with zero quality of life – many of these people are on or end up on Medicare – at what point should further treatment be denied? One hundred thousand dollars, one million, ten million - ? - cause, if you think there ought to be an upper limit, you’re in favor of rationing.

 

Yes. Plus, I find any discussion of "cost" to be highly disingenuous when it comes to this health care bill. Further treatment should only be denied when the patient denies it.

[ikol]

Does Obama's bill have such possibilities?

 

To what bill are you referring? Obama is far too vague of a President to have an actual bill.

[Good Old Neon]

Yes. Plus, I find any discussion of "cost" to be highly disingenuous when it comes to this health care bill. Further treatment should only be denied when the patient denies it.

 

Really, the sky is the limit where using tax payer dollars to keep a single terminally ill patient alive is concerned?

 

Interesting.

[jakobnicholas]

Really, the sky is the limit where using tax payer dollars to keep a single terminally ill patient alive is concerned?

 

 

Only if they're Conservative.

 

To what bill are you referring? Obama is far too vague of a President to have an actual bill.

 

 

Touche.

[IRememberDBoon]

Yes. Plus, I find any discussion of "cost" to be highly disingenuous when it comes to this health care bill. Further treatment should only be denied when the patient denies it.

 

 

Do you think illegal immigrants should be treated on demand?

[Guest Jules]

Do you think illegal immigrants should be treated on demand?

 

they are people, right?

[IRememberDBoon]

they are people, right?

 

Not to some people they arent. I love when Republicans are pressed on the health care issue. They have ZERO real world situational answers. All they want to do is hand The President a defeat. They talk as if the bill is going to ruin The United States.

[bleedorange]

I know it's fun to try to engage in "gotcha" internet postings, but we're really talking about a couple of different things. There are different ways to try to improve health insurance in this country. I don't think a government plan is one of them. Especially when we are talking the sheer amount of tax dollars it is going to take. How is an $800 billion plan saving anybody anything?

 

I thought the whole debate about health care reform has been about making health care more affordable. There hasn't really been any debate. It's pretty much $800 billion plan or bust. Why?

 

On a philosophical level, the patient should be the sole arbiter of what treatments he or she receives or doesn't receive. That's why that patient has been paying insurance premiums for whatever policy that person has. That's also why that person has been paying Medicare with every paycheck.

[Guest Jules]

I love when Republicans are pressed on the health care issue. They have ZERO real world situational answers.

What does this even mean?

[IRememberDBoon]

What does this even mean?

 

give them a situation like for instance: An illegal immigrant comes to the emergency room with his hand cut off. What do you do? How bout if he has a head cold? How bout a stomach ache?

[IRememberDBoon]

I know it's fun to try to engage in "gotcha" internet postings, but we're really talking about a couple of different things. There are different ways to try to improve health insurance in this country. I don't think a government plan is one of them. Especially when we are talking the sheer amount of tax dollars it is going to take. How is an $800 billion plan saving anybody anything?

 

I thought the whole debate about health care reform has been about making health care more affordable. There hasn't really been any debate. It's pretty much $800 billion plan or bust. Why?

 

On a philosophical level, the patient should be the sole arbiter of what treatments he or she receives or doesn't receive. That's why that patient has been paying insurance premiums for whatever policy that person has. That's also why that person has been paying Medicare with every paycheck.

 

Actually Democrats presented 3 plans. Republicans presented a fake plan at first and then no plan at all.

 

CBO says the Bill is going to save the US Govt money. Not cost anything but save us money. Get it?

[Atticus]

is the hand on ice?

[Guest Jules]

give them a situation like for instance: An illegal immigrant comes to the emergency room with his hand cut off. What do you do? How bout if he has a head cold? How bout a stomach ache?

As long as they show up to work the next day, who gives a shit?

[IRememberDBoon]

As long as they show up to work the next day, who gives a shit?

 

 

What does this even mean?

[Guest Jules]

What does this even mean?

Illegal immigrants aren't the problem.

[Good Old Neon]

Only if they're Conservative.

 

 

 

 

 

 

They're already covered by the Endangered Species Act.

[Guest Jules]

They're already covered by the Endangered Species Act.

 

tee hee

[Atticus]

what did the fake republican plan fake the fakees into?

[Good Old Neon]

I know it's fun to try to engage in "gotcha" internet postings, but we're really talking about a couple of different things. There are different ways to try to improve health insurance in this country. I don't think a government plan is one of them. Especially when we are talking the sheer amount of tax dollars it is going to take. How is an $800 billion plan saving anybody anything?

 

I thought the whole debate about health care reform has been about making health care more affordable. There hasn't really been any debate. It's pretty much $800 billion plan or bust. Why?

 

On a philosophical level, the patient should be the sole arbiter of what treatments he or she receives or doesn't receive. That's why that patient has been paying insurance premiums for whatever policy that person has. That's also why that person has been paying Medicare with every paycheck.

 

Since you’re willing to spare no expense keeping terminally ill patients alive, indefinitely, how do we afford ballooning Medicare costs without raising taxes?

 

Health care should be focused on healing the sick and comforting the dying. There comes a point at which terminally ill patients can no longer be helped medically, at that point, we’re expending billions of dollars to buy some time, not medically beneficial care, but time. And when we’ve reached the point at which additional care amounts to little more than time, if further treatment is requested, perhaps it would be best if we were to allow the patient, or his or her family, to pick up the tab - or, as Singer noted, patients could purchase supplemental insurance. The idea that people can be kept alive indefinitely is a new one, prior to that, we accepted death for what it is - inevitable. No one wants to die of course, but in cases were death is imminent and unavoidable, well, no amount of money can solve that problem. Rather than throw money at the inevitable, perhaps would we be better served by devoting more of it towards covering the uninsured, or funding disease treatment and prevention programs, research, etc.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

Do you think illegal immigrants should be treated on demand?

 

Where are Illegal immigrants being denied treatment on demand at publically supported hospitals? My only frame of reference is Parkland Hospital in Dallas. No such deinal occurs (at least to my knowledge).

[Good Old Neon]

Palin fans on why they love her...

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKKKgua7wQk&feature=player_embedded#at=73