Page 1 of 1
The Unfortunate Reality
Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 11:49 am
by Tunnelcat
I thought I'd post this story on the top level for everyone to read. THIS is the fart in the room that no one wants to talk about or admit to as THE problem and IS at the core of our health care mess. It's a long sad story, but it shows us the dilemma we'll all eventually face and how we'll probably never be able to solve it fairly.
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index ... death.html
Not
everyone can afford this expensive final life-extending treatment and then get little return for it, which tends to be the usual outcome for most cancer patients I'm afraid. I know this from experience since my mother went through cancer treatment like this and it bought her only 2 miserable years of extra life that cost around $400,000 total when all was said and done, most of that cost paid by insurance. So how is it going to be
rationed for all, who gets what they want or need and what's going be the ultimate price to our society?
Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 12:27 pm
by woodchip
Warning! Warning! Death panel being formed.
Re:
Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 12:31 pm
by CUDA
Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 12:33 pm
by Duper
Welcome back to what.. last November???
Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 2:03 pm
by Tunnelcat
It's not a \"death panel\" as Palin was so fond of saying. It about how we should decide on what we as a collective are willing to spend on extending life at all costs, even if it doesn't really do the job most of the time and it puts huge cost burdens on us all, whether we like it or not. We can't ALL spend to infinity in the effort to survive and we need some form of transparancy in how MUCH we spend. The money just goes into a black hole we can't account for. The stacks of paperwork in that article should be evident of that problem. Obama's Health Care Bill doesn't even address this little inconvenient aspect.
Right now we 'ration' health care by how much an indivdual can afford. Why is that even efficient? We still have skyrocketing health care costs for even those who CAN afford it and there are no cost benefits from better advances in technology. Our money is not even buying us better care, just more expensive care. The next time you visit the hospital, you WILL be paying increased rates to cover those who can't.
Re:
Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 2:40 pm
by Top Gun
So what was the flavor of that Kool-Aid you imbibed? Alaskan Tundra?
Re:
Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 2:58 pm
by CUDA
Ben Franklin wrote:Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment.
Re:
Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 3:45 pm
by woodchip
tunnelcat wrote:It's not a "death panel" as Palin was so fond of saying. It about how we should decide on what we as a collective are willing to spend on extending life at all costs, even if it doesn't really do the job most of the time and it puts huge cost burdens on us all, whether we like it or not. We can't ALL spend to infinity in the effort to survive and we need some form of transparancy in how MUCH we spend. The money just goes into a black hole we can't account for. The stacks of paperwork in that article should be evident of that problem. Obama's Health Care Bill doesn't even address this little inconvenient aspect.
I'm sure this kind of rationalization led to Auschwitz
tunnelcat wrote:Right now we 'ration' health care by how much an indivdual can afford. Why is that even efficient? We still have skyrocketing health care costs for even those who CAN afford it and there are no cost benefits from better advances in technology. Our money is not even buying us better care, just more expensive care. The next time you visit the hospital, you WILL be paying increased rates to cover those who can't.
Right and somehow the new health care proggy is supposed to reduce what we have to pay for insurance.
Re:
Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 3:47 pm
by Top Gun
woodchip wrote:
I'm sure this kind of rationalization led to Auschwitz
Woo, a Godwin!
Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 4:14 pm
by Spidey
So they aren’t going to be “death panels”…
You say tomato, I say cucumber…what's in a name.
Lol, this “fart in the room” is going to become some major toxic gas, now that insurance providers can’t limit lifetime care.
Anybody for 3000 dollar a month premiums, say aye……….I I I voted for Obama.
Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 4:58 pm
by Insurrectionist
It about how we should decide on what we as a collective are willing to spend on extending life
Why not as collective decide once a person hits 30 they are terminated in a quasi-religious ceremony known as Carousel.
Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 5:14 pm
by CUDA
Logan 5
Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 8:17 pm
by Will Robinson
I think Palin used hyperbole to bring attention to the thing that you and she are both talking about. You say she's crazy but you both agree that it is a problem. You trusted Obama/Pelosi to staff the [insert warm fuzzy name here]panel she suggested we need our personal doctors to help us make those decisions.
Obama would say he left the doctors in charge but the truth is, whoever pays the bills decides and Obama is maneuvering the fed into the position to be the bill payer and they WILL be the ones to decide, if they pass their decisions through \"your\" doctor it is still their decision.
So I find it sadly amusing that a Palin basher is really trying to acomplish the same thing she was!
Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 8:20 pm
by Kilarin
I have to agree with Will Robinson here. It IS a problem, and now it's a problem that the government has a vested interest in solving. They don't have a good record with making good decisions.
Re:
Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 7:23 pm
by *SilverFJ
CUDA wrote:Logan 5
Good call!
Re:
Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 8:25 pm
by AlphaDoG
CUDA wrote:Logan 5
OMG College thesis material.
Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 9:55 pm
by Insurrectionist
How about as a collective we enact a ritual say we call it \"The Resolution\". The ritual calls on all citizens of USA to kill themselves upon reaching the age of 60 in order to eliminate the society's responsibility of caring for the elderly.
Will that make it better for you? No rationing (death) panels.
Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 11:00 pm
by Nightshade
What's even worse, TC, is that even if rationing takes place in a more \"fair\" way- meaning everyone gets rationed no matter what amount they can afford to pay, the new programs will destroy what little is left in the life of social security/medicare simply because it is unsustainable.
Heck, the entitlement programs were going bankrupt as it was...now this fiasco will hasten their demise and we'll all be in a world of hurt!
The dollar will be worthless- all your savings/fixed pensions/IRAs will be destroyed by inflation/devaluation. The USA's credit rating is about to be trashed.
The healthcare/SS system that sustains my grandmother at the moment will never exist for me. It's basically a done deal- no going back.
Re:
Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:32 am
by Insurrectionist
Insurrectionist wrote:How about as a collective we enact a ritual say we call it "The Resolution". The ritual calls on all citizens of USA to kill themselves upon reaching the age of 60 in order to eliminate the society's responsibility of caring for the elderly.
Ahh did did I stymie the scifi people with this one. It comes from TNG Season: 4 Episode: 22 Half a Life. Nothing like a good piece of propaganda.
Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 7:12 am
by Sergeant Thorne
tunnelcat wrote:Right now we 'ration' health care by how much an indivdual can afford.
LOL. No we don't. That's like saying 'we' 'ration' transportation based on how much an individual can afford to pay for a vehicle. It doesn't matter to you what order the horse, cart, and rider are in, does it? As long as they're all in there somewhere it's plausible? That is some backwards philosophical bull****. If you seek to rethink the basic structure that is individual responsibility--that is a man being responsible for his own life and that of his family, what can it lead to, ultimately, but some flavor of control or tyranny?
The 'rethinking' that I'm talking about is exactly what Obama is about--it seems to be exactly what the progressive movement is about. I was listening to the CEO of Google the other day in a video, he is a highly intelligent guy... that's what he is all about (I can't figure out who copied from who on the "transparency" thing, because he's all about that too). Did you all know that the present CEO of Google was involved in the Obama campaign? I've been leery of Google for a while now, and I'm beginning to find out exactly why.
Re:
Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 12:57 pm
by Spidey
tunnelcat wrote:Right now we 'ration' health care by how much an indivdual can afford.
And that really is the way it should be…the problem is, you have to be rich to afford basic care.
Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 1:30 pm
by Tunnelcat
That's the problem. Everyone 'expects' to be able to get healthcare of some type, cost be damned. What will happen when those that 'expect' it can't get it anymore because they happen to not be able to afford it? Will they violently revolt all because they have this need to 'live'?
And why is 'rationing by wealth' good for the whole of society or even in the nation's best interest?
Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 2:22 pm
by Spidey
Because “rationing by wealth” as you put it is a more natural way to do it, and the alternative is rationing by bureaucrat.
Do you really want to see somebody who has been on welfare their entire life get that 500,000 dollar end of life care?
And, it makes being wealthy more attractive than being poor. There should be benefits to being wealthy, if you can afford that lung transplant, then you should plop down your cash and get one if you desire, and if you can’t then you die.
Sorry, but there is not enough money or resources in the entire world to give everyone the healthcare that the rich can afford. But like I tried to imply, basic health care should be available to all.
Re:
Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 5:39 pm
by Will Robinson
Spidey wrote:...
Sorry, but there is not enough money or resources in the entire world to give everyone the healthcare that the rich can afford. But like I tried to imply, basic health care should be available to all.
amen.
That is the basic problem with so many proposed social welfare programs. I read a quote recently, it said, "Socialism is fine until you run out of other peoples money to pay for it."
The way that applies to wonderful healthcare for all is it won't bring everyone up to the level of care that the rich can afford it will bring the rich down to the level that their money can fund everyone else along with them....which won't be a very high standard of care.
Like when people complained about the multi-million dollar bonus of some Exxon executive, divide that same bonus among all the gasoline buyers it would translate to an extra gallon or two of gas once a year! It sounds incredibly large until you start dividing it up.
Budgeting planned by a group of people who don't earn the money they spend and they have the ability to print money to cover their overspending is a bad thing as we are seeing. Bring in a financial planner to the congressional committee's proposing these programs and have them look at the revenue stream and have them design the budget according to real revenue and then let the congress decide where to spend the money and you will see rationing. Or do like Obama and the congress want to do and let them spend unbridled until the money runs out and the debt hits the ceiling and then you'll see rationing coupled with financial collapse of the country!
Your call. You get to make it this November....
Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 5:55 pm
by Sickone
All I know is that I have worked full time since I was 14, and am now 51. The government has had their hand down my pants the whole time... they know one phrase... \"More, more, more\"
They create 'new math' to try and convince us it will save money... \"more, more, more\".
How about they can't do anything they can't pay for !!! Just like we all have to live with in our homes... oh wait - about 1 in 5 of you took out home loans you can't pay... ooops...
★■◆● I am tired of paying for everyone else.
Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 6:26 pm
by CUDA
time to drive more people nuts, but those that forget their past are doomed to repeat it
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Alexis de Tocqueville 1805-1859
Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.
Alexis de Tocqueville 1805-1859
Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 6:44 pm
by Spidey
That second one sounds like something I would say.
Re:
Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 10:11 am
by Tunnelcat
Spidey wrote:Because “rationing by wealth” as you put it is a more natural way to do it, and the alternative is rationing by bureaucrat.
Do you really want to see somebody who has been on welfare their entire life get that 500,000 dollar end of life care?
And, it makes being wealthy more attractive than being poor. There should be benefits to being wealthy, if you can afford that lung transplant, then you should plop down your cash and get one if you desire, and if you can’t then you die.
Sorry, but there is not enough money or resources in the entire world to give everyone the healthcare that the rich can afford. But like I tried to imply, basic health care should be available to all.
Well, I guess that's one way to put it and your last paragragh is very true, but most people want to live, so they don't care about that when they get sick. There also needs to be some form of 'basic' health care that everyone could depend on that wouldn't bankrupt them. A broken bone cost me out of pocket around $6000 dollars after all was said and done. Worse, it would have been cheaper if I'd paid cash to the private clinic. It would have been MORE if I'd paid cash at the hospital!
So, we desperately need price and cost transparency in order for people to make an informed decision on what they can or can't afford. Right now, there's no ONE price for any proceedure or care and you can't even find out these 'prices' beforehand! It's worse than trying to buy a used car!
