If there were Death Panels in the health care reform legislation, what would be wrong with that? Does it really make sense to spend lots of money on health care to someone who is 85 years old or is terminally ill? I don't think so. I know I'll get blasted for again being cold and heartless, but if we are going to bring down health care costs, I think we need to be practical as to what costs we as a nation are going to pay (and trust me, we all pay those costs regardless whether the payor of those costs is some private insurer or the Govt via Medicare, Medicaid or some proposed public option). Of course, if some elderly or terminally ill person wants to pay for medical care out of their pocket, I'm all for it. But the concept of the govt or some private insurer paying for a knee replacement on a person that only has a year to live just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

 

I'd probably prefer the Death Panel be handled by a private insurer as opposed to a bunch of govt bureacrats, but if I choose the public option I'd have to accept the fact that govt bureacrats might some day make the call on whether I get that emergency surgery or not.

 

What's every one think? I'll check back in a couple of days to see how stupid, cold and heartless I am. Football season is in full swing and I'm spending my limited BGP time in the Football forum.

If there were Death Panels in the health care reform legislation, what would be wrong with that? Does it really make sense to spend lots of money on health care to someone who is 85 years old or is terminally ill? I don't think so. I know I'll get blasted for again being cold and heartless, but if we are going to bring down health care costs, I think we need to be practical as to what costs we as a nation are going to pay (and trust me, we all pay those costs regardless whether the payor of those costs is some private insurer or the Govt via Medicare, Medicaid or some proposed public option). Of course, if some elderly or terminally ill person wants to pay for medical care out of their pocket, I'm all for it. But the concept of the govt or some private insurer paying for a knee replacement on a person that only has a year to live just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

 

I'd probably prefer the Death Panel be handled by a private insurer as opposed to a bunch of govt bureacrats, but if I choose the public option I'd have to accept the fact that govt bureacrats might some day make the call on whether I get that emergency surgery or not.

 

What's every one think? I'll check back in a couple of days to see how stupid, cold and heartless I am. Football season is in full swing and I'm spending my limited BGP time in the Football forum.

An interesting proposition for sure. As I'm opposed to government subsidized care the following are some thoughts I have IF we have to have it. While it definitely seems cold and heartless, I think sometimes (quite possibly all the time) you have to be that way, and especially when governing a society. Therefore, you should treat things objectively and do your best to get a good return on the investment. With that line of thinking I don't really have an issue with preventing surgeries for "someone who is 85 years old or is terminally ill".

 

As far as private insurers go...I'm not for sure how I think. I agree wholeheartedly that the costs will be passed back on "us", but I think you can of throw yourself into it with that understanding. But, if there were an insurance company that had "death panels" and were more concerned with their ROI, I'd be at the very least, interested in signing up with them.

If there were Death Panels in the health care reform legislation, what would be wrong with that? Does it really make sense to spend lots of money on health care to someone who is 85 years old or is terminally ill? I don't think so. I know I'll get blasted for again being cold and heartless, but if we are going to bring down health care costs, I think we need to be practical as to what costs we as a nation are going to pay (and trust me, we all pay those costs regardless whether the payor of those costs is some private insurer or the Govt via Medicare, Medicaid or some proposed public option). Of course, if some elderly or terminally ill person wants to pay for medical care out of their pocket, I'm all for it. But the concept of the govt or some private insurer paying for a knee replacement on a person that only has a year to live just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

 

I'd probably prefer the Death Panel be handled by a private insurer as opposed to a bunch of govt bureacrats, but if I choose the public option I'd have to accept the fact that govt bureacrats might some day make the call on whether I get that emergency surgery or not.

 

What's every one think? I'll check back in a couple of days to see how stupid, cold and heartless I am. Football season is in full swing and I'm spending my limited BGP time in the Football forum.

 

Reminds me of the line in the movie Scent of a Woman "I can't chew the leather anymore, so why should I share the tribe's provisions."

 

You marines are tough!

My wifes grandfather is 87. Without going into great detail he has back pain that has become increasingly worse. Surgery could alleviate the pain but due to his age they will not operate. The same doctors that make this decision also tell him his strength and health are equal to someone 20 years younger. Is this acceptable?

If medical insurance companies (or the government) have a contractual obligation, they should have to stand by it, regardless of age.

If medical insurance companies (or the government) have a contractual obligation, they should have to stand by it, regardless of age.

 

Well it just so happens he is a WWII vet

If medical insurance companies (or the government) have a contractual obligation, they should have to stand by it, regardless of age.

 

Exactly. Leatherneck, I see your argument for the government but not a private insurer. If premiums are paid then the insurance should be on the hook for everything that person faces. IF they don't like it, get out of the insurance business and go make their profits in some other venture.

 

 

As to your scenario LN, I think everyone thinks differently when it's their loved one that's 85. :thumb:

 

 

What's scary RTS is that is the first thing I thought of as well. :scared:

 

I could see Edward G. Robinson looking at the screen of images and hear the music playing for the dear old 85 and older guy. :eek:

Doesn't the government in one sense already do that. My understanding is that the H1N1 shots, only those who are in the greatest danger get them first. The others, which would be me, get them if some are left over.

 

Isn't that rationing medical services that they are trying to tell us won't happen?

What's scary RTS is that is the first thing I thought of as well. :scared:

 

I could see Edward G. Robinson looking at the screen of images and hear the music playing for the dear old 85 and older guy. :eek:

:lol:

I believe with the events of the last 50 years we have been headed down that 'slippery slope'. Those living in the 1950's would have never thought we would see 100,000's of abortions every year. Most people of the 1960's would never have thought people would want doctor-assited suicide. Most people today would never have thought that their government would want lead people to think it is time to die. What will people think in another 20 or 30 years when the government introduces, in the name of conserving resources, that anyone who reaches 75 will be terminated, similiar to the old movie Logan's Run? Although the age in the movie was 35. Just trying to think ahead.

I'd like to see someone explain this 85 year old cut-off nonsense to a person who is 100+ years old. Our lives are getting longer, and people are more likely to live healthy lives, well into their 90's.

 

When you begin to put age limits on life, or choosing whose life is worth saving, you have ceased to exist as a human society. God help us, that we never become that robotic, soulless and selfish.

I'd like to see someone explain this 85 year old cut-off nonsense to a person who is 100+ years old. Our lives are getting longer, and people are more likely to live healthy lives, well into their 90's.

 

When you begin to put age limits on life, or choosing whose life is worth saving, you have ceased to exist as a human society. God help us, that we never become that robotic, soulless and selfish.

 

There are no death panels in the proposed legislation. There won't be in any bill that gets passed. Every person faced with a terminal illness faces dificult decisions regarding their own end of life treatment. Some choose aggressive treatment that may prolong their life for a few months. Others choose only hospice type care. That is a decision that is best left to the patient, the patient's family and the patient's doctor. The legislation proposed in congress leaves those decisions where they belong. The government has NO input into the decision except to pay the doctor for his or her time spent in dicussing these matters with the family.

 

I think we are kidding ourselves if we don't think that cost will begin to play a role in those decisions eventually. If you could prolong your life for a couple of months, but would bankrupt your widow, would you do it? Should the government pay for that extra couple of months? Right now it does and I have trouble imagining the congress that would pass the bill that would cut off the funds.

 

I'll bring up the Terry Shiavo case. I have no idea who paid for her treatment all those years, but my guess would be medicaid. Should it have? I don't have the answers. What is really strange is that "death panels" are used to scare people into opposition to health care reform, but I think that private insurers are far more likely to find a way to cut off treatment for the terminally ill than the government (congess must run for reelection).

Doesn't the government in one sense already do that. My understanding is that the H1N1 shots, only those who are in the greatest danger get them first. The others, which would be me, get them if some are left over.

 

Isn't that rationing medical services that they are trying to tell us won't happen?

 

In this case the priority is because they can't make the shots fast enough. It isn't rationing, it is triage. Scarce resources are always allocated in some way. If it is a Miley Cyrus ticket it is allocated based on money. If it is a heart or kidney transplant it is allocated based on need and chances of doing good. It sounds as if flu shots will be allocated based on need. Makes sense to me. The H1N1 shots have nothing to do with health care reform. There wouldn't be enough shots for everyone on day one with or without the public option.