Death Panels


Carborendum
 Share

Recommended Posts

While Obamacare was being debated, Sarah Palin was roundly chastized for decrying the inevitability of death panels.

Whelp!!  Here it is:

https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH Document Library/COVID-19/California SARS-CoV-2 Crisis Care Guidelines4-20.pdf

A point system for determining who dies and who lives.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

A point system for determining who dies and who lives.

That's what we have now.  If you can't afford healthcare or whatever procedure you need, you die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Scott said:

That's what we have now.  If you can't afford healthcare or whatever procedure you need, you die.

Not so.  Read the law.

Even so, there is partial truth in what you say.  But that partial untruth is pretty important.

For one thing, we don't have the following happen because of government run panels.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/03/terminally-boy-denied-potentially-life-saving-treatment-nhs/

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Not so.  Read the law.

If someone comes into the hospital who is bleeding profusely or something similar, yes the hospital has to treat you.   They only have cover things if it is an "immediate emergency", not something that could prevent death over a longer period.

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Even so, there is partial truth in what you say.  But that partial untruth is pretty important.

It's more than a partial truth.   I have personal experiences with both my wife and I and millions of other Americans do too.

I had a jaw infection that could have killed me if we didn't get it fixed.   Medical insurance didn't cover it because it was classified as "oral".   It costs us hundreds of thousands of dollars over several years to get it fixed.   Medical insurance would only pay for it if I was already in the hospital; they wouldn't cover it until that happened (at which point if it did happen [and it did] it would be life threatening).

My wife had a serious heart problem that almost no doctors wanted to touch (only two in the nation would-one at Cleveland Clinic and one at Loveland Heart Center in Colorado).   A lot of the costs weren't covered under insurance.

Luckily my income is well above average, so we made it through.    If we had a lower income, there is a good chance that either one of us would be dead.

We are not alone.  Tens of thousands of people in the US die every year because they can't afford medical care. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2323087/

 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/07/americans-healthcare-medical-costs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I edited the article as you were writing your response.  But here it is again.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/03/terminally-boy-denied-potentially-life-saving-treatment-nhs/

Here was a blatant opportunity for a child to get the care he needed where it was available, and it was a government death panel that deliberately prevented it from happening.  This is a fairly common occurence.

20 minutes ago, Scott said:

If someone comes into the hospital who is bleeding profusely or something similar, yes the hospital has to treat you.   They only have cover things if it is an "immediate emergency", not something that could prevent death over a longer period.

You have not taken into account the idea the fact that there are MANY ways of already treating long term issues even for poor people.  Medicaid is available.  Charities are available.  Go Fund Me and sites like that are available.  And the Free Market WILL provide many more opportunities to fill in the gaps this way.

Remember that the free market also includes charities.  These are free-will exchanges that people enter into.  These are free-market principles operating charities.

Also remember that there is nothing that is 100%.  So, yes, there will be some that fall through cracks in ANY system.  But even with a government system that is supposed to be 100% (getting EVERYONE in its safety net) they have even more who fall through the cracks than a free market system would.

The biggest problem with government deciding vs WE THE PEOPLE deciding is that if a government agency makes a decision, there is no way to appeal.  That is why government panels truly are "death panels".  They're all encompassing.  There is no other choice to be had. 

With the market, there are other options.  People have a choice.  If one hospital says no, another might say yes.  If money is an obstacle, there may be a way to get it.  People at a local church held a bake sale to pay for a life-saving operation for a man with a tumor.  ONE BAKE SALE paid for it.  

For people with long term issues, people in a community can come together.

There are choices.  With government, there are none.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

While Obamacare was being debated, Sarah Palin was roundly chastized for decrying the inevitability of death panels.

Whelp!!  Here it is:

https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH Document Library/COVID-19/California SARS-CoV-2 Crisis Care Guidelines4-20.pdf

A point system for determining who dies and who lives.

This actually happens every day in a hospital.  It is called Triage.  It is done because you have to devote care to those who stand a better chance of surviving than those who do not.  This was written specifically in relation to if the hospitals were overridden with patients due to the pandemic. 

Unfortunately, even WORSE happens today with some insurance companies.  They are literally given the reins of life and death.  Some complaints have come out against this because rather than a doctor making the decisions of what to do, an insurance broker is deciding what can or cannot be done by what will or will not be covered.

Some of these decisions recently have been making national news because they've killed several people.  It's been put on the back burner recently due to the pandemic, but what was happening would be a doctor would prescribe a medicine and the insurer would refuse to cover it.  They would instead suggest a different (and cheaper) medicine.  Sometimes it was not even the same medicine (generic vs. name brand) but something completely different and it ended up killing the patient when the finally got a doctor to give to them against medical advice at times.

Insurance companies were already doing "death panels" as well, and in some of their determinations some feel they were giving out 'killer medicines' or flat out refusing to cover certain care so that the patient would actually die.

The question then is who gets to be on these Death panels.  Some agent with a vested interest in saving the company money, or someone in the government.  OR we could move to the German system (which I've had relatives who are German citizens treated there under this system) where it is actually the DOCTORS making the choices.

On the document itself, it's more of a triage document when there are not enough resources to treat patients.  This is similar to the Hospital protocols already in use, though in this instance it seems to be coming from a government entity (not sure on how legally binding this document is in the given situation, whether they HAVE to go by it, it is simply the state recommendation, or what it is overall) rather than the Hospital itself.  It looks more like State recommendations than requirements from what I've read in it.  It is an attempt from California to get everyone on the same page in how they will deal with an overflow situation should it arise.

PS:  Watching the video you posted right now, will take me around 9-10 minutes it looks like.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the government runs healthcare people will die--whether due to inept bureaucracy or tiered priorities (yes, including 'death panels'). If private industry, primarily funded through employer-provided insurance, runs healthcare people will die--whether through uncovered-but-necessary procedures getting missed, or through corporate ineptitude. There is no perfect solution. However, I suspect that private industry does better--especially when it comes to innovation. Greed is a more efficient motivator than the turf-protection mentality that bureaucracies often foster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

This actually happens every day in a hospital.  It is called Triage. 

Read what I posted prior to the video you're watching.

And NO, triage doesn't happen every day in a hospital.  It does happen.  But it's a lot less common than what TV would have you think.  But that kid in the UK was not a matter of triage.  It was government simply stamping their foot and killing a child.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Read what I posted prior to the video you're watching.

And NO, triage doesn't happen every day in a hospital.  It does happen.  But it's a lot less common than what TV would have you think.  But that kid in the UK was not a matter of triage.  It was government simply stamping their foot and killing a child.

It happens on some level every day, though maybe not to the extent that the document you posted is preparing for (the document posted, really does appear to be recommendations from the government regarding the hospitals having more patients than they can deal with rather than requirements.  Even the end tables state they are recommendations).

I agree, the child (if it is the one I recall) is not the only situation that happened to in the UK.  They have also had it in Canada (it's more tragic there, people were simply looking for a cure for their ringworm.  Some came to the US just so they could get it treated).

Unfortunately, for some, it appeared insurance businesses were doing that in the US as well. 

I'm not sure which is worse, having the government or the insurance business do it.  We've given insurance companies too much power currently in the US.

Ideally the doctors would be unhindered to give you the best treatment that they feel you should get without having to pay heed to what others are trying to tell them to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
21 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

The biggest problem with government deciding vs WE THE PEOPLE deciding is that if a government agency makes a decision, there is no way to appeal. 

People are allowed to appeal in most countries.

RIght now it's not WE THE PEOPLE deciding, it is insurance companies.

Quote

So, yes, there will be some that fall through cracks in ANY system.

So why do we have a lower life expectancy thanother developed countries?   Part of that can be attributed to lifestyle.

What about infant mortality though?    Why is ours so much higher than in other develped countries.  That one can't be just blown off with an asnwer that it is simply lifestyle.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Scott said:

What about infant mortality though?    Why is ours so much higher than in other develped countries.  That one can't be just blown off with an asnwer that it is simply lifestyle.

Why not? I exaggerate somewhat, but it does seem that most who give birth in the U.S. are either teenagers (I'm thinking 14-16) or women in the their mid-30s. The teens are often from difficult circumstances and the older women are simply at higher risk. So...we have higher infant mortality rates. Then there's the high salt, high sugar fast food we eat on-the-go. Then there's the fact that we primarily eat on the go. Then there's the lack of sleep and lack of vacationing. So many reasons that make more sense to me than believing that a centralized health bureaucracy that is unionized and turf-protection-oriented actually promotes better health than a private system that is profit-incentivized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Scott said:

People are allowed to appeal in most countries.

And when the government decides no, there is no other choice.  But in a free market there are MANY additional choices.  That was my thesis.

6 minutes ago, Scott said:

RIght now it's not WE THE PEOPLE deciding, it is insurance companies.

Nope.  They're merely ONE source.  There are still many other choices.  I've gone over them.  But you appear to be ignoring them.

6 minutes ago, Scott said:

So why do we have a lower life expectancy than other developed countries?   Part of that can be attributed to lifestyle

Most of it can be.  Why do you minimize it to only be "part" of it?

6 minutes ago, Scott said:

What about infant mortality though?    Why is ours so much higher than in other develped countries.  That one can't be just blown off with an asnwer that it is simply lifestyle.

Yes it can.  You're again making the liberal claim that any death must be due to lack of health care.  NOT TRUE.

https://www.verywellhealth.com/leading-causes-of-infant-death-1132374
https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/infant-mortality/topicinfo/causes

Look at those leading causes of death.  How many of them have to do with lack of healtcare? As far as I can see, NONE.  But @mikbone would be a better person to ask about that than I am.  But again, you only see "more deaths = lack of healthcare."  Stop repeating that line and look at the reality behind the numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You folks need to understand that insurance companies do not dictate treatment. That is a myth. All they do is reimburse. If an insurance company declines to approve a surgery for example, the person and their doctor can still have it done...the insurer just won't be paying for it. These decisions to deny treatment are not made individually from person to person - that would give too much room for bias and error. Legally, everyone's case must be graded the same way. Each surgical procedure for example has medical criteria that must be met, and it is all decided on in advance what that criteria is before members sign up for their plans. Medical policies contain criteria based off of thorough research into best medical practice. That research is done by MD's, Pharmacists, Nurses, etc...not some random group of white collar big wigs. It is all decided and agreed upon up front when you enroll in your plan, and you have the right and ability to know what is and isn't covered. If a certain procedure is not covered by your insurance, then it isn't covered. The potential cost of it isn't included in your premiums...you aren't paying for it...so why should they cover it for you? In fact, they legally can't provide coverage for something not actually specified as a benefit. Saying that insurance is the source of the problem is just ignorance on display. Everyone, including american citizens, share a piece of the rising healthcare cost pie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

Why not? I exaggerate somewhat, but it does seem that most who give birth in the U.S. are either teenagers (I'm thinking 14-16) or women in the their mid-30s.  The teens are often from difficult circumstances and the older women are simply at higher risk. So...we have higher infant mortality rates.

It's even more so in other developed countries.    The average age of the first birth isn't until the 30's in other countries.   When it comes to birth age, the US actually does quite well in comparison to most developed countries.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Scott said:

It's even more so in other developed countries.    The average age of the first birth isn't until the 30's in other countries.   When it comes to birth age, the US actually does quite well in comparison to most developed countries.  

That might be skewed by the high number of early-to-mid-teen-aged girls having babies. They might be physically low-risk, but their living situations are often challenging. So, if you have a pool of two 39-year-olds and three 15 year olds the average age comes out at 24.6, and seems all healthy and good. However, it's not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NeuroTypical said:

I thought it was an unworthy criticism back when we were debating obamacare, and I think it's unworthy now. 

I disagree.  There are 2 things that are absolute in this life - 1.) things change, 2.) we all die.  The debate, therefore, is not about whether we can stop people from dying.  Rather, the debate is about LIBERTY - dying after all we can do vs dying after all the government can do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes.  Who gets to make the decisions between life and death, is a very important subject.

Just pointing in shock and gasping out "look - death panel!" gets no mileage from me.  I've been on two death panels in my life, as both of my parents made end of life decisions.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam featured this topic
12 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Yes.  Who gets to make the decisions between life and death, is a very important subject.

Just pointing in shock and gasping out "look - death panel!" gets no mileage from me.  I've been on two death panels in my life, as both of my parents made end of life decisions.

It is pointing out in shock and gasping out "look!  GOVERNMENT MANDATED death panel!".  If that doesn't SHOCK you then you shouldn't be living in the USA.  But then, half the country really doesn't understand American tradition in the US Constitution anymore anyway, so I guess you're gonna just be another one of those.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Yes.  Who gets to make the decisions between life and death, is a very important subject.

Just pointing in shock and gasping out "look - death panel!" gets no mileage from me.  I've been on two death panels in my life, as both of my parents made end of life decisions.

For the record, as for my part, it was not meant to be used for "shock value."  It was just an illustration of how liberals laugh at conservatives who raise a valid concern.  Then the liberals validate that concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

It is pointing out in shock and gasping out "look!  GOVERNMENT MANDATED death panel!".

So, I'm looking through the link, and the "m" word isn't used.  And gasping it out is unwarranted and not helpful.

Did you read the thing?  Lots of words like "guidelines" and "framework" and "overview".  It also pretty clearly spells out, right there on page one: "it does not alter or diminish health care facilities’ and systems’ responsibilities during catastrophic public health events. It does not replace the judgment of the regional health care facilities’ operational management, medical directors, their legal advisors or clinical staff and consideration of other relevant variables and options during an event."

So if you're going to accurately gasp in shock, you have to say "look!  GOVERNMENT GUIDELINES!  They're advising hospitals on what to do, while deferring to their judgment!"

And that just looses some of the oomph of the gasping in shock.  At least it does for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

So, I'm looking through the link, and the "m" word isn't used.  And gasping it out is unwarranted and not helpful.

Did you read the thing?  Lots of words like "guidelines" and "framework" and "overview".  It also pretty clearly spells out, right there on page one: "it does not alter or diminish health care facilities’ and systems’ responsibilities during catastrophic public health events. It does not replace the judgment of the regional health care facilities’ operational management, medical directors, their legal advisors or clinical staff and consideration of other relevant variables and options during an event."

So if you're going to accurately gasp in shock, you have to say "look!  GOVERNMENT GUIDELINES!  They're advising hospitals on what to do, while deferring to their judgment!"

And that just looses some of the oomph of the gasping in shock.  At least it does for me.

The problem here is that the government wants to be involved at all.  

It is like that interview with the Las Vegas mayor and Anderson Cooper.  Anderson Cooper is aghast that the Las Vegas mayor decided to "open up casinos".  Anderson Cooper says, "but what about muh guidelines" and the mayor says, "I'm not a casino owner, the casinos wouldn't want their customers sick either and they know best how to deal with that so they don't permanently lose their shirt to competition.  It's not my job to tell them how to run their casinos".

You're Anderson Cooper.  You are not promoting government MANDATE but you're fine with heading there.  And that's really unfortunate especially as we have proven the past 6 weeks that people will happily give up their livelihood and accept government dough because the government says they're gonna die or kill their grandmas.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Those that decry and desire free health care have never sought health care from a free clinic.  I am old enough to have observed that over the years the more that government has become involved in health care - the more the middle class has struggled paying for their health care.  

I can remember when health care expenses were deductible when filing your federal income tax.  I remember well when it was changed and how our representatives in Washington stated that continuing to deduct health care expenses would bankrupt the federal government.   Why would they sat that?  My question now is - if indirectly deducting health care expenses would bankrupt the US government - Why does anyone (especially our representatives that figured this out decades ago) think that by involving the government in directly paying health care will be less of an economic threat?

I do believe our health care system desperately need changed that will decrease costs - I am 100% certain that adding another level of bureaucracy and paperwork will not work.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share