Death panels-not such a new idea

[rufus]

Good thing government-run healthcare programs brought an end to them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082101776.html

In 1962, with help from a $100,000 foundation grant, Seattle's King County Medical Society opened an artificial kidney clinic at Swedish Hospital and established two committees that, together, would decide who received treatment. The first was a panel of kidney specialists that examined potential patients. Anyone older than 45 was excluded; so were teenagers and children; people with hypertension, vascular complications or diabetes; and those who were judged to be emotionally unprepared for the demanding regimen. Patients who passed this first vetting moved on to another panel, which decided their fate. It soon gained a nickname -- the "God committee."

Born of an effort to be fair, the anonymous committee included a pastor, a lawyer, a union leader, a homemaker, two doctors and a businessman and based its selection on applicants' "social worth." Of the first 17 patients it saw, 10 were selected for dialysis. The remaining seven died.

In the fall of 1962, Life magazine published a story about the "life and death committee." In Washington, D.C., the deputy surgeon general fired off a memo to the secretary of health, education and welfare, warning that "strong pressure for some federal action" from the public might ensue.

It didn't. Instead, as the technology spread, medical centers in other cities struggled to serve large numbers of patients with limited numbers of dialysis machines. The rise of home dialysis reduced the number of people excluded from treatment, but panels across the country still met to decide who would receive access to the life-saving treatment. Supply was one limitation. Money was another, and the ability to pay often meant the difference between life and death.

Finally, in 1972, Congress decided to step in and provide federal funding for dialysis through the recently created Medicare program. The availability of treatment exploded. Today nearly half a million Americans suffer from end-stage renal disease, and dialysis is helping keep 340,000 alive.

So what does this tell us about what universal heath insurance might mean? It tells us that, if history is any guide, the government will expand access to health care, not curtail it. Federal involvement has never led to death panels. It has only ended them.

 

[Patman]

Re: Death panels-not such a new idea

I see... so were people forced into this system or not? Who chose the method to allocate these resources? Who has the right to do so? Does the gov't have the right to refuse such allocation to all members of society for the benefit of the remainder?

edit: the problem here is the problem with all socialist thought... it believes that everything must be doled out equally or its unfair... but we're already admitting the distribution will be unfair and thus unequal. The problem is that you're trying to convince the people that somehow these aims will be to their benefit... but all I see is that what is mandated will likely be more to their detriment as we seek to find a certain pre-determined equitable solution.

The reality here is that government is your moral exemplar... it is more moral, it is more fair, it is more equitable. All that is being asked is "what right is it of the government?" Are we just commodities for the state?

 

[rufus]

Re: Death panels-not such a new idea

I see... so were people forced into this system or not? Who chose the method to allocate these resources? Who has the right to do so? Does the gov't have the right to refuse such allocation to all members of society for the benefit of the remainder?

edit: the problem here is the problem with all socialist thought... it believes that everything must be doled out equally or its unfair... but we're already admitting the distribution will be unfair and thus unequal. The problem is that you're trying to convince the people that somehow these aims will be to their benefit... but all I see is that what is mandated will likely be more to their detriment as we seek to find a certain pre-determined equitable solution.

The reality here is that government is your moral exemplar... it is more moral, it is more fair, it is more equitable. All that is being asked is "what right is it of the government?" Are we just commodities for the state?

W-TEE-EFF? Where'd this lunatic rant come from?


One: As Obama has stated many times, if people like the coverage and the doctors they have now, they can keep them. There's nothing forcing them to take the public option, or forcing them to see certain doctors. Unlike, shall we say, current insurance plans, where the only doctors you can see are the ones in their network, unless your network physician refers you to another, and even then the company might not cover it.

Two: Who's admitting that distribution and coverage will be unequal and unfair? Isn't that the way it is already under the current system?

 

[walrus]

Re: Death panels-not such a new idea

One: As Obama has stated many times, if people like the coverage and the doctors they have now, they can keep them.?

I thought I heard Obama change on this, He said "more than likely you could keep them".

 

[Slap Shot]

W-TEE-EFF? Where'd this lunatic rant come from?

 

[Beer Pong Horn]

Re: Death panels-not such a new idea

I was hoping this thread would be about walls of spikes or iron maidens.

 

[The Rube]

Re: Death panels-not such a new idea

I was hoping this thread would be about walls of spikes or iron maidens.

IRON MAIDEN?! AWESOME!!!!!!

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Death panels-not such a new idea

The issue here isn't weather government sponsored healthcare would lead to "death panels" (and honestly, the people who came up with the death panel sound a lot like the people who said that Obama is a Muslim immigrant). The issue is weather the people of this nation are willing to stand up against them when they do form.

The example in the Wash Post article is just that- one example. But it does illustrate the illogic of the assumption that "Federated Health Care = Deciding Who Lives and Who Dies". If the reason opponents say that it leads to death panels is the drive to save money, why would it matter where the funding comes from? A government funded entity is just as likely to have a need to save money as a publicly traded entity or a privately held entity. What stops the latter two from ever having to cut costs? Heck, don't HMO's often function like death panels on occasions where patients simply can't afford treatment?

In the end, this death panel issue is just another shining example of how completely retarded your average political zeaolt is. They just make stuff up out of thin air, and every once in a while something sticks (Death Panels! Obama is a Muslim! Iraq is somehow related to our fight against terrorism! Iraq is really all about oil!) until about 1 of 4 morons in this country actually ends up believing it.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Death panels-not such a new idea

So what does this tell us about what universal heath insurance might mean? It tells us that, if history is any guide, the government will expand access to health care, not curtail it. Federal involvement has never led to death panels. It has only ended them.

Funny, when I read that article, what it told me was, "Government healthcare will be a gutless wonder that will kowtow to anyone clamoring for ridiculously expensive, minimally-effective treatments for extending a miserable quality of life for even a few weeks. Access will be universal all right - and your tax dollars will be paying for it."

 

[leswp1]

Re: Death panels-not such a new idea

I see... so were people forced into this system or not? Who chose the method to allocate these resources? Who has the right to do so? Does the gov't have the right to refuse such allocation to all members of society for the benefit of the remainder?

edit: the problem here is the problem with all socialist thought... it believes that everything must be doled out equally or its unfair... but we're already admitting the distribution will be unfair and thus unequal. The problem is that you're trying to convince the people that somehow these aims will be to their benefit... but all I see is that what is mandated will likely be more to their detriment as we seek to find a certain pre-determined equitable solution.

The reality here is that government is your moral exemplar... it is more moral, it is more fair, it is more equitable. All that is being asked is "what right is it of the government?" Are we just commodities for the state?

Patman- because of that original idea the current ethics committees came about. If you are trying for a transplant there is one system, except if you go out of the country. Actually the thought that what the article discussed is socialism as you describe it is diametrically opposed to what that system did. That system excluded many folks. Theoretically, the current system triages (works out) who is in the most need, not who is richest or who has the best coverage. Of course the poor people who can't front the cash get offered the stuff but then can't proceed but who is looking at that? I think the triage thing scares people just because it is fair- if you are in bigger need you get it first. Then your money doesn't matter.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Death panels-not such a new idea

I think the triage thing scares people just because it is fair- if you are in bigger need you get it first. Then your money doesn't matter.

It boils down to the moral orientation that the way to distribute goods and services is by who can pay the most for them. Most of us agree that's the best way to distribute luxuries. Where we disagree is where it is gradually shaded out by other ethical considerations like compassion or moral decency when it comes to the distribution of necessities.

Firemen used to refuse to serve you if you didn't pay up on the spot. In retrospect, we think that's absurd extortion.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Death panels-not such a new idea

Firemen used to refuse to serve you if you didn't pay up on the spot. In retrospect, we think that's absurd extortion.

And we think its absurd for good reason. Sometimes rival firefighting companies would fight each other for the right to put the fire out (and earn the $$$) while the building would burn. That made sense. See also: Policing as an entrepenuerial activity (such as it is in Mexico, or with the Mafia).

Would you want the people resonsible for your safety and well being (presumably something more valuable than money... right?) to be easily swayed by the highest bidder? Are there some things that are so important that they should not be for sale?

And this part of the debate really isn't relevant to the health care reform bill going through congress right now. No one is talking about making your health care a public commodity, or a right. We're talking about creating a new option for insurance. Something that you would still have to pay for. The government is simply debating whether it should sponsor a new insurance option to enter the free market and compete with existing corporate options. If it sucks money, it will be a load on the taxpayers. If it succeeds, then it will make money for the government. Outside of the possiblity that this program may rely on taxpayer money, how does this program effect the free market? That's the question we need to be asking here.