[spacefreak]

No wonder there's such a rush by the Dems to get this so-called stimulus plan passed, because each day of delay increases the possibility that people will unearth another of the elements buried deep within the plan.

One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446).

The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).

The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aLzfDxfbwhzs

[besson3c]

*Great* idea. What is your problem with it?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

*Great* idea. What is your problem with it?

Dr. to Medicare patient:
Sorry (retired) Bob, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology and the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research has determined that your hip replacement could be better used by a younger, more (tax revenue) productive person.

[Doofy]

The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit

Oh dear. This is exactly what Doof has been warning you about all these years.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Dr. to Medicare patient:
Sorry (retired) Bob, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology and the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research has determined that your hip replacement could be better used by a younger, more (tax revenue) productive person.

Is this an experimental treatment or a hopeless diagnostic?

[SpaceMonkey]

As I understand it, we're talking about rationing Medicare expenditures, not "healthcare" writ large, although the article isn't very clear. This is an important distinction. How many "younger, more (tax revenue) productive" people receive Medicare benefits?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Dr. to Medicare patient:
Sorry (retired) Bob, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology and the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research has determined that your hip replacement could be better used by a younger, more (tax revenue) productive person.

Except it doesn't do that.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

*Great* idea. What is your problem with it?

The same problem you would have if I were the one making the call on whether to approve or disallow medical treatments performed on you.

I also have a problem with the sneaking of this into the stimulus plan, and the associated fear-mongering being spouted to rush this crap legislation.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

*Great* idea. What is your problem with it?

You're such a Obama fanboi.

Here, read this, and tell me if you still think that's the right direction to go.

" 'Too Old' for Hip Surgery "
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1234...cle-outset-box

And mind you, this is written by a Canadian, so even they don't think it's all that great.

-t

[hyteckit]

And we all know health insurance covers “experimental treatments".

Republicans:

Monitor wasteful spending - Good
Monitor wasteful spending - Bad

Make up your minds.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

The same problem you would have if I were the one making the call on whether to approve or disallow medical treatments performed on you.

I also have a problem with the sneaking of this into the stimulus plan, and the associated fear-mongering being spouted to rush this crap legislation.

If the insurance companies can make a call as to what they will and will not cover, why can't the tax payers have some sort of say as to what Medicare will cover? If you don't feel that this is right, maybe you shouldn't be bitching about how expensive of a program Medicare is and how it drains the economy if we are allowing 90 year olds to undertake experimental procedures?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

You're such a Obama fanboi.

Here, read this, and tell me if you still think that's the right direction to go.

" 'Too Old' for Hip Surgery "
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1234...cle-outset-box

And mind you, this is written by a Canadian, so even they don't think it's all that great.

-t

No, I'm not going to read your article so long as you wish to use that insulting tone with me. Argue what I say, not my character. Thank you.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

No, I'm not going to read your article so long as you wish to use that insulting tone with me. Argue what I say, not my character. Thank you.

Oh WTF ?

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the PWL.

-t

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If the insurance companies can make a call as to what they will and will not cover, why can't the tax payers have some sort of say as to what Medicare will cover? If you don't feel that this is right, maybe you shouldn't be bitching about how expensive of a program Medicare is and how it drains the economy if we are allowing 90 year olds to undertake experimental procedures?

I thought we wanted to improve on the mess made by the insurance companies, rather than simply emulate their bad behavior with the added benefit of government bureaucracy?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Oh WTF ?

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the PWL.

-t

It's not a matter of heat withstanding, it's making the most of my time I'm wasting here. It is excruciatingly hard having sensible discussions with you in general, especially with this sort of thing.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I thought we wanted to improve on the mess made by the insurance companies, rather than simply emulate their bad behavior with the added benefit of government bureaucracy?

A line has to be drawn somewhere as to what is covered and what isn't. In Canada it is with things like dental and elective surgeries. Obviously there is a some sort of definition of what is elective and what isn't. We need a similar line here (or a line that is redefined to not cover experimental procedures for old people). However, the difference between a line that the insurance companies will draw vs. government is that the insurance companies are free to draw that line around what is profitable and what isn't, and they are free to move that line and can usually count on the fact that most of their customers won't even know this until it is too late.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It's not a matter of heat withstanding, it's making the most of my time I'm wasting here. It is excruciatingly hard having sensible discussions with you in general, especially with this sort of thing.

Yeah, right. Whatever.

Translation: Besson hit up the link and doesn't know what to say, so he'll pretend like it never happened.

-t

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

A line has to be drawn somewhere as to what is covered and what isn't. In Canada it is with things like dental and elective surgeries. Obviously there is a some sort of definition of what is elective and what isn't. We need a similar line here (or a line that is redefined to not cover experimental procedures for old people). However, the difference between a line that the insurance companies will draw vs. government is that the insurance companies are free to draw that line around what is profitable and what isn't, and they are free to move that line and can usually count on the fact that most of their customers won't even know this until it is too late.

Doctors should be the ones who determine what is wrong with a patient and what is the best course of treatment. That's their job and what they've been trained to do. No one besides the doctors and their patients should have a say in what treatment is appropriate and necessary. If a treatment is necessary for a patient, then insurance should cover it. That's the purpose of insurance (assuming the patient has the appropriate insurance).

[Dork.]

No matter what your political leanings are, this touches on what I think will be the main question regarding health care expenses in the coming years: what are we going to do about the fact that these new treatments cost so much?

We can pay lip service to the notion that life is precious and that we should do everything we can to preserve it, but as these treatments get more and more expensive someone's gonna have to pay for it. Do we want to be a society where only the Rich can afford to live into their eighties and beyond, and less rich people die simply because they can't afford to pay for a treatment? Or do we want to be the sort of society that spends all of its wealth on keeping everyone alive, with very little left over for actually living?

Lets face it, any answer that leaves some folks without treatment will leave a bad taste in many folks' mouths, as they will perceive bureaucracies (either private-sector or government) as the problem. But the real problem is that everything, even life and death, is based on a cost-benefit analysis, and we as a society need to determine how much of a benefit challenging "hopeless diagnoses" give to us all.

(Besides, I don't think any of you rich Conservatives need to worry about anything.You can still buy all the hip replacements you want when you're older, as long as you pay cash up front, and don't bug the Government to pay it for you.)

[nonhuman]

All procedures are expensive at first. This is true of every procedure ever. As they're used more and more techniques are refined, devices and tools are commoditized, and prices come down.

Does this mean that the poor sometimes get the short end of the stick? Yes, but only in the short term (and barring the involvement of charities and other sorts of financial aid). Eventually everyone gets to benefit from our advances. The alternative is that everyone gets the short end of the stick forever.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Doctors should be the ones who determine what is wrong with a patient and what is the best course of treatment. That's their job and what they've been trained to do. No one besides the doctors and their patients should have a say in what treatment is appropriate and necessary. If a treatment is necessary for a patient, then insurance should cover it. That's the purpose of insurance (assuming the patient has the appropriate insurance).

Yes, but a certain amount of these decisions are also family decisions. Many known experimental procedures have a known outcome of simply prolonging a life a little further, and during this time the concept of whether the life is a quality life and how much the family values a quality life over simply having a life is likewise a family decision.

If a condition is not treatable, I support a certain amount of medical procedures to make the remaining life of somebody more comfortable, but not something that simply extends a life without restoring any sort of quality life. Obviously this definition of mine is personal and quite vague and nebulous, but I do think that we need to work on redefining this line based on our common ground with ideas such as my own.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

No matter what your political leanings are, this touches on what I think will be the main question regarding health care expenses in the coming years: what are we going to do about the fact that these new treatments cost so much?

We can pay lip service to the notion that life is precious and that we should do everything we can to preserve it, but as these treatments get more and more expensive someone's gonna have to pay for it. Do we want to be a society where only the Rich can afford to live into their eighties and beyond, and less rich people die simply because they can't afford to pay for a treatment? Or do we want to be the sort of society that spends all of its wealth on keeping everyone alive, with very little left over for actually living?

Lets face it, any answer that leaves some folks without treatment will leave a bad taste in many folks' mouths, as they will perceive bureaucracies (either private-sector or government) as the problem. But the real problem is that everything, even life and death, is based on a cost-benefit analysis, and we as a society need to determine how much of a benefit challenging "hopeless diagnoses" give to us all.

(Besides, I don't think any of you rich Conservatives need to worry about anything.You can still buy all the hip replacements you want when you're older, as long as you pay cash up front, and don't bug the Government to pay it for you.)

Well said, as usual Dork.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Yes, but a certain amount of these decisions are also family decisions. Many known experimental procedures have a known outcome of simply prolonging a life a little further, and during this time the concept of whether the life is a quality life and how much the family values a quality life over simply having a life is likewise a family decision.

The familly's input is only relevant if the patient is unable to make decisions for themself or if the patient solicits it.

If a condition is not treatable, I support a certain amount of medical procedures to make the remaining life of somebody more comfortable, but not something that simply extends a life without restoring any sort of quality life. Obviously this definition of mine is personal and quite vague and nebulous, but I do think that we need to work on redefining this line based on our common ground with ideas such as my own.

You don't support extending someone's life without actually curing the underlying cause? What if that life extension treatment allows them to live long enough for an actual cure to be developed? Even if that doesn't happen, what's the argument for condemning someone to an earlier death than necessary unless they themselves want it?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Dr. to Medicare patient:
Sorry (retired) Bob, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology and the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research has determined that your hip replacement could be better used by a younger, more (tax revenue) productive person.

That's a good solution. If some 80-year-old needs $100,000 worth of surgery to live another 5-10 years and that same $100,000 could be spent on a 30-year-old who would be likely to live another 40-50 years, the money should go to the person who can get the most benefit from the procedure. Absolutely. It's just an efficient use of taxpayer funds. It's like railing against the spending of $$$ on a hammer by the military. That is not the best use of funds when a hammer can be bought for $.

As a taxpayer, I definitely want the money I have taken out of my salary spent in the most efficient, productive way possible. I have no problem with this whatsoever.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

That's a good solution. If some 80-year-old needs $100,000 worth of surgery to live another 5-10 years and that same $100,000 could be spent on a 30-year-old who would be likely to live another 40-50 years, the money should go to the person who can get the most benefit from the procedure. Absolutely. It's just an efficient use of taxpayer funds. It's like railing against the spending of $$$ on a hammer by the military. That is not the best use of funds when a hammer can be bought for $.

As a taxpayer, I definitely want the money I have taken out of my salary spent in the most efficient, productive way possible. I have no problem with this whatsoever.

That's exactly why the government should be staying out of healtcare. My medical care is between myself and my doctor, your opinion is neither necessary nor welcome.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

That's exactly why the government should be staying out of healtcare. My medical care is between myself and my doctor, your opinion is neither necessary nor welcome.

As long as you are paying for everything yourself, correct. But when you start to get government help for your health care, then I, as a taxpayer, DO get to have an opinion on your healthcare treatments. Just like you, as a taxpayer, would get to have an opinion on my healthcare if/when I were to receive government funds to help pay for it.

So, if you want your healthcare decisions to be completely "between [yourself] and your doctor" you'd better advocate for the elimination of all government provided healthcare services. Which isn't necessarily a bad idea in my opinion. I just rarely ever see anyone bold enough to make such a claim.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

The familly's input is only relevant if the patient is unable to make decisions for themself or if the patient solicits it.



You don't support extending someone's life without actually curing the underlying cause? What if that life extension treatment allows them to live long enough for an actual cure to be developed? Even if that doesn't happen, what's the argument for condemning someone to an earlier death than necessary unless they themselves want it?

If they want to extend their lives, as it stands now they are free to pay for this themselves. It would be great if anybody and everybody would have access to the same treatments, but I just don't see how this can simultaneously be pragmatic. For starters, doing this would raise the costs of more common procedures that affect a greater number of people as insurance companies offset their expenses.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

As long as you are paying for everything yourself, correct. But when you start to get government help for your health care, then I, as a taxpayer, DO get to have an opinion on your healthcare treatments. Just like you, as a taxpayer, would get to have an opinion on my healthcare if/when I were to receive government funds to help pay for it.

So, if you want your healthcare decisions to be completely "between [yourself] and your doctor" you'd better advocate for the elimination of all government provided healthcare services. Which isn't necessarily a bad idea in my opinion. I just rarely ever see anyone bold enough to make such a claim.

Yes, I'd advocate for the elimination of all government provided healthcare services. That doesn't mean, however, that I don't think it's a good thing for the poor and impoverished to have healthcare. Inasmuch as it's a public health issue that everyone have basic healthcare to prevent outbreaks of disease that affect everyone there does need to be some method of ensuring a basic level of healthcare for everyone. I don't claim to know what the best solution is, but as has been clearly demonstrated in this thread government healthcare politicizes patient care and takes medical decisions out of the hands of those who are best equipped and motivated to make them.

Perhaps a good compromise would be for the government to provide money for preventative care. That takes away many of the controversial decisions that it's a bad idea to put into the publc domain while still protecting the public from outbreaks.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If they want to extend their lives, as it stands now they are free to pay for this themselves. It would be great if anybody and everybody would have access to the same treatments, but I just don't see how this can simultaneously be pragmatic. For starters, doing this would raise the costs of more common procedures that affect a greater number of people as insurance companies offset their expenses.

That's how it works in the current system. If you want extraordinary and possibly unnecessary procedures you either pay for them yourself or you buy a policy that will pay for them for you.

Not everyone has to pay the same amount for the same insurance. Nor should they because not everyone has the same needs.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

That's how it works in the current system. If you want extraordinary and possibly unnecessary procedures you either pay for them yourself or you buy a policy that will pay for them for you.

Not everyone has to pay the same amount for the same insurance. Nor should they because not everyone has the same needs.

That's why there are public schools and private schools. Public schools don't meet your needs? Pay for private schools.

If you want more than what public health care provides, you have the option of paying additional for health insurance.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

*Great* idea. What is your problem with it?

Maybe the part about trying to artificially slow down the development of new medications and medical technologies?

Why don't you ask a person who, say, is dying of AIDS or cancer if they would rather that Lilly and Merck and Pfizer and the like cut back R&D substantially, so that the possible cure for their currently-terminal disease won't have a chance of being found before they die?

You are aware that the majority of pharmaceutical and medical developments over the last century have come from the United States, right? This won't just impact American citizens - it will impact the entire globe, since discoveries by scientists in the US mean new advancements in science for the rest of the world.

And, as a more pertinent example than your regular old terminally-diseased patient, I'll use myself. I've been suffering from debilitating depression since I was about 16. I've tried several different out-of-patent antidepressants. None have worked. In late 2008, my depression got to the point where I wasn't sleeping (or was sleeping all the time), wasn't eating, wasn't doing anything at all in my free time, and barely had the motivation to go to work every day. My quality of life was nonexistent.

Fortunately for me, however, because the Democrats hadn't yet gotten their way and stuck their dirty fingers into the free market of medical and science research in the United States, Lilly was able to develop a new antidepressant called Cymbalta, which only came onto the market a few years ago. This particular drug has completely changed my life and made me into a new person. Everyone who knows me personally has commented on how much happier I have been since I have finally found a medication to help me deal with depression that had grown completely unmanageable.

Yes, by developing new drugs much more rapidly than other countries, pharmaceutical companies do keep the prices of those new developments high during the patent period, in order to recoup the billions of dollars annually invested in R&D to bring the entire world new advancements in medicine. Of course, those advancements can save or change lives, but who cares about that, right? No, it's better for the government to get involved in something it knows little about, twist the arms of private businesses (Community Reinvestment Act, anyone?), and make drastic and very negative changes to an otherwise thriving and stable market, so that we can all pay a serious price for it a few decades from now.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

A line has to be drawn somewhere as to what is covered and what isn't. In Canada it is with things like dental and elective surgeries. Obviously there is a some sort of definition of what is elective and what isn't. We need a similar line here (or a line that is redefined to not cover experimental procedures for old people). However, the difference between a line that the insurance companies will draw vs. government is that the insurance companies are free to draw that line around what is profitable and what isn't, and they are free to move that line and can usually count on the fact that most of their customers won't even know this until it is too late.

The problem is that in Canada, the line is very blurry, and people who do need certain procedures, treatments, or surgeries are put onto long waiting lists. Sometimes, they die before they are able to get the treatment they need.

If you read turtle's WSJ article, you'd see the example of a man who was suffering from seizures and headaches, yet faced more than a four-month wait just to get an MRI to diagnose the problem. Fortunately, he had enough money and lived close enough to the US-Canada border that he went to New York and paid to have an MRI done - which revealed a malignant brain tumor. The waiting list for surgery to remove the tumor was so long that he went back to the United States to have the tumor removed.

Or you would have noticed the anecdote about the 57-year-old man who was denied a hip replacement because he was deemed "too old". That man has another 25-40 years of life left, yet he's not allowed to have surgery performed because the government already has too many people waiting in line to get basic medical care.

What about the woman with a brain tumor that was rapidly racing toward causing permanent blindness? Because Canada's "wonderful" medical system is so convoluted and poorly managed, she was told she'd have to wait. She could have ended up permanently blind or, worse yet, dead. Instead, she used her own money and had the necessary surgery done in the United States.

Is this an optimal situation for you? Would you prefer that the hundreds of thousands of people in the US who have actual serious medical problems be forced onto waiting lists, so that they are essentially put on death row until the government can manage to get them into a publicly-run hospital, where doctors and medical personnel care less because they're not getting paid enough to give a damn?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

That's why there are public schools and private schools. Public schools don't meet your needs? Pay for private schools.

If you want more than what public health care provides, you have the option of paying additional for health insurance.

My opinions on public education are identical to my opinions on public healthcare. Both proper education and proper healthcare are absolutely essential. We should be doing everything we can to ensure that everyone in the US receives some minimum standard of both. I just happen to believe that minimum standard can be best met by putting trained professionals in charge of the decisions rather than politicians. In both cases I also support making government funding available to ensure that everyone has equal access to those things, so long as that funding is applied equally to everyone and does not come with dictates from on high about curriculum or treatment can or cannot be paid for with that funding.

Politics has no place in either educational nor medical decisions.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

MI just happen to believe that minimum standard can be best met by putting trained professionals in charge of the decisions rather than politicians. In both cases I also support making government funding available to ensure that everyone has equal access to those things, so long as that funding is applied equally to everyone and does not come with dictates from on high about curriculum or treatment can or cannot be paid for with that funding.

Politics has no place in either educational nor medical decisions.

This right here is pretty critical.

One of the biggest problems I have seen with the federal government sticking its fingers in just about anything is that it doesn't know what it's doing. The government understands far less the long-term implications of their policies than the people who are experts in that particular field. Banks and lending agencies knew what they were doing when they didn't allow people with poor or nonexistent credit to qualify for mortgages. The government arbitrarily decided that was a bad thing, and look where it got us.

The same goes for education. The government cannot possibly comprehend the best way to educate the masses, whereas teachers and school administrators who interact with students daily have a much better idea of what's needed.

Unfortunately, Democrats don't appear to be very interested in keeping this stuff privatized on any level. To them, the government is the end all, be all solution to the world's problems, and it's better to hand over control of as many systems as possible to the feds instead of allowing experts to do what they do best.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

My opinions on public education are identical to my opinions on public healthcare. Both proper education and proper healthcare are absolutely essential. We should be doing everything we can to ensure that everyone in the US receives some minimum standard of both. I just happen to believe that minimum standard can be best met by putting trained professionals in charge of the decisions rather than politicians. In both cases I also support making government funding available to ensure that everyone has equal access to those things, so long as that funding is applied equally to everyone and does not come with dictates from on high about curriculum or treatment can or cannot be paid for with that funding.

Politics has no place in either educational nor medical decisions.

Trained professionals? Who are those? Insurance companies?

Few months ago in California, there was a very known case where doctors recommended a risky surgery for a dying patient. The insurance company said it was too risky and too experimental and wouldn't authorize it. The family sued and the doctors (trained professionals) urge the insurance company to allow the surgery. Finally the insurance company caved in, after it was too late. Patient died.


You are telling me an insurance company, who's main interest is to make money, is better than government when it comes to health care?

Better yet, lets privatize our national defense and army. Who all know how badly the Iraq War was handle and how Katrina was handle. Let's put companies like Blackwater in charge of our national security.


We should be doing everything we can to ensure that everyone in the US receives some minimum standard of both.

That is why public education and public health care is needed. To insure minimum standards for both. If you want more, you have to option of paying for it. Private school and health insurance. You are not stuck with public school and public health care if those don't meet your needs. However, those are minimum standards for a modern society.

[nonhuman]

I've said multiple times that I'm talking about doctors.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I've said multiple times that I'm talking about doctors.

Your doctors don't decide, your insurance companies decide what treatment would be covered.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/01/08/sar...0107cigna.html

On Dec. 10, Sarkisyan and her doctors made the first request for Cigna to pay for the liver transplant. Her family said that a liver had become available that day. A day later, a Cigna-employed physician, Stephen Crawford, wrote back and said that the health-insurance policy would not pay for it. In the letter, Crawford says that Sarkisyan was too sick for the surgery to work.

Sarkisyan's four UCLA doctors immediately wrote back to Cigna, appealing the decision. They argued Sarkisyan would have a 65% chance of surviving for six months after the liver transplant, based on studies of similar patients. The doctors reckoned Sarkisyan had an 85% chance of avoiding a recurrence of cancer because of the successful bone marrow transplant.

[nonhuman]

And I've said multiple times that I think doctors should be the ones who decide...

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

And I've said multiple times that I think doctors should be the ones who decide...

How could they? Limited resources. There aren't even donor organs to go around. There aren't enough funds to authorized every procedure. The government needs to set standards and what's consider too experimental.

If there are unlimited resources, then yes, the doctor should decide.

But guess what? We live in the real world with limited resources and limited funds. You can't authorized everything just because the doctors say so.

I don't know how privatizing health care make things better.

Even better. Lets not have health insurance at all. Those who can afford it, gets health care. Those who can't afford health care, can just live in pain or die. Who's better to make decisions that you and your doctor. Doctor says you need this surgery and it cost $5000. You decide whether it's worth it to your or not, not your insurance company.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

You are telling me an insurance company, who's main interest is to make money, is better than government when it comes to health care?

No, he's telling you that NEITHER is better than doctors. How hard is that to grasp?

And leave it to you to bring some Iraq war and Katrina whining into this. I guess that's supposed to be your shining example of how government does things so perfectly we should all trust them with our health too?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

No, he's telling you that NEITHER is better than doctors. How hard is that to grasp?

And leave it to you to bring some Iraq war and Katrina whining into this. I guess that's supposed to be your shining example of how government does things so perfectly we should all trust them with our health too?

But you can trust to government with our lives and national defense? I say get rid of national defense. Give us the money so we can pay for our own security.

[nonhuman]

I know there are limited resources. Hence the evolution of capitalism to deal with the allocation of those limited resources.

Regardless, only doctors are qualified to make decisions as to which medical treatments are necessary and/or advisable. That is a simple fact. Only the patient (or if they are unable, some legal proxy) is qualified to decide whether or not to pursue the doctor's recommendation for treatment. The insurance companies are qualified to decide only if the treatment prescribed by the doctor and the policy purchased by the patient are compatible.

I'm not saying that we need to do every treatment that doctors decide are necessary, just that we shouldn't interfere with their decisions. If the doctor prescribes a treatment that the patient simply can't afford whether because their insurance refuses to pay for it or the patient can't afford to pay for it themselves, then it's up to the doctor(s) to determine the best alternative course of action.

As I've said, I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of some government money going towards helping people afford the medical care they need. However I am absolutely opposed to ill-informed politicians and voters taking the decision about what treatment is or isn't appropriate away from the people who are actually trained to make those decisions: the doctors.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

But you can trust to government with our lives and national defense? I say get rid of national defense. Give us the money so we can pay for our own security.

There are certain things that belong in the private sector because competition between competing entities pursuing them leads to the general betterment of everyone. Other things, such as national defense, make no sense to be handled in this matter. If we are a single, unified political state then we need a single, unified foreign policy and a single, unified defense strategy. I'm not saying that the government is always right about those things, merely that the downside of a fragmented national defense or foreign policy is greater than the downside of a unified, if misguided national defense or foreign policy.

[Big Mac]

Rationed care is coming. It is only a matter of time. We have a Socialist-lite Commander in Chief who has demonstrated he doesn't care about the opinions of nearly half of the country that didn't vote for him, and we have a Pelosi-Reed Congress. We're seeing the beginning of the New Deal 2.0 with YASB (yet another Stimulus bill). It will be sad when all those people from Socialized medicine countries no longer have a relatively free market for health care in the United States to fall back on. Instead, we will have an Entitlements (including Health) Tzar, a Bank Tzar, a Car Tzar, an I/T Tzar etc. in the wonderfully free U.S.S.A. I am trying to keep an open mind, but don't say we conservatives didn't warn you. If Reagan wanted to make the world safe for Democracy, Obama intends to make the United States safe for Socialism, to finish off his predecessor FDR's job - in a very gradual, hushed, new-speak fashion, of course.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

But you can trust to government with our lives

You're the one one (and your ilk in general) constantly arguing for just that.

No, you can't trust government with your life.

and national defense?

One of the few things it's actually charged with doing, and has done pretty successfully? Sure, I trust government to fund and oversee national defense. But more importantly, I trust competent law enforcement and military commanders on the ground to run the real nuts and bolts work of defense, and to make the most important day to day decisions, more than some stuffed suit politician sitting on their fat ass in Washington.

Give us the money so we can pay for our own security.

That would be a gi-freakin'-normous tax cut. According to you, they never work.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

You're the one one (and your ilk in general) constantly arguing for just that.

No, you can't trust government with your life.


One of the few things it's actually charged with doing, and has done pretty successfully? Sure, I trust government to fund and oversee national defense. But more importantly, I trust competent law enforcement and military commanders on the ground to run the real nuts and bolts work of defense, and to make the most important day to day decisions, more than some stuffed suit politician sitting on their fat ass in Washington.

That would be a gi-freakin'-normous tax cut. According to you, they never work.

Yup, privatizing national security wouldn't work.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Strawmen rarely do.

How about arguing the actual topic?

[hyteckit]

Republican government with their privatize health care.

Liver transplant - Goes to the highest bidder

70 year old rich man - 5% match for heart
17 year old middle class girl - 50% match for heart

70 year old man bids on liver for $100k. 17 year old girl losses out on bid and dies. 70 year old man dies 1 year later after liver transplant.


Government should f*cking stay out of health care and should not set standards, because they know nothing. Let the doctors and health insurance companies decide. They know best.

[nonhuman]

We already have a private health care system, there's no need for it to be privatized...

And I don't think anyone is proposing that we change the way that the current transplant system works. Besides, regardless of how much control the US government has over the US healthcare system, the rich will always be able to go somewhere where they are able to buy better care than everyone else gets.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Maybe the part about trying to artificially slow down the development of new medications and medical technologies?

Why don't you ask a person who, say, is dying of AIDS or cancer if they would rather that Lilly and Merck and Pfizer and the like cut back R&D substantially, so that the possible cure for their currently-terminal disease won't have a chance of being found before they die?

You are aware that the majority of pharmaceutical and medical developments over the last century have come from the United States, right? This won't just impact American citizens - it will impact the entire globe, since discoveries by scientists in the US mean new advancements in science for the rest of the world.

And, as a more pertinent example than your regular old terminally-diseased patient, I'll use myself. I've been suffering from debilitating depression since I was about 16. I've tried several different out-of-patent antidepressants. None have worked. In late 2008, my depression got to the point where I wasn't sleeping (or was sleeping all the time), wasn't eating, wasn't doing anything at all in my free time, and barely had the motivation to go to work every day. My quality of life was nonexistent.

Fortunately for me, however, because the Democrats hadn't yet gotten their way and stuck their dirty fingers into the free market of medical and science research in the United States, Lilly was able to develop a new antidepressant called Cymbalta, which only came onto the market a few years ago. This particular drug has completely changed my life and made me into a new person. Everyone who knows me personally has commented on how much happier I have been since I have finally found a medication to help me deal with depression that had grown completely unmanageable.

Yes, by developing new drugs much more rapidly than other countries, pharmaceutical companies do keep the prices of those new developments high during the patent period, in order to recoup the billions of dollars annually invested in R&D to bring the entire world new advancements in medicine. Of course, those advancements can save or change lives, but who cares about that, right? No, it's better for the government to get involved in something it knows little about, twist the arms of private businesses (Community Reinvestment Act, anyone?), and make drastic and very negative changes to an otherwise thriving and stable market, so that we can all pay a serious price for it a few decades from now.

Isn't this where the whole Republican school of thought becomes inconsistent? You are okay with Medicare paying for treatments that patients otherwise wouldn't be able to afford, but this doesn't invoke the socialism label?

I'm all for people paying out of their pockets for experimental procedures. Don't forget, there is also a flip side to all of this. There are millions of uninsured Americans who aren't paying for any procedures - experimental or otherwise. Wouldn't potentially making them customers of health procedures by lowering costs across the board also represent an increase in revenues for all parties involved with providing these experimental procedures?