Posted on 09/12/2009 4:37:34 PM PDT by Starman417
Newsweek, in all of its wisdom, is still arguing that Sarah Palin lied about the death panel provisions in ObamaCare, but we really should have a death panel anyways. The author of the below piece, Evan Thomas, writes that his 79 year old mother wanted to die but the doctors wouldn't let her because the assisted living facility she was staying at was sustained by Medicare. He didn't like this and muses on how we can fix health care in this country by, you guessed it, getting people into hospice care and out of hospitals. People need to die and just get it over with you see:
The idea that we might ration health care to seniors (or anyone else) is political anathema. Politicians do not dare breathe the R word, lest they be accused—however wrongly—of trying to pull the plug on Grandma. But the need to spend less money on the elderly at the end of life is the elephant in the room in the health-reform debate. Everyone sees it but no one wants to talk about it. At a more basic level, Americans are afraid not just of dying, but of talking and thinking about death. Until Americans learn to contemplate death as more than a scientific challenge to be overcome, our health-care system will remain unfixable.Compared with other Western countries, the United States has more health care—but, generally speaking, not better health care. There is no way we can get control of costs, which have grown by nearly 50 percent in the past decade, without finding a way to stop overtreating patients.
~~~But how do you decide which treatments to cut out? How do you choose between the necessary and the unnecessary? There has been talk among experts and lawmakers of giving more power to a panel of government experts to decide—Britain has one, called the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (known by the somewhat ironic acronym NICE). But no one wants the horror stories of denied care and long waits that are said to plague state-run national health-care systems. (The criticism is unfair: patients wait longer to see primary-care physicians in the United States than in Britain.) After the summer of angry town halls, no politician is going to get anywhere near something that could be called a "death panel."
There's no question that reining in the lawyers would help cut costs. Fearing medical-malpractice suits, doctors engage in defensive medicine, ordering procedures that may not be strictly necessary—but why take the risk? According to various studies, defensive medicine adds perhaps 2 percent to the overall bill—a not-insignificant number when more than $2 trillion is at stake. A number of states have managed to institute some kind of so-called tort reform, limiting the size of damage awards by juries in medical-malpractice cases. But the trial lawyers—big donors to the Democratic Party—have stopped Congress from even considering reforms. That's why it was significant that President Obama even raised the subject in his speech last week, even if he was vague about just what he'd do. (Best idea: create medical courts run by experts to rule on malpractice claims, with no punitive damages.)
But the biggest cost booster is the way doctors are paid under most insurance systems, including Medicare. It's called fee-for-service, and it means just that. So why not just put doctors on salary? Some medical groups that do, like the Mayo Clinic, have reduced costs while producing better results. Unfortunately, putting doctors on salary requires that they work for someone, and most American physicians are self-employed or work in small group practices. The alternative—paying them a flat rate for each patient they care for—turned out to be at least a partial bust. HMOs that paid doctors a flat fee in the 1990s faced a backlash as patients bridled at long waits and denied service.
~~~One place to start is to consider the psychological aspect of health care. Most people are at least minor hypochondriacs (I know I am). They use doctors to make themselves feel better, even if the doctor is not doing much to physically heal what ails them. (In ancient times, doctors often made people sicker with quack cures like bleeding.) The desire to see a physician is often pronounced in assisted-living facilities. Old people, far from their families in our mobile, atomized society, depend on their doctors for care and reassurance. I noticed that in my mother's retirement home, the talk in the dining room was often about illness; people built their day around doctor's visits, partly, it seemed to me, to combat loneliness.
~~~Other initiatives ensure that the elderly get counseling about end-of-life issues. Although demagogued as a "death panel," a program in Wisconsin to get patients to talk to their doctors about how they want to deal with death was actually a resounding success. A study by the Archives of Internal Medicine shows that such conversations between doctors and patients can decrease costs by about 35 percent—while improving the quality of life at the end. Patients should be encouraged to draft living wills to make their end-of-life desires known. Unfortunately, such paper can be useless if there is a family member at the bedside demanding heroic measures. "A lot of the time guilt is playing a role," says Dr. David Torchiana, a surgeon and CEO of the Massachusetts General Physicians Organization. Doctors can feel guilty, too—about overtreating patients. Torchiana recalls his unease over operating to treat a severe heart infection in a woman with two forms of metastatic cancer who was already comatose. The family insisted.
~~~Our medical system does everything it can to encourage hope. And American health care has been near miraculous—the envy of the world—in its capacity to develop new lifesaving and life-enhancing treatments. But death can be delayed only so long, and sometimes the wait is grim and degrading. The hospice ideal recognized that for many people, quiet and dignity—and loving care and good painkillers—are really what's called for.
Conservatives have said for a long time that we need tort reform, as the author agrees. We also agree that many times there are way too many tests run, a byproduct of the malpractice suits against doctors. Fix one and the other will fix itself.
But then the author ventures into the real meat of his story. People just need to learn to die and get out of the way.
But the thing is we DO NOT want the government making that decision. If a person wants to die and stop treatment that should be up to them, no outside entity or bureaucrat should make that decision and NO encouragement to end their life should be given.
What should we expect with a kind of system the Newsweek author wants?
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net
Start with the Newsweek guy
The Gov't has no business making life or death decisions. Health care should remain a private enterprise and the life of every american respected!
liberalism, the death cult....blood has dripped from their hands for the last 30 some years, and now they want to engorge themselves even more.....
“There is no way we can get control of costs, which have grown by nearly 50 percent in the past decade, without finding a way to stop overtreating patients.”
If these people want less healthcare, I am willing to give them a break on the cost if they reduce their share. I don’t see why that should entitle them to tell me that I must take less healthcare as well, though. It’s none of their damn business how much healthcare I buy with my own money. And if their complaint is that the taxpayer is picking up some of the bill for some people, that’s their own damn fault. Tell everyone that they’ve got to pay for what they use.
They should have their employees sign up.
The Repubs are just demagoguing this issue.
OTOH, the government should not be in the business to begin with.
new and improved...now with Grandma!
-PJ
The above statement is a bald faced lie. I can get into see my primary in a day, or a few hours if I claim emergency. In GB and Canada, here's how it works, you get an appointment for your primary, you may or may not get in quickly, that isn't the problem. The problem is when they need to see a specialist and need tests scheduled, MRIs for instance. That is where the waiting periods come into play and they cause the deaths of many people who wait for treatment until they simply die from the disease.
What's ironic is Mr. Thomas doesn't realize that it's Government Run Health Care (Medicare) that prevented his mother from realizing her wishes.
As far as I know that is flat out not true. But for arguments sake let's say that is true, the author conveniently avoids highlighting the delay in getting treatment, tests, operations, etc. He glosses over it at the beginning of the article and then omits the delays when it is most germane(sic?).
Although demagogued as a "death panel," a program in Wisconsin to get patients to talk to their doctors about how they want to deal with death was actually a resounding success.
It was such a success that, apparently, we know all about it because the author neglects to tell us what the criteria was met to claim it a resounding success.
This is once again Newsweak attempting to spin furiously the fact that a federal takeover would necessitate rationing. The bottom line is that if a person is deemed to be dead in six months and thus is denied treatments, surgery, etc. then why not a year to start the cutoff? How about two or five or ten? This is exactly what Ezekiel Rahm promotes (15yrs to 40yrs) to provide smarter "choices" under a federally-controlled health care system.
Now that's (scarily) funny!
A fatal disease, no matter what you do. So, don't treat it, you are only 40 and it takes years, with treatment, before a person wastes away to the point they die from it, but we can hasten that along can't we? There are better examples, for instance let's take cancer of the liver, it will usually kill you, but you can prolong it, lots of young people get it, the death panels would say, WTH, you are going to die anyway so here is the blue pill, doesn't matter how old you are. Cancer survival rates will be much less than they are now. Ditto other diseases.
Deformed babies, dead. downs syndrome? dead.Did you see the baby in England recently that lived because the "allowed" the mother to hold it, they were just letting it die, until it decided to live and then they finally treated it. It didn't meet the criteria of the death panels of GB by two days, so it had to die. It got lucky, many others haven't, they simply were left to die. Of course people like you who think one of your tax dollars might be spent on keeping a baby a live don't really care do you?
Kill the Bill. I'll make my own decisions about treatment whether you like it or not.
It was a resounding success because 32% of the patients took the hemlock. I think most people can get an appointment with a primary care physician immediately if they insist.
My mom is 97 and she wants to live. I intend to support that position.
We have stand alone, doc in a box medical clinics in this country. Wake up at six with a problem, you are in by 8 am. You can pay cash if you like.
The thing that’s the most disgusting to me about this is that Evan Thomas has enough money to take care of his mother on his own. Why didn’t he do that?
I believe that the patient is still allowed to just up and leave the facility...for now.
And how old is ole Evan? Put him to the front of the discard line please.
total lie. I have posted several times about my recent experience and even to saw a specialist on one day’s notice.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
totally. That is exactly what I did. I went to a doc in the box, finding myself without my primary physician who had passed away.
I walked in, ws told the visit would cost $150, I said no problem, I have cash.
Saw the doctor in 10 or 15 minutes after completing their paperwork.
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
We do need more doctors but that is not a problem that can be solved with more insurance or throwing lots of money around. We need a better educational system and unlimited H-1B visas
Do they serve soylent green cookies and milk with that?
Liberal spin: "There are no death panels, but while we're on the subject
of population control, hey, why not?"
Great argument, huh?
That is correct. In Victoria, B.C. they are now scheduling non-emergency MRIs for March, 2010.
Really? They can get in to see their doctor in less than 15 minutes?
Or in a couple hours 99% f the time?
Get real and do what? What exactly do you propose we do with old people who are too expensive to keep around any more?
So, we can't go on destroying the *quality of life* (liberal keywords if I ever heard them) of future generations? So what do you propose we do to fix a situation that doesn't yet exist and which isn't necessarily going to happen?
What are you doing on FR?
“The criticism is unfair: patients wait longer to see primary-care physicians in the United States than in Britain.”
Liar! Liar! Liar!
I had an appointment with my primary about my acid reflux on Tuesday, he had me see a specialist Friday of that week!
Our medical system does everything it can to encourage hope. And American health care has been near miraculous—the envy of the world—in its capacity to develop new lifesaving and life-enhancing treatments.
Poor Evan. There's no chance in his lifetime that American healthcare will find the cure for his disease: cranium-in-anus-itis.
Good old Evan could have taken his mother into his own home so she could spend her last days with family. Cheap basterd.
Sure is a lie. I call my doctor and if its urgent he takes me then, otherwise I might have to wait a day or two for an appointment...Who are these people that have to wait so long for an appointment with their GP?
I talked about getting real with the money situation which you just refused to.
Where is the money coming from to pay for all this? And don’t tell me that seniors are footing the bill for their health care 100%. I have seen it first hand someone in my wife’s family that has had numerous expensive surgeries and lengthy hospitalizations in the past 5 years. Medicare is the one picking up the bulk of it.
Where is the money coming from to pay for all of this? Is it right to run up huge debts and screw generations of people to come out of a reasonable lifestyle and set of options?
Tell them we cannot afford to keep paying for all of their medical care is what. This country is beyond broke and all we are doing is making it impossible for future generations to have even the same chances as the ones who came before them.
WE ARE $50 PLUS TRILLION IN DEBT
Shame on us as a society for pissing away our money and resources but again,
WE ARE $50 PLUS TRILLION IN DEBT
We are creating debt slaves and these poor SOBs have not even been born yet and you want to live in some delusional world that ignores the fact that
WE ARE $50 PLUS TRILLION IN DEBT
Is it medicare or is it their medicare advantage program that they pay extra for?
Who do seniors get this coverage from? Is it through regular insurance companies who pick up a few seniors or is it a government subsidized group? Does anyone know?
Absolutely sickening... Where do these people come from? How in the world do they get their heads so dang screwed up?
Has it escaped your attention that seniors PAID FOR MEDICARE? Do you also not believe that seniors deserve the Social Security that they paid for?
The money is gone.....
and deserve has nothing to do with it. Both parties have lied to the American people for years about the status of our finances and the American public has been dumb enough to trust that they were being told the truth much less even go look for themselves. In normal accounting terms you book your liabilities and carry them on your balance sheet. With entitlement programs (which are woefully underfunded) the total liabilities are not being talked about. And, the lies about the “Trust Fund” are astounding. There is no Trust Fund. The money taken from people and their employers every years is being used to pay current retirees and welfare dependents and not being saved for the future.
Interesting opinions, but you didn’t answer a single one of my questions.
I did answer it and I didn’t give you opinion, I stated the facts
It matters not if people deserve or are owed
There is no trust fund
The money people paid in has been spent on other people and programs
From a legal standpoint, this case is applicable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_v._Nestor
Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960), is a Supreme Court Case in which the Court upheld the Constitutionality of Section 1104 of the 1935 Social Security Act. In this Section, Congress reserved to itself the power to amend and revise the schedule of benefits.
So, the bottom line is that you SUPPORT killing the elderly because the money that the elderly HAVE ALREADY PAID has been spent elsewhere. Is that correct?
You jumped to that conclusion when in fact, I never said that I advocated killing anyone. I just pointed out what economic dolts like yourself refuse to acknowledge:
WE ARE $50 TRILLION IN DEBT AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL
and
WE DON’T HAVE ANY MONEY TO PROVIDE EVERYTHING FOR EVERYONE
because
WE HAVE ALREADY SPENT THE MONEY THAT WAS TAKEN FROM PEOPLE
But you can feel free to keep posting your sanctimonious pro-life threads and comments if it makes you feel like a superior person. Financial and economic reality should always take a back seat to social-con demagoguery. Your pro-life hero GWB would be proud!
WE ARE $50 TRILLION IN DEBT AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL
and
WE DON’T HAVE ANY MONEY TO PROVIDE EVERYTHING FOR EVERYONE
because
WE HAVE ALREADY SPENT THE MONEY THAT WAS TAKEN FROM PEOPLE
Then what EXACTLY do you think should happen to the elderly on Medicare, keeping in mind that they have ALREADY PAID INTO IT?
But you can feel free to keep posting your sanctimonious pro-life threads and comments if it makes you feel like a superior person. Financial and economic reality should always take a back seat to social-con demagoguery. Your pro-life hero GWB would be proud!
So now opposing Zero's death panels is "sanctimonious"?
I don't recall EVER referring to GWB as a "pro-life hero".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
