Posted on 04/05/2010 10:49:29 AM PDT by opentalk
The clip below requires a little unpacking: In answering a flip, but it turns out quite good, question about “death panels,” Paul Krugman claims accurately that the cost/benefit board established over private medicine by Obamacare will be able to impose “more or less binding judgments” refusing care, and moreover, that these refusals will save “a lot of money” in the context of treating the elderly (and others, such as people with disabilities and terminal illnesses). He says that the panel will prevent treatment that isn’t “medically” useful. But private insurance companies already do that. So do Medicare and Medicaid.
No, the money won’t be taken out of the hide of patients who want physiologically useless treatment, it will come at the lethal cost to patients whose treatment will be refused because it could work, based on the invidious judgment that the patient’s life is not worth the money to support. In short, Krugman has admitted that contrary to the many mendacious denials by Obamacare supporters, the new regime will impose rationing–just as in the UK with NICE, which is why I bring it up all the time.
This is akin to imposing a duty to die because when we reach a certain point in life, we will not be able to obtain treatment we want that could keep us going. Indeed, for me, this centralized federal control over what will and will not be provided in medicine–and to whom–is the biggest reason (among so many) why Obamacare is wrong. Repeal. Reform. Replace. First target–putative death panels.
video .36 min.
The first person that gets denied payment of a service because of rationing should reply:
“BUT YOU LEFTIST DEMOCRATS SAID HEALTH CARE WAS A RIGHT!!!!”
Denial of service can mean denial of life, which is unconstitutional and can be argued that the government is denying them their lives.
And just think, the elite are exempt.
The panel is part of the stimulus bill, which no one was allowed to read, - it seems this was put in the jobs bill to keep it under the radar from media and public attention.
There’s even a provision that denies seniors the right to use their own money to pay the fee for service. Obama hates the Greatest Generation.
The right of the government to decide that you die.
Not ONLY Death Panels, but there will be BIRTH PANELS also. .....if a baby has ANY DEFECTS that will cost money, the govt. will demand the be ABORTED.....for the “common good” ya know.
But you didnt break the code
to a liberal, an assisted death (ie, one hastened by stopping treatment) is “healthcare”, just as is abortion.
So kwitcherbitchin, you now have the “right” to an assisted death and to an abortion
Krugman’s arguments may now be convincing to a 25 yr old, who will be 45 and in charge of the panel that decides to put an elderly Krugman on pain pills for the last months or weeks of his life... because replacing his hips or fixing the hole in his heart, would cost society more than he is worth
Yes, and are demonized by the Zero administration for doing so.
To be a liberal is to be a hypocrite.
“to a liberal, an assisted death (ie, one hastened by stopping treatment) is “healthcare””
Excellent point! Forgot my Lib-speak lexicon.
Even if private companies refuse to pay for treatment, you can get it on your own.
I suspect that eventually we won’t be able to buy it ourselves and most won’t be able to afford it.
This will halt development of new drugs and technologies,,but they want that.
THey won’t demand abortion. They will refuse to treat babies below a certain weight or with certain neonatal problems.
Last nite husband was reading NEJM,,and there was an article out of Stanford alleging, with stats and all, that dialysis didn’t really prolong life and the quality of life was terrible.
Now I don’t believe that nor does he. This is a sucking up to the gov who is ready to quit paying for dialysis from the git go.
Academic institutions will give the gov the “research” it needs to hasten our deaths if we are expensive to maintain.
Absolutely.
The point Wesley is trying to make about Krugman’s statement is that Krugman believes Obamacare’s advisory boards will do something that private insurance doesn’t do, which will save more money in the future. The argument is over what that “something” is.
If it’s rationing, it’s not the same sort of rationing that insurance companies have done up to this point. Krugman apparently doesn’t think it’s the same as what insurance companies have done; he thinks the advisory boards are bringing something new to the table.
There’s also an important distinction between rationing by private insurance companies and the government controlled bureaucracies.
I know, Obama hates most of us. Lost my Dad, 82 yrs, late last summer. No matter how much I miss him I remain ever thankful he isn’t seeing all this. He was LIVID about these kooks even before election 2008.
Remember oblablah saying no one should go broke b/c they have cancer? What he was really saying is we won’t go broke b/c they have every intention of denying treatment so we will hurry up and croak.
Sorry, didn’t mean to expound but I’m as LIVID as my Dad was.
I email many posts from FR everday to get the word out.
These are the same people that see nothing wrong with partial birth abortion. Life and its value is viewed differently by them. (radicals)
“The right of the government to decide that you die.”
Not only deciding when to pull the plug, but also forcing us to purchase insurance while they call all the shots. Taking our money and making our most personal choices for us! HOW SICK IS THAT?!
The difference is that those current "panels" simply say the treatment is not covered, it does not deny the patient any alternatives. But I do believe the way "reform" is written makes it impossible for a patient to employ their own means to receive the care they and probably their physician deem appropriate.
bump
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.