Red State Death Panels

[NJ Stinks]

Where's the Tea Party outrage? :confused:

Or maybe they just don't know a Death Panel when they see one. :rolleyes:
____________________________________

'Death panels' are real -- brought on by budget pressures


By Norman J. Ornstein
Saturday, January 1, 2011;

During the debate over health reform, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Sarah Palin and others railed against the "death panels" that would result from the bill. Government bureaucrats, critics said, would decide who would die and when. The bill passed - and indeed there are death panels. But they do not come from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. "Obamacare." They come from Republican administrations in states such as Arizona and Indiana.

In Arizona, the government headed by Gov. Jan Brewer summarily stopped approving Medicaid payments for many organ transplants in October; one man had a liver virtually snatched away (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/03/us/03transplant.html) while he waited to go into the operating room. He couldn't get it unless he came up with $200,000 to pay for the procedure.

In Indiana, the state Medicaid program denied a lifesaving operation last year to a 6-month-old boy who lacked a thymus gland, which generates cells that the body uses to fight infection. The Indiana Family Social Services Administration said the procedure was "experimental (http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/12/09/indiana.transplant.needed/?hpt=T2)" - even though it had been successful in 43 of the 60 cases in which it had been applied. The state twice denied the family's appeals, but fortunately the publicity caused by this case prodded two health-care companies to pay for the $500,000 operation.

These are real death panels. They are far from the Affordable Care Act's provision for end-of-life counseling for families to enable them to make rational decisions about their loved ones outside of the awful stress in a hospital or hospice. But these decisions are not being made by evil people reveling in the anguish of patients on Medicaid; they are the result of painful choices made by state governments struggling with a sluggish economy, balanced budget requirements and soaring Medicaid costs. States have to react, and one solution to their constraints is rationing care.

In other words, the nightmares of conservatives bitterly opposed to health reform are coming true on two fronts, but with zero relation to the reform bill they opposed.

More at the link below:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/31/AR2010123102727.html?nav=hcmoduletmv

[boxcar]

Where's the Tea Party outrage? :confused:

Or maybe they just don't know a Death Panel when they see one. :rolleyes:
____________________________________

'Death panels' are real -- brought on by budget pressures


By Norman J. Ornstein
Saturday, January 1, 2011;

During the debate over health reform, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Sarah Palin and others railed against the "death panels" that would result from the bill. Government bureaucrats, critics said, would decide who would die and when. The bill passed - and indeed there are death panels. But they do not come from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. "Obamacare." They come from Republican administrations in states such as Arizona and Indiana.

In Arizona, the government headed by Gov. Jan Brewer summarily stopped approving Medicaid payments for many organ transplants in October; one man had a liver virtually snatched away (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/03/us/03transplant.html) while he waited to go into the operating room. He couldn't get it unless he came up with $200,000 to pay for the procedure.

In Indiana, the state Medicaid program denied a lifesaving operation last year to a 6-month-old boy who lacked a thymus gland, which generates cells that the body uses to fight infection. The Indiana Family Social Services Administration said the procedure was "experimental (http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/12/09/indiana.transplant.needed/?hpt=T2)" - even though it had been successful in 43 of the 60 cases in which it had been applied. The state twice denied the family's appeals, but fortunately the publicity caused by this case prodded two health-care companies to pay for the $500,000 operation.

These are real death panels. They are far from the Affordable Care Act's provision for end-of-life counseling for families to enable them to make rational decisions about their loved ones outside of the awful stress in a hospital or hospice. But these decisions are not being made by evil people reveling in the anguish of patients on Medicaid; they are the result of painful choices made by state governments struggling with a sluggish economy, balanced budget requirements and soaring Medicaid costs. States have to react, and one solution to their constraints is rationing care.

In other words, the nightmares of conservatives bitterly opposed to health reform are coming true on two fronts, but with zero relation to the reform bill they opposed.

More at the link below:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/31/AR2010123102727.html?nav=hcmoduletmv

So, permit me to ask you, NJ: Are YOU, generally, for or against rationing of publicly-funded health care? Think carefully before you answer. ;)

Boxcar

[skate]

this would be a State issue, much as before...no?


so the feds pass a law, to control "the People", which the States are required to obey and your complaint (i guess) is that you will now put the onus back on the States. fine.

would you think, that the average people, would think that you would be any different in your thinking?

your article states "no relation to the BO bill"...so, im thinking the bill didnt do what Nancy said it would cover.
and if it will cover in the future, whose payin?:)

[NJ Stinks]

this would be a State issue, much as before...no?


so the feds pass a law, to control "the People", which the States are required to obey and your complaint (i guess) is that you will now put the onus back on the States. fine.

would you think, that the average people, would think that you would be any different in your thinking?

your article states "no relation to the BO bill"...so, im thinking the bill didnt do what Nancy said it would cover.
and if it will cover in the future, whose payin?:)

You ask a lot of questions.

Keep it a state issue and this is what you get - death panels. Anybody who does not want real death panels better hope the federal government controls "The People".

The heathcare bill hasn't kicked in yet for the most part. Being the sharpest knife in the drawer - you knew that. Right, Skate?

As for the "whose payin'" comment, we all are. Either that we get death panels. Get it?

[Tom]

With Obama, SOME of us pay and we still get death panels.
How about a compromise - if YOU did not kick in to the kitty, you get to die before someone who did pay in?

Fair enough?

[DJofSD]

You can put lipstick on a pig but it remains a pig. Just look at what happens when there is nationalised health care -- England or Cuba will do for starters.

Oh, all you idiot liberals can claim that's not a part of the law. It's not going to happen. Ya, sure. Prove it will not happen.

Just like what you think and say will make an f'ing difference. The politicans lie, their willing accomplices in the government media and various other useful idiots lie and all you can do is repeat the lies.

[Robert Goren]

There is a lot of people in Nursing Homes on Medicaid proving you wrong.

[DJofSD]

There is a lot of people in Nursing Homes on Medicaid proving you wrong.
Tell me that in 2014 and beyond. Your slight of hand doesn't work here. Nice try.

[boxcar]

You ask a lot of questions.

Keep it a state issue and this is what you get - death panels. Anybody who does not want real death panels better hope the federal government controls "The People".

The heathcare bill hasn't kicked in yet for the most part. Being the sharpest knife in the drawer - you knew that. Right, Skate?

As for the "whose payin'" comment, we all are. Either that we get death panels. Get it?

NJ, did the puddy catch your tongue and swallow it? Don't be like Hcap when I asked him several times the same basic question, which he repeatedly refused to answer when we discussed my version of a "public option".

Boxcar

[boxcar]

With Obama, SOME of us pay and we still get death panels.
How about a compromise - if YOU did not kick in to the kitty, you get to die before someone who did pay in?

Fair enough?

Oh, oh...you have just incurred the wrath of Hcap. So, be prepared. :D :D I don't think he likes the idea of using the tried and true free market "means test" when purchasing health care products.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

There is a lot of people in Nursing Homes on Medicaid proving you wrong.

And for every success story with Medicad, I'd bet you there are at least as many sad endings. Everything is determined on a case-by-case basis.

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

So, permit me to ask you, NJ: Are YOU, generally, for or against rationing of publicly-funded health care? Think carefully before you answer. ;)

Boxcar

Very much in favor of rationing healthcare for old people. We can't afford to give old people everything they want anymore. I already stated this before and somebody asked me to define "old people". If I was a wise guy I would have said anybody older than me! :p But I'm not so I said something about 80 or older and in poor health.

We can't afford the status quo. Even you may agree with that, Boxcar.

[TJDave]

Very much in favor of rationing healthcare for old people. We can't afford to give old people everything they want anymore.


As long as "old people" keep voting and electing those who do their bidding we can afford anything and everything they want.

[NJ Stinks]

You can put lipstick on a pig but it remains a pig. Just look at what happens when there is nationalised health care -- England or Cuba will do for starters.

Oh, all you idiot liberals can claim that's not a part of the law. It's not going to happen. Ya, sure. Prove it will not happen.

Just like what you think and say will make an f'ing difference. The politicans lie, their willing accomplices in the government media and various other useful idiots lie and all you can do is repeat the lies.

DJ, what do you think a poor old widow in England would do if she needed expensive medical care and couldn't afford it?

Either you understand that there is a problem in the USA or you don't. Now there may not be a problem for you or me at the moment. Good for us. But it won't last. Sooner or later most Americans are going to be negatively affected by the cost of healthcare insurance and other medical expenses unless something is done.

Democrats are trying to alter course while Republicans keep steering down the Niagra River.

[boxcar]

Very much in favor of rationing healthcare for old people. We can't afford to give old people everything they want anymore. I already stated this before and somebody asked me to define "old people". If I was a wise guy I would have said anybody older than me! :p But I'm not so I said something about 80 or older and in poor health.

We can't afford the status quo. Even you may agree with that, Boxcar.

This begs the question. But it's nice to know that you're very willing to discriminate on the basis age, which would be hilarious, if it weren't so pathetic because we have federal laws on the books the prohibit age discrimination in certain other contexts. Hypocrisy, hypocrisy.

Three things: First, I could make the same argument but in a broader way by saying that we cannot afford to give everyone (regardless of age) everything they want anymore.

Secondly, since you're in favor of GOVERNMENT-based rationing (even to one group of people), then why do we need government at all involved in our health care since insurance companies in the private sector do the same things? How is it that when the state rations, it's a good and neccessary thing? But when a company in the private sector does it, it's an evil, unnecessary thing? Explain, please.

Thirdly, how would someone at home withholding necessary, life-sustaining medication from an elderly sick relative (maybe his mom or dad) on the basis of his high out-of-pocket costs not be considered a murderer if his relative died due to lack of that medication, which he could have paid for but didn't due to a great strain on his budget? Would you consider the surviving relative to be a saint or a murderer?

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

Secondly, since you're in favor of GOVERNMENT-based rationing (even to one group of people), then why do we need government at all involved in our health care since insurance companies in the private sector do the same things? How is it that when the state rations, it's a good and neccessary thing? But when a company in the private sector does it, it's an evil, unnecessary thing? Explain, please.

The government is not going to ration based on how much money somebody has.


Thirdly, how would someone at home withholding necessary, life-sustaining medication from an elderly sick relative (maybe his mom or dad) on the basis of his high out-of-pocket costs not be considered a murderer if his relative died due to lack of that medication, which he could have paid for but didn't due to a great strain on his budget? Would you consider the surviving relative to be a saint or a murderer?

Boxcar

This ain't about saints and sinners IMO. I'll just assume you disagree.

[boxcar]

The government is not going to ration based on how much money somebody has.

So, what!? People will still die, regardless of what the reasons are behind the rationing! :bang: :bang: And furthermore, rationing is ALL ABOUT MONEY in both the private and public sectors. Why do you think those Medicaid patients in AZ were denied treatment? Or why was my acquaintance denied his hip transplant by Medicaid right here in Florida? Because none of them liked to eat their Wheaties every morning? :rolleyes: Rationing is a necessary costs control mechanism, which every socialist country employs in its health care system. So, yes, it's all about money from one angle or another. Just ask Dr. Berwick who heads up Medicare.

And why didn't you answer my third question? A little too pointed for you? Don't like dealing with these ethical issues? Here it is again. A son has his sick mother living with him who requires a pricey prescription drug in order to maintain her heath. If she were to stop taking the drug, her doctor told her that her health would deteriorate badly. But regardless, the son one day decides that his out-of-pocket expenses for this drug is putting too much of a strain on his budget, so he decides to not refill the prescription much to the horror of his mom. A couple of weeks later, dear ol' mom croaks because she was deprived of her drug. Did the son commit premeditated murder by depriving her of the drug that he knew beforehand was necessary to sustain her life?

Don't be a coward. Take a shot at tackling this.

Boxcar

[DJofSD]

Now Boxie, you already know what is the answer to your question.

For the individual, yes, it is premeditated murder. However, for the state, it is not because the liberals say it is not.

[boxcar]

Now Boxie, you already know what is the answer to your question.

For the individual, yes, it is premeditated murder. However, for the state, it is not because the liberals say it is not.

Of course, I know what the answer is! What we already have in this country is a DOUBLE STANDARD for what constitutes premeditated murder. We have one standard for the private sector and one for the public sector.

And not only this, but liberals are quite the hypocrites when it comes to rationing. People like NJ endorses and supports cutting off the elderly from "expensive" care and thereby hastening their deaths. Yet, he has condemned "evil corporations" for withholding (rationing) health care services! Once again -- Duplicity Rules the Day! It's ethical and moral and virtuous and for the public good and for the public welfare (yada, yada, yada) when the state rations care. It's all good when the state does this. But it's downright evil and wicked when greedy, reprobate corporations do it.

I tell you a truth: There is really only one genuine crisis in this country that permeates government and most of the masses, and this can be summed up in one word: Spiritual. As Jesus said, a "a house divided against itself cannot stand".

Boxcar

[DJofSD]

Yes, double standards and divided houses, plus, don't forget: the ends justifies the means.

[boxcar]

Yes, double standards and divided houses, plus, don't forget: the ends justifies the means.

Indeed, as it's also written:

Matt 5:37
"But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes' or 'No, no'; and anything beyond these is of evil.
NASB

In principle, saying "yes" that a thing is evil, and then "no" the same thing isn't evil but good in a different setting is in itself evil. I believe it's called talking out of both sides of the mouth.

Boxcar

[skate]

You ask a lot of questions.

Keep it a state issue and this is what you get - death panels. Anybody who does not want real death panels better hope the federal government controls "The People".

The heathcare bill hasn't kicked in yet for the most part. Being the sharpest knife in the drawer - you knew that. Right, Skate?

As for the "whose payin'" comment, we all are. Either that we get death panels. Get it?

But we've ALL been paying ...like forever...ask anyone working in Hospitals, have we (workers hosp.) ever said no.

Witch means "death Panels".
Which means Fed Gov,,,not State.
Which means "the Problem"...Fed Gov taking full control.
Kind of like Russia, China Cuba of old
They go right while we go left. fine, as long as you know "that's what is happenin" in in.


Was State issue, now Fed issue.

[NJ Stinks]

And why didn't you answer my third question? A little too pointed for you? Don't like dealing with these ethical issues? Here it is again. A son has his sick mother living with him who requires a pricey prescription drug in order to maintain her heath. If she were to stop taking the drug, her doctor told her that her health would deteriorate badly. But regardless, the son one day decides that his out-of-pocket expenses for this drug is putting too much of a strain on his budget, so he decides to not refill the prescription much to the horror of his mom. A couple of weeks later, dear ol' mom croaks because she was deprived of her drug. Did the son commit premeditated murder by depriving her of the drug that he knew beforehand was necessary to sustain her life?

Don't be a coward. Take a shot at tackling this.

Boxcar


And not only this, but liberals are quite the hypocrites when it comes to rationing. People like NJ endorses and supports cutting off the elderly from "expensive" care and thereby hastening their deaths. Yet, he has condemned "evil corporations" for withholding (rationing) health care services! Once again -- Duplicity Rules the Day! It's ethical and moral and virtuous and for the public good and for the public welfare (yada, yada, yada) when the state rations care. It's all good when the state does this. But it's downright evil and wicked when greedy, reprobate corporations do it.

Answering your questions is an exercise in frustration. Your track record for blasting a response to one of your questions earns you a 125 Beyer every time.

So I'm bagging a direct answer to the son's actions. But I will say this.

You know how it is on a ship going down at sea? The captain says "women and children first" when the lifeboats are brought out. At no time does the captain say: "Old men first!"

There's a reason for that.

[boxcar]

Answering your questions is an exercise in frustration. Your track record for blasting a response to one of your questions earns you a 125 Beyer every time.

So I'm bagging a direct answer to the son's actions. But I will say this.

Coward. You can't even deal with the duplicitous actions of this corrupt government, can you?

You know how it is on a ship going down at sea? The captain says "women and children first" when the lifeboats are brought out. At no time does the captain say: "Old men first!"

There's a reason for that.

But is there a reason for really poor analogies? :bang: :bang: (Oh, yes, there is: You're a liberal.) :rolleyes: :rolleyes: You really should have made a New Year's resolution to consciously avoid analogies as you would venereal diseases.

I barely know where to begin. Let's start here: A ship on the high seas cannot be likened to a free democratic society. A captain of a ship is more like a monarch or dictator. What he says is law aboard his ship. Rights aboard ship are limited to essentially to the dictates of the captain.

Conversely, this is not the case with American citizens on land. We do not live under a monarch of dictator (at least not yet). The U.S. government still isn't the captain of my personal life, including my personal health care (but I do concede that the state is working toward that end!). On land, I should be the sole arbiter (along with counselors of my choice, e.g. immediate family, doctors, clergy, etc.) of how to deal with any health problems I may have. The state should not get to decide that some 68 year-old, iwho s collecting SS and requires some extensive care that this human being's life is expendable because his best days are all behind him. I don't know what is so hard to understand that the state does not own us. Our lives are our own and the source of our life is God. Our lives do not belong to state.

Moreover, at sea when an entire ship is at peril (and, therefore, potentially all those on board) someone must make life and death decisions due to limited rescue resources. However, on land someone's health situation hardly puts the entire nation at peril! You're comparing an impending disaster for all due to some emergency at sea to some individual's personal health situation on land. :bang: :bang: While it is true that the nation, too, has limited resources, nonetheless it's not the nation's (government's) call to choose life or death for an individual. (And besides, by what Constitutional authority did the government have in the first place to put itself into the health care business!?) The state did not grant me my life; and therefore has no inherent right to murder me by refusing needed treatment. What good is the government if it, too -- like the private sector rations care!? I submit to you that it's far worse to have the government because the individual is all put powerless compared to the state. At least in the private sector with my insurance policies, etc., I know where I stand [i]before the fact[/b] because I have a contract with those companies, and I have recourse for appeals, etc. Who needs some heartless, nameless, career government bureaucrat, who only considers me as a number in his ledger, making those decisions for me? Why? So that the nation doesn't sink? :bang: :bang:

Bottom line: Every non-believer is captain of his own ship. And every Christian realizes that God is author of all life and ultimately is the Captain.

Boxcar
P.S. According to scripture, the state has authority to take another man's life only when that person has committed a serious crime. Unless being in poor health becomes a crime, the state does not have the authority or any divine mandate to take another man's life, e.g. by refusing needed medical treatment.