Thank you for that.
My dad was a kidney recipient and my wife worked for seventeen years for the transplantation society of Michigan, so I have met literally hundreds of recipients and donor families. They are at the same time the most grateful people, with the most heart wrenching stories.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
…what’s best for humanity is less humans…
[/quote]
Bert, along the lines of what Doc said, you can surely set an example by practicing what you preach.
Lead the way, man.
[/quote]
Yes, Push, The Stupid is strong in this one.
If Bertie wants to share his puerile and borrowed thoughts on euthanasia, he can start his own thread.
My point is clear: the regulatory mechanism in in place which will deprive sentient salvageable people of their free choices in medical care. Some of these choices will even be life saving, but the truth will be hidden from them.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
My point is clear: the regulatory mechanism in in place which will deprive sentient salvageable people of their free choices in medical care. Some of these choices will even be life saving, but the truth will be hidden from them.[/quote]
The ACA has little to do with the scenario you listed above. Insurance companies are always going to limit what they provide to people based on the plan that they have purchased. Want better care? Purchase better care. That’s always an option if you can afford it.
Medicare is a tough one because on one side everyone says to cut the benefits. Then stories like this come out and people scream about how we should do anything to save his life. The logical answer is that his life really isn’t worth saving because it’s going to cost a lot and he’s at the end of his term here on Earth. Is that brutal? Of course it is but you can’t have lower health costs, reduced government spending, and save everyone.
People do NOT have to buy the government regulated plans. The gentleman that you describe is on Medicare and he could dis-enroll and purchase a private plan but it’s going to be expensive. But he has that option the same as anyone else does.
james
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
My point is clear: the regulatory mechanism in in place which will deprive sentient salvageable people of their free choices in medical care. Some of these choices will even be life saving, but the truth will be hidden from them.[/quote]
The ACA has little to do with the scenario you listed above. Insurance companies are always going to limit what they provide to people based on the plan that they have purchased. Want better care? Purchase better care. That’s always an option if you can afford it.
Medicare is a tough one because on one side everyone says to cut the benefits. Then stories like this come out and people scream about how we should do anything to save his life. The logical answer is that his life really isn’t worth saving because it’s going to cost a lot and he’s at the end of his term here on Earth. Is that brutal? Of course it is but you can’t have lower health costs, reduced government spending, and save everyone.
People do NOT have to buy the government regulated plans. The gentleman that you describe is on Medicare and he could dis-enroll and purchase a private plan but it’s going to be expensive. But he has that option the same as anyone else does.
james
[/quote]
Unfortunately for your contribution, I happen to know the facts of the case whereas you are making unfounded assumptions.
–He is 70 and mentally crisp. No dementia here, my friend.
–He had no other organ failure before this event; he had no cardiomyopathy or renal failure.
–People survive severe single vessel MIs for years
–He does not have cancer or another lethal disease
–He is being prevented from getting life-saving therapy by occult policies that are in themselves illegal.
I offered no factual basis for saying “he was at the end of his term on Earth.” That is merely a convenience for you, to abandon care for a human being who might have a good outcome, simply on the basis of his age.
But then, it seems you are otherwise misinformed: Private insurance–which this patient has also purchased-- may have once imposed caps (perhaps no more) but it does not specifically prohibit approved inpatient therapies for the acutely ill.
THe ACA has everything to do with this scenario, because both you and I do not know what regulations are to be in place on Jan 1, 2014; regulations which will allow local policy makers to limit care to the salvageable, and to discriminate against the elderly or the chronically infirm, just as you have done.
So then, who do entrust to determine when it is your turn, when you are “at the end of (your) term on earth?” The fact is, you will have been deprived of that choice, silently, and your supposed freedom to choose how to live and die has already been taken from you.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
…what’s best for humanity is less humans…
[/quote]
Bert, along the lines of what Doc said, you can surely set an example by practicing what you preach.
Lead the way, man.
[/quote]
Blue Oyster Cult is awesome. My dad introduced me to them back in the day.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Unfortunately for your contribution, I happen to know the facts of the case whereas you are making unfounded assumptions.
–He is 70 and mentally crisp. No dementia here, my friend.
–He had no other organ failure before this event; he had no cardiomyopathy or renal failure.
–People survive severe single vessel MIs for years
–He does not have cancer or another lethal disease
–He is being prevented from getting life-saving therapy by occult policies that are in themselves illegal.
I offered no factual basis for saying “he was at the end of his term on Earth.” That is merely a convenience for you, to abandon care for a human being who might have a good outcome, simply on the basis of his age.
But then, it seems you are otherwise misinformed: Private insurance–which this patient has also purchased-- may have once imposed caps (perhaps no more) but it does not specifically prohibit approved inpatient therapies for the acutely ill.
THe ACA has everything to do with this scenario, because both you and I do not know what regulations are to be in place on Jan 1, 2014; regulations which will allow local policy makers to limit care to the salvageable, and to discriminate against the elderly or the chronically infirm, just as you have done.
So then, who do entrust to determine when it is your turn, when you are “at the end of (your) term on earth?” The fact is, you will have been deprived of that choice, silently, and your supposed freedom to choose how to live and die has already been taken from you.[/quote]
You made his health sound much worse in your first post (at least it sounded worse to a layperson) so combine that with old age and it certainly sounds like he’s not in great physical shape.
If the scenario that you describe is happening prior to the ACA being fully implemented then how is it related to ACA? I guess I’m not following your logic there because that scenario is happening currently. Now it won’t change with the ACA but it’s not being caused by the ACA.
I’m opposed to the ACA too because it does nothing at all to reduce health care costs or improve access. In fact it really increases costs. The only thing that I really like about it is that is takes away the ability for the insurance company to refuse someone for a pre-existing condition.
But it’s a stretch to say that the death panels are a fact with ACA. The reality is that there have always been contractual stipulations that decide who lives and dies if you have private insurance. My insurance certainly doesn’t cover every drug or treatment.
james
[quote]pushharder wrote:
You wanna know something, James? I really don’t say this very often if ever, but friend, you’re an asshole.
A bona fide asshole. The kind that smells from a mile away.
And those who feel like you do are as well. Whether you’re name is Bert…or Smith or Jones…or Goebbels.
Let’s see how you feel when we pose a similar hypothetical about your 5 year old son. Asshole.[/quote]
Way to pull a quote out of context. Here’s the entire quote:
"The logical answer is that his life really isn’t worth saving because it’s going to cost a lot and he’s at the end of his term here on Earth. Is that brutal? Of course it is but you can’t have lower health costs, reduced government spending, and save everyone. "
It’s laughable that you’re calling me an asshole. Pot, meet kettle.
james
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
You wanna know something, James? I really don’t say this very often if ever, but friend, you’re an asshole.
A bona fide asshole. The kind that smells from a mile away.
And those who feel like you do are as well. Whether you’re name is Bert…or Smith or Jones…or Goebbels.
Let’s see how you feel when we pose a similar hypothetical about your 5 year old son. Asshole.[/quote]
Way to pull a quote out of context. Here’s the entire quote:
"The logical answer is that his life really isn’t worth saving because it’s going to cost a lot and he’s at the end of his term here on Earth. Is that brutal? Of course it is but you can’t have lower health costs, reduced government spending, and save everyone. "
It’s laughable that you’re calling me an asshole. Pot, meet kettle.
james[/quote]
Doesn’t change a thing, pal.
You are suggesting that you and those who feel like you do, along with your government henchmen, should make the life ending decision for this man and not the man himself and what he has negotiated through private insurance and Medicare policy.[/quote]
how do you feel about the many thousands who are not poor enough to receive medicaid yet don’t have good enough jobs to have health insurance? If they don’t have insurance fuck em right?
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
…what’s best for humanity is less humans…
[/quote]
Bert, along the lines of what Doc said, you can surely set an example by practicing what you preach.
Lead the way, man.
[/quote]
Blue Oyster Cult is awesome. My dad introduced me to them back in the day. [/quote]
Ha!
Saw them live twice when I was in high school.[/quote]
Saw them in 83 
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
how do you feel about the many thousands who are not poor enough to receive medicaid yet don’t have good enough jobs to have health insurance? If they don’t have insurance fuck em right?
[/quote]
The James’ of the world are willing to fuck 'em, not me. Read his post. In context.
[/quote]
I did read his post. In context. My take on what he said is that we can’t have unlimited benefits, that someone is going to have to make the hard choices on if it is the best application of limited resources. Are those against Obamacare(not you specifically) suggesting that there be unlimited benefits but only if you are insured? That is how it comes across to me.
It did read to me in the OP that the guy was terminal and on deaths door regardless. Could just be reading failure on my part.
While we are talking about one admittedly sad case, many times that will die because they have no health insurance. All I hear about is how bad Obama care is, but I don’t hear of any alternatives. I’m not saying it is all or even mostly good, but lets try to come up with solutions.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
Are those against Obamacare(not you specifically) suggesting that there be unlimited benefits but only if you are insured? [/quote]
Let’s be clear, if you’re insured you do not have unlimited benefits. You have the benefits according to the contract you sign and that you pay for. In this case the gentlemen’s insurance did not cover the meds that the Doctor wanted to give him. He wasn’t going to get the drugs with or without the ACA.
Want to change healthcare for the better and really make it affordable? Bring it to the people. Nothing wrong with buses or vans going out to the places that the poor live to provide service in a low overhead, low cost setting. Why does all of our services require an expensive hospital or clinic? Why can’t more services be on a cash basis with total visibility into what everything costs?
You read my post right. There’s a very limited amount of resources available to us. We simply cannot afford to pay for everything so choices get made. But they get made now and typically it means that the rich stay healthy and the poor stay sick. But the ACA is not the cause for that and the ACA isn’t going to ruin American healthcare.
I notice that the six figure making doctor living in the nice home in the nice neighborhood didn’t offer to pay for this gentlemen’s medicines. Did you set up a charity to pay for his meds? Did you tap into the family? His church?
james
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Doesn’t change a thing, pal.
You are suggesting that you and those who feel like you do, along with your government henchmen, should make the life ending decision for this man and not the man himself and what he has negotiated through private insurance and Medicare policy.[/quote]
I’m saying that under his current private insurance and/or Medicare policy he’s not getting that drug. It has nothing to do with the ACA because that hasn’t gone fully into effect now. If the ACA never passed the gentlemen in the OPs post would not have gotten the drugs that the doctor wanted to give him.
Medicare has policies set in place right now. Private insurance has policies in place right now. I’m not sure if he has both coverages or not or if he’s solely covered under Medicare but that’s who he needs to take this up with. The policies that were promised under the ACA have not yet been put into place. Nobody is enrolled in those plans.
There have been changes to Medicare in an effort to reduce the costs but isn’t that exactly what you want? I mean you want to reduce government spending on social programs right? Well one way you do that is through cutting benefits for anything that’s not been completely proven. That’s the reality. Of course there’s other ways too but nobody wants to do those.
james
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I was thinking earlier today about all this climate change shit and I finally just gave in and have decided that none of it really matters. Whether or not we can prevent/slow down/ reverse any of it is immaterial in my mind now.
PEOPLE are the problem, not what we actually do to the environment. All this bullshit about trying to save lives and all that really just isn’t that great for the planet at all. I say have at it with all the booze and cigarettes and fatty foods and all of that shit. Flu shots? Fuck 'em. Speed limits? Who needs those? Safety features in cars? Why make the companies put that much more money into their products?
It’s occurred to me that it is completely hypocritical or ignorant or short-sighted for all these liberals to push the environmental shit down our throats and then turn around and tout some healthcare program that will allegedly save lives or increase our life spans. Increasing our life span is the LAST thing this planet needs. I HOPE that Obamacare has some sort of death panel. It would be good for the whole planet to start knocking off a bunch of people left and right. [/quote]
I love a good post full of facts.
How prey-tell, does obamacare save lives or increase anybody’s life span?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
…his life really isn’t worth saving…
[/quote]
You wanna know something, James? I really don’t say this very often if ever, but friend, you’re an asshole.
A bona fide asshole. The kind that smells from a mile away.
And those who feel like you do are as well. Whether you’re name is Bert…or Smith or Jones…or Goebbels.
Let’s see how you feel when we pose a similar hypothetical about your 5 year old son. Asshole.[/quote]
Hey, don’t lump me into that crowd! I was simply pointing out a logical catch-22 of sorts when it comes to death-prevention measures. I was obviously speaking tongue-in-cheek when I said I hoped Obamacare had death panels. Have I really conveyed that sort of image to you, Push? That I’m so wholly lacking in compassion that I would actively root for a program that picks and chooses who gets to live and die?
My point is that you can’t logically sit there and try to legislate what is best for humanity as a whole (and I’m sure most liberal supporters of Obamacare, or any other healthcare program that seeks to make healthcare affordable to the lowest rungs of society, claim that this program is ultimately aiming to do) and then turn around and try to beat those 100 to 1 odds when someone is on the verge of death.
I’m not saying that we SHOULD just say fuck it and embrace wholesale euthanasia, only that the catch-22 involved in making the country a better place for everyone to live in necessarily entails less people here to begin with. The Chinese have already shown that birth limits doesn’t really do shit. I don’t think that we should legislate some sort of population control, no matter how good for the rest of society it may be in the long run, for many reasons, not the least of which is that it is immoral and it becomes extremely problematic anytime you choose who lives and dies. That’s complete insanity that belongs in 1930’s Russia.
But let’s face it, more humans means less for each human at some point. When we value consumerism and materialism as much as this country does, that becomes problematic as more and more people end up here. I think perhaps what is best is some sort of paradigm shift in which people learn to accept that we cannot live forever and that there is some value in accepting death with dignity at some point. I know that a lot of doctors don’t seek the same last-ditch efforts when the writing is on THEIR wall because they see the negative effects of trying to stave off the inevitable for a few more months or years all the time. I simply think that sometimes it is selfish to try and extract a few more months or whatever out of the end of your life (this is not a mindset I would apply to children AT ALL) at what amounts to a huge cost to the system and your family. But that is simply how humans are, and as selfish as it may be, there really isn’t anything wrong in humans acting…well, like humans.