Skip to main content

Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman says the only way the U.S. will get its debt crisis under control is by the use of "death panels" and a national sales tax.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headlin...2010/11/14/id/377008

Krugman Smears 'Death Panel' Critics

After an explosive interview Sunday morning in which he referred to using “death panels” to rein in runaway deficits, economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman claimed he had said the same thing before.

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideC...2010/11/14/id/377013
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

A "death panel" boils down to end of life choices, which should be discussed between the patient, the patient's family and the patient's doctor.

It's not exactly death by firing squad; it's about allowing natural death to happen without extraordinary intervention. Death is inevitable, but is something people in this country simply refuse to accept, so they prolong life at all costs (literally), even though there's no more quality of life to be experienced.

Why should tax payers hand over a blank check to prolong the life of someone who is dying soon anyway? Some meds to make him/her comfortable, okay, but an 85-year-old man with end stage cancer should not be on a waiting list for a kidney transplant, unless his family wants to come up with the cash for it, because it doesn't make sense.

Why do we 'Terri Schiavo' people who are dying or are essentially already dead? If you're brain dead, can't and never will function, why on earth would you want to put family through the emotional and financial stress of prolonging your life - when life is nothing more than the IVs and feeding tubes you're hooked up to?

People need to allow death to happen, naturally; they need to just face it. They also need to discuss end of life wishes, a living will, etc., with their family and doctor. That's all this is about and you all know it.
A couple of things that really bug me about this 'death panel' thing:

How do some of you have no issue with sending kids to die in the useless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but you want to take - and pay for with tax money - extraordinary steps to keep grandpa alive with a kidney transplant when he's been given four months to live due to a cancer diagnosis?

Why is dying over there at a young age so honorable and great? They're (very young) kids who'll never get the chance to grow old and develop pawpaw's disease, yet you don't have a problem with them dying because it's for some kind of honor? I don't get it.

Also, private health insurance companies have been using death panels for years, denying life-saving treatments to their paying "members". The only difference is, they don't call it a death panel; they call it doing business. So why don't any of you ever complain about that?
You obviously have never argued with an insurance company over benefits for an aged parent.
I have.
I have complained loudly and in person.
I had a doctor tell me my mother did not need surgery to repair a broken hip because she was already 75. He wanted to just 'make her comfortable', ie. drug the hell out of her and make her last moments on earth a living hell.

So butter, I have and do complain about 'death panels'.

I do feel for any soldier that dies, but unlike you, I know what is in their hearts to make them go.

That whole 'sending kids to die' is liberal spin and I have no use for it. I had great grandparents, grandparents, parents and brothers fight in wars. Luckily I lost very few. I am proud they WANTED to fight for my freedom.

Freedom is not free, it's a cliche, but true.
quote:
Originally posted by Jobe:
quote:
Originally posted by Buttercup:
A "death panel" boils down to end of life choices, which should be discussed between the patient, the patient's family and the patient's doctor.


Sorry, not the way it works under obuma care. The government will make all the decisions.


Not true. You're twisting it.

Even so, private health insurers make all the decisions now - and have for years - about whether you should or shouldn't receive a life-saving drug or a procedure that your DOCTOR recommends. What's the difference? No one has EVER been able to answer that.

Private health insurance company red tape = death panels
"We ration now. We just don't ration, rationally."

"We (America) already limit healthcare based on income and whether people have insurance."

"...as a culture, we really have to acknowledge that we're mortal. Get over it."

60 Minutes segment on healthcare rationing

Here's the intro to that segment...then it goes into segment I posted.

So, again, what's the difference in what the government will do and what private health insurers already do? Cut out the waste, don't administer any heroic measures to people who are already dying, and watch the savings add up. Sounds mean, but it's true.
quote:
Originally posted by Buttercup:
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
Tell me you believe that when it's your parent or child that is dying.


Tell me the difference in government pulling the plug and private insurers refusing to pay.


The private insurance company will never pull the plug, they will simply quit paying for the services. The government WILL PULL THE PLUG. With one, death is a possibility, with the other it is a certainty.

So I guess it comes down to whether you trust your life and the life of your loved ones to the "tender mercies" of an increasingly powerful government or not. Me, I'll trust a businessman any day over a bureaucrat.
quote:
Originally posted by marksw59:
quote:
Originally posted by Buttercup:
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
Tell me you believe that when it's your parent or child that is dying.


Tell me the difference in government pulling the plug and private insurers refusing to pay.


The private insurance company will never pull the plug, they will simply quit paying for the services. The government WILL PULL THE PLUG. With one, death is a possibility, with the other it is a certainty.


The government won't "pull the plug" either; they'll just stop paying for extraordinary measures and services that prolong life, when death is inevitable.
quote:
Originally posted by Buttercup:
quote:
Originally posted by marksw59:
quote:
Originally posted by Buttercup:
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
Tell me you believe that when it's your parent or child that is dying.


Tell me the difference in government pulling the plug and private insurers refusing to pay.


The private insurance company will never pull the plug, they will simply quit paying for the services. The government WILL PULL THE PLUG. With one, death is a possibility, with the other it is a certainty.


The government won't "pull the plug" either; they'll just stop paying for extraordinary measures and services that prolong life, when death is inevitable.


Awww.... that's cute... you believe... Wink
quote:
Originally posted by marksw59:
quote:
Originally posted by Buttercup:
quote:
Originally posted by marksw59:
quote:
Originally posted by Buttercup:
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
Tell me you believe that when it's your parent or child that is dying.


Tell me the difference in government pulling the plug and private insurers refusing to pay.


The private insurance company will never pull the plug, they will simply quit paying for the services. The government WILL PULL THE PLUG. With one, death is a possibility, with the other it is a certainty.


The government won't "pull the plug" either; they'll just stop paying for extraordinary measures and services that prolong life, when death is inevitable.


Awww.... that's cute... you believe... Wink


Post the evidence, then.

(By evidence, I mean offer a document stating the government intends to pull the plug on grandma, not spin from Hannity, Beck or Limbaugh.)
quote:
Originally posted by Buttercup:
quote:
Originally posted by marksw59:
quote:
Originally posted by Buttercup:
quote:
Originally posted by marksw59:
quote:
Originally posted by Buttercup:
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
Tell me you believe that when it's your parent or child that is dying.


Tell me the difference in government pulling the plug and private insurers refusing to pay.


The private insurance company will never pull the plug, they will simply quit paying for the services. The government WILL PULL THE PLUG. With one, death is a possibility, with the other it is a certainty.


The government won't "pull the plug" either; they'll just stop paying for extraordinary measures and services that prolong life, when death is inevitable.


Awww.... that's cute... you believe... Wink


Post the evidence, then.

(By evidence, I mean a government document stating they intend to pull the plug on grandma, not spin from Hannity or Limbaugh.)


Certainly. I'm sure the evidence is just sitting out on a table where I can lay my hands on it... oh wait...

I hate to invoke Godwin, but I'm sure Schicklgruber left his plans all about, in bold print, just where everyone could find it.

Soylent green is people! Wink Persiflage indeed.
quote:
Originally posted by marksw59:
quote:
Originally posted by Buttercup:
quote:
Originally posted by marksw59:
quote:
Originally posted by Buttercup:
quote:
Originally posted by marksw59:
quote:
Originally posted by Buttercup:
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
Tell me you believe that when it's your parent or child that is dying.


Tell me the difference in government pulling the plug and private insurers refusing to pay.


The private insurance company will never pull the plug, they will simply quit paying for the services. The government WILL PULL THE PLUG. With one, death is a possibility, with the other it is a certainty.


The government won't "pull the plug" either; they'll just stop paying for extraordinary measures and services that prolong life, when death is inevitable.


Awww.... that's cute... you believe... Wink


Post the evidence, then.

(By evidence, I mean a government document stating they intend to pull the plug on grandma, not spin from Hannity or Limbaugh.)


Certainly. I'm sure the evidence is just sitting out on a table where I can lay my hands on it... oh wait...

I hate to invoke Godwin, but I'm sure Schicklgruber left his plans all about, in bold print, just where everyone could find it.

Soylent green is people! Wink Persiflage indeed.


Big Grin
quote:
Originally posted by Buttercup:
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
And what makes you think that their opinions show what the right is thinking?


Do their opinions reflect what the left is thinking?

No, that would be the Daily Kos.

Are you putting all conservatives into one group? You never said you could watch your child die because it 'cost too much' to save them.
Last edited by b50m
Currently, if private insurance will not pay for a procedure the procedure is done anyway. The doctor or hospital may not get paid but it’s done. Under your president’s plan, the procedure will not get done at all. Why you want some bureaucrat to make your health care decision is beyond comprehension.

Take a look at this. I don’t want obuma care. Why would anybody?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HnkxIh62dQ
quote:
Originally posted by Jobe:
Currently, if private insurance will not pay for a procedure the procedure is done anyway. The doctor or hospital may not get paid but it’s done. Under your president’s plan, the procedure will not get done at all. Why you want some bureaucrat to make your health care decision is beyond comprehension.

Take a look at this. I don’t want obuma care. Why would anybody?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HnkxIh62dQ


So, the government is the equivalent of a bureaucrat making decisions, but private health insurers aren't? That's funny. You must pay for all of your health costs out of pocket.

Anyway, under the president's plan, the procedure will in fact get done if you have the money to pay for it out of pocket. That's exactly how it works now with private health insurers. If they refuse to pay (even after you've gone 12 rounds with them and had the doctor re-file the procedure under another code), you have to pay for it out of pocket. So what's the difference? There isn't a difference.

I've had three surgeries so far in this life and before every one of those costly surgeries, I've had to obtain approval from my insurance company and pay the fees to my doctor, surgeon, deductible, before the surgeon would touch me. I've even had a surgery rejected, yes, rejected by my HEALTH INSURANCE PROVIDER when it was needed. I ended up rolling the dice, having the surgery, and hoping the insurance company would reimburse my credit card. They did, but if they hadn't, I WOULD BE THE ONE WHO PAID THE BILL. So, what's the difference?????

And we're not talking about a 45-year-old woman who needs treatment for breast cancer. We're talking about people - mostly older - who have been diagnosed with fatal diseases, diseases that will kill them very soon. It's not cost-effective to spend tens of thousands of taxpayers' money to keep these people alive for a month when they're going to die in four months. However, if these people want to pay the thousands of dollars it would take to extend life for maybe a month, they can do so out of pocket.

Again, private health insurers already dictate who lives and who dies.
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
quote:
Originally posted by Buttercup:
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
And what makes you think that their opinions show what the right is thinking?


Do their opinions reflect what the left is thinking?

No, that would be the Daily Kos.

Are you putting all conservatives into one group? You never said you could watch your child die because it 'cost too much' to save them.


I wouldn't want to put a loved one through useless and invasive procedures to buy a small amount of time. And I personally wouldn't want to be 'Terri Schiavo'd' year after year, without hope of recovery.

Who wants to live brain dead inside a shell?
http://www.kmbc.com/r/6882159/detail.html

Man Dies After Insurance Company Refuses To Cover Treatment:

quote:
KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- Tracy Pierce, 37, lived a full life. He grew up with family and faith. He went to a Catholic school, got married, had a son, and he even had the car of his dreams. It was the perfect life.

"He's been strong. He has," his wife, Julie Pierce, said.

Two years ago, Tracy Pierce's life changed dramatically when he was diagnosed with kidney cancer.

"I have no treatment. Three months has gone by and I haven't had any treatment," Tracy Pierce told KMBC's Jim Flink in May 2005.

When Flink talked to Tracy Pierce, his cancer was attacking his body. Despite being fully insured, every treatment his doctors sought for him was denied by his insurance provider. First-Health Coventry deemed the treatments were either not a medical necessity or experimental.

"I don't know what else to do but just wait," Tracy Pierce said last May.

As he waited, his doctors appealed again and again, including a 27-page appeal spelling out that Tracy Pierce would die without care. Coventry dismissed each request....


another story within the same article:

quote:
Last fall, 12-year-old Nathan Crabtree was an outgoing child getting ready for a new school year. But his father says Nathan often played sick to extend summer vacation by a day or two.

To prove a point, his dad took Nathan to a doctor for test, which showed that Nathan had an aggressive form of leukemia -- one that needed immediate treatment.

Flink reported that a hospital room has become Nathan's classroom. He spent just two days of his sixth-grade year with classmates; mostly, he's been at Children's Mercy Hospital.

"It's not going away, so they were going to send me to Minnesota," Nathan said.

Doctors wrote to Nathan's insurance company, urging it to send him to the nation's foremost research hospital. Nathan's bags were packed, when his father's insurance company, Coventry, refused to pay for that care, calling it "experimental."

And this article is from the much-loved Fox News, and involves a major insurance company, Cigna.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,473118,00.html

Again, PRIVATE HEALTH INSURERS are already dictating who lives and who dies!

Insurance Company Sued for Leukemia Patient's Death, Refused to Pay for Liver Transplant:

quote:
LOS ANGELES — The family of a 17-year-old leukemia patient has sued health insurance giant Cigna Corp. for her death in 2007 after the company initially refused to pay for a liver transplant.

The lawsuit filed last week in Los Angeles County Superior Court by the family's attorney, Mark Geragos, alleges breach of contract, unfair business practices and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The suit accuses Cigna of delaying and rejecting valid claims, which resulted in the wrongful death of Nataline Sarkisyan.

The Philadelphia-based insurer eventually approved the transplant after Sarkisyan's family held a rally outside Cigna's suburban Los Angeles office. Nataline, however, died hours after the approval was secured.

Chris Curran, a spokesman for Cigna, said the company empathizes with the family but feels the lawsuit is without merit. Curran said Cigna volunteered to pay for the procedure out of its own pocket and not the employer's.

"This decision was made despite the fact that Cigna had no obligation to do so and despite concluding, based on the information available, that the treatment would be unproven and ineffective and therefore experimental and not covered by the employer's benefit plan," Curran said, reading from a statement.

But Charles Idelson, a spokesman for the California Nurses Association, said insurance companies are "in business to provide profits for shareholders, not to provide care."

"Nataline Sarkisyan's case serves as a tragic poster child for everything that's wrong with our insurance based health care system," he said. "Why did it take public humiliation for Cigna Corporation to approve a transplant?"

Nataline was diagnosed with leukemia at 14 and received a bone marrow transplant from her brother the day before Thanksgiving 2007. A complication, however, caused the teen's liver to fail.

The family had asked Cigna to pay for a liver transplant but the insurer refused, calling the procedure experimental....



Insurance companies love the word "experimental" don't they?

So there is no difference in a private health insurance company calling a procedure experimental (translation: too costly) and refusing to pay, and the government calling a procedure experimental/too costly, especially for grandpa who's already dying, and refusing to pay.

Do I need to post more stories?
quote:
Originally posted by b50m:
Nope, Soylent Green factory starting up.

The problem with all these stories is it's not happening to you.

Believe in the great O, I'll keep putting money into my 401K.


My health insurance provider did in fact initially refuse to pay for a surgery I needed. It was only after I threatened to sue them that they paid up - after the surgery!

And I don't believe in "the great O"; I believe in no one. I'm just pointing out that private insurance companies have had 'death panels' for years.
quote:
Originally posted by Buttercup:
quote:
Originally posted by Jobe:
Currently, if private insurance will not pay for a procedure the procedure is done anyway. The doctor or hospital may not get paid but it’s done. Under your president’s plan, the procedure will not get done at all. Why you want some bureaucrat to make your health care decision is beyond comprehension.

Take a look at this. I don’t want obuma care. Why would anybody?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HnkxIh62dQ


So, the government is the equivalent of a bureaucrat making decisions, but private health insurers aren't? That's funny. You must pay for all of your health costs out of pocket.

Anyway, under the president's plan, the procedure will in fact get done if you have the money to pay for it out of pocket. That's exactly how it works now with private health insurers. If they refuse to pay (even after you've gone 12 rounds with them and had the doctor re-file the procedure under another code), you have to pay for it out of pocket. So what's the difference? There isn't a difference.

I've had three surgeries so far in this life and before every one of those costly surgeries, I've had to obtain approval from my insurance company and pay the fees to my doctor, surgeon, deductible, before the surgeon would touch me. I've even had a surgery rejected, yes, rejected by my HEALTH INSURANCE PROVIDER when it was needed. I ended up rolling the dice, having the surgery, and hoping the insurance company would reimburse my credit card. They did, but if they hadn't, I WOULD BE THE ONE WHO PAID THE BILL. So, what's the difference?????

And we're not talking about a 45-year-old woman who needs treatment for breast cancer. We're talking about people - mostly older - who have been diagnosed with fatal diseases, diseases that will kill them very soon. It's not cost-effective to spend tens of thousands of taxpayers' money to keep these people alive for a month when they're going to die in four months. However, if these people want to pay the thousands of dollars it would take to extend life for maybe a month, they can do so out of pocket.

Again, private health insurers already dictate who lives and who dies.


No the procedure will NOT get done if you pay out of pocket. You didn’t watch the video and know nothing about obuma’s health care plan. If a doctor accepts payment for a procedure the government did not approve then that doctor can be subjected to criminal prosecution. Try taking the government to court over a health care claim. You will lose. I’d much rather be taking the insurance company to court than the government.

Ask yourself why congress excluded themselves from obuma care. That should tell anybody (with any sense) all they need to know about obuma care.
I know where you're coming from Jobe. Before my mom died, she needed a new doc. Only thing is, no one would accept new Medicare patients. We even offered to PAY FULL CHARGES in cash, up front, for a visit and we told that violated the rules.

I'm sure once Sebelius gets through making up the rules, it will be the same thing.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×