Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are talking about a patient who is likely to die shortly due to medical conditions. How do you think people will respond to a government panel that tells them the patient is too old for treatment and/or has a limited lifetime expectancy? Do you think Anericans are ready for health care rationing on this scale? We have never had Medicare deny a patient treatment no matter how old. You know this will change.
Health care rationing already happens. Insurance companies have been doing it forever.
Rationing is not a bad thing. When the patient is truly terminal (ie. brain dead), why would you want to do a liver transplant on him? If a patient is dying of cancer, is bedridden, and has only a month to live, why would you give him an artificial hip when he can never be expected to walk again to make use of his new hip? These are the types of rationing decisions that are not only common sensical, but also compassionate. They spare the patient of the pain and suffering associated with treatments and procedures that do zilch for the patient's prognosis. In fact, I would argue that such futile treatments only serve to enrich the doctor and hospital while providing zero benefit to the patient.
The idiots that rail against health reform have managed to give rationing a bad name in an attempt to scare people into rejecting reform. In reality, most patients and their family members - when faced by actual situations involving medical futility - almost invariably reject continued aggressive treatments that produce no tangible benefit to the patient.
Health care rationing already happens. Insurance companies have been doing it forever.
Rationing is not a bad thing. When the patient is truly terminal (ie. brain dead), why would you want to do a liver transplant on him? If a patient is dying of cancer, is bedridden, and has only a month to live, why would you give him an artificial hip when he can never be expected to walk again to make use of his new hip? These are the types of rationing decisions that are not only common sensical, but also compassionate. They spare the patient of the pain and suffering associated with treatments and procedures that do zilch for the patient's prognosis. In fact, I would argue that such futile treatments only serve to enrich the doctor and hospital while providing zero benefit to the patient.
The idiots that rail against health reform have managed to give rationing a bad name in an attempt to scare people into rejecting reform. In reality, most patients and their family members - when faced by actual situations involving medical futility - almost invariably reject continued aggressive treatments that produce no tangible benefit to the patient.
The idiots that rail against health reform have managed to give rationing a bad name in an attempt to scare people into rejecting reform. In reality, most patients and their family members - when faced by actual situations involving medical futility - almost invariably reject continued aggressive treatments that produce no tangible benefit to the patient.
If what you claim is true, why do we even need an Advisory Panel to deny medical care?
Health care rationing already happens. Insurance companies have been doing it forever.
Rationing is not a bad thing. When the patient is truly terminal (ie. brain dead), why would you want to do a liver transplant on him? If a patient is dying of cancer, is bedridden, and has only a month to live, why would you give him an artificial hip when he can never be expected to walk again to make use of his new hip? These are the types of rationing decisions that are not only common sensical, but also compassionate. They spare the patient of the pain and suffering associated with treatments and procedures that do zilch for the patient's prognosis. In fact, I would argue that such futile treatments only serve to enrich the doctor and hospital while providing zero benefit to the patient.
The idiots that rail against health reform have managed to give rationing a bad name in an attempt to scare people into rejecting reform. In reality, most patients and their family members - when faced by actual situations involving medical futility - almost invariably reject continued aggressive treatments that produce no tangible benefit to the patient.
I sure am glad that I got my 6 bypass surgery at age 72 because if this thing ever becomes real law I sure wouldn't be able to do that. Medicare is being cut along with those bureaucratic panels deciding who is and who isn't able to profit from the surgery and surely an old man of 72 who votes for nothing but Repbublicans for president wouldn't qualify.
Save all the money since we are taking $50 billion a year from Medicare and it isn't for OLD people, say left leaners.
because many people who are so ill but the family wants everything done even though futile cost the country billions of dollars to satisy their guilt and profound loss. happens every day and doctors are afraid to end treatment for fear of being sued.
If what you claim is true, why do we even need an Advisory Panel to deny medical care?
Mainly because the insurance companies are being driven out of business by this so-called law. When the US government becomes the sole arbiter of who does and who doesn't get care they will have to have some kind of panels to make the decisions, unless Harry, Nancy, and Barack can take care of all of it as a panel.
because many people who are so ill but the family wants everything done even though futile cost the country billions of dollars to satisy their guilt and profound loss. happens every day and doctors are afraid to end treatment for fear of being sued.
In other words a little tort reform would have helped immensely.
I sure am glad that I got my 6 bypass surgery at age 72 because if this thing ever becomes real law I sure wouldn't be able to do that. Medicare is being cut along with those bureaucratic panels deciding who is and who isn't able to profit from the surgery and surely an old man of 72 who votes for nothing but Repbublicans for president wouldn't qualify.
Save all the money since we are taking $50 billion a year from Medicare and it isn't for OLD people, say left leaners.
age would not be the determining factor. benefit for quality of life would be. sounds like it worked well for you. glad to hear that.we hear far to many stories that dont work out.
In other words a little tort reform would have helped immensely.
yes, however that is not the major issue which families confront. the major issue is at the time when a family member is so ill that a procedure would be not useful or beneficial their grief is so profound (and appropriately so) that they cannot make the decision. Accordingly these cases go on and on with the person on life support for weeks. it is sad there is no RIGHT answer but managed with compassion and ethical panels the decision making which itimatley involves the family can be useful make for a better death and ease the burden on the governments expenditures. tort reform would only in my opinion create more subterfuge.
I sure am glad that I got my 6 bypass surgery at age 72 because if this thing ever becomes real law I sure wouldn't be able to do that. Medicare is being cut along with those bureaucratic panels deciding who is and who isn't able to profit from the surgery and surely an old man of 72 who votes for nothing but Repbublicans for president wouldn't qualify.
Save all the money since we are taking $50 billion a year from Medicare and it isn't for OLD people, say left leaners.
Where does it say that age is a reason to deny coronary bypass? Age by itself has never been a reason to deny bypass surgery. That will not change. Getting a CABG (bypass surgery) depends on what else is going on with the rest of your body. You could be 40 years old who has end stage lung cancer and diffuse coronary artery disease who is not going to benefit from the surgery. On the other hand, you could be an active 90 year old with no other major problems and therefore would be a good candidate for CABG.
The idiotic drivel coming from the scaremongers who tell old people that Obama and the Dems are going to deny them of their treatments flies in the face of facts. Which party enacted the Medicare law? Remember Medicare - that massive entitlement for geezers like you? It was the Democrats that gave you Medicare. And it was Republicans like Reagan, Goldwater, Bush, Dole who opposed Medicare at its inception, calling it "socialized medicine."
Which party has consistently voted to preserve payments to doctors so they can continue to treat Medicare patients? Answer: the Democrats. And which party has consistently voted to gut such funding so doctors Medicare fees will be cut? You're right: the Republicans.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
