And before the ACA there were death panels too, they worked at insurance companies refusing to provide approvals for treatments that cost too much money. The difference is that the insurance company death panels actually carried out their function.
Truthfully I'm fine with death panels too. And physician assisted suicide for terminally ill people. Frankly I think we tend to treat our pets far more humanely at the end of their lives than we do grandma oftentimes.
honestly they will pull the plug when someone is going to die anyway, they aren't that heroic in their measures. I find my actual experiences of things like that and well probably everything else, match not at all the type of things people talk about (they do know when it's hopeless and they don't encourage heroic measures). I would caution anyone from taking discussions about how they take heroic measures all that seriously - it won't prepare you for reality and it's better off to be prepared for things that are actually real in such a situation. If you think you are going to be fighting doctors who only want to take heroic futile measures - not likely, they don't want to do that either.
Trees don't grow on money
Yeesss....and this is EXACTLY what Comcast and Verizon and Ted Cruz/McConnell want to do. So what are you saying here? You think we should have to pay for the privilege of them doing it?Originally Posted by bae
Yes, yes (sigh) OF COURSE you invented the internet...why am I not surprised...
You also think there shouldn't be a government, and all people should be armed everywhere, every time...You clearly don't exist in the same world as the rest of us, on many levels.
My experience was different. When my father was lying in a coma induced state in an ICU, his family (us!) were the ones to focus on "what happens next?" i.e. pulling the plug. Now, I'm sure that at some point later the professionals would have convened a meeting with his family and said there's no hope, pull the plug so perhaps it's just a matter of timing. The pros would have waited a few day longer (?) But I thought it was weird that we had to chase down the various Drs. of record to get them to give a bloody opinion.
Same for DH's mother--heart attack, clinically dead, and the family pushed for pulling the plug.
Yes, I've had the same thought that insurance companies are another sort of death panel. That's why I'm not freaked out by the idea.
Do you then agree that health care provided to all American's must have a cap? Who determines the cap? Do you think it's ok for some Americans to have gumnt funded health care that is a lower product thatn those who can pay out of pocket?
How is it determined elsewhere? Maybe we don't have to invent the wheel from the hub on out.
I agree with kib. How do other countries handle this. I'm not sure a hard dollar cap is the right answer, but maybe certain aggressive procedures should only be done if the person is at a certain level of health to be likely to recover and have a decent quality of life.
In my personal experience my dad opted not to have a cardiac catheterization that would have opened up the 90% plugged arteries in his heart. He died a month later. He could have had the procedure, would have likely lived longer, but would've probably spent the rest of his life working to get strong enough to hopefully go home again. He had the same procedure done 2years ago and spent the next 4 months in the hospital and rehab. This time around would likely have been longer. I'm sad that he's gone, but glad he didn't have the procedure done since it would've likely just been an expensive way to extend his misery.
Sorry to derail this thread...
My impression is that in Canada one may NOT use one's own money to go beyond what the gubmnt pays for a specific treatment. I completely, utterly, think this sucks. If I have $$$ why shouldn't I be able to go beyond the treatment that some asshat gubmnt bureaucrat thinks I should not have? Granted, IRL I personally would likely not want experimental or even high end, aggressive treatment. But if I wanted it and could pay for it, why the h*ll not?
Meanwhile, in the UK, they have tiered system whereby those who want to skip pas the NHS can go to Harley Street. I like that idea.
In this case you are placing, I believe, the decision in the hands of the DR for the most part. And while that might be fine, he would likely ceed this decision to the patients and family in many cases. Dr. absolutely CANNOT determine outcome many time.
And the patient and family won't be picking up the bill. I will, as a taxpayer. All the more reason to make certain that patients have skin in the game, and if they cannot afford big ticket treatments. so be it.
Sorry if you already responded, I rethought what I wanted to say.
It sounds like the Canadian prohibition is in place to keep people from bribing their way to the front of the line? I have to agree that if you can pay for it yourself, there should be a secondary source for treatment, but that the people already in queue, regardless of their ability to pay, shouldn't be shouldered out of the way by the rich.
It still, of course, doesn't address the question of what procedures should be covered, gubmnt, insurance or otherwise. And I suppose if cutting edge procedures are never paid for, the cutting edge stops advancing.
... and I just realized we're having this conversation in "Net Neutrality." Sorry.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote