Paul Krugman thinks so
Krugman is a loon. People that think he's worthy of taking seriously are even worse than he is. Didn't this loony criticize Palin for the exact same thing he's suggesting here? No one EVER calls he left out on their hypocrisy. Shameful.
In other news, I solved the energy crisis.
That is what I thought, but it is the left, so they get a pass.
People actually thought otherwise? Wow...
Heck, I applaud the man for showing a bit of steel, even if he was attempting to be a smartass (though in his later clarification he sort of dug a hole for himself). Did people really think we could afford to fight for every year--heck, month--of a person's life and not go bankrupt with that alone? C'mon, really? People will be denied POTENTIALLY lifesaving/life extending treatment. And, of course, the elderly will feel the brunt of it.
theblaze provides some pretty good entertainment, no? Also, if there were any questions about beck being a fearmongering sumbitch (or more likely just a product whore) he's now backing "survival food insurance" which is, of course, prominently advertised on his website. Sure, if you live in an area really prone to natural disasters, keep some extra shit on hand. But in case you're really out of your fucking mind, you can get 12 months of freeze dried food for a steal of a deal at only $9.600. And since much if it has a shelf life of 7-10 years, you must be convinced of impending nuclear warfare/socialist takeover/nazi invasion/george soros' undead army/etc... Really, you'd have to hate your family not to do it.
He's just putting it out there so people can get more familiar with the concept.
The way it was introduced was very abrupt and caused a lot of discomfort.
So now that the initial discomfort has faded, it can start to be worked with. Like looking under the hood of your car. Do it enough times and you start to think you know what you're doing.
Now people can start talking about death panels, working them into conversations and federal policies and stuff.
(see how I did that?)
Not a bad word anymore. Like "fuck".
They have something like that in the British National Health Service except I don't think they have an actual panel that makes a formal decision. It just something they do without talking about it. What they do over there is if someone elderly ends up in hospital and it doesn't seem like they are going to pull through they start them on morphine and just keep increasing the dosage till they pack it in. It usually takes about a month.
There was a doctor in my neighbohood named Kevorkian who used to say that on average more money is spent for medical care over the last six months of a persons life, than gets spent over the course of their life prior to that last six months. If people who have no hope of survival, no quality of life and are being kept alive at great expense cold be allowed to have access to medical euthenasia it would free up a lot of money to provide care to those who are young and healthy enough that they could be nursed back to health.
What to do with terminal patients is a harsh reality that we will need to face up to if we are going to make care widely available for the bulk of people.
That is how it will be here. When Palin said death panel, she did not mean there would be an actually panel of judges to decide you fate, rather, it will be a list of rules, regulations, and protocols that determine who gets certain treatments and who does not. It was stupid to think that the govt would pay for anyone to have anything, but that is what alot of folks thought. They all was like I am gonna get free health care and the rich will pay for it, this was an actuall response I got when i asked a woman in a grocery stor how it would be paid for. This is how Obama thinks about his own Grandma http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aGrKbfWkzTqc
Are death panels real? Not in the joking way the progressives are trying to make them but yes they are. My family went through it last year with my mother, we had people telling us quality of life cost and everything else, in the end we had to decide to either turn off life support and watch my mother, the person who gave me life slowly die of dehydration/starvation. If you think government style won't be worse oh my friend have I got a bridge to sell you.
The problem of this whole 'death panel' thing is when will it end. Is a broken leg enough to let someone die over? They do it with horses.
This is a very sensitive subject, b/c of the implications that could result later on.
All it takes is that first inch to be given(if it hasn't already, I'm in Canada on not very up to date on the subject, just posting my thoughts :)).
So you prefer private death panels to public ones? Isn't that the way it should be? IMO government healthcare should be "bottom of the barrel." If people can afford healthcare, they should buy it.
That being said, my experiences with "private death panels" have been pretty bad. Growing up I can't recall a time when we went to the hospital (my sister had a variety of illnesses and "issues") and DIDN'T have to fight with the insurance companies over it.
I don't prefer either and my mother did have private insurance. The problem is when the government puts its hand in the cookie jar private companies go bye bye, look at how much more expensive insurance has gotten in the last few years, think its coincidence? Pretty soon we won't have a choice it will be government run or you'll be fined for not having any. When that happens we'll have something similar to the MASH trigger type healthcare(a little over dramatic maybe but close) with people walking past saying which people get care. Fuck Obama's said it during the debates look it up he referred to older people instead of getting a hip replacement to just take the pain medication.
In a private system the beauty is that you can sign up for any contract to cover anything you want (some of this is no longer allowed by law). And if a company doesn't cover what you want, you can go find coverage somewhere else (once again the federal government has screwed this up with regulation). And even if you do end up with a coverage dispute, your odds fighting a private company are much better than trying to fight the government.
Thanks for the thought out response. If I'm understanding you correctly, you are ideologically opposed to any government involvement in healthcare whatsoever. Is that correct? Does that include the current programs for the elderly? Do you think they are going down the slippery slope you proposed here as well?
I guess my experiences have been different than this, so I'm not sure if its true. For example, my college roommate has had a back problem for about a decade. As a young lawyer he was unable to obtain private health insurance because of the pre-existing conditions when he was taken off his parent's plan. Could you elaborate on what you mean?
I guess this is a hypothetical that could be true. Do the elderly people that have been on government healthcare have a harder time with their disputes than with the current private health agencies? Given the problems that the other poster talked about as well as the ones I experienced, I guess I'm not convinced this is true yet.
Well we do know that Massachusets care, whatever the name is, has a higher rejection rate than private companies and pays more per patient than them.
This does not bode well.
I actually don't know that. Do you have evidence I could see?