I dislike having to make a new thread for this, but not even really old threads seem like an appropriate segue for this essay. Very insightful, and I think it very accurately explains the real situation that is stupidly misconstrued as "death panels" or "rationing". Incredible procedures are incredibly expensive, and only rarely worth it - what's the appropriate course of action?
When you get onto your late 50's you start having these conversations with your friends about your parents. It's a Gordian Knot of ethics and emotions. Trying to institutionalize a procedure for weighing these decisions is unthinkably hard that's why most people just say use any means to keep the patient alive. But, the economic choice is now incumbent on The People. Call it whatever you want, but it has to be done. And soon not covertly like it is now. How about, after 80, you're on your own dime pal?
Another interesting read. I myself agree with all of this and actually have talked to my mom about this and she has said she wouldn't like to have her life artificially and painfully extended. That said though, and I hope it never comes to this. I don't know if I would have the strength to tell doctors not to do everything they can to save her.
How is it misconstrued? There are government panels that determine what end of life (death) care one is entitled to. "Sorry that's just not cost effective, you're too old". And health care is a finite resource, which is by definition rationed when provided by the state. The issue is who gets to determine the appropriate course of action. The left's instinct is to proclaim what's best (like this article) and impose that worldview on the rest of us rubes.
The resources become far less 'finite' when they're not determined by profitability. Our entire healthcare system is engineered to extract the maximum amount of profit from every single interaction between patient and hospital. That results in bloated bureaucracies, massive debt (for patients), an unethical standard of operating, and great expenses passed on to federal, state, and local governments. The closer we get to a single-payer system, the more we're going to realize that aspirin doesn't cost $10 a pill because it's "finite" - it costs $10 a pill because the people who sit on the boards of the healthcare industry and shills and whores for dollars.
The right's instinct is to have insurance companies - who's only interest is in profit - make those decisions and impose that worldview on the rest of us. Is that any better? *Someone* has to make the decision whether to pay for a procedure - who do you think it should be?
I just skimmed through it. There is a concept in law called "standard of care" which determines the degree of care and guides the doctor to which procedures they must perform. In treatment, the standard of care requires doctors to sufficiently explain the nature of a procedure through another concept called "informed consent." In other words, the doctor is required to inform, in sufficient detail, what they're going to do, its expected results, the odds of success etc. for you to decide whether it's worth it or not. In an emergency when informed consent can no longer be rendered in a timely fashion, doctors taking charge are still guided by the standard of care. So, the legal system is in place to prevent over-treatment. This paragraph, especially: describes a situation where the doctors can be sued. I do think most doctors are insufficiently aware of the bioethics and law involved, or are motivated by other things besides the noble missions of the practice of medicine, and that's why these things happen.
Health Care is rationed regardless of who provides it. Your insurance company is rationing it as well, they just bury it in the fine print and you only find out when something serious happens. There are not enough doctors and money to treat everyone endlessly. Gov't pays for some people's health care - those who can't pay it themselves...medicare. Which honestly pays a lot more than most insurance companies will. So if you were sick with a serious life-threatening disease would you have a for-profit business decide what is cost effective and whether or not to pay or medicare?
My parents are approaching the same situation. They are not ones to wish to live out their lives in hospitals though. My grand parents died in their homes and my parents would not want to die in a hospital. It would be tough. Really tough. I'm not sure if I'm ready for this.
I had an Aunt who went back and forth with cancer for almost a dozen years. She'd have rough periods but then get better. And she was able to live independently up until a week before she finally passed away. Cancer is a death sentence, but there are too many variables to make absolute decisions on how you would fight it. Look at Roger Ebert, the dude lost half his face, can't talk, and he needs a feeding tube, but he can still watch films and write about them, he still has his family, he still has a decent quality of life. And the part about refusing CPR. What the hell is that all about. And let's not forget that insurance companies also have an agenda. They don't want you too "needlessly suffer". They want you to have a "humane" and "dignified" death. BS. They just don't want to pay out and would prefer you go t*** up as quickly as possible.
Even before "Obamacare", it was either you had insurance or you were completely f***ed (as opposed to mostly f***ed, with insurance). So, let's not act as if insurance was ever "voluntary".
I was going to point out one of the many obvious flaws in your "logic" (I put it in quotations because you don't really have logic - you have talking points), but then I remembered that you get your talking points directly from the party so it's a complete waste of time to debate with you.
National healthcare is inevitable. Deal with it. And affordable housing, energy, transportation, and education are next.
