Anyone who believes all of the above is delusional.
We have health care rationing now, taxes are going to go up now, the federal government does run things efficiently now. I hope we do have a single payer system for a while before we switch over to a national health service.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

Goober you're the most dillusional person on this forum if you think the government runs anything efficiently.

I read the bill. It talks about having a govt run set of people, a panel if you will, that will develop and distribute a set of standards for care which they think are efficient. Call that a death panel if you want. The end result is that when the govt decides what its going to pay for regarding care, it will only reimburse the methods and judgements that it thinks are efficient. Maybe you die becuase of that. Then when govt is actually setting the rules of how doctors will provide care when we have a single payer system, theyll just ban certain treatments.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

That's not a death panel, it's a review panel, you have the same diagnosis 10,000 times, 5000 time it got treated with drug A, 5000 times it got treated with drug B. 3897 patients treated with drug A recovered, 2,823 patients treated with drug B recovered.
The panel will recommend that drug A be used, because that gives you better outcomes.

That is hardly a "Death Panel".

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

Go read the report from Dr. Emanual.

PolitiFact | Obama is correct that "death panel" charge is a lie

PolitiFact | Sarah Palin falsely claims Barack Obama runs a 'death panel'

So CG could you stop the lieing...

The question is, how much of a "recommendation" will the panel's recommendation be? Will it simply be advisory in nature, or will the "recommendations" come as requirements, either directly, or through favorable reimbursements? If the former, fine with me. If the later, then you will have government interfering with the decisions between doctors and their patients.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

i don't see how refusing to spend billions on expensive operations for the elderly is euthanasia.

euthanasia is when you kill a being, put it out of its misery. When you stop spending billions on the elderly, lets face it they are dying for reasons beyond healthcare. its called human reality. they are going to die regardless of how the healthcare is rationed.

if it is not rationed, providing the elderly healthcare on the public nickel will only skyrocket as all these new anti aging technologies and operations ferment.

if you don't agree with groups making public decisions on the use of public money, then you are damn hypocrite if you still believe the government and public supplied healthcare to the elderly shall continue. you can't have it both ways....

__________________

Except when the rationing is done by market forces, in a free society, that's just life. Some people fare better than others, and it is reasonably fair. When the government does it, it is more often than not shifting resources from those who WOULD otherwise have them to those who left to their own devices would not.

What is often a noble act on the part of an individual, is deeply immoral when institutionalized as a matter of law. Suppose you had someone worth about $500,000 who suffered from a serious illness. Doctors tell him that he will not live another month without an extermely expensive surgery and drug regimine that will cost about $500,00 that will extend his life by at most six months. The person decides he would rather leave that money to his family than squeeze out another six months of relatively miserable living. That is a perfectly fine choice for an individual to make. That same decision, imposed by a third party on someone who might otherwise have had the resources or access to that care is fundamentally immoral.

Much of the problems we have in health insurance and healthcare today are the result of the inefficiencies and market distortions introduced by government involvement, and more such inefficiencies and distortions are simply not the answer.

We should get government completely out of the health insurance and healthcare market (including getting rid of the tax provisions that make it more economical to get health insurance through our employers) and if we are going to, as a society, provide for subsidizing those who can't afford things on their own, it should be as direct subsidies through refundable tax credits (in fact our entire social safety net should be replaced with something like the negative income tax that was floated in the 1970s)

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

The more you privatise healthcare the more it costs... I got proof you don't... You got opinion... We have proven time and time again how healthcare doesn't react to market forces like any other product...

Let's see, classic market forces and econimics say that the more you subsidize something, the more demand goes up, the higher prices go up; classic economics says the lower the connection between consumers and payers is, the higher prices go up. Healthcare has been one of the most increasingly subsidized areas of the economy (along with higher education) and oddly enough is one of the areas of the economy with the fastest increases in costs (along with higher education). Sounds like it reacts to market forces as predicted.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

Soon as you prove that the demand for healthcare is dictated by choice rather than need.

Try equating a TV to a life saving operation for someones daughter... You argument is fundamentally flawed...

Also patients don't select there healhcare their doctor does...

You are also using theory, Communism works in Theory, but in practice it is a disaster. Government run healthcare is cheaper than privatised healthcare... In the real world that is just fact compare the government run health systems worldwide. So show me a heavilly privatised healthcare sytem which is cheaper while offering equal or better care...

Your right in taking elective cosmetic surgery

Its a death panel. The libs can dress it up with a bow and tie but in the end its still a death panel even if the leftist call it something else.

The premise of such a panel would be to determine which patients are viable for treatment and which patients are lost causes.

I know some believe there wont be any such panel BUT how could there not be a panel? How do you run a universal health-care system costing trillions to the American taxpayer with out a panel to decide who is a viable subject to save and who isn't? You better believe such a program would have to be run efficiently in order for it to be successful.

__________________
Sic Semper Tyrannis






http://www.myspace.com/swoop187muzic

Actually the legislation doesn't mention any thing like this...

By the way how is this do today... Is there a magical way everyone gets care at the moment...

There is a provision for a committee to recommend ways of treating patients of certain conditions... This refers to integrated care pathways which were introduced during the Clinton administration to decrease legislation by standardizing care.

This was a huge success with a side efeect of saving thousands of lives while reducing costs in certain areas. Variations are being used worldwide.

My point is any efficient and financially responsible health-care program will have to have a "panel" that decides when anymore costly treatment will be ineffective. This panel will have to decide who lives and who is thrown in a corner and left to die.

I can promise you our government will not treat terminal patients with costly preventive treatments up to the point of death when those resources can be spent on someone that has a chance to live.

A 'death panel' is completely unavoidable and is logical from the financial aspect.

My point is the same people who have terminal pre-existing conditions will NOT be better off with any form of health-care, it will be the same and only a few people who have serious conditions would benefit from such a health-care program.

Most of the money will go to treating urban victims of crime. Shootings, stabbings, assaults etc.. ER care will be the most costly.

__________________
Sic Semper Tyrannis






http://www.myspace.com/swoop187muzic