It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WND Doctors Orders N.Y. Times columnist: Death panels will save 'a lot of money'

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Death Panels?


Another panelist interjected, "Death panels would save money," to which Krugman responded:

The advisory panel which has the ability to make more or less binding judgments on saying this particular expensive treatment actually doesn't do any good medically and so we are not going to pay for it. That is actually going to save quite a lot of money. We don't know how much yet. The CBO gives it very little credit but, but most, most of the health care economists I talk to think that's going be a really, uh a really major cost saving.


I guess they do exist and it does make sense?!

I think...or not.

lol

At what point does the government find you unproductive and pull the plug?

Who needs your organs?

Yet at some point the plug must be pulled? Rigght?

www.wnd.com...

What a creepy thing to have written in law.

But the bottom line is this will create a whole new industry.

Mexico will have great health care for sale along with a baby boomer retirement package.

Long live Carlos Slim!



[edit on 1-4-2010 by whiteraven]




posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   

"He is right," Poe wrote. "According to a 2006 study by the Department of Health and Human Services, five percent of the U.S. population accounts for nearly 50 percent of health care spending in America. Who are those five percent? Most are people over 65 years of age with serious, chronic illnesses.


Here are some figures.

Does this not remind you a little of the roundup of invalids in Nazi Germany?

Not trying to be a scaremyster but the parallels are their.

They still need to tweek the bill, save some taxpayer money.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 09:52 AM
link   
"The advisory panel which has the ability to make more or less binding judgments on saying this particular expensive treatment actually doesn't do any good medically and so we are not going to pay for it."

The insurance companies have panels that do this right now. It's nothing new. Now the government's going to get in on the act. Care to guess if they will ever contradict the conclusions of the insurance company's panels?



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   
I believe the fact that the government now controls the contraception switch and the death switch for its numbered populace should be some form of eyeopener.

Animal Farm?


Beasts of England, beasts of Ireland,
Beasts of every land and clime,
Hearken to my joyful tiding
Of the golden future time.
en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 1-4-2010 by whiteraven]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   
What the statement means is that if a treatment doesn't work, it won't be used. If it doesn't work, why use it?



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Yes the fact is apparent.

We need to have a death panel.

It used to be nature but now that we are conquering nature we must allow ourselves to experiment with a new American society.

Hegel would be proud.

By the way spark notes explanation of Orwell quote....

These lines from Chapter I constitute the first verse of the song that Old Major hears in his dream and which he teaches to the rest of the animals during the fateful meeting in the barn. Like the communist anthem “Internationale,” on which it is based, “Beasts of England” stirs the emotions of the animals and fires their revolutionary idealism. As it spreads rapidly across the region, the song gives the beasts both courage and solace on many occasions. The lofty optimism of the words “golden future time,” which appear in the last verse as well, serves to keep the animals focused on the Rebellion’s goals so that they will ignore the suffering along the way.

Later, however, once Napoleon has cemented his control over the farm, the song’s revolutionary nature becomes a liability. Squealer chastises the animals for singing it, noting that the song was the song of the Rebellion. Now that the Rebellion is over and a new regime has gained power, Squealer fears the power of such idealistic, future-directed lyrics. Wanting to discourage the animals’ capacities for hope and vision, he orders Minimus to write a replacement for “Beasts of England” that praises Napoleon and emphasizes loyalty to the state over the purity of Animalist ideology.





[edit on 1-4-2010 by whiteraven]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by whiteraven
 


First of all: World News Daily? Really?

Secondly, Why can't conservatives get this issue into the thinking part of their brains?I think you are not understanding what is right in front of you. As nobel prize winning economist of the new york times said explaining the propaganda called 'death panels':


"...this particular expensive treatment actually doesn't do any good medically and so we are not going to pay for it. That is actually going to save quite a lot of money...that's going be a really, uh a really major cost saving."

Anyway, you'd prefer a panel of insurance company bureaucrats deciding what is or is not covered, knowing that insurance companies exist solely to make a profit??!! Are you mad?

Best,
Skunknuts

P.S. I thought conservatives were all for rationality and common-sense. Why would a conservative want the government to pay for expensive treatments that don't work? Stop spreading lies, paranoia, and disinformation.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   
What part of "treatment that does not work" do you not understand. "Death panels" are a Sarah Palin fantasy. The bill simply proposes evaluating treatments, not people. In fact, if a treatment is harmful, the panel will save lives.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   
WND?


Watch the ABC video on the link!

The above quotes are from it.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Ha Ha good one, your not going to get me on this one, Death panels indeed whats next Euthanasia Hit Squads.

Happy April Fools Everyone



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


The panels that decide the course of treatment can be labeled a life panel or a death panel.

Does not matter.

The idea that government has the life/death switch..the contraception switch....the abortion switch....etc etc is creepy.

Or maybe you feel comfortable with it?

I just feel somewhat creeped out that Canada and the US both have these panels in place.

And now Canada wants to bring back the death penalty.

Creepy or not?

I guess not so creepy for you.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   
There are some things Medicare and Medicaid don't pay for already.

To use a ridiculous example: suppose some medical facility decided that the best treatment for your leg would be to send it into orbit around the earth on a satellite. It would only cost 500 million dollars. And the government said "no, we won't pay for that."

Or suppose you go a witch doctor and he charges $50,000 to cast a spell on your leg. And the government says "no, we won't pay for that."

Krugman is talking about medical procedures that have been PROVEN to be ineffective.

There is already some rationing of care under our present system. For example, organs for transplants. They are in short supply and there are not enough for everyone who needs them so hospitals and physicians usually pick the people who have the best odds of benefitting from the treatment. Sometimes the list is tweaked a bit if the person is famous or pays a whole lot under the table.

Already under our system patients and doctors make very difficult choices about whether a certain procedure should be done or not. For example, my mother, at the age of 88, declined to have a serious and extensive surgery because she didn't think she would live through it at her age. After much discussion with her, we, the family, abided by her wishes. She died two years later. Maybe earlier than she would have if she had had the operation or maybe not.

Of course, the government will not ever have completely unlimited funds to do every single thing that every single person or every single medical facility or alternative healer would want to have done when they want it done. There are choices to be made. And one way to limit expenditures is to decline to do treatments that are PROVEN to be ineffective. As I said earlier, Medicare and Medicaid already do that.

But that happens now. People's own finances, their judgment, and the insurance companies make those decisions in many cases. Doctors themselves sometimes make delicate judgments about whether to recommend a certain procedure for a certain patient if they don't think it will be effective for them.

It seems strange that the same people who scream that we cannot afford to have health care reform at all, then turn around and scream that the plan doesn't cover enough or cost enough to suit them.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Good! One of my deepest fears is that people will find me unconscious one day and "save" me by putting me on all kinds of life sustaining machines. NO thanks! Some of you many want big lines run up through your groin and a metal thing resembling a faucet installed in you to help your heart, or one of the other delightful life saving devices. Not me. I've seen too much.

Maybe with the new health care bill, the one good thing will be that I can wear a card that says, "Use no equipment over $5,000."



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by franspeakfree
Ha Ha good one, your not going to get me on this one, Death panels indeed whats next Euthanasia Hit Squads.

Happy April Fools Everyone


I thought so at first as well.

POSTED...

Posted: March 30, 2010


Then I searched the ABC thing...

its a discusion...quote from ABC...




WND DOCTOR'S ORDERS
N.Y. Times columnist: Death panels will save 'a lot of money'
Paul Krugman tells 'Roundtable' economists agree it's 'going to be major'
Posted: March 30, 2010
9:02 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Left-leaning New York Times economic columnist Paul Krugman says the so-called "death panels" established by President Obama's trillion-dollar nationalized health-care plan will end up saving "a lot of money" for the government.

The comments from Krugman, who also writes on the New York Times blogs, came during a discussion of "Obamacare" on the ABC News Sunday program "This Week."

"People on the right, they're simultaneously screaming, 'They're going to send all the old people to death panels,' and 'It's not going to save any money,'" he said.

Another panelist interjected, "Death panels would save money," to which Krugman responded:

The advisory panel which has the ability to make more or less binding judgments on saying this particular expensive treatment actually doesn't do any good medically and so we are not going to pay for it. That is actually going to save quite a lot of money. We don't know how much yet. The CBO gives it very little credit but, but most, most of the health care economists I talk to think that's going be a really, uh a really major cost saving.



Listen Palin to me is fingers on a chalk-board but another link...www.conservatives4palin.com...


ABC link www.youtube.com...



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lookingup
Good! One of my deepest fears is that people will find me unconscious one day and "save" me by putting me on all kinds of life sustaining machines. NO thanks! Some of you many want big lines run up through your groin and a metal thing resembling a faucet installed in you to help your heart, or one of the other delightful life saving devices. Not me. I've seen too much.

Maybe with the new health care bill, the one good thing will be that I can wear a card that says, "Use no equipment over $5,000."



I see that as well.


That is a good thing.

But we are still sailing into uncharted territory i think...

The US leads the world like it or not and this opens all sorts of things for other nations. lol



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   
this was beaten to death the other day. Anyway, read the stuff in this thread also. Makes a great debate.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Skunknuts please. Did you want me to send that info on the History of Insurance etc?
)



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 


Thanks that did not come up on my google search.

I will read it and continue to get creeped out. lol



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by anon72
this was beaten to death the other day. Anyway, read the stuff in this thread also. Makes a great debate.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Skunknuts please. Did you want me to send that info on the History of Insurance etc?
)




Hey Anon,

We can discuss the history of insurance, but like I previously stated, I don't think that is relevant. I think trying to adulterate BOTH the concepts of healthcare AND insurance has lead to the embarrassing abomination of a system we currently have. Do you at least see from where I am coming?

Basically, healthcare is something that 99.999999% of people will need at some point. That is a product that does not fit into an 'insurance' model. Just imagine if 99.999999% of automobiles were destined to have an accident. We need to get that fact into our heads.

The issue is incredibly complex. I will concede that some aspects of health (catastrophic events/ long term intensive care, etc.) do more readily fit the typical notion of an insurance model. Ironically, though, the for-profit 'insurance' companies do everything possible to avoid paying for/ 'insuring' those cases which most fit the model for what insurance supposedly exists. Can you at least see that my belief system is the result of serious analysis?

Now, the whole 'death panel' topic really infuriates me, because it gets people all hyped up, preventing a serious, rational discussion from taking place. As an intelligent person, you know that it is simply impossible, IN ANY SYSTEM, for all people to get all possible treatments. Resources are limited, that is a fact. Tough decisions need to be made, and if made wisely, it will maximize treatments and outcomes across the board. That is why we need experts (doctors and ethicists) to be, well, the experts. Of course, if one wants, and has the means, they can pay for whatever they want.

Life isn't clean and pretty. In the end, we, as a society, need to realize that paying $500,000 to extend a 90 year old's life by a possible 15 days vs. using those resources to give thousands of kids basic health care is a choice that needs to be made. Fortunately, it is pretty well established that people will live longer and be healthier, thus enjoying their lives more, if they receive maintenance healthcare throughout their lives.

We all need to grow-up, and have serious honest discussions. We are a society based on law, I'm sick of all this 'if the government is involved, it can't be trusted.' That is BS. I guarantee millions upon millions of people would love to have tricare, medicare, or even medicaid (depending on the state). Other countries have shown that positive outcomes (life expectancy, infant mortality, preventable syndromes, etc.) can be had at significantly less money (like half as much, per capita).

Also, this freedom tripe is so disingenuous. You know what, most people would gladly surrender an ounce of personal sovereign liberty, if one is hard-wired to feel that way, in exchange for the megatons of crushing worry about not having access to affordable health care. How free do the millions of people declaring bankruptcy SOLELY because they got sick feel? How free does a parent feel having a healthcare plan constituted of prayers and crossing one's fingers? This is not theoretical, every other industrialized country has provided the basic level of support to its citizens, not because these other countries are shoving nazi programs down people's throats, no, it's because the citizens demanded the freedom of security a rational system of healthcare provides.

Best,
Skunknuts



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
We already have death panels.

They are called "SHAREHOLDERS" and "CEO's".



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   
I never called them death panels the journalists/talking heads and guests referred to it as a death panel.

The devil you know or the devil you don't.

Bottom line is the government via health care has awesome power given to it.

When do we allow the lines to be redrawn.

Every 4 years.

Would you feel comfortable if the members of the board of whomever decides were all Roman Catholic or Islamic or Baptist??

Well the members of the board are all government.

And as I said the US seems to set the course.

Abortion, gay rights, euthanasia, state issued contraception, state made laws, state interpretation of laws, laws that need special lawyers to understand who work for other lawyers who work for whoever flips their bill...

I think a revolution already took place.

Hell I remember a time that I did not even understand or even hear the words abortion, gay rights.....they never existed.

The revolution already took place and now we are on the cusp of another.

lol



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join