If this doesn't wake you up nothing will.....
WaveCameCrashin
Posts: 2,929
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/health-car ... fe/2/Under the Democrats’ proposed health care reform legislation, we know that the government will have to determine some sort of rationing system in order to control costs. We are aware that part of the rationing will be absorbed in the discrimination that the bill inflicts upon the elderly; we know that it cuts $500 billion from Medicare. What has remained puzzling is how exactly this rationing will be determined for the rest of us. Similarly elusive is how the new Health Benefits Advisory Committee will decide whether or not you get certain medical treatments, regardless of the opinion of your doctor. After all, how do you put a dollar value on a human life?
If you think there is no answer to that question, you are way behind the progressives. In fact, most countries with socialized medicine, including Britain, are already using a mathematical formula that expresses the numerical value of one year of a human life in a measurement called the QALY, or “quality-adjusted life year.” In terms of determining medical care, the mathematical formula of the QALY is based on both how much a treatment may lengthen your lifespan and the quality of the life you will be living.
Basically, if you are in optimal health, the QALY of one year of your life is 1.0. But if you have any underlying conditions, like asthma or muscular dystrophy, your QALY is much lower. Under the QALY system, the blind are worth less than those with sight, as those who can walk are worth more than those in wheelchairs. Sound like discrimination against persons with disabilities? It gets worse.
In a paper entitled “Cost-Effectiveness and Disability Discrimination,” the director of the Division of Medical Ethics at the Harvard Medical School, Dan Brock, argues “prioritizing health care resources by their relative cost-effectiveness can result in lower priority for the treatment of disabled persons than otherwise similar non-disabled persons.” He says that type of system not only “implies that disabled persons’ lives are of lesser value than those of non-disabled persons,” but it also “conflicts with equality of opportunity; it conflicts with fairness, which requires ignoring (some/most) differential impacts of treatment; it wrongly gives lower priority to disabled persons for equally effective treatment; it conflicts with giving all persons an equal chance to reach their full potential; and, it is in conflict with giving priority to the worse off.”The “double jeopardy” scenario that describes how the disabled are not only already suffering with an illness or disability, but are also given a lower priority of health care treatments to preserve or improve the quality of their lives, has been widely debated in countries with universal health care. It does little good to pass health care reform that restricts denying insurance to those with underlying conditions when treatment is still withheld from these individuals as an inherent flaw within the system.
As if that’s not bad enough, the health advisor to the president, Ezekiel Emanuel, is proposing a system even more deleterious. His system, similar to the QALY, is “the complete lives system,” which not only allows for discrimination against the elderly and disabled, but also targets the very young, i.e., our children.
Emanuel says of his system: “When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.”
Leave it to American progressives to take the QALY one step further by defining quality of life as how useful you are to society — that is, how likely you are to increase the government’s tax revenue, hence the emphasis on those between ages 15 and 40. Health care gets a lot cheaper by rationing care to all non-taxpayers.
According to Emanuel, “The death of a 20-year-old woman is intuitively worse than that of a two-month-old girl.” I doubt the parents of the two-month-old agree.
And, if you are a child with disabilities, the government has already completely given up on you. Emanuel believes “services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed.” What’s worse, since he does not believe in “guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason,” once the public option puts the private sector out of business, these types of life-changing services for children will no longer exist.
Years of research in treating children with autism, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and dyslexia are in jeopardy of being rendered null and void. Years of progress in passing anti-discrimination laws may be undone in one single bill.
If you think there is no answer to that question, you are way behind the progressives. In fact, most countries with socialized medicine, including Britain, are already using a mathematical formula that expresses the numerical value of one year of a human life in a measurement called the QALY, or “quality-adjusted life year.” In terms of determining medical care, the mathematical formula of the QALY is based on both how much a treatment may lengthen your lifespan and the quality of the life you will be living.
Basically, if you are in optimal health, the QALY of one year of your life is 1.0. But if you have any underlying conditions, like asthma or muscular dystrophy, your QALY is much lower. Under the QALY system, the blind are worth less than those with sight, as those who can walk are worth more than those in wheelchairs. Sound like discrimination against persons with disabilities? It gets worse.
In a paper entitled “Cost-Effectiveness and Disability Discrimination,” the director of the Division of Medical Ethics at the Harvard Medical School, Dan Brock, argues “prioritizing health care resources by their relative cost-effectiveness can result in lower priority for the treatment of disabled persons than otherwise similar non-disabled persons.” He says that type of system not only “implies that disabled persons’ lives are of lesser value than those of non-disabled persons,” but it also “conflicts with equality of opportunity; it conflicts with fairness, which requires ignoring (some/most) differential impacts of treatment; it wrongly gives lower priority to disabled persons for equally effective treatment; it conflicts with giving all persons an equal chance to reach their full potential; and, it is in conflict with giving priority to the worse off.”The “double jeopardy” scenario that describes how the disabled are not only already suffering with an illness or disability, but are also given a lower priority of health care treatments to preserve or improve the quality of their lives, has been widely debated in countries with universal health care. It does little good to pass health care reform that restricts denying insurance to those with underlying conditions when treatment is still withheld from these individuals as an inherent flaw within the system.
As if that’s not bad enough, the health advisor to the president, Ezekiel Emanuel, is proposing a system even more deleterious. His system, similar to the QALY, is “the complete lives system,” which not only allows for discrimination against the elderly and disabled, but also targets the very young, i.e., our children.
Emanuel says of his system: “When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.”
Leave it to American progressives to take the QALY one step further by defining quality of life as how useful you are to society — that is, how likely you are to increase the government’s tax revenue, hence the emphasis on those between ages 15 and 40. Health care gets a lot cheaper by rationing care to all non-taxpayers.
According to Emanuel, “The death of a 20-year-old woman is intuitively worse than that of a two-month-old girl.” I doubt the parents of the two-month-old agree.
And, if you are a child with disabilities, the government has already completely given up on you. Emanuel believes “services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed.” What’s worse, since he does not believe in “guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason,” once the public option puts the private sector out of business, these types of life-changing services for children will no longer exist.
Years of research in treating children with autism, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and dyslexia are in jeopardy of being rendered null and void. Years of progress in passing anti-discrimination laws may be undone in one single bill.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I suppose the current system in the U.S which values life relative to how much money you have is a superior way of doing things?
http://www.nice.org.uk/newsroom/feature ... esstheqaly.
http://www.latimes.com/features/health/ ... 5885.story
the irony in this statement coming from people that have bitched and moaned and complained about any welfare programs for years is too thick to ignore.
i love how they rant about the evils of socialized medicine, then talk about how they are concerned that this program will hurt our other socialized medicine program which is great and good and wonderful and should never lose funding.
lastly, the proposed bill in the senate does not contain any system like this. there is no single payer, no government care committeed. so, prfctlfts... why do you dislike the health care bill actually being proposed? that might be more interesting than debating a health care system nobody is talking about doing anymore.
see some more articles posted on that same site....
THE FULL WHITTLE: Olbermann, Moore & Matthews ... ouch.
Dr. Klavan: Political Correctness Will Kill You
Al Gore's Inconvenient Oscar ... Rescind It!
Obamanomics: Decreased Productivity = More Jobs
Shameless Leftist Piggybacking on Palin's Bestseller
New Evidence of Saddam-Terrorism Links
Can Murdoch Hold It Together?
Defused Lethal Al Gore Poem Released by Government
Climategate and the First Rule of Holes
Time for Sarah to Grapple
Climategate: Beyond the Sleazy Science, Rotten Economics
The Warming Faithful Gather in Copenhagen
Avery: Are Politics Realigning for a Non-Warming Planet? (PJM Exclusive)
Misleading the Republic: Obama at the Helm
Blaming Blackwater: Pakistan Awash in Conspiracy Theories
Whither American Jewry and Berkeley’s Hillel?
Change, Weakness, Disaster, Obama: Answers from Victor Davis Hanson
Climategate: Obama's Science Adviser Confirms the Scandal — Unintentionally
Do Liberals Think It's Okay to Call a Black Man the N-Word?
Our Present Anxieties and 'They Did It' Diplomacy
Health Care vs. the Value of Human Life
don't know about the rest of us, but after reading these pulitzer-worthy articles i am pretty scared...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
furthermore, i'm all for sound decision-making in a public program. a 90 year old should not get a multi-thousand dollar hip replacement on tax dollars since he'll likely die the next year. if he really wants it, he can buy supplemental private health insurance or pay for the procedure himself.
Yeah you're right Fuck em !! what the hell was I thinking ? :roll: Just curious if this were your grandfather or a relative would you still feel the same way ?
there are very few 90 year olds who would even survive the procedure of a total hip replacement. they would have to have the heart of a 65 year old. it is a very very brutal procedure and there is a thorough screening process for anyone that wants a hip replacement. i don't know of any surgeon around here that would do that procedure on a 90 year old unless they are in nearly perfect health. unless it is a femoral neck fracture, which are usually fatal if not treated with an emergency hip replacement. that said, i don't think that a public option SHOULD pay for such an elective procedure. nothing like bucking up $35,000 tax dollars for a guy who dies on the operating table.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
You can disregard it . I could really care less with all due respect.
that's pretty much how I feel whenever you post links to crap and propaganda like this.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
sounds remarkably like your attitude towards the uninsured that can't afford health care. fuck em right? if it was your daughter struggling to find a job that has benefits... would YOU still feel the same way and tell her to stop being lazy and just get a job with insurance?
and yes, i'd feel the same way if it was mimi. i rather suspect she would too, to be honest. and if she didn't, she and her loved ones would get the procedure privately without government funding. that's what you want isn't it?
Why is it that those people who oppose SOCIALISM... who oppose SOCIALIZED HEALTH CARE... support Medicare???
...
Answer: Because it is a convenient argument to support their side of the debate... in a hypocritical, ironic means.
Hail, Hail!!!
that may be, but i think you give them too much credit. IMO they do not know what the heck they are talking about..
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
care to admit you were wrong in the climate change thread??
anyhoo - on the topic of hip replacement ... my girlfriend's grandmother broke her hip last year when she was 99 ... the hospital pushed for hip replacement ... to the point that i would classify it as harrassment ... she didn't want to go thru it and ultimately did not ... it seemed the primary motivation of the hospital was simply profit and not necessarily what was best for her ...
there's a pretty large part of me that is afraid you're right and they don't even realize the contradiction.
Relax chief.....this isn't China.
I know it isn't. You get free health care here.
I had an operation on my mouth last week to sort out a gum infection. It cost me nothing.
china bad. USA good.
if you ignore the defintion of extremism for a second....bombing churches and wedding and funerals.....all to fight extremism, sure. nothing extreme about that.
i'll take china's health care over this fucked up profit based system any day.
Can’t you see it will not change....the privilege will still be able to afford to pay for there extra medical needs....the only difference will be the government will be making decisions on who is worthy of certain procedures if they are not wealthy enough to cover it themselves .....also there plan will still not cover everyone......personally I do not want the government making the decisions....it’s really hard for me to comprehend there are actually people on here that feel it’s a good idea to cut out care to improve the elderly’s quality of life....some of you are just proving that there will be some sort of panel ( 80 year olds don't need surgery there just going to die anyway) will be put into place, be it a so called death panel or maybe a quality of life panel... we can just halt all research that will able humans to extend there lives via a cure......well just cures for the elderly
the public option is dead in the senate bill so all of you government fearing righties can relax....
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I hope you are joking about being from China...because if its true....then you really should stop posting...its rather hypocritical.
I never said I was from China. But I do live here now. And that fact alone does not make me in any way hypocritical, and it also doesn't mean that I shouldn't post here.
I grew up in, and lived most of my life in England. I've always known a free health service - The National Health Service [NHS]. Trust me when I say that what you've posted here is complete guff. There are no 'panels' who sit there and decide who should or shouldn't be treated. You make it sound like the selections at Auschwitz. It's nonsense. I dread to think what crap the right wing media in the U.S is busy feeding people at the moment with regards to this issue.
Seriously? Lets not get off on a tangent here, I know deep down inside you don't really want to live there. We can start a whole thread based on China's lack of human/worker's rights.....I hear North Korea is nice this time of year as well, they say its a paridise if thats what you're into.
So how did you end up there?
There's these things called airplanes.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Hopefully not Chinese buit?
Not at all.....I just have a problem when people who aren't from the US paint it as such a horrible place when they live in a truly oppressive government.