Pandemic response plan: let the elderly, the sick, and the poor die

RolandTD20Kdrummer

New guidelines to be set forth by as the status quo.

http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=173&a=6446

"The Bush-Cheney administration’s Department of Homeland Security, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have collectively set guidelines that recommend in the event of a "pandemic" or mass crisis that the elderly, the sick, the severely injured, and the poor will be denied life-saving medical treatment.

Details are discussed in this Associated Press report: Who should MDs let die in a pandemic? Report offers answers

The proposed guidelines, meant to serve as a blueprint to be followed by hospitals across the country, specifically recommends that the those deemed at "higher risk of death" with a "slimmer chance of survival" will be denied services and “scarce resources," as dictated by designated officials.

Specifically, those who will be denied help include people who are:

* Older than 85

* Suffering from severe trauma, which include injuries from automotive crashes and shootings

* Severely burned

* Suffering from mental impairment (Alzheimer's disease)

* Suffering from chronic diseases, including lung, heart, and diabetes

In other words, the most disadvantaged will be left to die."

Kel Varnsen

That is kind of interesting, because I have done a little reading on the Spanish Flu outbreak of 1918 and that virus seemed to mainly kill young healthy people. If they are using that as the model people with weaker immune systems like children and the elderly would be less at risk.

jeffbr

If an epidemic broke out, and we had to rely on the government for our healthcare, and the resources were very limited, I would expect them to have a plan for prioritizing care. To be fair, I didn't see poor in that list, but I guess they're there because they would need to rely on someone else providing them services rather than possibly being able to find someone to pay for treatment.

Don't most UHC programs have criteria on who gets treated, and what priority they're given? Even without a pandemic, I think you're SOL in Canada, England, France, etc... if you're elderly and there are others requring that same transplant or surgery, right?

SilverSeed

jeffbr wrote:

If an epidemic broke out, and we had to rely on the government for our healthcare, and the resources were very limited, I would expect them to have a plan for prioritizing care. To be fair, I didn't see poor in that list, but I guess they're there because they would need to rely on someone else providing them services rather than possibly being able to find someone to pay for treatment.

Don't most UHC programs have criteria on who gets treated, and what priority they're given? Even without a pandemic, I think you're SOL in Canada, England, France, etc... if you're elderly and there are others requring that same transplant or surgery, right?

I think you're right, that makes the most sense at least. I see the need for this and everything, but it's pretty grim putting it as front page news. Maybe the gov't could have just kept this folded up in their back pocket...

jeffbr

SilverSeed wrote:

I think you're right, that makes the most sense at least. I see the need for this and everything, but it's pretty grim putting it as front page news. Maybe the gov't could have just kept this folded up in their back pocket...

No arguement from me. It is totally grim and distasteful to think about. I was just trying to bring a little rationality to the sensational headline.

Thecure

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

New guidelines to be set forth by as the status quo.

http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=173&a=6446

"The Bush-Cheney administration’s Department of Homeland Security, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have collectively set guidelines that recommend in the event of a "pandemic" or mass crisis that the elderly, the sick, the severely injured, and the poor will be denied life-saving medical treatment.

Details are discussed in this Associated Press report: Who should MDs let die in a pandemic? Report offers answers

The proposed guidelines, meant to serve as a blueprint to be followed by hospitals across the country, specifically recommends that the those deemed at "higher risk of death" with a "slimmer chance of survival" will be denied services and “scarce resources," as dictated by designated officials.

Specifically, those who will be denied help include people who are:

* Older than 85

* Suffering from severe trauma, which include injuries from automotive crashes and shootings

* Severely burned

* Suffering from mental impairment (Alzheimer's disease)

* Suffering from chronic diseases, including lung, heart, and diabetes

In other words, the most disadvantaged will be left to die."

with limited resources you have to choose who you will provide supports to. its like in canada and other countries, people living with HIV are generally not approved for a transplat as teh odds are they have a higher chance of dying. whereas, children have a bigger chance of living if they got that transplant.

spiral out

It's easy to understand why this makes sense on one hand, but something about it just doesn't sit right with me.

Nevermind

I agree with getting rid of the old people.

Urban Hiker

As an asthmatic with a diabetic husband, here's what I have to say to the Bush Administration, the HHS and the CDC:

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/5703/fuckoffskeletonbu6.jpg

jbalicki10

I agree with the plan. You have to save those who have the best chance for survival. We are talking about a pandemic that could wipe us out as humans so we need to save those who could best survive and breed.

I don't see anything about po' people.

GreenTeaDisease

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

New guidelines to be set forth by as the status quo.

http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=173&a=6446

"The Bush-Cheney administration’s Department of Homeland Security, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have collectively set guidelines that recommend in the event of a "pandemic" or mass crisis that the elderly, the sick, the severely injured, and the poor will be denied life-saving medical treatment.

Details are discussed in this Associated Press report: Who should MDs let die in a pandemic? Report offers answers

The proposed guidelines, meant to serve as a blueprint to be followed by hospitals across the country, specifically recommends that the those deemed at "higher risk of death" with a "slimmer chance of survival" will be denied services and “scarce resources," as dictated by designated officials.

Specifically, those who will be denied help include people who are:

* Older than 85

* Suffering from severe trauma, which include injuries from automotive crashes and shootings

* Severely burned

* Suffering from mental impairment (Alzheimer's disease)

* Suffering from chronic diseases, including lung, heart, and diabetes

In other words, the most disadvantaged will be left to die."

it doesn't say anything about "the poor" in here.

Kel Varnsen

jbalicki10 wrote:

I agree with the plan. You have to save those who have the best chance for survival. We are talking about a pandemic that could wipe us out as humans so we need to save those who could best survive and breed.

I don't see anything about po' people.

The funny thing is, like I said in my previous post, in Pandemics like the 1918 flu outbreak people with the best chance of survival were the old and other people with weakened immune systems. If you were young with a strong immune system and caught the virus, your immune system went into like a crazy overload which is what killed you. Older people with weakened immune systems couldn't really go into that crazy overload and they didn't die as often. That said if the young have a better chance of dying they should have more access to the doctors.

NMyTree

They must be planning on a pandemic this year.......very soon.....before June 12th.

Georgie H. W. Bush will be 85 years old June 12th.

There's a reason why they chose 85 as the age limit for the elderly.

Hold on to your hats boys and girls......here it comes.


Place tin foil on head and look to the skies:D

RolandTD20Kdrummer

GreenTeaDisease wrote:

it doesn't say anything about "the poor" in here.

"If followed to a tee, such rules could exclude care for the poorest, most disadvantaged citizens who suffer disproportionately from chronic disease and disability, he said. While health care rationing will be necessary in a mass disaster, "there are some real ethical concerns here.""

RolandTD20Kdrummer

NMyTree wrote:

They must be planning on a pandemic this year.......very soon.....before June 12th.

Georgie H. W. Bush will be 85 years old June 12th.

There's a reason why they chose 85 as the age limit for the elderly.

Hold on to your hats boys and girls......here it comes.


Place tin foil on head and look to the skies:D

The guy only has a couple more left at best...

DixieN

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

New guidelines to be set forth by as the status quo.

http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=173&a=6446

"The Bush-Cheney administration’s Department of Homeland Security, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have collectively set guidelines that recommend in the event of a "pandemic" or mass crisis that the elderly, the sick, the severely injured, and the poor will be denied life-saving medical treatment.

Details are discussed in this Associated Press report: Who should MDs let die in a pandemic? Report offers answers

The proposed guidelines, meant to serve as a blueprint to be followed by hospitals across the country, specifically recommends that the those deemed at "higher risk of death" with a "slimmer chance of survival" will be denied services and “scarce resources," as dictated by designated officials.

Specifically, those who will be denied help include people who are:

* Older than 85

* Suffering from severe trauma, which include injuries from automotive crashes and shootings

* Severely burned

* Suffering from mental impairment (Alzheimer's disease)

* Suffering from chronic diseases, including lung, heart, and diabetes

In other words, the most disadvantaged will be left to die."

You can be these things without being poor in the sense of having no money. I mean, poor you if you have any of these pandemic or not. Where does the poor come in? It doesn't.

If you have limited resources, it makes sense to spend them on the people most likely to have a long-term benefit from them. Everyone is going to die anyway, at some time. It makes sense to save the people with the greatest chance to benefit.

jbalicki10

Kel Varnsen wrote:

The funny thing is, like I said in my previous post, in Pandemics like the 1918 flu outbreak people with the best chance of survival were the old and other people with weakened immune systems. If you were young with a strong immune system and caught the virus, your immune system went into like a crazy overload which is what killed you. Older people with weakened immune systems couldn't really go into that crazy overload and they didn't die as often. That said if the young have a better chance of dying they should have more access to the doctors.

That's true about healthy people were getting sick, however some of the medicines they took contained lead and mercury as well. This didn't help either. You still have to roll with the best odds on who will make it. That's why people on organ donator lists have non-smokers, non-obese, healthy people first on the list. (Except thos e who already donated a kidney or something, those guys are on top no matter what) If you drink, smoke, and fat, your on the bottom.

Snake

You know it seems reasonable on one hand, but some of it seems unnecessary, I dont think the mentally impaired should have less of an advantage. It says Alzheimer's as an example, but I dont know if thats the only mental disorder that falls into that category. I can understand to an extent, but that still doesnt seem right to me. Anyone have a reasonable explanation please tell me.

my2hands

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

New guidelines to be set forth by as the status quo.

http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=173&a=6446

"The Bush-Cheney administration’s Department of Homeland Security, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have collectively set guidelines that recommend in the event of a "pandemic" or mass crisis that the elderly, the sick, the severely injured, and the poor will be denied life-saving medical treatment.

Details are discussed in this Associated Press report: Who should MDs let die in a pandemic? Report offers answers

The proposed guidelines, meant to serve as a blueprint to be followed by hospitals across the country, specifically recommends that the those deemed at "higher risk of death" with a "slimmer chance of survival" will be denied services and “scarce resources," as dictated by designated officials.

Specifically, those who will be denied help include people who are:

* Older than 85

* Suffering from severe trauma, which include injuries from automotive crashes and shootings

* Severely burned

* Suffering from mental impairment (Alzheimer's disease)

* Suffering from chronic diseases, including lung, heart, and diabetes

In other words, the most disadvantaged will be left to die."

sounds like Ron Pauls domestic policy agenda

Nevermind

my2hands wrote:

sounds like Ron Pauls domestic policy agenda

No it doesnt.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

my2hands wrote:

sounds like Ron Pauls domestic policy agenda

hmm..

If only Obama had the experience of a politician and a doctor...

Imagine what people might think of that achievement.

I'd like to see them debate the issues. I wouldn't place my chips on Obama winning that argument as a whole.

Strangest Tribe

I see they're not entirely thinking this through. If they let the poor die, who'd fight the Middle East wars? Who'd clean up all the dead bodies lying around?

jeffbr

my2hands wrote:

sounds like Ron Pauls domestic policy agenda

What the hell are you talking about? It sounds exactly like UHC. Explain how government rationing of limited healthcare services sounds like a Ron Paul plan. I'm guessing you really didn't think things through when you threw that out there.