Problems with Heathcare refom: Death Panels?

[Rapture]

I searched and I couldn't find this topic anywhere...so here goes

Lately, I've been hearing more and more on the news about the problems involving the Healthcare Reform Bill. In particular, I am addressing the part of the bill that involves physicians discussing end-of-life decisions with their patients....which some people are calling "death panels."

"Congressional supporters of the new policy, though pleased, have kept quiet. They fear provoking another furor like the one in 2009 when Republicans seized on the idea of end-of-life counseling to argue the Democrat's bill would allow the government to cut off care to the critically ill."

also

"Proposed end-of-life planning faced harsh opposition when former vice president canidate Sarah Palin used the term "death panels" to describe the consultations found in Section 1233 of the healthcare bill prior to the final congressional vote. The section even allowed three states to advise patients to seek a legal assisted suicide."

Source:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/health-care/5649-death-panels-may-be-back

So what are your opinions on this? Do you think these really are death panels and a way the government is going to determine who is going to live or die through their healthcare bill whenever it goes into effect?

I personally am kindof in the middle on my opinion. I feel I don't know enough about the bill itself and I feel like even if I did, they are going to end up changing pieces of it anyways....as it seems like people find pieces they don't like about it and end up editing/fixing it.

I am a firm believer however, that people do need to be counseled on their end-of-life care and Advance Directives. Its a way that you get to decide your care when you are physically or mentally incapable of deciding at a certain point in time...I just don't believe that the goverment should be deciding whether you are worthy of care or not...

 

[Etheriah]

I'm currently doing my dissertation on a simillar issue.
But aside from that, I don't think anyone should have the right to choose who lives or dies other than the patient themselves. I believe in euthanasia, as long as the patient has 100% control over if and when it takes place. If the patient does not want to die, I don't think it should be for the government to choose to end their life. I think they should receive the healthcare until there is nothing more doctors can do.
And in cases where the patient cannot decide, it should fall to those who know them best. Not the government.

Sorry, that was slightly off-topic with euthenasia instead of the death panels, but hopefully you understand what I mean? Regarding my opinions on the death panels, I mean

 

[blakstang98]

Having a multi-handicapped sister myself, I 100% disagree with the idea of having death panels. From what I understand, more than anything, it comes down to what the person contributes to society. Basically, if someone is a well-respected person who makes a living doing something in life and pays taxes and such, would have a better chance of getting help than a person who contributes nothing, like my poor sister. The government chooses who gets treated and who doesn't, based on this.

Either way, it's wrong. Who the hell is the government to tell a person that they're not deserving of health care? And to boot, by their contribution to life? There's a reason Sarah Palin stepped up to call it a death panel, because it's something that gets heavily sugar-coated by the Dems and media so people will get on-board with the idea. But government should never, ever get involved in choosing who lives and who dies.

 

[CassinoChips]

Like most things in the Health Care Reform Bill, anti-Obama folks misappropriated one section of the bill, blew it wildly out of proportion, and shoved it down anyone who would listen's throat, completely missing the point of the section, the bill in its entirety, and generally being obstructionist simply because it is, by and large, Obama's legislation.

To whit: Nowhere in the section of the bill in question does the word "mandatory" appear, and nowhere does it discuss euthanasia.

Here's what the section does actually cover: Adding a provision to Medicare so that people, specfically seniors, who choose to seek out end-of-life consultation, are covered under their specific plan. This way, those who want to prepare for a time when they are in an end-of-life situation, and are unable to make those necessary decisions on their own, are covered in that scenario, and are able to set those types of things up through their provider. With this new language, the cost of the consultation(s) to discuss those options is covered.

Here's the important part:

Those consultations are not mandatory.

Here's the other important part:

The bill actually blocks funds for those consultations in which euthanasia or assisted suicide are presented as options.

But, in typical fearmongering fashion, the GOP hides their lies in a kernel of truth, doing all they can to turn people against anything that Obama tries to do. The "death panel" is a complete lie.

 

[Gaige]

I'm certainly against Death Panels. Life is one of the things we should almost certainly have a right to decide on, especially how it ends, and these healthcare reforms are just so... petty. It's unpleasant to look at.

It's kind of sad, seeing profit replacing quality of life as the most urgent necessity. Though I suppose some of these board members (but hopefully not all) are stuffy and selfish, only concerned with lining their own pockets. To some, medicine is just another business venture. High risk, high reward. And though we as citizens, and those who grind every day to keep who they can breathing might disagree, it's down to these board members with their minimal knowledge and calculated Stepford smiles who get to dictate the end result.

I wish I could say opinion is subjective, but the people with the actual knowledge and life experience don't have as great a say in this affair. People should have the right to die as and when they please. Death should be decided by nature or by the person possessing the life.We're not a personification of death, and we should never have that kind of power over an innocent human being.

 

[Valvalis]

Like most things in the Health Care Reform Bill, anti-Obama folks misappropriated one section of the bill, blew it wildly out of proportion, and shoved it down anyone who would listen's throat, completely missing the point of the section, the bill in its entirety, and generally being obstructionist simply because it is, by and large, Obama's legislation.

To whit: Nowhere in the section of the bill in question does the word "mandatory" appear, and nowhere does it discuss euthanasia.

Here's what the section does actually cover: Adding a provision to Medicare so that people, specfically seniors, who choose to seek out end-of-life consultation, are covered under their specific plan. This way, those who want to prepare for a time when they are in an end-of-life situation, and are unable to make those necessary decisions on their own, are covered in that scenario, and are able to set those types of things up through their provider. With this new language, the cost of the consultation(s) to discuss those options is covered.

Here's the important part:

Those consultations are not mandatory.

Here's the other important part:

The bill actually blocks funds for those consultations in which euthanasia or assisted suicide are presented as options.

But, in typical fearmongering fashion, the GOP hides their lies in a kernel of truth, doing all they can to turn people against anything that Obama tries to do. The "death panel" is a complete lie.

I'm honestly not surprised if this is the case. Most every legal decision we hear about in the news is dumbed down into an overly dramatic ethical issue to polarize the voting population one way or the other, and many of the facts are left in the dust. And no offense to anyone who is a fan, but from what I've seen, Sarah Palin is not exactly the best barometer for ethics; she herself is extremely selective about who or what gets to live or die, as well as what people are allowed to do with their own bodies.

Now, if this new legislation were to actually allow others to "mandate" whether people live or die, then I would absolutely be against it; though suicide or medical life-ending is a sad thing, it is also a person's decision and they shouldn't have to live anymore if they are truly that miserable. However, from what I've read, it doesn't really sound like that's the case with this new thing.

In a sense, the existence of a medical system where you have to pay for any kind of care already mandates who lives and dies anyway sometimes, because if you have no money and no insurance, then unless you can get help some other way, you're often quite screwed. I mean, even if a homeless guy got run over and an ambulance picked him up, if they did any work on him they know he's probably not going to be able to pay for it, so any motivation to save him at all rests solely with the consciences of the people whose operating table he comes to. And then who's going to pay for his recovery, therapy, etc? IMO it's not ethical to have to pay for any health care at all, so while hearing rumors of such a possibility is disturbing, it's also just a drop in the bucket amongst many pieces of crap that the medical companies and insurance companies already pull. Just look at how much doctors and hospitals charge for services before your insurance is taken out, it's enough to make you vomit. I would've had to pay $5200 for one cat scan once if I hadn't had a $400/month insurance plan, and even then I still had to pay like $350 for it

And as far as the government controlling who lives or dies...erm, nukes? :dave: The second any large-scale weapons like that were created and stored in governments' hands was the second that privilege of ours went away. They can pretty much do whatever they want with us ever since civilian revolting has died down from angry mob revolutions to a crazy native terrorist here and there. So even if they did pass such a law in the medical realm, it wouldn't honestly be that much of a stretch for them.

*gets abducted by big brother for posting this*

 

[Rydia]

Death panels.. who would that all extend to? Handicapped people? Old people? People that choose to live off the government and not work? The injured? People with inherited illnesses?

Is there going to be a tier system for the government health care? Like people in a certain age group get the best, another age group get the second best?

When I worked in the hospital for a clinical, 95% of the patients I saw were age 50 and older. (They are the ones that have hip and knee issues, heart attacks, strokes, ect...) How is health care going to affect this age group?

If anyone were to come into the emergency room for any reason, the hospital staff had to care for them. If they had no money, they would become a ward of the state and the government would pay. Many people who made under a certain amount were eligible for medicade and used that to pay for their medical bills. Older people had medicare.

Also, if someone doesn't want healthcare, and they accept the consequences if they happen to get sick or injured, should they be allowed to opt out of paying the $1000? Or the $750 for not wanting it?

 

[blakstang98]

Now, I'm not political expert, but this is what I gathered from it. The death panels issue was a part of the primitive stages of the healthcare, which was revised out of the plan after Palin shined a light on it. So it's a non-issue now with the signed bill. I also heard that this bill was based off of an existing healthcare system (I want to say it came from the state of Massachusetts), and it's been known that this healthcare system didn't work in the early stages, nor does it work in the later stages, as they're in continued bad debt as a result. So why base the federal system off it if it doesn't work?

This much I do know. We have a democracy system in this country. And I'm aware that it's not always a democracy, or isn't in most cases, but the idea of this system is that it's geared toward what the people want. I don't know the exact numbers, but something like 70% of the people don't want this healthcare. It got shoved down our collective throats anyways. Regardless of whether a person supports the liberal or conservative point of view, it's just not favored. This is one of the big reasons why there was so much turnover with elections this November. Even though our existing healthcare system fails in many ways, people had a choice of what insurance company they wanted. Whether it was because it was cheaper or covered them with almost any medical condition they had. Government Healthcare is more or less a monopoly that's expensive, that also covers people that never made an effort to get a job to support their own healthcare. Simple logic, people don't want it, but we're stuck with it, unless the conservatives come through and get that bill to burn in a fire.

 

[CassinoChips]

The death panels issue was a part of the primitive stages of the healthcare, which was revised out of the plan after Palin shined a light on it.

Palin didn't "shine a light" on anything. She made something up, and turned it into a catchphrase. There was never any such thing as a death panel. It's a non-issue because they never existed.

Even though our existing healthcare system fails in many ways, people had a choice of what insurance company they wanted. Whether it was because it was cheaper or covered them with almost any medical condition they had. Government Healthcare is more or less a monopoly that's expensive, that also covers people that never made an effort to get a job to support their own healthcare.

People still had a choice. That's why it was called a public option. The government wasn't taking over the health insurance racket, it was simply becoming a player in it. If you wanted to keep your private health insurance, you could. If you wanted to purchase the government's plan, you could. Hence, option.