Death panels versus "pay or die"

[shira]

Perhaps a tad oversimplistic, but:

Reading between the lines, the right seems to think that an acceptable cost-controlled health-care delivery system would be one in which if you can't afford to pay for a needed service or treatment, then you won't receive it. (If you're on the right, don't bother trying to deny this, because you believe that our current system with 45+ million (and growing) uninsured Americans is acceptable AND you want to severely reduce both state and federal spending. By definition, there isn't going to be enough money to pay for the uninsured.)

I'll call that system "pay or die," because that's what the system would amount to in many cases.

Yet interestingly, the right (or at least the far right) also seems to think that it's totally unacceptable to try to control costs by putting in place a broad system that delivers or doesn't deliver a service or treatment based on considerations that take into account the patient's age and physical condition (for example, don't pay for a kidney transplant for a feeble 85-year-old, but do pay for a kidney transplant for a 25-year-old). The commission that would put in place such criteria is a "death panel" in (far) right-wing parlance. Of course, private insurance companies have been using "death panels" for decades.

Laying this bare for the right: How come "pay or die" is just fine and dandy but "death panels" are immoral?

 

[JS80]

Perhaps a tad oversimplistic, but:

Reading between the lines, the right seems to think that an acceptable cost-controlled health-care delivery system would be one in which if you can't afford to pay for a needed service or treatment, then you won't receive it. (If you're on the right, don't bother trying to deny this, because you believe that our current system with 45+ million (and growing) uninsured Americans is acceptable AND you want to severely reduce both state and federal spending. By definition, there isn't going to be enough money to pay for the uninsured.)

I'll call that system "pay or die," because that's what the system would amount to in many cases.

Yet interestingly, the right (or at least the far right) also seems to think that it's totally unacceptable to try to control costs by putting in place a broad system that delivers or doesn't deliver a service or treatment based on considerations that take into account the patient's age and physical condition (for example, don't pay for a kidney transplant for a feeble 85-year-old, but do pay for a kidney transplant for a 25-year-old). The commission that would put in place such criteria is a "death panel" in (far) right-wing parlance. Of course, private insurance companies have been using "death panels" for decades.

Laying this bare for the right: How come "pay or die" is just fine and dandy but "death panels" are immoral?

Death panel = bureaucracy picks and chooses who lives/dies
Pay or die = person chooses not to save his money in life so it's his own fault

 

[woolfe9999]

Death panel = bureaucracy picks and chooses who lives/dies
Pay or die = person chooses not to save his money in life so it's his own fault

So the point here has nothing to do with preserving life. That isn't important. The only thing that matters is that "government" not be involved. If people die from lack of healthcare, that is fine and dandy, so long as government has nothing to do with either trying to save them or hastening their demise. Gotcha.

 

[ProfJohn]

Meanwhile the left believes that government should pay for everything. Provide you with everything you need in life and expect nothing in return.

And it will all be payed for by the "rich" while 50% of the people in the country pay no income taxes at all.

And this is morally acceptable?

 

[Atreus21]

So the point here has nothing to do with preserving life. That isn't important. The only thing that matters is that "government" not be involved. If people die from lack of healthcare, that is fine and dandy, so long as government has nothing to do with either trying to save them or hastening their demise. Gotcha.

Who is responsible for a man's health? Himself or someone else?

 

[Throckmorton]

Death panel = bureaucracy picks and chooses who lives/dies
Pay or die = person chooses not to save his money in life so it's his own fault

How exactly does government health insurance (and private insurance since they have "death panels") prevent a person from saving money to buy $200,000 surgeries?

 

[piasabird]

How about the government pays or give my tax money back. It is only fair. Before you consider this subject, you need to expect to know what kind of contract the public would have with the government. In what instance can the evil government put you out to pasture? Does this mean no one over 70 gets health care or what? Before America is locked into a socialist medical care plan, we need to have an answer to some of these questions.

 

[Generator]

The right has suffered heavy indoctrination for decades now on this issue. There really is no point is decphiering the hypocritical retardation of their faltering arguement. But yes we have death panels right now by employeers or from their insurance in name only policies.

It seems to me the last few arguements seem to be of a fear of rationed care, cost, and utter disdain for the people around them being healthy. The right literally sees no value in health of the people around them. You no longer have to worry of the health of this nations people. They assurdely ill, sick, depraved...they desperately need healthcare. The right simply doesn't want to make the investment in society. The rich have given up on America, but the poor have also given up on themselves.

A good question would be if a person doesn't think his neighbor worth the investment of health. How can that person be a patriot? How can that person love his country but not the people within it? How is that person not a anarchist?

 

[werepossum]

Perhaps a tad oversimplistic, but:

Reading between the lines, the right seems to think that an acceptable cost-controlled health-care delivery system would be one in which if you can't afford to pay for a needed service or treatment, then you won't receive it. (If you're on the right, don't bother trying to deny this, because you believe that our current system with 45+ million (and growing) uninsured Americans is acceptable AND you want to severely reduce both state and federal spending. By definition, there isn't going to be enough money to pay for the uninsured.)

I'll call that system "pay or die," because that's what the system would amount to in many cases.

Yet interestingly, the right (or at least the far right) also seems to think that it's totally unacceptable to try to control costs by putting in place a broad system that delivers or doesn't deliver a service or treatment based on considerations that take into account the patient's age and physical condition (for example, don't pay for a kidney transplant for a feeble 85-year-old, but do pay for a kidney transplant for a 25-year-old). The commission that would put in place such criteria is a "death panel" in (far) right-wing parlance. Of course, private insurance companies have been using "death panels" for decades.

Laying this bare for the right: How come "pay or die" is just fine and dandy but "death panels" are immoral?

We don't have pay or die. Of the four people I've known most recently afflicted with cancer, three had no insurance and no significant assets. All received treatment, including one who, before his death, had received surgery, radiation, and three different chemo regimes for pancreatic cancer which was stage four when diagnosed. The other two survived, but having no real assets their debts will no doubt be entirely written off, or nearly so.

Lack of insurance works against you in non-life threatening issues. For example, the fourth cancer patient I know is currently being treated for esophageal cancer at the Mayo Clinic in or near Miami. He has great insurance and is fairly well off. He suffered from acid reflux; therefore his primary care doctor ordered yearly esophageal cancer scopes, which were carried out at the Mayo Clinic using scopes not even available to non-teaching hospitals. (I think; could be the Mayo Clinic only verified the earlier results and determined the cancer's spread using their experimental scopes.) His cancer was therefore caught extremely early and his prognosis is excellent. Had he been without insurance and money, his cancer would not have been caught early, and while he would have received treatment (though assuredly not at the Mayo Clinic), his prognosis would likely be very poor rather than very good.

As far as death panels, everything of value that costs time and treasure is inherently rationed. Although I doubt government can deliver better health care for less money, it's certain that government health care would be more evenly distributed, for better or worse. Worse for my friend at the Mayo Clinic, better for my friend's son who cancer might have been detected early enough to make a difference. There are winners and losers in every change.

 

[QuantumPion]

How exactly does government health insurance (and private insurance since they have "death panels") prevent a person from saving money to buy $200,000 surgeries?

People don't pay for things that they can get for free from the government.

Also, Obamacare limits and eventually bans HSA's. That certainly doesn't help things.

 

[woolfe9999]

Who is responsible for a man's health? Himself or someone else?

I understand your point entirely, and it illustrates the most basic difference between left and right in terms of how they conceive the role of government. The object of the left is to live in a society where people prosper, and public health is integral to the broader notion of prosperity. The right doesn't object to prosperiety, but to them the principle of self-responsibility is more important than societal prosperity. Put bluntly, the right would rather live in a society where the vast majority do not prosper, so long as the principle of self-responsibility is honored consistently, while the left are willing to sacrifice that principle in exchange for societal prosperity. It's a basic difference in values, and not really one that can ever be reconciled between the two.

- wolf

 

[piasabird]

Whether a person is right or left it does not matter. At some point the payment comes due. Either taxes will be raised to cover it or doctors will not be paid or rationing will become worse and worse. So will health care become a black market item?

If the government quit paying people to have children, that would be a good first effort in reality.

 

[WelshBloke]

Who is responsible for a man's health? Himself or someone else?

Depends if you can perform open heart surgery on yourself or not I suppose. :sneaky:

 

[werepossum]

I understand your point entirely, and it illustrates the most basic difference between left and right in terms of how they conceive the role of government. The object of the left is to live in a society where people prosper, and public health is integral to the broader notion of prosperity. The right doesn't object to prosperiety, but to them the principle of self-responsibility is more important than societal prosperity. Put bluntly, the right would rather live in a society where the vast majority do not prosper, so long as the principle of self-responsibility is honored consistently, while the left are willing to sacrifice that principle in exchange for societal prosperity. It's a basic difference in values, and not really one that can ever be reconciled between the two.

- wolf

One minor correction - the right thinks self-responsibility is the key to prosperity. The left feels that collective responsibility leads to prosperity. Society can prosper, or fail to prosper, either way. A society with far too little self-responsibility will always fail, as witnessed by all Communist nations, but short of that may still prosper at a level lower than optimum. A society with too little collective responsibility may still prosper, but that prosperity will be even more unevenly divided than any society must be. (For any society must have unevenly divided prosperity if it is to have any significant prosperity at all.) The main difference between left and right mainstreams is not absolute self-responsibility or absolute collective responsibility, but about society's balance between the two. Not many left wingers wish to turn over all their income to government, and not many right wingers refuse to drive on government roads; we disagree on how far government should reach.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

I'm on the right and I agree with you in the sense that we the healthcare debate ultimately comes down the question of the what is the best way to allocate a finite amount of resources. I think that it would be better if we had the debate on these terms instead of pretending that we can continue to spend a few 100k/year to keep grandma alive.

However, your are really setting up a strawman because the right isn't really proposing no government assistance in healthcare. The Ryan proposal is a compromise that limits the amount of government healthcare spending but still gives them some control over it.

 

[piasabird]

China just makes you abort your babies. Is that what you want to reduce costs? After 2 kids you pay higher taxes!

 

[Atreus21]

I understand your point entirely, and it illustrates the most basic difference between left and right in terms of how they conceive the role of government. The object of the left is to live in a society where people prosper, and public health is integral to the broader notion of prosperity. The right doesn't object to prosperiety, but to them the principle of self-responsibility is more important than societal prosperity. Put bluntly, the right would rather live in a society where the vast majority do not prosper, so long as the principle of self-responsibility is honored consistently, while the left are willing to sacrifice that principle in exchange for societal prosperity. It's a basic difference in values, and not really one that can ever be reconciled between the two.

- wolf

While that's a good analysis of perhaps the deeper meaning to my question, it doesn't answer my question.

 

[Xellos2099]

In retrospective... the doctor visit in US cost a HELL lot more than doctors in other country. It has to do with the artificial shortage of doctor in US; law of economic apply here, if the supply of doctor increase, the overall demand decrease.

 

[her209]

In retrospective... the doctor visit in US cost a HELL lot more than doctors in other country. It has to do with the artificial shortage of doctor in US; law of economic apply here, if the supply of doctor increase, the overall demand decrease.

Demand won't decrease. Patients per doctor may decrease but the same amount of people seeking health care will stay the same. Maybe long term, if people got regularly checked up, long term problems may be caught and prevented, thus requiring less doctor visits and be less costly to the patient.

 

[woolfe9999]

While that's a good analysis of perhaps the deeper meaning to my question, it doesn't answer my question.

Your question was rhetorical. Hence, I answered in a way that actually has meaning to the discussion at hand.

 

[woolfe9999]

One minor correction - the right thinks self-responsibility is the key to prosperity. The left feels that collective responsibility leads to prosperity. Society can prosper, or fail to prosper, either way. A society with far too little self-responsibility will always fail, as witnessed by all Communist nations, but short of that may still prosper at a level lower than optimum. A society with too little collective responsibility may still prosper, but that prosperity will be even more unevenly divided than any society must be. (For any society must have unevenly divided prosperity if it is to have any significant prosperity at all.) The main difference between left and right mainstreams is not absolute self-responsibility or absolute collective responsibility, but about society's balance between the two. Not many left wingers wish to turn over all their income to government, and not many right wingers refuse to drive on government roads; we disagree on how far government should reach.

That's a fair comment. Many actual adherents of either philosophy don't take it to its absolute extreme. I was discussing the dichotomy of the two philosophies in their pure form.

I only partly agree that conservatism in pure form is about achieving prosperity *through* self-responsibility because my observation is that while it accepts the former as a legitimate goal, it will choose the latter over the former where there is a tradeoff between the two, whereas the left is the mirror opposite. The reason I perceive it that way is that the argument for achieving *broad* prosperity where government does very little but maintain roads and provide police and fire protection is very much unproven. In fact, all the most successful economies in the world are mixed economies, and most have more government intervention than we do. When confronted with these facts, the usual response will be to fall back on self-responsibility as a moral principle which is an overriding end in and of itself. You see that with comments like, why should I have to spend any of the money I earned to help someone else? So and so is responsible for so and so's own well being, not me. That isn't an argument for valuing broad prosperity. It is an argument to choose self-responsibility over broad prosperity where both cannot be achieved simulataneously.

- wolf

]

 

[Atreus21]

Your question was rhetorical. Hence, I answered in a way that actually has meaning to the discussion at hand.

I don't think it's rhetorical at all. The question has only one of two viable answers.

 

[woolfe9999]

I don't think it's rhetorical at all. The question has only one of two viable answers.

Let me put it another way. The answer to your question depends on whether you believe that all responsibility is individual or that some or all is, as Werepossum puts it, "collective." That is ultimately a question of values, a moral question. And the answer may not be 100% one way or the other, depending on the individual answering the question. What you want is a definitive answer to a moral question. What I'd rather provide is an explanation of the moral reasoning of the two competing political philosophies.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Even under the free market "Pay or Die" system, there would still be death panels. The media has reported several cases where health insurance companies had panels of employees (often paid by commission) whose jobs were to find ways to rescind sick people's health insurance coverage, often for nitpicky irrelevant things.

So, there are insurance company death panels even under a free market "Pay or Die" system.

I love that "Pay or Die" term. I hope it goes national.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

The far right position on this is the same as their position on anything: Poor people deserve what they get and get what they deserve because they are poor.

And "pay or die" is good. Pay or die health care. Let's e-mail our congress people.