Why we must ration health care
- Thread starter alphatarget1
- Start date
Peter Singer? Isn't he the so-called bioethicist who promotes abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide? I'd be leery of anything he has to say...
EDIT: Singer quote:
EDIT: Singer quote:
I don't know much about him personally, but the point is that we don't have infinite resources and we can't save every human life... Doing so will bankrupt us.
I wonder if the drug companies NEED to charge that much for some drugs? I guess some of the profits go to R&D and stuff, but if they charge too much, they end up not selling the drug if there are limits placed. I would think that the more they can sell, the more profit they can make since it probably cost them next to nothing to actually manufacture the drug.
Yes, Singer has had some controversial opinions (many of which I disagree with vehemently), but I read this article yesterday evening, and it makes some solid points about the distribution of health care resources, and the types of choices we've got to face as a nation. Don't pass it up because the author's other opinions are dubious at best.
Tort reform and award rationing first - then talk about rationing the care.
Health Reform Requires Lawsuit Reform
But tort lawyers are the one special interest Democrats won't offend.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124761995712942601.html
Makes sense. That's why I have no faith in Congress in enacting health care reform that makes sense. They have a lousy history of doing the right thing in the past 20 years.
Specop 007
Diamond Member
- Jan 31, 2005
- 9,454
- 0
- 0
This should tell you everything you need to know about UHC. Its just shitty enough to pass as "medical care" but far enough substandard to the point those who are forcing it on us wont touch it themselves.
Remember kids, everyone is equal. Some are more equal then others.
So my question to the Comrades of ATPN. Why is it UHC is such a good thing and will be a benefit to the country but those who are forcing it on us wont use it themselves??
Maybe UHC isnt quite the gold standard the lying politicians and MSM want us to think it is.... But a bill has been introduced that would require Congress to use the same plan they want all of the serfs to use......
Read more here
Moved
Anandtech Senior Moderator
Red Dawn
Remember kids, everyone is equal. Some are more equal then others.
So my question to the Comrades of ATPN. Why is it UHC is such a good thing and will be a benefit to the country but those who are forcing it on us wont use it themselves??
Maybe UHC isnt quite the gold standard the lying politicians and MSM want us to think it is.... But a bill has been introduced that would require Congress to use the same plan they want all of the serfs to use......
Read more here
Moved
Anandtech Senior Moderator
Red Dawn
Oh noes! UHC is so shitty. That's why the quality of care in the US ranks 37th behind other countries with UHC. :roll:
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2003
- 9,002
- 115
- 106
Well, he isn't the first ethicist to promote infanticide, at least from a theoretical standpoint. There are some strains of Utilitarianism that support this as well, but overall, most people that generally default to utilitarianism as their ethical structure of choice have a hard time advocating such a conclusion. I wouldn't dismiss Singer simply because of these views. He still has some good points about healthcare, whether you agree with them or not.
That's beside the point. Congress representatives should support his bill if they truly believe that UHC at its current form is the best for America. I'm sick and tired of the lack of accountability of Congress or any elected officials.
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2003
- 9,002
- 115
- 106
Just the past 20? I hardly think that congress had a history of doing a lot right (esp. with regards to healthcare) even during the Reagan era. He was a good president, but his shit stinks just as bad as many others. The same goes with Congress.
At this point though, people will settle with Congress doing something, taking time later to make adjustments. Think of it as the Microsoft method of healthcare reform....you will inevitably need some major service packs.
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
At this point though, people will settle with Congress doing something, taking time later to make adjustments. Think of it as the Microsoft method of healthcare reform....you will inevitably need some major service packs.
Comprehensive reform is needed to ensure that cost is kept in check and adequate care is provided. Changing it later will be just as hard, so it's important that it's done right (or almost right) the first time.
GeezerMan
Platinum Member
- Jan 28, 2005
- 2,146
- 26
- 91
Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
At this point though, people will settle with Congress doing something, taking time later to make adjustments. Think of it as the Microsoft method of healthcare reform....you will inevitably need some major service packs.
Comprehensive reform is needed to ensure that cost is kept in check and adequate care is provided. Changing it later will be just as hard, so it's important that it's done right (or almost right) the first time.
QFT. Taking time later to make adjustments is like a temporary tax, it's like the check is in the mail, it's like read my lips, no more taxes, it's like...OK, you get the idea...
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2003
- 9,002
- 115
- 106
Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
At this point though, people will settle with Congress doing something, taking time later to make adjustments. Think of it as the Microsoft method of healthcare reform....you will inevitably need some major service packs.
Comprehensive reform is needed to ensure that cost is kept in check and adequate care is provided. Changing it later will be just as hard, so it's important that it's done right (or almost right) the first time.
Oh, I agree. However, full UHC - despite being what many want and having a Democrat majority in Congress - is not politically tenable at this time. Politicians seem to have no balls when it comes to this issue. They simply won't 'think big' when it comes to any true systematic reform (of anything...not just healthcare). So they do what they think is the easy way out...doing what they 'can' now, taking another shot later. This will ultimately end up being the most expensive and time consuming way of doing things...
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2003
- 9,002
- 115
- 106
Originally posted by: GeezerMan
Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
At this point though, people will settle with Congress doing something, taking time later to make adjustments. Think of it as the Microsoft method of healthcare reform....you will inevitably need some major service packs.
Comprehensive reform is needed to ensure that cost is kept in check and adequate care is provided. Changing it later will be just as hard, so it's important that it's done right (or almost right) the first time.
QFT. Taking time later to make adjustments is like a temporary tax, it's like the check is in the mail, it's like read my lips, no more taxes, it's like...OK, you get the idea...
Exactly. It will be the most expensive way of going about reform in the long run. The sad part is that the current system has been allowed to get so bad that this is preferable to the status quo..
- Oct 28, 1999
- 62,484
- 8,345
- 126
The article just echos what just about anyone with half a brain who works in health care has been saying.
If we want to cut costs, we have to lower our expectations. Is it worth it to rush a 70 year old guy into the OR to have a quad bypass at the cost of $30k-$60k only to have him live a few more years? Are we really doing the best thing by keeping a parent or grandparent strung along in an ICU for months on end only to eventually withrawal care and be stuck with a quarter million dollar tab? Are you willing to concede that a woman who goes into premature labor at 27 weeks should lose that baby instead of racking up millions by having it survive in a NICU for another 8 weeks and the longer term health costs of being born that early?
We have medical services and drug treatments available to us that can perform wonders and keep people living that would have had a death ticket in many other countries. We as a nation will be forced with the ultimate decision of utility.
This isn't a question about who's paying - private insurance, government provided, whatever. Simply, what are you paying for?
And the flip side to that is that it's self serving for the specialty physicians/groups. You have Invasive Radiology fighting for patients with the Vascular Cardiologists. Each one wants the money for the procedure. Patient care goes out the door, it's about who's getting the revenue. If specialty groups were part of the salaried hospital staff there would be less fighting over who gets the money. That's how Mayo works. And there's a reason why they have better patient outcomes and at a lower price than many other facilities.
This is a much larger change in philosphy than many are willing to consider, much less except.
If we want to cut costs, we have to lower our expectations. Is it worth it to rush a 70 year old guy into the OR to have a quad bypass at the cost of $30k-$60k only to have him live a few more years? Are we really doing the best thing by keeping a parent or grandparent strung along in an ICU for months on end only to eventually withrawal care and be stuck with a quarter million dollar tab? Are you willing to concede that a woman who goes into premature labor at 27 weeks should lose that baby instead of racking up millions by having it survive in a NICU for another 8 weeks and the longer term health costs of being born that early?
We have medical services and drug treatments available to us that can perform wonders and keep people living that would have had a death ticket in many other countries. We as a nation will be forced with the ultimate decision of utility.
This isn't a question about who's paying - private insurance, government provided, whatever. Simply, what are you paying for?
And the flip side to that is that it's self serving for the specialty physicians/groups. You have Invasive Radiology fighting for patients with the Vascular Cardiologists. Each one wants the money for the procedure. Patient care goes out the door, it's about who's getting the revenue. If specialty groups were part of the salaried hospital staff there would be less fighting over who gets the money. That's how Mayo works. And there's a reason why they have better patient outcomes and at a lower price than many other facilities.
This is a much larger change in philosphy than many are willing to consider, much less except.
Phokus
Lifer
- Nov 20, 1999
- 22,994
- 779
- 126
This is exactly what i was arguing with spidey in one of the other healtcare threads. There's a new 'robot' that costs 1.5 million dollars and 9 to 12 months for a surgeon to train and learn to use, but the was never any evidence that the outcome from using the robot was better than manual surgery and the ability to recoup the cost is minimal. In the US, the FDA isn't allowed to use a cost/benefit analysis to determine whether or not a new treatment is approved, whereas in Britain, they do a cost/benefit analysis before approving treatments. Patients started demanding to be treated with machines like these without knowing how much the cost of using one strains the healthcare system. This is a tremendous waste of money. If we did a cost/benefit analysis on new treatments, we could better allocate medical $$$ to patients that really need medical care based on treatments that are proven to actually work.
Conservatives are extremely dishonest about the 'rationing of healthcare' debate, and never admit that the USA currently 'rations' healthcare in the worst possible way.
Conservatives are extremely dishonest about the 'rationing of healthcare' debate, and never admit that the USA currently 'rations' healthcare in the worst possible way.
GeezerMan
Platinum Member
- Jan 28, 2005
- 2,146
- 26
- 91
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Originally posted by: GeezerMan
Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
At this point though, people will settle with Congress doing something, taking time later to make adjustments. Think of it as the Microsoft method of healthcare reform....you will inevitably need some major service packs.
Comprehensive reform is needed to ensure that cost is kept in check and adequate care is provided. Changing it later will be just as hard, so it's important that it's done right (or almost right) the first time.
QFT. Taking time later to make adjustments is like a temporary tax, it's like the check is in the mail, it's like read my lips, no more taxes, it's like...OK, you get the idea...
Exactly. It will be the most expensive way of going about reform in the long run. The sad part is that the current system has been allowed to get so bad that this is preferable to the status quo..
My point is it will never happen, or it will be even worse than the original bill. It's a rare thing to have the govt fix something for the better. The way congress has been passing bills without reading them lately, or adding 300 pages an hour before the vote is scary law making.
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Just the past 20? I hardly think that congress had a history of doing a lot right (esp. with regards to healthcare) even during the Reagan era. He was a good president, but his shit stinks just as bad as many others. The same goes with Congress.
At this point though, people will settle with Congress doing something, taking time later to make adjustments. Think of it as the Microsoft method of healthcare reform....you will inevitably need some major service packs.
We were not require to use a certain version of window. If UHC pass, everyone will pay for ti wether they like it or not.... Whatever happen to choice?
Well imagine it's your Mom or Dad that needs 40k operation to live 5 more years but gov bureaucrats deny them the operation but they pay for the younger illegals and keep the lawyers fat.
I am defo in favor of some limitations like getting fat people to lose weight before they bust system with illnesses (1 in 7 NY'ers was predicted to be diabetic in near future). But that gives people some choice in their destiny. Limiting citizens by age while paying for millions of illegals (a huge chunk of the "50 million" uninsured " and a main reason Obama wants his plan).
That why illegal need to go, one way or another. They are free to return to whereever they came from or can just lie down and die to where they see fit.
A fine point re the need for cost/benefit analysis, but will any currently-proposed version of UHC actually do that? The first time some granny gets denied some expensive treatment which is only going to extend her life by a year or so, she'll be on TV with some sob story about the penny-pitching bureaucrats, and the AARP will lobby Congress to pay for more care. The budget isn't going to be balanced in any of our lifetimes.
Phokus always has to be Phokus, and get in the partisan cheap shot.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: Xellos2099
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Just the past 20? I hardly think that congress had a history of doing a lot right (esp. with regards to healthcare) even during the Reagan era. He was a good president, but his shit stinks just as bad as many others. The same goes with Congress.
At this point though, people will settle with Congress doing something, taking time later to make adjustments. Think of it as the Microsoft method of healthcare reform....you will inevitably need some major service packs.
We were not require to use a certain version of window. If UHC pass, everyone will pay for ti wether they like it or not.... Whatever happen to choice?
To libs - you are not smart enough to make that choice so they will have the gov't make it for you. It's all in your best interest... so don't worry...dummy..
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Facebook
Twitter