There are no death panels?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm no expert. My understanding in this case is that the "deciding rules" have not kept up with the technology.

they are saying that survival is possible. The other candidates have better odds than that.

[Anonymous]

I saw an article somewhere that the parents have now enlisted GOP congressmen to make their case.

Look-- this is a unspeakably awful situation for the parents and I don't really blame them for trying to do the best by their kid, but there are something like 30 other people in their state alone waiting for transplants, who have a better chance at benefiting from them.

Frankly, that's the GOP in a nutshell-- always willing to talk about hard choices but never willing to make them.

[Anonymous]

takoma wrote:The wealthy have always received better care than the poor. That will probably remain true. However, a neutral panel, even one composed of government bureaucrats, may even the playing field. As several PP's have said, as long as resources are limited, some will be denied care. To blame the panel for those, without giving credit for the fact that more people may live because of the panel, is grossly misleading.

The government has no business in health care. Period. They don't get to decide who lives and who dies in this regard. That's not their function by law.

Even the playing field sounds an awful lot like share the wealth. Disgusting that those who pay the bulk of the care for others will be the ones denied care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kind of like the "neutral" government panel at the IRS? No thanks!

The IRS was doing its job. Appropriately. This manufactured outrage by Tea Party backers who brought you Citizens United don't really believe that their clients have been unfairly persecuted -- they just want to intimidate the IRS into stop enforcing tax laws governing the inflow of money into politics. Pretty neat trick, too.

Holy crap! With everything out in the media on how this went down, with all the testimony, I can't even fathom this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:The wealthy have always received better care than the poor. That will probably remain true. However, a neutral panel, even one composed of government bureaucrats, may even the playing field. As several PP's have said, as long as resources are limited, some will be denied care. To blame the panel for those, without giving credit for the fact that more people may live because of the panel, is grossly misleading.

The government has no business in health care. Period. They don't get to decide who lives and who dies in this regard. That's not their function by law.

Even the playing field sounds an awful lot like share the wealth. Disgusting that those who pay the bulk of the care for others will be the ones denied care.

As Ronald Reagan would say "There You Go Again". Because the National Organ Transplant Act was passed and signed into law in 1984.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:The wealthy have always received better care than the poor. That will probably remain true. However, a neutral panel, even one composed of government bureaucrats, may even the playing field. As several PP's have said, as long as resources are limited, some will be denied care. To blame the panel for those, without giving credit for the fact that more people may live because of the panel, is grossly misleading.

The government has no business in health care. Period. They don't get to decide who lives and who dies in this regard. That's not their function by law.

Even the playing field sounds an awful lot like share the wealth. Disgusting that those who pay the bulk of the care for others will be the ones denied care.

I think it's disgusting you apparently think organs should be auctioned to the highest bidder. And since most people in this country have private insurance I'm offended at your sense of entitlement that the wealthy somehow are paying for the healthcare of others.

[Anonymous]

In this particular instance, it does seem reasonable that there should be "rules". The problem, from how I understand it, is the bureaucracy that is not keeping up with the rules. I think we will see more of this with the AHA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In this particular instance, it does seem reasonable that there should be "rules". The problem, from how I understand it, is the bureaucracy that is not keeping up with the rules. I think we will see more of this with the AHA.

And what's your basis for this?

[Anonymous]

^^^more bureaucracy

[Anonymous]

No one ever wins with more bureaucracy--except the bureaucrats, of course.

[Anonymous]

Remember that the bureaucrats who wrote the regulations regarding donor organs were likely doctors themselves.

I agree it is unbelievably sad that this girl may die. However, there are rules in place for how organs will be given out. There are adults in Pennsylvania waiting for lung transplants at this time. If she gets an adult lung - then someone else will not. It isn't like they have the lungs available and just won't give them to Sarah. It is horribly sad that people die waiting for organs.

I hope everyone on this thread has marked "yes" for organ donor on the driver's license.

[Anonymous]

Remember that the bureaucrats who wrote the regulations regarding donor organs were likely doctors themselves.

The reg/policy was written years ago. That is the problem with bureaucracy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In this particular instance, it does seem reasonable that there should be "rules". The problem, from how I understand it, is the bureaucracy that is not keeping up with the rules. I think we will see more of this with the AHA.

No, that's the claim. What the family can't tell you is that the odds are as good as for an adolescent or adult. They are just saying that it is possible. There are lots of people who are denied organs even though it is possible that a transplant will work.

[Anonymous]

Remember that the bureaucrats who wrote the regulations regarding donor organs were likely doctors themselves.



The reg/policy was written years ago. That is the problem with bureaucracy.

Exactly. Once policy is established it is next to impossible to change/reverse--especially in a timely manner--and it always results in creating reams of rules and regulations that do little more than justify the jobs of the bureaucrats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Remember that the bureaucrats who wrote the regulations regarding donor organs were likely doctors themselves.



The reg/policy was written years ago. That is the problem with bureaucracy.

Exactly. Once policy is established it is next to impossible to change/reverse--especially in a timely manner--and it always results in creating reams of rules and regulations that do little more than justify the jobs of the bureaucrats.

so you all know the policy better than the experts? interesting. i'm not saying its not outdated - how the heck would I know. and how would anyone on this thread really know? we're getting all this information from the media....