There are no death panels?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

She is being discriminated against due to her age. The reason she would be at the top of the list if she could get adult lungs is that she is very critically ill.

So whoever makes their case the most public should get an exception? What about the other children waiting for organs? Should they also be moved to the adult list? I don't think we can do this willy nilly.... And I do think its tragic for her.

Yes, they should be if the policy is antiquated. And we can start with this case.

that is a big "if". that's what I don't know. I only know how the media has spun this.

The fact is, the doctors are saying technology has advanced to the point where they can put adult lungs in this 10 year old and they will work. That's not the media - that's the doctors. There's no 'if' there.

If you say so. I would be willing to bet Sebilius got medical opinions as well. I'm not sure that the fact that it "will work" means it will be a good outcome. If the answer was that obvious - I don't see why she couldn't reverse the policy. Why do you think she didn't?

Because, as she put it, some people will live, some people will die. She opened an inquiry. The girl will be dead before that even sees light.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What I'm saying is you don't dumb down healthcare in a country to make it accessible to all. You don't cripple it. Two tiers of service is used in a lot of countries and the wealthy DO get better care. But people like you would scream "It's not FAIR".

If most people in this country have private insurance, then there was no need for Obamacare. I thought the premise for that was SO many were uninsured?

I have no idea on earth what "dumbing down healthcare" has to do with a rational policy on allocating organs for transplant. You do understand that there aren't enough organs, and that these organs don't come with instructions on who should get them? It in no way "cripples" healthcare to have a system that allocates those organs according to a set of medical criteria, rather than accordingly to whoever can pay the most for them.

Also, can you really not understand that if 85% of Americans have health insurance, that still leaves 47 million Americans without health insurance?

You're right. That means the Feds should be OUT OF IT. Leave it to the docs.

47 million is a false number.

[Anonymous]

Is giving an organ to an illegal immigrant fair to citizens of the US and legal immigrants?

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-12-09/news/ct-met-illegal-immigrant-kidney-transplant-20121209_1_illegal-immigrant-kidney-transplant-liver-transplant

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2008/04/illegal-immigrants-get-free-organ-transplants/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What I'm saying is you don't dumb down healthcare in a country to make it accessible to all. You don't cripple it. Two tiers of service is used in a lot of countries and the wealthy DO get better care. But people like you would scream "It's not FAIR".

If most people in this country have private insurance, then there was no need for Obamacare. I thought the premise for that was SO many were uninsured?

I have no idea on earth what "dumbing down healthcare" has to do with a rational policy on allocating organs for transplant. You do understand that there aren't enough organs, and that these organs don't come with instructions on who should get them? It in no way "cripples" healthcare to have a system that allocates those organs according to a set of medical criteria, rather than accordingly to whoever can pay the most for them.

Also, can you really not understand that if 85% of Americans have health insurance, that still leaves 47 million Americans without health insurance?

You're right. That means the Feds should be OUT OF IT. Leave it to the docs.

47 million is a false number.

I do think it should be up to the doctors, but that doesn't mean any patient's doctor gets to say "my patient will benefit"-- it means you get a bunch of doctors together to decide what the criteria will be and that applies to all the patients.

And I have no idea what "47 million is a false number" is supposed to mean. The current population of the US is 314 million, so 15% of that is 47 million. I think 85% is a good estimate of the number of people with health insurance, but if you have a better number feel free to cite it. Mostly I was trying to explain in simple terms how it could be simultaneously be true that most people have private insurance AND many people are uninsured.

[Anonymous]

Some of those 47 million chose to have no health care (e.g., the young and healthy who consciously forgo).

[Anonymous]

Others are covered by Medicaid.

[Anonymous]

Do you have an intelligent argument to make, or just some random posts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you have an intelligent argument to make, or just some random posts?

Facts don't cut it for you?

[Anonymous]

The government got involved in her medical decision again.

http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/05/18779741-judge-orders-girl-added-to-adult-lung-transplant-list?lite

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The government got involved in her medical decision again.

http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/05/18779741-judge-orders-girl-added-to-adult-lung-transplant-list?lite

A Federal judge's job is to enforce the law. And this judge did so, clearly seeing reason. That's not the government getting involved in the way you want it to be - this is why the forefathers created a judicial branch - to keep the idiots like Sebelius in check.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What I'm saying is you don't dumb down healthcare in a country to make it accessible to all. You don't cripple it. Two tiers of service is used in a lot of countries and the wealthy DO get better care. But people like you would scream "It's not FAIR".

If most people in this country have private insurance, then there was no need for Obamacare. I thought the premise for that was SO many were uninsured?

I have no idea on earth what "dumbing down healthcare" has to do with a rational policy on allocating organs for transplant. You do understand that there aren't enough organs, and that these organs don't come with instructions on who should get them? It in no way "cripples" healthcare to have a system that allocates those organs according to a set of medical criteria, rather than accordingly to whoever can pay the most for them.

Also, can you really not understand that if 85% of Americans have health insurance, that still leaves 47 million Americans without health insurance?

You're right. That means the Feds should be OUT OF IT. Leave it to the docs.

47 million is a false number.

I do think it should be up to the doctors, but that doesn't mean any patient's doctor gets to say "my patient will benefit"-- it means you get a bunch of doctors together to decide what the criteria will be and that applies to all the patients.

And I have no idea what "47 million is a false number" is supposed to mean. The current population of the US is 314 million, so 15% of that is 47 million. I think 85% is a good estimate of the number of people with health insurance, but if you have a better number feel free to cite it. Mostly I was trying to explain in simple terms how it could be simultaneously be true that most people have private insurance AND many people are uninsured.

And that will not be happening in regards to ObamaCare. You will have government officials making the determination. And for those that want to bring up insurance companies, it was not the insurance company denying a transplant in this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

She is being discriminated against due to her age. The reason she would be at the top of the list if she could get adult lungs is that she is very critically ill.

So whoever makes their case the most public should get an exception? What about the other children waiting for organs? Should they also be moved to the adult list? I don't think we can do this willy nilly.... And I do think its tragic for her.

Yes, they should be if the policy is antiquated. And we can start with this case.

that is a big "if". that's what I don't know. I only know how the media has spun this.

The fact is, the doctors are saying technology has advanced to the point where they can put adult lungs in this 10 year old and they will work. That's not the media - that's the doctors. There's no 'if' there.

If you say so. I would be willing to bet Sebilius got medical opinions as well. I'm not sure that the fact that it "will work" means it will be a good outcome. If the answer was that obvious - I don't see why she couldn't reverse the policy. Why do you think she didn't?

Because, as she put it, some people will live, some people will die. She opened an inquiry. The girl will be dead before that even sees light.

Some people will live and some will die because there are not enough organs to go to all the people who need them. I'm not sure how you can blame the government for that. And did you read the article posted about how most children with CF who get transplants do not have good outcomes?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
And that will not be happening in regards to ObamaCare. You will have government officials making the determination. And for those that want to bring up insurance companies, it was not the insurance company denying a transplant in this case.

You seem very confident about this. Can you point to the part of the ACA that would give government officials additional powers this regard?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Insurance companies are bureaucrats too. I'd MUCH rather have the government making these decisions about life and death than profit-minded insurance company bureaucrats who want to earn their bonus.

I don't know about that. I worked for Tricare and it actually took an act of congress to get some procedures covered.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And that will not be happening in regards to ObamaCare. You will have government officials making the determination. And for those that want to bring up insurance companies, it was not the insurance company denying a transplant in this case.

You seem very confident about this. Can you point to the part of the ACA that would give government officials additional powers this regard?

From Klein's article:


In 2010, shortly after President Obama's health care legislation was signed into law, I dubbed Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius the "Empress of Obamacare" for the vast new powers she inherited. Reading through the text of the law, I counted more than 2,500 references to the secretary of HHS, of which more than 700 referred to instances in which she "shall" do something and more than 200 cases in which she "may" take regulatory action.


http://washingtonexaminer.com/philip-klein-obamacares-empress-strikes-again/article/2529742


And Politifact reversed it's position re: Mich McConnell saying that HHS put a gag order about the impact of ObamaCare:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/may/28/mitch-mcconnell/mitch-mcconnell-says-hhs-put-gag-order-insurers-ab/


So I'm to trust HHS?