Death Panels!
Medicare, the federal program that insures 55 million older and disabled Americans, announced plans on Wednesday to reimburse doctors for conversations with patients about whether and how they would want to be kept alive if they became too sick to speak for themselves.
The proposal would settle a debate that raged before the passage of the Affordable Care Act, when Sarah Palin labeled a similar plan as tantamount to setting up “death panels” that could cut off care for the sick. The new plan is expected to be approved and to take effect in January, although it will be open to public comment for 60 days.
The cost of end-of-life care is a growing problem. In a true market economy, health insurance would address this. Health insurance would not be tied to your workplace or limited to one state. It would be like life insurance: a choice you could make. (I know: choice! what a concept!) Young people could decide early on whether they wanted to pay for unlimited care when they hit old age — and if they did, their premiums would reflect it. The premiums for such care would be very, very high, and most would probably choose to forego the coverage. Those who declined to get health insurance at all would get charity care.
It would not be a perfect system. No system is perfect. There are no solutions. Only trade-offs.
But instead we have a view that the poor and rich should not be treated differently with respect to health care. “Why should the rich receive better quality health care in their old age just because they’re rich and could afford health insurance?” Increasingly we have this attitude about everything. Why should the rich be able to afford life insurance? Why should the rich be able to afford nicer cars? Why should the rich be able to afford houses in nice areas? Vacations? Yachts.
What is lost in such discussions is the critical question of incentives, and the fact that goods and services must be produced. They don’t sit in a pile, waiting to be grabbed.
In a society where you earn according to the value you provide society, value is provided and everyone benefits. The pool of available goods and services grows. In short, the pie gets larger and there is more to go around.
In a society where you are given stuff even though you provide zero value, no value is provided and everyone suffers.
The economic theories of a socialist idiot like Bernie Sanders are the theories of people who want to sound like they care and don’t think things through to the next step.
The next step, in a society where the huge cost of medical care for the old is taken over by the government, is to ration those services. Because the demand for end of life services is not connected to any choice made by the individual, that demand will be unlimited, and cannot possibly be met by the government. Government begins by providing incentives to health care professionals to get old people to end their lives. The final step is rationing.
Death panels, in other words.
We are finally taking that first step. Sarah Palin saw it years ago, and was vilified by our “betters” for saying so. She was, in fact, the “liar of the year.”
She never said she could see Russia from her house. But she did say she saw this coming.
Ding.
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 7/9/2015 @ 7:40 amWe’ll have no more of this reason and logic, young man!
alanstorm (cb237b) — 7/9/2015 @ 7:53 amAnd the leftists still don’t understand that Death Panels only pertain to us, not the rich and most likely not politicians or even bureaucrats. The former will hire what ever doctors their money can buy and the latter will continue to suck at the teat of “public service” and taxpayers money (remember, they’re “exempt”). You and I will run out of OPM and be (hopefully) quietly put to death. Soylent Green! #AllPeopleAreFood.
Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27) — 7/9/2015 @ 7:54 amis that really what the Palin lady meant by death panels? … conversations with patients about whether and how they would want to be kept alive if they became too sick to speak for themselves?
something seems off here
happyfeetie (a037ad) — 7/9/2015 @ 8:02 amhere is the original death panel post from that Palin lady
happyfeetie (a037ad) — 7/9/2015 @ 8:04 am” There are no solutions. Only trade-offs. ”
==========
Thomas Sowell for the win!!
If only more people *understood* that in our hugely-complex system (meaning: The Real World, whether we’re addressing medical care, foreign policy, the welfare system, … ANYTHING) whatever-you-do has consequences, and those consequences lead other independent actors to pursue benefits/avoid damages, and all THOSE independent choices have still other consequences, good and bad.
But I guess it’s hard for Imperial Government to acknowledge they can’t control everything. So they fix a perceived “problem”, and then they fix their fixes, and after that they fix what happens after the fix-of-the-fix goes sideways, … and soon everything is tied in knots. And then they have to find a scapegoat, because by golly, everything they did was good, proper, reasonable, and necessary. That leads to: “FIND THE SABOTEUR! *THEN* we’ll have Utopia.” (And of course, THAT leads to: “Who knew we had ten million saboteurs? Keep the boxcars coming.”)
A_Nonny_Mouse (c69e3d) — 7/9/2015 @ 8:08 amthe princess of populist pablum is clearly talking specifically about the kinds of rationing one would expect from an ineptly managed state-run health care system, not about “conversations with patients about whether and how they would want to be kept alive if they became too sick to speak for themselves”
i do not understand there seems to be some miscommunication here
happyfeetie (a037ad) — 7/9/2015 @ 8:10 amOf course we all expected this.
I always look to England to see what life in the socialist paradise will be like; they are 30 years ahead of us and offer a glimpse into our sad future.
Patricia (5fc097) — 7/9/2015 @ 8:11 amoh and also I’m transitioning back to being a guy pikachu again
pls to support me on my courageous journey
happyfeet (a037ad) — 7/9/2015 @ 8:11 amin England they call it NICE, worthy of CS Lewis, it keys into Zeke Emmanuel’s ‘complete lives’ system
narciso (ee1f88) — 7/9/2015 @ 8:12 amThe actual death panel will be something innocuously named liked the Utilization
mysterian (f109e3) — 7/9/2015 @ 8:14 amReview Board or the Resource Allocation Subcommitee. This is just a baby step to hector the patients into accepting a DNR label early.
ugh, not a good start to my day – i have to agree with happyfeet. Well, at least to the extent that SP was referring to rationing and not to conversations. The point Patterico is well and good on its own (maybe not correct, but still well done) and should not bring in SP’s concerns about “death panels” with ObamaCare bureaucrats.
seeRpea (5d7dd6) — 7/9/2015 @ 8:39 amAs said above. Once upon a time, though far from perfect, people had doctors and doctors primarily had to worry about taking care of their patients, who they learned to know over time as the population of their insurance panels did not keep changing. Part of being a doctor was knowing your patient and learning things like this.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 7/9/2015 @ 8:44 amNow everything is supposed to be fool-proof relying on some form that nobody understood that cannot be found when it is needed.
I bet if not already mandated, if you want to bill for that code, the discussion must have the elements as decided by the medicare review board.
The conversation, to be reimbursed by medicare, will have to be done according to medicare guidelines, which are subject to the whim of the bureaucrat of the moment.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 7/9/2015 @ 8:48 amAnd even if you spend twice the allotted time with the patient, if the discussion did not include what medicare says it should, you can be charged with fraud if you bill.
feets @7, you have a habit of deliberately misunderstanding other people’s statements. Pat is not saying that end of life conversations constitute death panels. He makes it clear that it’s the inevitable next step, when you have an unaccountable, unelected board rationing care because not enough of the elderly take the hint and voluntarily end their worthless lives, that you have death panels.
As is the case in Britain.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/elder/11637179/Elderly-face-NHS-discrimination-under-new-UN-death-targets.html
We can also look at cases in Belgium, Switzerland, and particularly Holland, and see what those end of life conversations will consist of. Pressuring the elderly to, as candidate Obama put it, to forego the life saving heart surgery and just take a pain pill. In other words, just go home and die.
You can not say that the elderly in countries where their consent is technically required give it freely. Because often family members eager to inherit or just simply tired of the bother join in and help the doctors pressure their relative to just die already.
GPs in Holland are often distressed when they try to get their elderly patients admitted to hospitals for conditions that they can’t treat on an outpatient basis at their clinics. Because the hospitals don’t want to waste a valuable bed on a worthless elderly mouth. And they bluntly tell the GP he should convince the patient to “just take the pill.” I.E. go home and die.
But the elderly are usually even more distressed when they are admitted to the hospital as they know the staff at the hospital can kill them even without their consent. Which is why I said technically required. Their consent is a mere technicality as medical professionals in Holland know they will never suffer any consequences for their actions. Which is why Dutch doctors freely admit to engaging in the practice.
Steve57 (4c9797) — 7/9/2015 @ 8:49 amsorry Patterico, it wasn’t you who bought in SP, it was the NYT. They are wrong (again).
seeRpea (5d7dd6) — 7/9/2015 @ 8:51 amMr. 57 my disagreement is with the NYT’s framing not Mr. P’s
and also I have a lot of salubrious habits for example flossing
happyfeet (a037ad) — 7/9/2015 @ 8:54 am“But the elderly are usually even more distressed when they are admitted to the hospital as they know the staff at the hospital can kill them even without their consent. Which is why I said technically required. Their consent is a mere technicality as medical professionals in Holland know they will never suffer any consequences for their actions. Which is why Dutch doctors freely admit to engaging in the practice.”
– Steve57
Link?
Leviticus (f9a067) — 7/9/2015 @ 8:59 amNo, bringing in Palin’s concerns is entirely valid as we are on a road that leads only to one place. Death panels. How can you pretend that each step along the road is unrelated to reaching the final destination. Literally final, in this case.
Here is how the end of life conversation is eventually going to go, per Obamacare architect Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel:
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/09/why-i-hope-to-die-at-75/379329/
At first, it will just be a discussion of options. Later, as has been the case in Europe, the emphasis will be on how the elderly can’t look forward to a quality of life anyone could enjoy. Still further it will become, “What’s wrong with you, you selfish old fart? Everybody including you would be better off if you hurried up and died. No decent human being would want to keep burdening society and their families the way you are by being so stubborn about sticking around.”
I honestly don’t understand the short-sightedness of some conservatives or at least some who appear to be right leaning. The left is playing a long game. And they can map out each incremental step to get to the end point. And they can hold semi-public training seminars on how to boil the frogs slowly.
And the frogs in the pot keep insisting as the water gets hotter and hotter that it’s silly to think they’ll ever be cooked.
Sarah Palin, and Pat, are telling you the recipe for boiled frog. Why don’t you understand this?
Steve57 (4c9797) — 7/9/2015 @ 9:08 amIt’s taqqiya. It’s like how Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry all claimed to oppose gay marriage. Progressives voted for them anyway on the assumption that they were lying to the American people at large. Progressives don’t think there is anything wrong with progressives lying about what they believe in order to get people to vote for them.
So when Palin talked about death panels, they said how awful, what a slander, no one’s talking about death panels, and all the while they are working toward that end, pointing out how much of the healthcare budget goes to the elderly and end-of-life care and “encouraging” physicians to discuss it with their older patients.
“Encouraging” in quotes because it starts that way. First it’s encouraged, then voluntary, then mandatory.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 7/9/2015 @ 9:11 amhttp://www.hospicepatients.org/euth-experts-speak.html
There is a ton of information on this, Leviticus. You shouldn’t need to ask me for links.
Santorum got savaged by the “fact checkers” in the 2012 campaign for his statements on euthanasia in Holland. As per usual for the criteria for handing out Pinocchios to Republicans, he only had a few minor details wrong.
Steve57 (4c9797) — 7/9/2015 @ 9:36 amWe’ve already seen this happen here. The VA hospital scandal was exactly what the single-payer systems in Canada and the UK do: delaying care to save money. If the patient who should see the doctor four times a year gets his appointments stretched out to only thrice a year, the VA saved the cost of that fourth appointment in the current fiscal year; if they can do it over time, they’ll wind up saving even more, and if the patient is good enough to die a bit earlier because his care was stretched out, well, heck, even more is saved!
This is what happens when the government which (supposedly) guarantees your rights is also the body which has to pay for your health care.
Death panels will never consist of physicians; they will be made up of accountants and bureaucrats.
The non-physician Dana (f6a568) — 7/9/2015 @ 9:45 amI suppose that I can’t persuade anyone here that the idea of “death panels” is a bogeyman. It is true, however, that like all goods or services, health care has been, is and will continue to be rationed when the supply can’t or won’t meet the demand.
My very personal experience with this sort of thing is that advanced directives are a critical source of information for very difficult situations. In my experience, I was being encouraged by doctors to issue a DNR order for a close relative who had experienced a sudden medical catastrophe and who was on life support. That relative’s advanced directive was my bible as I resisted those doctors, who had already written her off and were unwilling to perform procedures that they felt had almost no chance of succeeding.
In short, communications about end-of-life decisions can be useful to resist arguments to stop care. They’re not a slippery slope to government-run death panels.
Jonny Scrum-half (95b419) — 7/9/2015 @ 9:54 amyes yes if you tether your health cares to a declining hyper-indebted whorestate like failmerica, you have to expect hard choices will need to be made
happyfeet (a037ad) — 7/9/2015 @ 10:01 amProf. Theo Boer formerly supported euthanasia in Holland. In fact, he used to be a member of a regional review committee (dutch law technically requires all cases of euthanasia to be reported to a medical review board). Precisely because of his intimate experience with how euthanasia actually operates in fact, which is nowhere near how it is supposed to operate per the law, he now opposes euthanasia.
Doctors simply report they comply with the law. Unless a doctor reports in his or her own words that they violated the law it is impossible to prove any wrongdoing. Dutch doctors know these committees have to rely entirely on what they report about themselves.
He testified last July before the British House of Lords when it was considering a doctor-assisted suicide law.
Steve57 (4c9797) — 7/9/2015 @ 10:07 amSorry to hear about your relative, Jonny however, you must remember you were up against American doctors of whom a great deal cringe at euthanasia. But more than that, as Dana mentioned under the government plan the accountants, actuaries and bureaucrats are the decision makers, the doctors are only the executioners.
I know I’m old fashion but giving doctors the power to kill a patient bothers me. I am still of the mind that doctors are there to save life not take it.
Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27) — 7/9/2015 @ 10:09 amAw common, feets. You know there are thousands of situations every year in which “hard choices will need to be made” regardless of who or what runs the health care industry. But right there is why I get mad. The left keeps interchanging “health care” with “health insurance”. They are two different things.
Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27) — 7/9/2015 @ 10:15 amnevertheless Reverend Hoagie
you can’t get blood out of a turnip you know why?
cause of turnips are bloodless creatures, and cunning
happyfeet (a037ad) — 7/9/2015 @ 10:17 amYes, you’ll have a very difficult time persuading anyone since once again your personal experience does not conform to reality. In fact, you have no personal experience with this sort of thing. Those who do, who live in countries where government panels rationing health care can attest that it doesn’t matter whether or not you’d like to resist arguments to stop care. It doesn’t matter what the patient’s or family’s wishes are.
The government will stop care regardless.
As you will read if you follow the link @15 (which you clearly have not) the UN has established what NHS doctors in the UK are calling death targets. And they explain how grandma just ain’t going to be treated for her heart condition or cancer.
Meeting the death targets will be the job of the death panels, no matter what hallucinations you have to the contrary.
Steve57 (4c9797) — 7/9/2015 @ 10:27 amReality says you’re wrong about death panels, Jonny Scrum-half, and Sarah Palin is right.
This is why Obamacare architect Emmanuel wrote that article in The Atlantic about how 75 years is long enough to live. He didn’t pick the number out of thin air. Obamacare architects were never shy about proclaiming their love and admiration from Britain’s NHS. And 75 being an age limit is the de facto rule with NICE, Britain’s death panel.
So at first choosing to die at 75 will be a suggestion, followed by what those in the Obama administration like to call “nudges,” which will become increasingly more like hard shoves. Then it will be an enforceable rule, as it is in the UK.
So, withholding life saving drugs from the unproductive elderly and reserving those drugs for the productive clearly has “wider social benefits,” just like withholding surgical treatment.
Steve57 (4c9797) — 7/9/2015 @ 10:41 amSteve57 – I already agreed that rationing of health care is likely to occur. It’s occurring now, and always has occurred. My story described a type of rationing, albeit not the sort that your links discussed.
My point was that communication about end-of-life circumstances is not what the scare-mongers are insisting. In fact, such communications can be helpful in resisting efforts to “ration” health care, as I described.
Jonny Scrum-half (95b419) — 7/9/2015 @ 10:58 amEnd of life decisions and death panels/rationing are two different things. Everyone needs to have end of life decisions made known to family members so that your wishes can be carried out and to relieve family members of second guessing what you would have wanted. I know that having this in writing for my own father helped me make decisions on his behalf when he was passing away.
Denver Todd (7163dd) — 7/9/2015 @ 11:49 amJonny, you can resist rationing now since you have recourse when it’s a private insurance company doing the rationing.
You have no recourse when it’s a government panel rationing health care. That is simply a fact of life.
The Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) was created by the Obamacare law and made unaccountable, secretive, and its decisions legally binding precisely because Congress knew these unpopular rationing decisions will have to be made, and Congress didn’t want to take the blame.
So, no, these end of life conversations will provide no one with the ability to resist efforts to ration health care under Obamacare. And your past experiences have no bearing on what will happen when you are dealing with IPAB, since it didn’t exist then.
Steve57 (4c9797) — 7/9/2015 @ 11:50 amSteve57 – It’s difficult for me to argue with your hypotheticals about what might happen in the future. You’ll argue that it’s going to be bad. I’m going to point out that things can be bad now, too. And I’m going to continue to believe that your position is completely determined by the fact that the ACA was signed into law by Obama.
Jonny Scrum-half (95b419) — 7/9/2015 @ 12:06 pmIf that’s an honest statement you fail in understanding the conservative mind. We judge things by outcome or apparent outcome not by who wrote it or passed it nor by who is for or against it. It wouldn’t matter if George Washington signed the ACA, the law is bad, un-American and oppressive. The only proof one needs is Pelosi’s statement: “We have to pass it to see what’s in it”. You do realize how horrible a statement like that is to Free people, don’t you?
Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27) — 7/9/2015 @ 12:20 pm“Why should the rich be able to afford life insurance? Why should the rich be able to afford nicer cars? Why should the rich be able to afford houses in nice areas? Vacations? Yachts.”
Because that is what it MEANS to be rich; you have more options. now, the Liberal Intellectual Radical Progressives HATE that. And they hate it not because it denies these things to the poor, but because it affords these things to people opt whom the LIRPs disapprove. In a perfect LIRP world, people with the right politics would get the good health insurance,m the nicer cars, the better houses, and the yachts. And, more importantly, boors like Donald Trump WOULDN”T.
The LIRPs are no different from the fading Aristocracy of the Victorian age; trying desperately to hall back the rise of Those Awful People in Trade (and crippling their own country thereby).
LIRP, Guillotine. Some disassembly required.
C. S. P. Schofield (a196fd) — 7/9/2015 @ 12:36 pmRev. Barack Hussein Hoagie – I hope that you realize that the Pelosi quote you use is very out-of-context.
Jonny Scrum-half (95b419) — 7/9/2015 @ 12:39 pmThat’s a great conversation that people should have… with their lawyer and their health care proxy. Those wishes then get communicated to a physician when the time comes.
One of the problems I have with the ACA, which pales in comparison to this, is how our betters want doctors to do EVERYTHING. Talk about guns in the house? Questions of gender identity? Discussions about end of life issues?
Apparently, these brain trusts have never heard of comparative advantage. We only train a certain number of doctors per year, only have a certain number of residencies, and they are trained at a great expenditure of time and money, and represent the smartest and hardest working Americans. Why the hell would you have them waste their time doing crap that is best done with a social worker or a lawyer (who are, respectively, less expensive and in more abundant supply)?
bridget (606c39) — 7/9/2015 @ 1:23 pmhttp://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/04/12/euthanasia-in-belgium-doctors-hasten-the-death-of-1000-non-consenting-patients-a-year/
Lest anyone forget Obama’s medical policy adviser in 2009-2010 was Rahm Emanuel’s brother Dr. Ezekial Emanuel. He famously trotted out a bell curve in an article and described how those at either end (as I recall 65) should just receive palliative care when seriously ill. The young because not too much has been invested in them by the government so their loss – especially those with a chronic illness – would be an economic gain for society. Likewise, the elderly have shifted from being revenue generators for the tax machine to being net takers of government services and cash. The sooner they kick off, the better so medical aid offered to the 16-64 crowd would be denied them.
My, how very progressive of those medical specialists.
in_awe (7c859a) — 7/9/2015 @ 1:31 pmThe age scale used was under 15 years old, and over 65 years old as I recall (the text editor didn’t like less than and greater than symbols – oops!)
in_awe (7c859a) — 7/9/2015 @ 1:32 pmI don’t have a better alternative, but the scheme you outlined in your post would engender the deepest resentment in the younger generations. They would understand the free ride their elders gave themselves, and worse, they would well understand that the promised care would not be there for them after years of paying into the system – just as Social Security won’t deliver.
More and more, the Star Trek:TNG ep with Charles Winchester of MASH (David Ogden Stiers) looks to be more and more a realistic option in our fading republic. He was a leader in a society when absolutely everybody who reached a certain birthday (~70?), killed themselves on that birthday to avoid becoming a burden to society. No discrimination of any kind! Yay!
Ed from SFV (3400a5) — 7/9/2015 @ 3:41 pmAny context is adequate context for the Pelosi quote.
Any rational thinking person, including liberals, should have been against the bill on that statement alone, had they heard it.
Can you imagine what the MSM would do if Boehner said the same thing with a Repub president????
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 7/9/2015 @ 4:39 pmhttp://tinyurl.com/mt2eb9t
“Vaccinating children against deadly diseases in Third World countries costs very little per child and saves many lives, including decades of life per child. Meanwhile, a heart transplant for an eighty-year-old man is enormously expensive and can yield only a limited amount of additional life, even if it is completely successful, since the life expectancy of an octogenarian is not great in any case.”
Michael Ejercito (d9a893) — 7/9/2015 @ 4:50 pmYou can already have this conversation with your doctor. Now it just means you don’t have to pay for it. You can always pay for more care if you want.
nbf (4aae12) — 7/9/2015 @ 5:17 pmWhat do you mean you don’t have to pay for it? Do you see your doctor by the word or by the visit? And if there is a charge who do you expect to pay for you to talk to your doctor? Are you really under the impression that doctors, unlike yourself, go to work expecting not to be paid? Or are you under the impression it is my job or Danas job of ropelights job to pay your doctor?
Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27) — 7/9/2015 @ 5:32 pmIs there a context that doesn’t mean she is saying they have to pass the bill first before the audience can learn what is in it? (Hint: no.)
Generally, as a citizen, I like to know what is in major controversial legislation before it’s passed. Not after. Having read the full context, it appears Pelosi was not on board for that concept.
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 7/9/2015 @ 5:33 pmYeahbutcept the system makes it unaffordable to do that. Government subsidies have caused the prices to skyrocket, so it’s not like you can just save up, unless you’re Bill Gates.
Patterico (3cc0c1) — 7/9/2015 @ 5:35 pmI don’t think you know what the term “out of context” means. I saw her on the news at least 20 times make that statement she’s got her teleprompters going and she’s right at home in her element. How the hell is that b!tch out of context? Exactly what is the context? Was she lying? Didn’t she mean it? Was she just joking to see what we’d say? Here’s your context pal, one party voted for and passed a secret law that we couldn’t see of 2500 pages without one vote from the opposition. Kinda like a communist one party state, no?
Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27) — 7/9/2015 @ 5:48 pmThe “…demand will be unlimited, and cannot possibly be met by the government.” Yeah, as if private insurance was unlimited. I call jiggery-pokery!
Tillman (a95660) — 7/9/2015 @ 6:44 pmGood Allah, mendoucheity squared – first half-sack, now serial troll Tillman.
JD (3a9424) — 7/9/2015 @ 6:58 pmAnd you’d be wrong. It isn’t that he signed it into law, it’s what he signed into law.
I don’t normally use Wikipedia as a source, but for convenience sake I will.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Payment_Advisory_Board
Sorry if the math escapes you, but this can only go one way. Despite paying lip service to IPAB not being a rationing board, that is precisely what it is.
Oh, and Bernie Sanders is promising to deliver Greece. Hence the enthusiastic response to his seductive words. That’s exactly how the Greeks got Greece. The Greeks listened to the words, and ignored the math.
But the math always wins in the end.
Steve57 (4c9797) — 7/9/2015 @ 7:10 pmYes, my position always depends on who signs something into law. That’s why I was so thoroughly behind the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007. The GOP backed it, and George W. Bush was going to sign it into law. So I remember lobbying my Congressional delegation to get on board with the program and help pass that…
No. Wait a sec. No, I didn’t. I called my rep and my Senators and asked if they had gone completely off their nut, even thinking about passing that garbage.
Steve57 (4c9797) — 7/9/2015 @ 7:18 pmI’m curious, do you think that’s also why I oppose the new HUD regulation in which the feds have decided they have the power to socially reengineer suburbs from sea to shining sea?
If that regulation was issued under a GOP President I’d be totally down with that?
Steve57 (4c9797) — 7/9/2015 @ 7:28 pmThe real problem with most of the OWS idiots is that their internal visualization of “The Rich” was basically formed watching Duck Tales.
They all think the Rich are Scrooge McDuck with his Money Bin, and, if they could just be more successful than the Beagle Boys at draining that bin, then everything would be more fair and right in the world.
No, the fact that the Beagle Boys ALWAYS lose does not impinge on their tiny widdle libtard bwains.
IGotBupkis, "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses." (225d0d) — 7/9/2015 @ 9:16 pmIn a very real sense the wealthy and “phylthy rich” are society’s guinea pigs for new and very expensive medical drugs and procedures. The successful drugs and procedures do eventually become cheap and part of the rising water that raises all boats. In a way this is a very “progressive” system in as much as the “poor” benefit disproportionately to the very wealthy by getting formerly expensive heart surgery for reasonable prices at the expense of many very wealthy patients who died while open heart surgery was being developed and perfected on their unfortunate bodies.
They are rich. They wish to stick their neck out in hopes of prolonging their lives. Why should they be denied? And why should I gripe unless the procedure or drug stays ruinously expensive after it has been well proven to work for the very wealthy? I don’t see a whole lot of that going on. That cuts the drug companies’ profits.
{^_^}
JDow (c4e4c5) — 7/9/2015 @ 10:39 pm“What do you mean you don’t have to pay for it? ”
Did you read the quote in the post? Medicare will reimburse this now.
“Government subsidies have caused the prices to skyrocket, so it’s not like you can just save up, unless you’re Bill Gates.”
There’s other economies were medical care prices have not skyrocketed as here. We should look into how they achieve that.
nbf (4aae12) — 7/10/2015 @ 5:29 am