|
Speaking of torture...
and the concept of comparative effectiveness, here's the
neo-progressive viewpoint on health care - which, by the way is actually part of the Obama Administration Health Care Bill. Professor Stuart Altman of Brandeis University, tells the Senate Finance Committee that resources get wasted in the American health-care system, especially for one segment of the population. Professor Altman says he’s reluctant to mention it, but why waste money on in-depth treatment for people who won’t live long anyway? Better to warehouse them and save the resources for the young. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsx_QILgzjc Progressives who back this plan get offended that people with more resources can get better care, just as they can get better housing, better food, and better entertainment, among many other things. Like in all other arenas, their prescription for equality of result will mean that everyone gets treated equally poorly, and that we will eventually start culling out the weak in favor of the strong - which is antithetical to our society and it's foundations. We’ve essentially returned to the eugenics arguments of the early 20th century, a dark period of human history we should be avoiding rather than embracing on the floor of the Senate. |
Speaking of torture...
On Tue, 12 May 2009 16:00:42 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote: and the concept of comparative effectiveness, here's the neo-progressive viewpoint on health care - which, by the way is actually part of the Obama Administration Health Care Bill. Professor Stuart Altman of Brandeis University, tells the Senate Finance Committee that resources get wasted in the American health-care system, especially for one segment of the population. Professor Altman says he’s reluctant to mention it, but why waste money on in-depth treatment for people who won’t live long anyway? Better to warehouse them and save the resources for the young. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsx_QILgzjc Progressives who back this plan get offended that people with more resources can get better care, just as they can get better housing, better food, and better entertainment, among many other things. Like in all other arenas, their prescription for equality of result will mean that everyone gets treated equally poorly, and that we will eventually start culling out the weak in favor of the strong - which is antithetical to our society and it's foundations. We’ve essentially returned to the eugenics arguments of the early 20th century, a dark period of human history we should be avoiding rather than embracing on the floor of the Senate. You're paraphrasing Mr. Altman's viewpoint I expect. No one discussing such a delicate subject would be so inarticulate and crude. It's a valid discussion but no one easily had. I just had a very close experience with exactly this area. Methods and resources available to treat people late in life are truly astounding. Every set of organs have their specialist/advocate and they all have to confer on the best path for each patient. While the specialization and tight focus creates better outcomes, that methodology is not inexpensive. The large insurance groups have negotiated agreements with providers. God fobid you walk into the hospital ill and require that focus without insurance. Anyone with a house and a retirement account could be wiped out in the matter of days. A specialized MRI and the specialist to read it is $7000 off the street. The insurance company pays $1500. The system is screwed up in a big way. |
Speaking of torture...
jps wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2009 16:00:42 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: and the concept of comparative effectiveness, here's the neo-progressive viewpoint on health care - which, by the way is actually part of the Obama Administration Health Care Bill. Professor Stuart Altman of Brandeis University, tells the Senate Finance Committee that resources get wasted in the American health-care system, especially for one segment of the population. Professor Altman says he’s reluctant to mention it, but why waste money on in-depth treatment for people who won’t live long anyway? Better to warehouse them and save the resources for the young. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsx_QILgzjc Progressives who back this plan get offended that people with more resources can get better care, just as they can get better housing, better food, and better entertainment, among many other things. Like in all other arenas, their prescription for equality of result will mean that everyone gets treated equally poorly, and that we will eventually start culling out the weak in favor of the strong - which is antithetical to our society and it's foundations. We’ve essentially returned to the eugenics arguments of the early 20th century, a dark period of human history we should be avoiding rather than embracing on the floor of the Senate. You're paraphrasing Mr. Altman's viewpoint I expect. No one discussing such a delicate subject would be so inarticulate and crude. It's a valid discussion but no one easily had. I just had a very close experience with exactly this area. Methods and resources available to treat people late in life are truly astounding. Every set of organs have their specialist/advocate and they all have to confer on the best path for each patient. While the specialization and tight focus creates better outcomes, that methodology is not inexpensive. The large insurance groups have negotiated agreements with providers. God fobid you walk into the hospital ill and require that focus without insurance. Anyone with a house and a retirement account could be wiped out in the matter of days. A specialized MRI and the specialist to read it is $7000 off the street. The insurance company pays $1500. The system is screwed up in a big way. Tommy is trolling again. No one is seriously considering Altman's idea of warehousing the sick until they die, and withholding expensive treatment. |
Speaking of torture...
On Tue, 12 May 2009 14:45:21 -0700, jps wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2009 16:00:42 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: and the concept of comparative effectiveness, here's the neo-progressive viewpoint on health care - which, by the way is actually part of the Obama Administration Health Care Bill. Professor Stuart Altman of Brandeis University, tells the Senate Finance Committee that resources get wasted in the American health-care system, especially for one segment of the population. Professor Altman says he’s reluctant to mention it, but why waste money on in-depth treatment for people who won’t live long anyway? Better to warehouse them and save the resources for the young. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsx_QILgzjc Progressives who back this plan get offended that people with more resources can get better care, just as they can get better housing, better food, and better entertainment, among many other things. Like in all other arenas, their prescription for equality of result will mean that everyone gets treated equally poorly, and that we will eventually start culling out the weak in favor of the strong - which is antithetical to our society and it's foundations. We’ve essentially returned to the eugenics arguments of the early 20th century, a dark period of human history we should be avoiding rather than embracing on the floor of the Senate. You're paraphrasing Mr. Altman's viewpoint I expect. No one discussing such a delicate subject would be so inarticulate and crude. Jon - did you watch the video? He said exactly that. Equalization of the system in which one group is given less to give a different group more. It's a valid discussion but no one easily had. I just had a very close experience with exactly this area. Methods and resources available to treat people late in life are truly astounding. Every set of organs have their specialist/advocate and they all have to confer on the best path for each patient. While the specialization and tight focus creates better outcomes, that methodology is not inexpensive. The large insurance groups have negotiated agreements with providers. God fobid you walk into the hospital ill and require that focus without insurance. Anyone with a house and a retirement account could be wiped out in the matter of days. A specialized MRI and the specialist to read it is $7000 off the street. The insurance company pays $1500. The system is screwed up in a big way. At least we have something in common - we agree on that. I also have personal experience with insurance groups getting a cut on procedures - too long a story, but you are right. I honestly don't know what the answer is, but I think I can say that I'm highly suspicious of any national health care proposal given the experiences of the average Canadian and British citizens with regard to this aspect of living. |
Speaking of torture...
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
and the concept of comparative effectiveness, here's the neo-progressive viewpoint on health care - which, by the way is actually part of the Obama Administration Health Care Bill. Professor Stuart Altman of Brandeis University, tells the Senate Finance Committee that resources get wasted in the American health-care system, especially for one segment of the population. Professor Altman says he’s reluctant to mention it, but why waste money on in-depth treatment for people who won’t live long anyway? Better to warehouse them and save the resources for the young. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsx_QILgzjc Progressives who back this plan get offended that people with more resources can get better care, just as they can get better housing, better food, and better entertainment, among many other things. Like in all other arenas, their prescription for equality of result will mean that everyone gets treated equally poorly, and that we will eventually start culling out the weak in favor of the strong - which is antithetical to our society and it's foundations. We’ve essentially returned to the eugenics arguments of the early 20th century, a dark period of human history we should be avoiding rather than embracing on the floor of the Senate. This same thing (withholding health care from the old people) is expressed the book by Tom Daschle the former U.S. Senator from South Dakota. |
Speaking of torture...
On Tue, 12 May 2009 18:13:14 -0400, Zombie of Woodstock
wrote: On Tue, 12 May 2009 14:45:21 -0700, jps wrote: On Tue, 12 May 2009 16:00:42 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: and the concept of comparative effectiveness, here's the neo-progressive viewpoint on health care - which, by the way is actually part of the Obama Administration Health Care Bill. Professor Stuart Altman of Brandeis University, tells the Senate Finance Committee that resources get wasted in the American health-care system, especially for one segment of the population. Professor Altman says he’s reluctant to mention it, but why waste money on in-depth treatment for people who won’t live long anyway? Better to warehouse them and save the resources for the young. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsx_QILgzjc Progressives who back this plan get offended that people with more resources can get better care, just as they can get better housing, better food, and better entertainment, among many other things. Like in all other arenas, their prescription for equality of result will mean that everyone gets treated equally poorly, and that we will eventually start culling out the weak in favor of the strong - which is antithetical to our society and it's foundations. We’ve essentially returned to the eugenics arguments of the early 20th century, a dark period of human history we should be avoiding rather than embracing on the floor of the Senate. You're paraphrasing Mr. Altman's viewpoint I expect. No one discussing such a delicate subject would be so inarticulate and crude. Jon - did you watch the video? He said exactly that. Equalization of the system in which one group is given less to give a different group more. It's a valid discussion but no one easily had. I just had a very close experience with exactly this area. Methods and resources available to treat people late in life are truly astounding. Every set of organs have their specialist/advocate and they all have to confer on the best path for each patient. While the specialization and tight focus creates better outcomes, that methodology is not inexpensive. The large insurance groups have negotiated agreements with providers. God fobid you walk into the hospital ill and require that focus without insurance. Anyone with a house and a retirement account could be wiped out in the matter of days. A specialized MRI and the specialist to read it is $7000 off the street. The insurance company pays $1500. The system is screwed up in a big way. At least we have something in common - we agree on that. I also have personal experience with insurance groups getting a cut on procedures - too long a story, but you are right. I honestly don't know what the answer is, but I think I can say that I'm highly suspicious of any national health care proposal given the experiences of the average Canadian and British citizens with regard to this aspect of living. My biggest complaint is the 33% in average admin costs. The government does it for medicare for about 2%. Single payer system is the best answer. No gov't between you and your doctors. Just eliminate the stinkweeds skimming the admin percentage. |
Speaking of torture...
On Tue, 12 May 2009 22:11:38 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: and the concept of comparative effectiveness, here's the neo-progressive viewpoint on health care - which, by the way is actually part of the Obama Administration Health Care Bill. Professor Stuart Altman of Brandeis University, tells the Senate Finance Committee that resources get wasted in the American health-care system, especially for one segment of the population. Professor Altman says he’s reluctant to mention it, but why waste money on in-depth treatment for people who won’t live long anyway? Better to warehouse them and save the resources for the young. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsx_QILgzjc Progressives who back this plan get offended that people with more resources can get better care, just as they can get better housing, better food, and better entertainment, among many other things. Like in all other arenas, their prescription for equality of result will mean that everyone gets treated equally poorly, and that we will eventually start culling out the weak in favor of the strong - which is antithetical to our society and it's foundations. We’ve essentially returned to the eugenics arguments of the early 20th century, a dark period of human history we should be avoiding rather than embracing on the floor of the Senate. This same thing (withholding health care from the old people) is expressed the book by Tom Daschle the former U.S. Senator from South Dakota. Pardon me if I ask for a few quotes. It's hard to believe these guys would be that calloused. I always thought Daschle was a pussy. May have been a fine senator, I don't know. I hated him as speaker. |
Speaking of torture...
|
Speaking of torture...
|
Speaking of torture...
|
Speaking of torture...
|
Speaking of torture...
|
Speaking of torture...
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:52 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com