....Change is coming!

The NYTimes is giving seniors a Christmas present to ponder.

http://tinyurl.com/yl9vumo

"Peter R. Orszag, the White House budget director and a disciple of
the Dartmouth data, has noted. “We can no longer afford an overall
health care system in which the thought is more is always better,
because it’s not.”"

Another - "Because Dartmouth’s analysis focuses solely on patients who
have died, a case like Mr. Putrus’s would not show up in its data.
That is why critics say Dartmouth’s approach takes an overly
pessimistic view of medicine: if you consider only the patients who
die, there is really no way to know whether it makes sense to spend
more on one case than another."

A preview of things to come?
--

Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!

John H

On 12/25/09 7:14 PM, John H wrote:
...Change is coming!

The NYTimes is giving seniors a Christmas present to ponder.

http://tinyurl.com/yl9vumo

"Peter R. Orszag, the White House budget director and a disciple of
the Dartmouth data, has noted. “We can no longer afford an overall
health care system in which the thought is more is always better,
because it’s not.”"

Another - "Because Dartmouth’s analysis focuses solely on patients who
have died, a case like Mr. Putrus’s would not show up in its data.
That is why critics say Dartmouth’s approach takes an overly
pessimistic view of medicine: if you consider only the patients who
die, there is really no way to know whether it makes sense to spend
more on one case than another."

A preview of things to come?

I'll be delighted to write up a DNR tag for your toe.

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 21:36:20 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 19:14:37 -0500, John H
wrote:

...Change is coming!

The NYTimes is giving seniors a Christmas present to ponder.

http://tinyurl.com/yl9vumo

"Peter R. Orszag, the White House budget director and a disciple of
the Dartmouth data, has noted. “We can no longer afford an overall
health care system in which the thought is more is always better,
because it’s not.”"

Another - "Because Dartmouth’s analysis focuses solely on patients who
have died, a case like Mr. Putrus’s would not show up in its data.
That is why critics say Dartmouth’s approach takes an overly
pessimistic view of medicine: if you consider only the patients who
die, there is really no way to know whether it makes sense to spend
more on one case than another."

A preview of things to come?

When my time comes, I don't WANT to be in "a place where doctors will
go to virtually any length and expense to try to save a patient’s
life."

I have a DNR and I MEAN it...... extreme medical intervention to keep
one's bodily functions going after sentience has ceased does not
constitute (at any rate of their cherished revenue) *life*.... at
least not *life* as I care to know it....

This has been, in essence, a loophole in the law that allowed doctors
and medical facilities to continue charging for "medical care" long
after the patient was, by any sane definition, dead. It was legal
fraud that the insurance companies allowed.... I DO NOT want my tax
dollar wasted in that manner....

Good on ya. I don't want my tax dollar wasted on you either. However,
I believe you should have the choice. And, there's always the chance
that the extra little amount of medical care would add another ten
fruitful years to your life.
--

Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!

John H

On 12/25/09 9:56 PM, John H wrote:
And, there's always the chance
that the extra little amount of medical care would add another ten
fruitful years to your life.


Well, no worries about that with you. ALL a DNR on your toe would mean
is a net gain for the taxpayers.

In article ,
om says...

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 21:36:20 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 19:14:37 -0500, John H
wrote:

...Change is coming!

The NYTimes is giving seniors a Christmas present to ponder.

http://tinyurl.com/yl9vumo

"Peter R. Orszag, the White House budget director and a disciple of
the Dartmouth data, has noted. ?We can no longer afford an overall
health care system in which the thought is more is always better,
because it?s not.?"

Another - "Because Dartmouth?s analysis focuses solely on patients who
have died, a case like Mr. Putrus?s would not show up in its data.
That is why critics say Dartmouth?s approach takes an overly
pessimistic view of medicine: if you consider only the patients who
die, there is really no way to know whether it makes sense to spend
more on one case than another."

A preview of things to come?

When my time comes, I don't WANT to be in "a place where doctors will
go to virtually any length and expense to try to save a patient?s
life."

I have a DNR and I MEAN it...... extreme medical intervention to keep
one's bodily functions going after sentience has ceased does not
constitute (at any rate of their cherished revenue) *life*.... at
least not *life* as I care to know it....

This has been, in essence, a loophole in the law that allowed doctors
and medical facilities to continue charging for "medical care" long
after the patient was, by any sane definition, dead. It was legal
fraud that the insurance companies allowed.... I DO NOT want my tax
dollar wasted in that manner....

Good on ya. I don't want my tax dollar wasted on you either. However,
I believe you should have the choice. And, there's always the chance
that the extra little amount of medical care would add another ten
fruitful years to your life.

I've got a DNR and a pump me full of pain killers even if it kills me.
The last thing I want to do is be laying in a hospital bed in pain and
be able to tell anyone I hurt.

Plus, my wife's new boyfriend can't get any of my money.

"John H" wrote in message
...
...Change is coming!

The NYTimes is giving seniors a Christmas present to ponder.

http://tinyurl.com/yl9vumo

"Peter R. Orszag, the White House budget director and a disciple of
the Dartmouth data, has noted. "We can no longer afford an overall
health care system in which the thought is more is always better,
because it's not.""

Another - "Because Dartmouth's analysis focuses solely on patients who
have died, a case like Mr. Putrus's would not show up in its data.
That is why critics say Dartmouth's approach takes an overly
pessimistic view of medicine: if you consider only the patients who
die, there is really no way to know whether it makes sense to spend
more on one case than another."

A preview of things to come?
--

Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!

John H

If they were serious about saving money, wouldn't they just all get on a
conference call instead of flying their jets to Denmark to schmooze around?

Barry has some expensive tastes, and so does Michelle.

Steve

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 22:44:40 -0500, Gene wrote:


".... has earned a reputation as a place where doctors will go to
virtually any length and expense to try to save a patientÂ’s life. "

This sounds great until you have to admit that an insurance policy isn't
an unlimited blank check. Sooner or later, whoever is "the deep pockets"
is going to start "rationing health care." But let's get real and
evaluate the next sentence.....

“If you come into this hospital, we’re not going to let you die....”

Nothing for nothing, but this sounds like a great *teaching* hospital. I
want a doctor that would take my death personally, not one that asks
"What's for lunch?" as they wheel my body out.

Holy Crap, what incredible impertinence! That is just NOT their
decision. But wait, if you are in a persistent vegetative state, and
they keep your heart beating by extraordinary means..... uh..... you
haven't "died" yet..... right?

At least not until the money runs out and they have to start
rationing...... trust me.... there is NO FREE LUNCH.... and this has
NOTHING to do with humanitarian feelings toward you.... this is a cold,
hard, business decision.....

It is a complex issue, isn't it? As it stands now, end of life spending
is becoming a great transfer of wealth. Spending $100,000s to prolong a
life a week or two, seems pretty silly, but how to you tell if it will be
a couple of weeks or a couple of decades? A doctor should fight for
every second of life. However, as the customer, I should set the
parameters in which he works. Living wills are a good thing.

You mention a "business decision". It seems to me tying health insurance
to business, was a faulty paradigm from the beginning, competitively and
socially. However, health care has the potential of reviving this entire
economy. Health care jobs are well paying and *local*. IMO, they could
provide a replacement for the manufacturing jobs we have lost. Our
medical technology sector, already top of the world, could provide export
dollars. In the public debate, we've been looking at health care as a
drain on the economy. I'm thinking it could save the economy. It's
basic economics, manufacture something of value, and the whole world
values life, at least in theory.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 20:23:51 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
. ..
...Change is coming!

The NYTimes is giving seniors a Christmas present to ponder.

http://tinyurl.com/yl9vumo

"Peter R. Orszag, the White House budget director and a disciple of
the Dartmouth data, has noted. "We can no longer afford an overall
health care system in which the thought is more is always better,
because it's not.""

Another - "Because Dartmouth's analysis focuses solely on patients who
have died, a case like Mr. Putrus's would not show up in its data.
That is why critics say Dartmouth's approach takes an overly
pessimistic view of medicine: if you consider only the patients who
die, there is really no way to know whether it makes sense to spend
more on one case than another."

A preview of things to come?
--

Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!

John H

If they were serious about saving money, wouldn't they just all get on a
conference call instead of flying their jets to Denmark to schmooze
around?

Barry has some expensive tastes, and so does Michelle.

Steve


Jon Stewart pointed out that these climate savers managed to lease
every limo in western europe, some couriered in from as far away as
Germany so nobody had to share a ride.

Well, you can't have people who are interested in saving the planet have to
ride two to a limo or two to a jet, now can you. It's just not done.

I wonder how many heating oil tanks could have been filled for what was
spent on that extravaganza.

BTW, what's a caviar wedge? I understand they ate a lot of caviar. That
would have bought a lot of turkeys at the shelters.

I bet they had expensive cognac and real Cuban cigars, too.

Nothing too good for our tax dollars.

Steve

On 12/26/09 12:20 AM, Steve B wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 20:23:51 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:


"John wrote in message
...
...Change is coming!

The NYTimes is giving seniors a Christmas present to ponder.

http://tinyurl.com/yl9vumo

"Peter R. Orszag, the White House budget director and a disciple of
the Dartmouth data, has noted. "We can no longer afford an overall
health care system in which the thought is more is always better,
because it's not.""

Another - "Because Dartmouth's analysis focuses solely on patients who
have died, a case like Mr. Putrus's would not show up in its data.
That is why critics say Dartmouth's approach takes an overly
pessimistic view of medicine: if you consider only the patients who
die, there is really no way to know whether it makes sense to spend
more on one case than another."

A preview of things to come?
--

Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!

John H

If they were serious about saving money, wouldn't they just all get on a
conference call instead of flying their jets to Denmark to schmooze
around?

Barry has some expensive tastes, and so does Michelle.

Steve


Jon Stewart pointed out that these climate savers managed to lease
every limo in western europe, some couriered in from as far away as
Germany so nobody had to share a ride.

Well, you can't have people who are interested in saving the planet have to
ride two to a limo or two to a jet, now can you. It's just not done.

I wonder how many heating oil tanks could have been filled for what was
spent on that extravaganza.

BTW, what's a caviar wedge? I understand they ate a lot of caviar. That
would have bought a lot of turkeys at the shelters.

I bet they had expensive cognac and real Cuban cigars, too.

Nothing too good for our tax dollars.

Steve



Does anyone recall "stevie" objecting when bush was spending like a
drunken sailor, and cutting taxes for the wealthy at the same time?

Hypocrisy, thy real name is republican/conservative. Nothing is piled
higher than republican/conservative b.s.

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 22:44:40 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 21:56:19 -0500, John H
wrote:

However,
I believe you should have the choice.

What choice? Dying with dignity or being kept alive, with
extraordinary means, in a persistent vegetative state? Indefinitely?

And, there's always the chance
that the extra little amount of medical care would add another ten
fruitful years to your life.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this. Let's recap, per your
link:

".... has earned a reputation as a place where doctors will go to
virtually any length and expense to try to save a patient’s life. "

This sounds great until you have to admit that an insurance policy
isn't an unlimited blank check. Sooner or later, whoever is "the deep
pockets" is going to start "rationing health care." But let's get real
and evaluate the next sentence.....

“If you come into this hospital, we’re not going to let you die....”

Holy Crap, what incredible impertinence! That is just NOT their
decision. But wait, if you are in a persistent vegetative state, and
they keep your heart beating by extraordinary means..... uh..... you
haven't "died" yet..... right?

At least not until the money runs out and they have to start
rationing...... trust me.... there is NO FREE LUNCH.... and this has
NOTHING to do with humanitarian feelings toward you.... this is a
cold, hard, business decision.....

You missed this:

"Take the case of Salah Putrus, who at age 71 had a long history of
heart failure.

After repeated visits to his local hospital near Burbank, Calif., Mr.
Putrus was referred to U.C.L.A. this year to be evaluated for a heart
transplant.

Some other medical centers might have considered Mr. Putrus too old
for the surgery. But U.C.L.A.’s attitude was “let’s see what we can do
for him,” said his physician there, Dr. Tamara Horwich.

Indeed, Mr. Putrus recalled, Dr. Horwich and her colleagues “did every
test.” They changed his medicines to reduce the amount of water he was
retaining. They even removed some teeth that could be a potential
source of infection.

His condition improved so much that more than six months later, Mr.
Putrus has remained out of the hospital and is no longer considered in
active need of a transplant. "
--

John H

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Churchill