Why we need 'death panels'

http://money.msn.com/investing/why-we-need-death-panels

The fact is, 25% of all Medicare spending goes to the 5% of recipients who die each year --with 80% of that in the last two months of life. This is aggressive spending on things like stays in intensive care and critical care units, which research has shown do not meet the needs and preferences of terminal patients despite its increasing use.
Especially when combined with the growing evidence supporting the benefits of less-expensive, palliative hospice care that allows people to enjoy their last days on this earth in peace at home, not poked, prodded and intubated, floating in and out of consciousness under the fluorescent lights of a $30,000-a-night hospital room.
The popular backlash against death panels gave politicians in Washington reason to fear the topic in general.

We mean the people who have contributed their taxes for their entire lives? Is that who you're talking about. I mean Social Security is going to steal they money when they die so why not do like WTF wants and just cheat them some more.

Fuc Grandma - WCB

No, but an educated patient and his/her family does make a difference. Living Wills are the way to go (literally). Who in their right mind wants to go through that sh*t, much less put their family (children) through it?

The line gets crossed when the patient has only one option dictated to him/her. But, being in indigent care at a public hospital is, I'm sure, quite nice.

But I thought there weren't "death panels" in the healthcare bill...we were just crazy conspiracy theorists for suggesting so... The truth is, they were always there and you had a complicit media who carries the water for the Community Organizer in Chief who lied to the American Public so he could get even lukewarm support for it.

So your mother, who is in her 80s and in excellent mental health needs a procedure that may allow her to live another ten years gets a panel to help her decide that the last 10 are not worth it when this will kill you in 2.

Ho9w about we back it up even more and you are struck with a type of cancer that is survivable but requires chronic treatment at an enormous cost does the panel get to decide that your expected take out is far in excess of your potential input and denies the treatment?

Move it back even further and a child is in a similar situation but will not be able to work and thus contribute nothing will a panel decide if they get the treatment?

It may seem absurd to look at it in that method but at what point do you say it stops. Why should it be a panel that starts by deciding that the cost to allow you to live is not worth it?

But I thought there weren't "death panels" in the healthcare bill...we were just crazy conspiracy theorists for suggesting so... The truth is, they were always there and you had a complicit media who carries the water for the Community Organizer in Chief who lied to the American Public so he could get even lukewarm support for it. Originally Posted by Pharmaguy729

So your mother, who is in her 80s and in excellent mental health needs a procedure that may allow her to live another ten years gets a panel to help her decide that the last 10 are not worth it when this will kill you in 2.

Ho9w about we back it up even more and you are struck with a type of cancer that is survivable but requires chronic treatment at an enormous cost does the panel get to decide that your expected take out is far in excess of your potential input and denies the treatment?

Move it back even further and a child is in a similar situation but will not be able to work and thus contribute nothing will a panel decide if they get the treatment?

It may seem absurd to look at it in that method but at what point do you say it stops. Why should it be a panel that starts by deciding that the cost to allow you to live is not worth it? Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Sinced neither of these scenarios remotely resemble the facts, who gives a shit?

So your mother, who is in her 80s and in excellent mental health needs a procedure that may allow her to live another ten years gets a panel to help her decide that the last 10 are not worth it when this will kill you in 2.

Ho9w about we back it up even more and you are struck with a type of cancer that is survivable but requires chronic treatment at an enormous cost does the panel get to decide that your expected take out is far in excess of your potential input and denies the treatment?

Move it back even further and a child is in a similar situation but will not be able to work and thus contribute nothing will a panel decide if they get the treatment?

It may seem absurd to look at it in that method but at what point do you say it stops. Why should it be a panel that starts by deciding that the cost to allow you to live is not worth it? Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Does this mean that children born retarded, born with CP, or other non productive ailments will be put down? Or will they be allowed to sap funds from the productive segment of society?

Did any of you numbnuts read the article?

Especially when combined with the growing evidence supporting the benefits of less-expensive, palliative hospice care that allows people to enjoy their last days on this earth in peace at home, not poked, prodded and intubated, floating in and out of consciousness under the fluorescent lights of a $30,000-a-night hospital

But you worry about this country's debt......


We can't have it all anymore. Think about that before you feign outrage.
If we're going to truly address the long-term budget problems that threaten the welfare of our children and our children's children, we need to address Medicare and, in particular, end-of-life care -- a topic that's been off limits since Sarah Palin unleashed the debate four years

But you worry about this country's debt......


We can't have it all anymore. Think about that before you feign outrage.
If we're going to truly address the long-term budget problems that threaten the welfare of our children and our children's children, we need to address Medicare and, in particular, end-of-life care -- a topic that's been off limits since Sarah Palin unleashed the debate four years Originally Posted by WTF

This sounds like a bunch of BS. We have the Medical Technology to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. But because of the National Debt. Debt none of us are responsible for, we now have to pay for it with our lives.

[Sarcasm alert] We need to rid ourselves of the useless eaters. [Sarcasm off]

I guess a lot of people here owe Sarah Palin an apology. She was right and you were wrong. Are you man enough to admit it?

George Bernard Shaw

How can you possibly argue in favor of devoting such a huge portion of our bloated health care system in end of life care, when it can be avoided by making smarter choices on the front end?

Simple economics. I thought you wingtards were all about cutting the bloat out of the government.

You can't have it both ways ... Unless you meet Whiny in Salina ... Then you can have it in his ass and his mouth ... In that order.

BTW -- if you're saying Sarah Palin was right about anything, then you're too far gone to debate. Pack it up, BarleySwine. You're fired!

Mine are questions, not answers.
I have no problem with an honest discussion of quality of life versus being allowed to die with as little suffering as possible. But, to have care denied when not only wanted but needed to continue to live and be denied because it is too expensive is wrong. If by denying the care, no improvement on the time remaining or quality of life is possible, then and only then shoud a panel assist in the decision making process.

The real problem is that the government has involved itself in the insurance business by way of taxing us to pay for future care. Now that care has become so expensive, the government is seeking ways to shirk that responsibility.

There are many ways to reduce the cost of medicare as well as the outflow of money in SS without compromising the care that has been paid for in advance.