Platt, I take a bit of an adage to heart here, "render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's". Society has a vested interest in working out these problems, and thus it does. but intellectual criticism and analysis helps us figure out what kind of society we want, and how to get there.
I've raised the issue with you before, that over emphasis upon individual rights leads to a socialistic politics. It's the absolutization of self, in the end, that creates the problems. Every self values his or her own existence, infinitely. And in projecting his own angst into the political social realm, creates a lose/lose pattern. Because no matter what we do, we all die in the end anyway. We should focus more on Quality of life, rather than quantity. That's the most effecient use of our medical resources, imo. John On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Platt Holden <[email protected]> wrote: > You can plead "out of context" all you want, but the editorial admits > explicitly that the government has the power to make "coverage decisions." > No matter how you or the leftist editorial writer at the Times want to > hide > it with "context," the fact of government control of life and death > decisions stands out like a sore thumb. I won't call the control what > others > have called it out of deference to Horse's wishes. But, the message is loud > and clear. "I'm from the government and I'm here to decide if you live or > die." > > On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 5:25 PM, david buchanan <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > > No, Platt. You've taken that quote out of context and distorted the > > meaning. Or, more likely, right-wing bloggers distorted it that and you > are > > parroting them. In the larger context, the editorialist accuses Obama's > > critics of WRONGLY saying government will "end up denying access to > > essential care". The program he's talking about is "carefully restricted" > > and "cannot make recommendations to Medicare or private insurers about > what > > they should or should not cover. It cannot tell doctors what treatments > to > > use, or recommend how much doctors and hospitals should be paid for any > > services". > > > > Further, the editorialist is making a case that we should confront the > > rising costs of health care and even says that cynical demagoguing about > > death panels has interfered with our ability to do that. > > "The new health care reform law makes a start at figuring this out. It > sets > > up a new system to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of drugs, > > treatments and medical devices. But, after all of the cynical demagoguing > > about “death panels,” it limits the extent to which the studies can be > used > > to help hold down costs." > > > > > > Here's the quote in it's original context.... > > > > > > > > "The Obama administration started the process, committing $1.1 billion > from > > stimulus funds to finance comparative studies. The new reform law will > move > > that ahead, setting up a nonprofit, independent institute to organize the > > work. The comptroller general will appoint a governing board of 19 > members, > > representing patients, doctors, manufacturers and others, including two > > designated federal health officials. > > If the institute works the way it is supposed to, patients, doctors and > the > > government will have better information about what works and what does > not, > > what may be worth the extra cost and what does not make sense. Even then, > > the legislative language is so convoluted there is no guarantee that even > > the most credible findings will help ensure that patients get the best > and > > most cost-effective treatment. > > With critics wrongly charging that these studies would insert government > > bureaucrats between patients and their doctors and end up denying access > to > > essential care, reformers pulled their punches. > > The institute is supposed to make regular reports of its findings but is > > carefully restricted as to what it can say. It cannot make > recommendations > > to Medicare or private insurers about what they should or should not > cover. > > It cannot tell doctors what treatments to use, or recommend how much > doctors > > and hospitals should be paid for any services. > > Depending on how the White House decides to proceed, the effort could > begin > > to change things. The law says the secretary of health and human services > > cannot deny Medicare coverage of services “solely” on the basis of > > comparative effectiveness research, but it does not prevent the use of > such > > findings in conjunction with other factors in making coverage decisions. > > Those decisions generally influence what private insurers cover as well. > > The secretary needs to press the panel to get the research going and then > > begin including the findings in Medicare coverage and reimbursement > > decisions. Critics will howl. If the panel does its job right — and > > politicians have the courage to make the case — both patients and > taxpayers > > will benefit." > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 11:26:14 -0400 > > > From: [email protected] > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: [MD] How far do you go to preserve individual life? > > > > > > Oh, but there is such a thing. From a NYTimes editorial, Sep. 13: > > > > > > "The law says the secretary of health and human services cannot deny > > > Medicare coverage of services “solely” on the basis of comparative > > > effectiveness research, but it does not prevent the use of such > findings > > in > > > conjunction with other factors in making coverage decisions. Those > > decisions > > > generally influence what private insurers cover as well." > > > > > > The key words, a government panel "making coverage decisions." In other > > > words, rationing of health care that healthcare Czar Donald > > > Berwick enthusiastically approves. > > > > > > Private insurance companies permit the freedom to choose between > > coverages > > > and companies. With the government, your freedom to choose is quashed. > If > > > you ask if I prefer the free market to socialism, I'm with Pirsig. If > you > > > like, I'll repeat what he said in comparing the two. > > > > > > . > > > On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 11:00 PM, david buchanan < > [email protected] > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Platt said Horse: > > > > ... If you don't want me to use the term "death panel" in referring > to > > a > > > > government body that decides who lives and who dies, I'll comply. I > > think > > > > it's an accurate description, but if you find it contrary to fact and > > unduly > > > > "provocative," so be it. > > > > > > > > > > > > dmb says: > > > > > > > > If there were such a thing as a government bod that decides who live > > and > > > > who dies, that term would describe it pretty well. The problem is, > > there is > > > > no such thing. The term was invented to describe a particular > provision > > in > > > > the health care bill. That provision simply says that the government > > will > > > > pay YOUR doctor if YOU want to talk to him or her about life and > death > > > > decisions. Who is in a better position to help you decide? So the > idea > > Platt > > > > presents is not only contrary to fact and provocative, it distorts > and > > > > demonizes a very humane and decent practice, one that informs and > > comforts > > > > people when they need it most. > > > > > > > > If there is such a thing as a bureaucrat with the power of life and > > death, > > > > it's those people who stamp "coverage denied" on your insurance > claim. > > > > That's when people find out they don't have enough money to buy > > whatever > > > > treatment they need to live. Every time coverage is denied, profits > go > > up > > > > and the bureaucrat's job is just a little more secure. He literally > has > > an > > > > incentive to deny coverage, especially for the pricey procedures. > There > > is a > > > > lethal tension between the needs of the insured and the motives of > the > > > > insurance companies. A government run program would take that motive > > out of > > > > the equation, at least. Such things are supposed to be accountable to > > the > > > > voters as well. It scares me less than what we have now. My dad raves > > about > > > > Medicare. Had private insurance all his life and was stunned to find > > out how > > > > much better it was on the government side. > > > > > > > > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > > > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > > > Archives: > > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > > > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > > Archives: > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
