20 comments

• Comment Link Wednesday, 07 November 2012 04:37 posted by GEDouglas

  So, we start by classifying the old as not worth the expense, then the IPAP decides that a mentally retarded person does not warrant the expense, then a person with certain physical disabilities or deformities are deemed unworthy. Where does it end? I believe history shows us where this disregard for life mentality leads. Recent history...say 1937-45 under the the National Socialist regime.

• Comment Link Friday, 02 November 2012 23:33 posted by Mike

  I call bs on Mrs. Pipes stories about Canada. I'm Canadian and I've never heard of any of the problems Mrs. Pipes complains about. I've had several family members who've had to deal with the medical establishment and most are more than happy with the outcome. I would suggests that her story is an exception, not the average

• Comment Link Sunday, 28 October 2012 11:00 posted by Paula Lee

  I was for the motion before and after the debate. I don't mean to disrespect the against panelist, but I believe that they were not at the level of the other side. The quality of their oratory was sub-par, Intelligence square needs to bring better representatives for the conservative side. Kellerman and Singer tried to engage them, but Pipes and Connor were arguing from a very emotional place.
  The only concern I have for rationing is the possibility that it stifles innovation. For example, a lot of the safety technology we have in cars were first developed in luxery cars, which later trickled down to all of us, could the same dynamic be applied to healthcare?

• Comment Link Monday, 22 October 2012 11:52 posted by Greg

  The results of this debate were extremely disturbing. I don't want insurance companies or the government making these kinds of decisions.

• Comment Link Thursday, 18 October 2012 02:22 posted by Lindsay

  A rationing board would not restrict the decisions around end-of-life. It would limit the government's (and taxpayer's) responsibility for paying for unlimited health care when the vast majority of doctors agree that further treatment will not lead to meaningful improvements in the quality of life.
  
  Every individual has the right to live as long as they want to, but I can assure you that if those individuals and their families incurred the costs of that end-of-life care, they would not choose unlimited care.
  
  Luckily, if some policymakers (party affiliation unnamed) are able to push their voucher plans for Medicare forward, we will be able to see what happens very clearly, sort of a "natural experiment." At that point, end-of-life care will be rationed for everyone, regardless of the ability to improve quality of life. It's sad that some don't see the contradictions in their policies...

• Comment Link Wednesday, 17 October 2012 19:53 posted by Paul Moore

  But that's the thing, Willy. This is already happening - insurance companies are doing this all time time. Heck, the side against admitted this and even said that this should continue!
  
  In fact, before Obamacare sick folks could be denied coverage (because it wasn't profitable to insure them), so plenty of people died that would otherwise have lived.
  
  So really the question evolved to "Are people for government rationing over insurance companies rationing" and 81% felt that the government would be fairer and more sympathetic than private (profit motivated) companies.

• Comment Link Wednesday, 17 October 2012 14:00 posted by AndreK

  I remember seeing a study that said that an average person contributing to MediCare contributes in the vicinity of $100K, but uses around $300K. Just how long do you expect this to last?
  
  I am not saying it is impossible to increase MediCare tax, although I would rather pay for Johnny's new textbook than for John Sr.'s 3rd heart-lung transplant. Life was not meant to be infinite (you can wrestle with your god about that), and just because doctors can keep you breathing ad infinitum, does not mean that a society is obligated to pay for it.
  
  Given that money available for government services is a limited resource, we should treat it as such. My proposal would be to define a maximum limit of medical benefits paid by the society for any given individual, and once the limit is reached, provide a person with means to end their life peacefully. "But this means that the rich will get to live longer", you will argue, and you are right, they will. They already drive fancier cars, live in fancier houses, vacation in fancier resorts, and use stay in fancier hospital rooms - that's life. Look on the positive side, they still do die, just like the rest of us, and I doubt that they insist on spending more money for the right to suffer for one more year.

• Comment Link Wednesday, 17 October 2012 09:46 posted by Art Kellermann

  Willy: Did you actually listen to the debate or read the transcript prior to posting your note? It really helps to do so.

• Comment Link Tuesday, 16 October 2012 15:57 posted by DevinM

  Your life is already monetized by people you have never met, whether it's via whatever salary you're paid, taxes you pay on your property, the money given to your school district, or healthcare allotted you. To think otherwise is naive. Things in the medical industry are unsustainable as they currently exist, so changes must be made. What do the people who oppose the motion propose as an alternative?
  
  Also, on a more lighthearted note - Ken Connor is a laughable panderer, referring to the "smoke-filled rooms" in the "federal city." You've got to be kidding me with this absurd rhetoric. And to bring in alternative energy, wow. *facepalm*

• Comment Link Thursday, 11 October 2012 15:49 posted by WillyP

  This is chilling. Only in Chicago would 81% of an audience approve of removing the decisions around end of life care to a rationing board. Maybe this seems like a good idea, but I can't imagine thinking so as they weigh the advantage of keeping you alive as you watch helplessly from your hospital bed.
  
  A patient can always choose DNR. A patient can always request to die naturally. To invite a bureaucratic third party with implicit judicial and legislative authority - with an inimical interest in reducing costs - into the hospital room strikes me as a very dangerous idea.