Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on June 04, 2013, 11:12:22 AM
-
http://washingtonexaminer.com/sebelius-wont-waive-regulation-for-girl-with-five-weeks-to-live-someone-lives-and-someone-dies/article/2531097
>:(
-
NO
Because often hospitals have to make choices like these all the time. that doesn't mean the rule is bad or good and it doesn't mean that in this case something shouldn't be done. But NOT a death a panel anymore than we are living in a totalitarian, fascist or police state like the other crap you were spewing the other day and commonly do....
Yep............Basic Bull shit spin fear propaganda once again from you know who.... :D
________________________ ____________
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius rebuffed an appeal from Rep. Lou Barletta, R-Pa., on behalf of a girl who needs a lung transplant but can't get one because of a federal regulation that prevents her from qualifying for a transplant.
“Please, suspend the rules until we look at this policy,” Rep. Lou Barletta, R-Pa., asked Sebelius during a House hearing Tuesday on behalf of Sarah Murnaghan, a 10-year-old girl who needs a lung transplant. She can’t qualify for an adult lung transplant until the age of 12, according to federal regulations, but Sebelius has the authority to waive that rule on her behalf. The pediatric lungs for which she qualifies aren’t available.
“I would suggest, sir, that, again, this is an incredibly agonizing situation where someone lives and someone dies,” Sebelius replied. “The medical evidence and the transplant doctors who are making the rule — and have had the rule in place since 2005 making a delineation between pediatric and adult lungs, because lungs are different than other organs — that it’s based on the survivability [chances].”
Barletta countered that medical professionals think Murneghan could survive an adult lung transplant. During the exchange, he also said that the girl has three to five weeks to live.
Sebelius reminded Barletta that 40 people in Pennsylvania are on the “highest acuity list” for lung transplants.
-
http://washingtonexaminer.com/sebelius-wont-waive-regulation-for-girl-with-five-weeks-to-live-someone-lives-and-someone-dies/article/2531097
>:(
It is, though the sycophantic Obama drones won't admit it.
Not like they care about how much blood is on this regime's hands. What's another child's death?
-
No, not even close
This is a sad story but this has nothing to do with the Affordable Care Act
If the Affordable Care Act didn't exist this story would be exactly the same
Here's a more "death panel" like story for the right wing to get worked up about (though they won't because this one was done by Repubs so it's perfectly acceptable)
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/News/arizona-transplant-deaths/story?id=12559369#.Ua5sqkC1Fro
-
No, not even close
This is a sad story but this has nothing to do with the Affordable Care Act
If the Affordable Care Act didn't exist this story would be exactly the same
Here's a more "death panel" like story for the right wing to get worked up about (though they won't because this one was done by Repubs so it's perfectly acceptable)
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/News/arizona-transplant-deaths/story?id=12559369#.Ua5sqkC1Fro
so the repubs are the death panel party,who would have thought the stupid party live and well
-
It is, though the sycophantic Obama drones won't admit it.
Not like they care about how much blood is on this regime's hands. What's another child's death?
Another childs death is nothing.
I bet 20 or so will be gunned down in a month or 2.
Love them guns!!
-
Epic whining backfire.
-
I don't understand why repubs will not unite and demand obama be impeached for benghazi or irs scandal.
They could stop some of this other bullshit.
I just don't understand it.
-
I don't understand why repubs will not unite and demand obama be impeached for benghazi or irs scandal.
They could stop some of this other bullshit.
I just don't understand it.
might have something to do with actually having to prove a high crime or misdemeanor
I also wish I could say that the Repubs are smart and have learned from the past that trying to impeach Clinton hurt their party more than it hurt Clinton or the Dems but we all know the Repubs aren't nearly that smart
-
I don't understand why repubs will not unite and demand obama be impeached for benghazi or irs scandal.
They could stop some of this other bullshit.
I just don't understand it.
Because they know its BS.
Instead they are using it to gain votes/discredit the current admin.
Its all in the votes.
-
http://washingtonexaminer.com/sebelius-wont-waive-regulation-for-girl-with-five-weeks-to-live-someone-lives-and-someone-dies/article/2531097
>:(
No, I would not call this a "death panel." To be clear, I disagree with the way organ transplants are handled in this country and with the extreme involvement of government in managing them. But this isn't a "death panel."
Ideally such decisions should be made by patients and their doctors on a case-by-case basis. Not by bureaucrats using "one size fits all." But this is a difficult topic - there is a legitimate government interest there and generally speaking we as a society are likely to want some regulation or oversight.
What Sebelius said was accurate - albeit poorly phrased and completely insensitive. Even if the transplant happened and the girl lived, then what? She's just one girl and many people like her die every day for lack of organs. The exemption would not do anything to fix the underlying issue, or even begin to address it. It would just serve to let a bunch of politicins feel warm and fuzzy and brag to their constituents about how they helped save a little girls life - as if they had played some major part.
With all that said, let me get to the important part of my post:
If this really is something you're concerned about, sign up to be an organ donor (it truly is the gift of life and, maybe, the most worthwhile thing some of us will do in our lives).
If this is something you are concerned about, lobby to loosen restrictions currently in place that result in organs not being transplanted.
If this is something you are concerned about, demand that laws currently prohibiting cutting-edge biomedical research and hamper tissue engineering efforts that could one day let us grow lungs so a little girl doesn't have to die.
If this is something you are concerned about, don't forget about this girl's plight – or the plight of others like her – when the twenty four hour news cycle moves on to the next story.
And if you really care about this issue, then please, in the name of anything human still left in you, don't treat this little girl as a pawn to advance a political agenda or to score cheap points on a politics board online.
Oh wait... you already did.
You're a great human being 333386. A truly great human being.
-
One of my first clients ever was michael mastromarino - look him up.
No, I would not call this a "death panel." To be clear, I disagree with the way organ transplants are handled in this country and with the extreme involvement of government in managing them. But this isn't a "death panel."
Ideally such decisions should be made by patients and their doctors on a case-by-case basis. Not by bureaucrats using "one size fits all." But this is a difficult topic - there is a legitimate government interest there and generally speaking we as a society are likely to want some regulation or oversight.
What Sebelius said was accurate - albeit poorly phrased and completely insensitive. Even if the transplant happened and the girl lived, then what? She's just one girl and many people like her die every day for lack of organs. The exemption would not do anything to fix the underlying issue, or even begin to address it. It would just serve to let a bunch of politicins feel warm and fuzzy and brag to their constituents about how they helped save a little girls life - as if they had played some major part.
With all that said, let me get to the important part of my post:
If this really is something you're concerned about, sign up to be an organ donor (it truly is the gift of life and, maybe, the most worthwhile thing some of us will do in our lives).
If this is something you are concerned about, lobby to loosen restrictions currently in place that result in organs not being transplanted.
If this is something you are concerned about, demand that laws currently prohibiting cutting-edge biomedical research and hamper tissue engineering efforts that could one day let us grow lungs so a little girl doesn't have to die.
If this is something you are concerned about, don't forget about this girl's plight – or the plight of others like her – when the twenty four hour news cycle moves on to the next story.
And if you really care about this issue, then please, in the name of anything human still left in you, don't treat this little girl as a pawn to advance a political agenda or to score cheap points on a politics board online.
Oh wait... you already did.
You're a great human being 333386. A truly great human being.
-
One of my first clients ever was michael mastromarino - look him up.
That's pretty cool, I guess. But still not the kind of behavior I approve.
To elaborate a bit more: I don't think it is appropriate or moral to harvest organs from dead people who had not consented to having their organs removed for transplantation. I don't think it's appropriate or moral to profit from such endeavors. And I don't think it's appropriate or moral to give unsuspecting people organs riddled with disease.
I don't remember the specifics of the particular case though, and I don't have the time to refresh my memory. I only remember a few, very vague details about the case.
With that said, if he did help highlight the issue and the need for change in how we handle transplants and how serious the organ shortage we face on a daily basis then at least something good came out of that.
But you still shouldn't be using that little girl - or your previous client - as pawns to score points on an online forum - eve such a forum as getbig.
-
Whether hospitals "make these decisions all the time" (which is untrue) is irrelevant. The point of the matter is that such decisions will not be made by doctors, or hospitals or individuals themselves anymore.
A panel of nameless, faceless, unaccountable government bureaucrats have been anointed to make life or death decisions for all of us.
That is a death panel.
Does anyone on this board, whether right or left, have any confidence in the government to act in the best interest of the individual?
All of the sycophants and morons on here can drown themselves in denial or drone endlessly with mental gymnastics and circular logic to rationalize or excuse or use benign terms in place of the phrase "death panel"-- but the truth is inescapable.
I think America needs to seriously suffer for a while before things change.
-
Whether hospitals "make these decisions all the time" (which is untrue) is irrelevant. The point of the matter is that such decisions will not be made by doctors, or hospitals or individuals themselves anymore.
A panel of nameless, faceless, unaccountable government bureaucrats have been anointed to make life or death decisions for all of us.
That is a death panel.
Does anyone on this board, whether right or left, have any confidence in the government to act in the best interest of the individual?
All of the sycophants and morons on here can drown themselves in denial or drone endlessly with mental gymnastics and circular logic to rationalize or excuse or use benign terms in place of the phrase "death panel"-- but the truth is inescapable.
I think America needs to seriously suffer for a while before things change.
Do you have any confidence that a private firm who 's purpose is to make money for themselves will act to the best interest of the individual?
(General question)
-
Do you have any confidence that a private firm who 's purpose is to make money for themselves will act to the best interest of the individual?
(General question)
It will if it's interests align with that of the individual.
-
The entire thing started off completely legit and he got greedy.
That's pretty cool, I guess. But still not the kind of behavior I approve.
To elaborate a bit more: I don't think it is appropriate or moral to harvest organs from dead people who had not consented to having their organs removed for transplantation. I don't think it's appropriate or moral to profit from such endeavors. And I don't think it's appropriate or moral to give unsuspecting people organs riddled with disease.
I don't remember the specifics of the particular case though, and I don't have the time to refresh my memory. I only remember a few, very vague details about the case.
With that said, if he did help highlight the issue and the need for change in how we handle transplants and how serious the organ shortage we face on a daily basis then at least something good came out of that.
But you still shouldn't be using that little girl - or your previous client - as pawns to score points on an online forum - eve such a forum as getbig.
-
It will if it's interests align with that of the individual.
Yup but usually what benefits the individual will cost the company.
For instance health insurance. Denying a service will benefit the company and hurt the individual.
-
Yup but usually what benefits the individual will cost the company.
For instance health insurance. Denying a service will benefit the company and hurt the individual.
And you think the govt does not benefit by denying service as well? LMFAO!
-
And you think the govt does not benefit by denying service as well? LMFAO!
Depends.
In countries with universal health care for instance people are denied services on a much much smaller scale that when its run privately.
Whats with the LMFAO? Pretty unarticulate for a lawyer ;)
-
Depends.
In countries with universal health care for instance people are denied services on a much much smaller scale that when its run privately.
Whats with the LMFAO? Pretty unarticulate for a lawyer ;)
Universal healthcare is a stupid concept and every country that has adopted such a system is in the boondocks - or quickly getting there. Universal *catastrophic* medical coverage is quite another.
-
Whether hospitals "make these decisions all the time" (which is untrue) is irrelevant. The point of the matter is that such decisions will not be made by doctors, or hospitals or individuals themselves anymore.
A panel of nameless, faceless, unaccountable government bureaucrats have been anointed to make life or death decisions for all of us.
That is a death panel.
Does anyone on this board, whether right or left, have any confidence in the government to act in the best interest of the individual?
All of the sycophants and morons on here can drown themselves in denial or drone endlessly with mental gymnastics and circular logic to rationalize or excuse or use benign terms in place of the phrase "death panel"-- but the truth is inescapable.
I think America needs to seriously suffer for a while before things change.
Yeah. I agree. Sounds like a death panel to me too.
-
Yeah. I agree. Sounds like a death panel to me too.
So in your opinion rules established by doctors about transplants and qualifications for a transplant constitute a death panel? Interesting...
-
So in your opinion rules established by doctors about transplants and qualifications for a transplant constitute a death panel? Interesting...
Rules established by doctors and enforced by some who are not doctors = death panel. But hey as Sebelius said, "someone lives and someone dies." What do we care?
-
http://therightscoop.com/breaking-cnn-reporting-that-judge-grants-order-for-girl-to-get-lung-transplant
Judge intervening
-
Do you have any confidence that a private firm who 's purpose is to make money for themselves will act to the best interest of the individual?
(General question)
Do you have any confidence that a government agency who 's purpose is to dole money out to whom it sees fit based upon an annual budget will act in the best interest of the individual?
(different question, can logically come to the same answer)
your question is based upon the fallacious premise that "government (NOT FOR PROFIT)= good" and "corporation (FOR PROFIT) = bad"
because "profit" is a swear word to you.
-
Do you have any confidence that a government agency who 's purpose is to dole money out to whom it sees fit based upon an annual budget will act in the best interest of the individual?
(different question, can logically come to the same answer)
Nope.
your question is based upon the fallacious premise that "government (NOT FOR PROFIT)= good" and "corporation (FOR PROFIT) = bad"
because "profit" is a swear word to you.
Yeah i hate profit.
I just love when im broke compared to when im loaded ::)
You really think anybody hates Money?
-
Yeah i hate profit.
I just love when im broke compared to when im loaded ::)
You really think anybody hates Money?
do you read your own posts??????? you obviously believe that a corporation with a profit motive will not serve the "individual". and you think that a government agancy will be better for the individual. why? why do you assume that they will perform more efficiently?
-
have you looked at our governments balance sheet lately????
-
Funny too Obama and Sebelius the two criminals they are give waivers to unions for obamacare but not this dying girl to get a lung.
-
do you read your own posts??????? you obviously believe that a corporation with a profit motive will not serve the "individual". and you think that a government agancy will be better for the individual. why? why do you assume that they will perform more efficiently?
Lets try again.
If a corporation can make a profit for denying you a service (Example you pay to your health insurance and they deny it when you need it on technicality) they most often will.
A government agency who gets their funds elsewhere would have less incentive to deny you a sevice like the one above.
This is all hypothetical of course and was a reply to an earlier post where someone argued something i cant even fucking remember right now.
-
U.S. intelligence mining data from nine U.S. Internet companies in broad secret program
By Barton Gellman and Laura Poitras, Thursday, June 6, 5:43 PM
The National Security Agency and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio, video, photographs, e-mails, documents and connection logs that enable analysts to track a person’s movements and contacts over time.
The highly classified program, code-named PRISM, has not been disclosed publicly before. Its establishment in 2007 and six years of exponential growth took place beneath the surface of a roiling debate over the boundaries of surveillance and privacy. Even late last year, when critics of the foreign intelligence statute argued for changes, the only members of Congress who know about PRISM were bound by oaths of office to hold their tongues.
An internal presentation on the Silicon Valley operation, intended for senior analysts in the NSA’s Signals Intelligence Directorate, described the new tool as the most prolific contributor to the President’s Daily Brief, which cited PRISM data in 1,477 articles last year. According to the briefing slides, obtained by The Washington Post, “NSA reporting increasingly relies on PRISM” as its leading source of raw material, accounting for nearly 1 in 7 intelligence reports.
That is a remarkable figure in an agency that measures annual intake in the trillions of communications. It is all the more striking because the NSA, whose lawful mission is foreign intelligence, is reaching deep inside the machinery of American companies that host hundreds of millions of American-held accounts on American soil.
The technology companies, which participate knowingly in PRISM operations, include most of the dominant global players of Silicon Valley. They are listed on a roster that bears their logos in order of entry into the program: “Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple.” PalTalk, although much smaller, has hosted significant traffic during the Arab Spring and in the ongoing Syrian civil war.
Dropbox , the cloud storage and synchronization service, is described as “coming soon.”
Government officials declined to comment for this story.
Roots in the ’70s
PRISM is an heir, in one sense, to a history of intelligence alliances with as many as 100 trusted U.S. companies since the 1970s. The NSA calls these Special Source Operations, and PRISM falls under that rubric.
The Silicon Valley operation works alongside a parallel program, code-named BLARNEY, that gathers up “metadata” — address packets, device signatures and the like — as it streams past choke points along the backbone of the Internet. BLARNEY’s top-secret program summary, set down alongside a cartoon insignia of a shamrock and a leprechaun hat, describes it as “an ongoing collection program that leverages IC [intelligence community] and commercial partnerships to gain access and exploit foreign intelligence obtained from global networks.”
But the PRISM program appears more nearly to resemble the most controversial of the warrantless surveillance orders issued by President George W. Bush after the al-Qaeda attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Its history, in which President Obama presided over “exponential growth” in a program that candidate Obama criticized, shows how fundamentally surveillance law and practice have shifted away from individual suspicion in favor of systematic, mass collection techniques.
The PRISM program is not a dragnet, exactly. From inside a company’s data stream the NSA is capable of pulling out anything it likes, but under current rules the agency does not try to collect it all.
Analysts who use the system from a Web portal at Fort Meade key in “selectors,” or search terms, that are designed to produce at least 51 percent confidence in a target’s “foreignness.” That is not a very stringent test. Training materials obtained by the Post instruct new analysts to submit accidentally collected U.S. content for a quarterly report, “but it’s nothing to worry about.”
Even when the system works just as advertised, with no American singled out for targeting, the NSA routinely collects a great deal of American content. That is described as “incidental,” and it is inherent in contact chaining, one of the basic tools of the trade. To collect on a suspected spy or foreign terrorist means, at minimum, that everyone in the suspect’s inbox or outbox is swept in. Intelligence analysts are typically taught to chain through contacts two “hops” out from their target, which increases “incidental collection” exponentially. The same math explains the aphorism, from the John Guare play, that no one is more than “six degrees of separation” from Kevin Bacon.
A ‘directive’
Formally, in exchange for immunity from lawsuits, companies like Yahoo and AOL are obliged to accept a “directive” from the attorney general and the director of national intelligence to open their servers to the FBI’s Data Intercept Technology Unit, which handles liaison to U.S. companies from the NSA. In 2008, Congress gave the Justice Department authority to for a secret order from the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Court to compel a reluctant company “to comply.”
In practice, there is room for a company to maneuver, delay or resist. When a clandestine intelligence program meets a highly regulated industry, said a lawyer with experience in bridging the gaps, neither side wants to risk a public fight. The engineering problems are so immense, in systems of such complexity and frequent change, that the FBI and NSA would be hard pressed to build in back doors without active help from each company.
Apple demonstrated that resistance is possible, for reasons unknown, when it held out for more than five years after Microsoft became PRISM’s first corporate partner in May 2007. Twitter, which has cultivated a reputation for aggressive defense of its users’ privacy, is still conspicuous by its absence from the list of “private sector partners.”
“Google cares deeply about the security of our users’ data,” a company spokesman said. “We disclose user data to government in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege that we have created a government ‘back door’ into our systems, but Google does not have a ‘back door’ for the government to access private user data.”
Like market researchers, but with far more privileged access, collection managers in the NSA’s Special Source Operations group, which oversees the PRISM program, are drawn to the wealth of information about their subjects in online accounts. For much the same reason, civil libertarians and some ordinary users may be troubled by the menu available to analysts who hold the required clearances to “task” the PRISM system.
There has been “continued exponential growth in tasking to Facebook and Skype,” according to the 41 PRISM slides. With a few clicks and an affirmation that the subject is believed to be engaged in terrorism, espionage or nuclear proliferation, an analyst obtains full access to Facebook’s “extensive search and surveillance capabilities against the variety of online social networking services.”
According to a separate “User’s Guide for PRISM Skype Collection,” that service can be monitored for audio when one end of the call is a conventional telephone and for any combination of “audio, video, chat, and file transfers” when Skype users connect by computer alone. Google’s offerings include Gmail, voice and video chat, Google Drive files, photo libraries, and live surveillance of search terms.
Firsthand experience with these systems, and horror at their capabilities, is what drove a career intelligence officer to provide PowerPoint slides about PRISM and supporting materials to The Washington Post in order to expose what he believes to be a gross intrusion on privacy. “They quite literally can watch your ideas form as you type,” the officer said.
Julie Tate and Robert O’Harrow Jr. contributed to this report.
Graphic: NSA slides explain the PRISM data-collection program
-
Hell yea this is a death panel.
Though I would disagree with George. If the government weren't doing it, it would be some nameless, faceless, unaccountable group at an insurance company or hospital or whatever.
These are tough value judgments to make. No way to reasonably get a large amount of people to agree, IMO.
Not sure what a better way forward is...though it might be better to do it state by state, then the value 'might' better align with people. But...that's a mighty big 'might'.
-
http://therightscoop.com/breaking-cnn-reporting-that-judge-grants-order-for-girl-to-get-lung-transplant
Judge intervening
Judge actually has no say in it....not only that, a lung has to be available and ultimately its the hospital and the doctors that makes the decision as to who gets it.
-
Lets try again.
If a corporation can make a profit for denying you a service (Example you pay to your health insurance and they deny it when you need it on technicality) they most often will.
A government agency who gets their funds elsewhere would have less incentive to deny you a sevice like the one above.
This is all hypothetical of course and was a reply to an earlier post where someone argued something i cant even fucking remember right now.
i dont know where you get your information but what you said was simply false. you're just flat out wrong. less incentive to deny you? why? they work on a budget just like a for profit does. they deal with the same issues that a corporation does. they're beholden to a bottom line just like a for profit.
again the only reason you're saying what you say and spreading misinformation is because its been pounded into your head by know nothing liberals that corporation = bad and government = good. unfortunately you're a dime a dozen in this country.
-
i dont know where you get your information but what you said was simply false. you're just flat out wrong. less incentive to deny you? why? they work on a budget just like a for profit does. they deal with the same issues that a corporation does. they're beholden to a bottom line just like a for profit.
again the only reason you're saying what you say and spreading misinformation is because its been pounded into your head by know nothing liberals that corporation = bad and government = good. unfortunately you're a dime a dozen in this country.
All right Bears imagine this.
You check into a hospital get threatment and all of a sudden your insurance wont cover you because you failed to report you had some sort of illness as a kid.
Now try doing the same in a country where healtcare is already paid for by taxes. Nothing will be denied because the incentive isnt there like in the example above.
-
All right Bears imagine this.
You check into a hospital get threatment and all of a sudden your insurance wont cover you because you failed to report you had some sort of illness as a kid.
Now try doing the same in a country where healtcare is already paid for by taxes. Nothing will be denied because the incentive isnt there like in the example above.
Not true - many hospitals will give you the service - uou just will have a big bill.
-
Not true - many hospitals will give you the service - uou just will have a big bill.
Thats what i said.
You get threatment and afterwards they wont cover it if they can get of the hook.
-
All right Bears imagine this.
You check into a hospital get threatment and all of a sudden your insurance wont cover you because you failed to report you had some sort of illness as a kid.
Now try doing the same in a country where healtcare is already paid for by taxes. Nothing will be denied because the incentive isnt there like in the example above.
Not true for Obamacare. Just because you have insurance doesn't mean a service won't be denied.
-
Not true for Obamacare. Just because you have insurance doesn't mean a service won't be denied.
No?
I thought things like preexisting conditions could not be grounds for a denial anymore. Or are you thinking about other instances im not aware of?
-
No?
I thought things like preexisting conditions could not be grounds for a denial anymore. Or are you thinking about other instances im not aware of?
No, you're confusing having insurance with inclusiveness of coverage. Obamacare may help get a person on an insurance plan. That doesn't automatically mean that whatever service you want or need is going to be covered. It also doesn't mean that you will be able to afford the co-pays and co-insurance needed for a covered service.
For some things, they may be able to get a subsidy, for others maybe not.
In fact, there's a lot of 'maybes' for the entire thing.
-
Lets try again.
If a corporation can make a profit for denying you a service (Example you pay to your health insurance and they deny it when you need it on technicality) they most often will.
A government agency who gets their funds elsewhere would have less incentive to deny you a sevice like the one above.
This is all hypothetical of course and was a reply to an earlier post where someone argued something i cant even fucking remember right now.
I don't think that's how those corporations roll. They don't make profit by denying people services. At best, they cut losses.
But, the way they cut or prevent losses is either not insuring you in the first place, if you have certain conditions. Or, they charge you out the anus for their insuring you, because it's going to cost them out the anus to cover you when those conditions manifests themselves.
-
Hell yea this is a death panel.
Nonsense. Rules were put in place based on rational standards to address the issue of a limited supply of organs that vastly outpaces the demand for them, and to help ensure that the patient receiving those organs has the best chance at surviving what is a very difficult procedure.
These are tough value judgments to make. No way to reasonably get a large amount of people to agree, IMO.
We agree there. That's a start.
Not sure what a better way forward is...though it might be better to do it state by state, then the value 'might' better align with people. But...that's a mighty big 'might'.
I don't think this will work - especially if the organs come in one state and the recipient is in another. This is, legitimately, a case where state-by-state solutions won't necessarily work. A good, solid set of first steps to make towards addressing this issue eventually would be:
(1) promote organ donation; there is little reason for anyone to not sign up to become an organ donor.
(2) change the existing rules, making more organs available. As it stands now only the healthiest of organs can be transplanted into the "healthiest" of patients. Why not consider more organs - organs who would now not make the cut as eligible for transplantation into patients who may not, today, qualify? Sure, in doing so, the patient will be taking a risk and life expectancy will be reduced, but it will almost certainly be better than if the patient didn't receive a transplant at all.
(3) promote research into tissue bio-engineering and advanced bio-medical research more generally.
-
I don't think that's how those corporations roll. They don't make profit by denying people services. At best, they cut losses.
But, the way they cut or prevent losses is either not insuring you in the first place, if you have certain conditions. Or, they charge you out the anus for their insuring you, because it's going to cost them out the anus to cover you when those conditions manifests themselves.
Thats great but what this does is giving Health Insurance to those that dont need it and those who needs it cant get it.
-
Thats great but what this does is giving Health Insurance to those that dont need it and those who needs it cant get it.
So the solution is what? Force everyone to pay to cover your asthmatic mother or your arthritic father who just can't afford to care for themselves? Why don't you pay for them if that's such a concern for you? Why do you think that what you (individually, or you the majority/plurality) get to put your hands in my wallet and take out what you want?
-
So the solution is what? Force everyone to pay to cover your asthmatic mother or your arthritic father who just can't afford to care for themselves? Why don't you pay for them if that's such a concern for you? Why do you think that what you (individually, or you the majority/plurality) get to put your hands in my wallet and take out what you want?
Because you pay for them no matter what. Its just the reality of the world we live in.
You actually make my point somewhat. If you want to keep your money in your pocket they need health insurance otherwise your taxes will pay for it. Unless you dont help them at all.
Its a vicious circle.
-
Because you pay for them no matter what. Its just the reality of the world we live in.
The reality is that I'm forced to pay because I have a proverbial gun pointed at me. But that's not something inherent to the world.
You actually make my point somewhat. If you want to keep your money in your pocket they need health insurance otherwise your taxes will pay for it. Unless you dont help them at all.
I don't want to help anyone get health insurance. If it's important to you, then start a non-profit and solicit donations from others who feel the same way. Surely there's enough of you out there to bankroll a low-cost plan.
Its a vicious circle.
Yes... it is a vicious cycle. A vicious cycle where a problem is described, a solution is "conceived" and then my wallet is plundered. And it's a vicious cycle that will be broken when people like me have had enough and refuse to play along. Because really, this all hinges on people like me playing along.
Tell me, who will bankroll your universal healthcare scheme when I quit my job, and start living of the money that I have put to the side? Or when I quit my job and find the lowest job I can possible get - say, flipping burgers part-time - to make just enough money to survive but not enough for you to have any to take from me?
What will you do then?
-
The reality is that I'm forced to pay because I have a proverbial gun pointed at me. But that's not something inherent to the world.
I think your philosophy collides with the state of how things/society works on this subject. Not that i disagree but its another debate
I don't want to help anyone get health insurance. If it's important to you, then start a non-profit and solicit donations from others who feel the same way. Surely there's enough of you out there to bankroll a low-cost plan.
Hell no im a cynical bastard im not here to save people or the world.
Yes... it is a vicious cycle. A vicious cycle where a problem is described, a solution is "conceived" and then my wallet is plundered. And it's a vicious cycle that will be broken when people like me have had enough and refuse to play along. Because really, this all hinges on people like me playing along.
No arguments here.
Tell me, who will bankroll your universal healthcare scheme when I quit my job, and start living of the money that I have put to the side? Or when I quit my job and find the lowest job I can possible get - say, flipping burgers part-time - to make just enough money to survive but not enough for you to have any to take from me?
Who said its a scheme? Universal healthcare paid over taxes. Everybody is covered everyone pays. And if everybody pays the price drops. Take out the middle-man and there will be more money for actual health care.
What will you do then?
i have paid 50-70% in taxes all my life and have never used any health care besides the emergency room and vaccine shots so dont throw that shit at me :)
-
Universal healthcare is a pipe dream that will never work. Universal catastrophic coverage is a whole 'nother ballgame - and one I would be OK with.
-
Universal healthcare is a pipe dream that will never work. Universal catastrophic coverage is a whole 'nother ballgame - and one I would be OK with.
Maybe you are right.
-
Nonsense. Rules were put in place based on rational standards to address the issue of a limited supply of organs that vastly outpaces the demand for them, and to help ensure that the patient receiving those organs has the best chance at surviving what is a very difficult procedure.
Big fucking deal. It's a Death Panel with rules. ::)
We agree there. That's a start.
Don't ever let that happen again.
I don't think this will work - especially if the organs come in one state and the recipient is in another. This is, legitimately, a case where state-by-state solutions won't necessarily work. A good, solid set of first steps to make towards addressing this issue eventually would be:
(1) promote organ donation; there is little reason for anyone to not sign up to become an organ donor.
(2) change the existing rules, making more organs available. As it stands now only the healthiest of organs can be transplanted into the "healthiest" of patients. Why not consider more organs - organs who would now not make the cut as eligible for transplantation into patients who may not, today, qualify? Sure, in doing so, the patient will be taking a risk and life expectancy will be reduced, but it will almost certainly be better than if the patient didn't receive a transplant at all.
(3) promote research into tissue bio-engineering and advanced bio-medical research more generally.
I haven't dealt with this since I was in school and you're making me think - I don't appreciate.
I need to understand what you exactly mean.
So, let me get the structure down again. Federal law sets the framework, OTPN sets the policy, and UNOS is the database and algorithm (I think)?
Now, I thought that once a medical match is found, it looks at location of the recipient, and then goes to some type of combined score of who has waited the longest and survival after transplantation...maybe.
So, you're saying the healthiest people tend to have the highest scores, and they get the healthiest organs, then the next healthiest gets the next organs etc. But, if something less healthy comes along, say within the geographic area, they take that rather than waiting for something better?
Do I understand you correctly?
-
Big fucking deal. It's a Death Panel with rules. ::)
Hardly a death panel. It's a death panel in the same sense that a hamburger is a steak between slices of bread... ::)
I haven't dealt with this since I was in school and you're making me think - I don't appreciate.
Oops. I'll endeavor to not do so in the future. ;D
I need to understand what you exactly mean.
So, let me get the structure down again. Federal law sets the framework, OTPN sets the policy, and UNOS is the database and algorithm (I think)?
More or less. At least, that's my understanding of things.
Now, I thought that once a medical match is found, it looks at location of the recipient, and then goes to some type of combined score of who has waited the longest and survival after transplantation...maybe.
That's my understanding as well.
So, you're saying the healthiest people tend to have the highest scores, and they get the healthiest organs, then the next healthiest gets the next organs etc. But, if something less healthy comes along, say within the geographic area, they take that rather than waiting for something better?
No, I'm saying that under the current rules, anything less than a near-perfect organ is automatically ineligible for transplant. For example, supposed there's a heart that's a perfect match for someone who, without it, has less than a month to live. The heart matches nobody else and will go to waste. Now, let's also assume that this heart had suffered a myocardial infarction in the past; that automatically disqualifies the heart. Or let's assume the patient is over a certain age; that automatically disqualifies the patient.
Doesn't this seem silly?
Another example: under current law, no more than 5% of available organs can go to non-citizens. So, if that limit is reached, a perfectly viable organ might end up being thrown away and a life will, likely, be lost.
Doesn't this seem silly?
Of course, these are difficult issues, and there are no easy or perfect answers. Hopefully soon we'll be able to bio-engineer some organs as needed.
-
Hardly a death panel. It's a death panel in the same sense that a hamburger is a steak between slices of bread... ::)
Oops. I'll endeavor to not do so in the future. ;D
More or less. At least, that's my understanding of things.
That's my understanding as well.
No, I'm saying that under the current rules, anything less than a near-perfect organ is automatically ineligible for transplant. For example, supposed there's a heart that's a perfect match for someone who, without it, has less than a month to live. The heart matches nobody else and will go to waste. Now, let's also assume that this heart had suffered a myocardial infarction in the past; that automatically disqualifies the heart. Or let's assume the patient is over a certain age; that automatically disqualifies the patient.
Doesn't this seem silly?
Another example: under current law, no more than 5% of available organs can go to non-citizens. So, if that limit is reached, a perfectly viable organ might end up being thrown away and a life will, likely, be lost.
Doesn't this seem silly?
Of course, these are difficult issues, and there are no easy or perfect answers. Hopefully soon we'll be able to bio-engineer some organs as needed.
Yes, I would agree with you 100%. Let me preface that with a note that I'm not a doctor, so there may be issues about such organs that I don't understand, but what you're pointing out does seem to be silly policy.