PDA

View Full Version : Death Panels Mean Longer Life Spans?



Gerry Clinchy
06-04-2012, 06:53 PM
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-03/how-death-panels-can-prolong-life.html
We've discussed before why the US spends so much on health care, but doesn't score higher with lifespan as some other countries.

This article has an interesting approach to that discussion. In summary:
If you deny a costly treatment to an octugenarian & use those funds to save a child or a 30-yr-old, you end up with a longer lifespan statistically. So, if you have limited funds, the lifespan overall will be higher by spending the funds in this way. The octuagenarian has already done his part for the lifespan stats; the death of a younger person will drag the stats down.

If this premise is valid, it would appear that lifespan statistics do not necessarily reflect the quality of health care available. It simply reflects how a country allocates its health care dollars.

It is most unfortunate that everyone cannot get the very highest levels of health care available, so choices get made in some way as to who gets the care.

Today, it is true that health insurors may dictate the way funds get spent. Under any govt plan, it will be the govt bureaucrat that dictates the way funds get spent. Or it will be money that dictates who gets the care ... I doubt that Donald Trump would have to die prematurely because either a health insurance company or govt-appointee dictated that policy did not allow the payment for the treatment needed. He'd just buy it himself.

Interesting food for thought.

menmon
06-05-2012, 09:51 AM
That is the point of healthcare reform everyone can't get it, so unless you can afford health insurance you don't get the highest level of care.

There is probably some truth to the statistic you are showing and we all know that much money is wasted buying a few more days for folks that are dying and have no chance. I do realize that it is a tough decision not to help someone buy a little more time.

The phrase "Death Panels" was coined to upset people, not add value to a big costly issue. See that phrase took no thought on the part of the right, but had they have been more in tune with coming up with a solution to help their fellow man instead of how to get more of them elected, the outcome could have been different and maybe better. Politics first....Americans last:mad:

luvmylabs23139
06-05-2012, 10:29 AM
BUt why should I the taxpayer pay a dime for a leach that causes their own problems such as HIV, drug use, crack babies etc. Everyone bitches about smokers but nobody in power will do simple things to deal with obese leaches on medicaid. Simply bann buying certain foods with food stamps would help. Then you only stomp on the true leaches of society. All illegals whould just be thrown back over the border as soon as caught. If they jump the border when preggers toss them back even faster!

menmon
06-05-2012, 10:41 AM
I agree with this...having said this, there are many that are hard working and can't afford care. Corn Sirup is a huge problem, but you midwesterners don't want it banned from soda production...happy meals are another problem...video games....drug abuse...tobacco....etc.

We like all these things because they make jobs...but many people can't handle them. There are cost that these companies are not bearing with their products and it falls on the taxpayer. Now don't you think it would be more appropriate for Cargil's, CocaCola's, Sony's owners to pay more taxes to pay for the negatives of their products than you and I?

huntinman
06-05-2012, 10:54 AM
I agree with this...having said this, there are many that are hard working and can't afford care. Corn Sirup is a huge problem, but you midwesterners don't want it banned from soda production...happy meals are another problem...video games....drug abuse...tobacco....etc.

We like all these things because they make jobs...but many people can't handle them. There are cost that these companies are not bearing with their products and it falls on the taxpayer. Now don't you think it would be more appropriate for Cargil's, CocaCola's, Sony's owners to pay more taxes to pay for the negatives of their products than you and I?

Personal responsibility.

menmon
06-05-2012, 11:19 AM
Since most american are not responsible...you think that we should give the shareholders of these companies a free ride since they exploit these people?

ARay11
06-05-2012, 11:31 AM
Since most american are not responsible...you think that we should give the shareholders of these companies a free ride since they exploit these people?

Personal Responsibility, Period.

I sincerely doubt the shareholders of CocaCola Cargil or Sony are receiving a "free ride".

I own XOM and F. Am I exploiting those who drive? After all.... people die driving. if they weren't driving, they wouldn't die in a car accident.

BS!!! Wake up America!!! Take responsibility for yourselves!! Your Families!! YOUR COMMUNITIES!!!!!!

We CANNOT legislate a healthy America. BS BS BS BS!!!!!!


Oh... and.... to be clear....
If the govt raises taxes on these corporations, they will simply raise the price of their products. So, the average American consumer gets hammered in the end anyway

huntinman
06-05-2012, 11:40 AM
Since most american are not responsible...you think that we should give the shareholders of these companies a free ride since they exploit these people?

No one is holding anyone down and forcing them to drink a coke. No one forced you or me to eat till we got as fat as we are. We made those choices... We should live with them. Period.

Gerry Clinchy
06-05-2012, 11:55 AM
Since most american are not responsible...you think that we should give the shareholders of these companies a free ride since they exploit these people?

So, you mean that it is better for someone "up high" to decide what is the right way to live, and to do so legislate away the individual choices of all? And we should also, therefore, charge the companies who manufacture alcohol for those who use alcohol irresponsibly?

A smoker or an obese person damages themselves, while a drug abuser damages not only themselves but also can resort to violent acts (due to the drugs) or criminal acts (to get the drugs). I have not heard of a smoker or a fat person who has chewed the face off a homeless person due to their unhealthy habit.


That is the point of healthcare reform everyone can't get it, so unless you can afford health insurance you don't get the highest level of care.


You FINALLY get it! There is NO WAY there is any free lunch! But Obamacare has convinced some people that there is!


See that phrase took no thought on the part of the right, but had they have been more in tune with coming up with a solution to help their fellow man instead of how to get more of them elected, the outcome could have been different and maybe better. Politics first....Americans last:mad:

Politics has nothing at all to do with compassion for one's fellow man! Fiscal responsibility does not equate to lack of concern for one's fellow man. Confusing issues of social conscience and finance are the perennial mind-twisting generated by politics. The catch phrase "war on women" is a perfect example. Just because I think that an individual should be responsible for the $7/month worth of birth control pills does not mean that I believe in a "war on women", for God's sake!

Cody Covey
06-05-2012, 01:48 PM
Since most american are not responsible...you think that we should give the shareholders of these companies a free ride since they exploit these people?

Are you suggesting the people that actually pay taxes are getting a free ride?

menmon
06-05-2012, 02:03 PM
No my point is that we are bearing their cost. They are selling an unhealthy product and because of it, it cost us money and they are not paying us any dividends. So why shouldn't they have to pay for the burden it is putting on us non-stockholder? Oh I forgot, I have a thousand shares of CocaCola in my 401K. Nevermind, they are paying me a $100 in dividends a year, so the fact that my health insurance and medicare went up $1000 we are good:rolleyes:.

menmon
06-05-2012, 02:11 PM
Tax the shareholders not the company, meaning those that own a meaningful amount.

If they raise the price we stop buying....consumer products don't have pricing power.

ARay11
06-05-2012, 02:28 PM
Tax the shareholders not the company, meaning those that own a meaningful amount.

If they raise the price we stop buying....consumer products don't have pricing power.

So Americans can be held accountable to control their budget but not their health?

menmon
06-05-2012, 02:55 PM
It's a tough one....but since you opened it up, back before processed foods we were much healthier....much money is made on processed foods and we choose to use them because they are quick, thus making us unhealthy and companies more profitable. Nothing wrong with profit, but if they paid the full cost meaning our bad health, their profits would not be a big. Sin taxes might be the way to fund it. You eat bigmacs you pay a tax, because you make my health cost go up. Now maybe the dumb wellfare leaches don't eat as many as it is liked to be put.

luvmylabs23139
06-05-2012, 04:57 PM
It's a tough one....but since you opened it up, back before processed foods we were much healthier....much money is made on processed foods and we choose to use them because they are quick, thus making us unhealthy and companies more profitable. Nothing wrong with profit, but if they paid the full cost meaning our bad health, their profits would not be a big. Sin taxes might be the way to fund it. You eat bigmacs you pay a tax, because you make my health cost go up. Now maybe the dumb wellfare leaches don't eat as many as it is liked to be put.
Oh they will, you never rant about unhealthy stuff being aloowed with food stamps. They pay zero for nedicaid and zero for the food so why would they care. They just go vote for dumocrats to give them more stuff from the actual taxpayers.

menmon
06-06-2012, 08:55 AM
Most foodstamp receipents don't vote.

luvmylabs23139
06-06-2012, 08:59 AM
Most foodstamp receipents don't vote.

They have a right to. Besides they all went out and voted for Obumma and his free stuff that you and I are paying for!.

menmon
06-06-2012, 09:05 AM
No they didn't:rolleyes:

luvmylabs23139
06-06-2012, 09:06 AM
No they didn't:rolleyes:

Of course they did.

menmon
06-06-2012, 09:23 AM
Why waste the money to go vote...they get the foodstamos no matter which party is in office.

Tim Carrion
06-06-2012, 09:34 AM
"Sin Tax"(especially state imposed) is just a a sneaky way of securing future tax increases.
Governments increase the tax on fast food, tobacco,alcohol....(sin tax) to pay for the health care benefits and at the same time spend money of public awareness programs to decrease consumption of the these evil products.

When consumption goes down(or people go to an adjacent state to purchase) the sin tax revenue decreases but the benefit remains, other tax hikes will be needed to cover the cost.

Tim

menmon
06-06-2012, 09:39 AM
Yes but if it changes behavior that lowers our healthcare cost...maybe it works.

I think they contributed to making people quit smoking that has lower the healthcare cost, but it can also be noted that people are living longer thus making other cost go up.

luvmylabs23139
06-06-2012, 09:59 AM
Why waste the money to go vote...they get the foodstamos no matter which party is in office.

It doesn't cost them anything. The dums bus them to the polls at no cost to them!
Obumma has expanded food stamps beyond belief.
Bring back the bread lines. At least then they may work off a few calories shuffeling in line for their gimmees!