They don't need to single out specific individuals. It would almost certainly be done for entire classes at once.
OTOH, I had gotten the impression from the postings here that the term was being applied to the whole notion of the utilization of rationing. Protesting against rationing makes no sense to me given that rationing is inevitable in any pooled payment system where funding is limited.
This is the we have limited means so we have to ration and we should let the government to ahead and do it imo.
So now you say the term applies to a NICE-like body "outside the normal political channels." OK.
Yes, and I base that on Obama's own statement.
An independent panel of "bio-ethicists" that would deny certain treatments to certain classes of patients.
Is that true of NICE? I thought they advised on standards for re cost effectiveness relative to QALY. What is it that you think they do re "classes of patients"?
First off, patients determined to have various QALY outlooks (which will affect the care available to them) are classes of patients.
When NICE denies Alzheimers sufferers a particular drug then Alzheimers sufferers are a class of patient.
medicalnewstoday.com
Any time a drug is denied, and I believe if I wanted I could find other examples, you have a class of patient singled out.
Are you opposed to getting guidance from an independent group? Or are you concerned that this group will end up setting the standards rather than just offering guidance?
Guidance, no. Guidance is a nice word. But lets be real, this will be mandatory "guidance".
Or would you want that group under control of the Secretary?
I don't want the government involved at all.
Or are you just opposed to the whole notion that in a pooled funding environment decisions are made that the pool won't shell out $20K for an extra week of life?
One, people don't come with clocks - you can't just look at someone and say, 5 days left, for 5 days our spending limit is $X. Doctors can make guesses based on experience but thats what they are, guesses.
Obama's grandmother got a hip replacement and died 2 weeks later. Not justified for two weeks was it? But the thing is she didn't know she had two weeks and no one did. Obama said he'd have paid whatever it cost out of his pocket if he'd had to.
“I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement, just because she’s my grandmother. Whether, sort of in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill is a sustainable model is a very difficult question.”
He went on to say: “If somebody told me that my grandmother couldn’t have a hip replacement and she had to lie there in misery in the waning days of her life, that would be pretty upsetting.”
nytimes.com
Our government should not be in the place of forcing their decision or those of "bio-ethicists" on people. Not the Sec. of HHS, not an "independent panel" created to do it to take the heat off the politician .... |
