SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : A US National Health Care System?
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: longnshort who wrote (12664)12/24/2009 3:17:04 PM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (1) of 42652
 
isn't a ration panel also a death panel, depending on the medical case ?

I would not accept that term for anything less than the prohibition of medical procedures. The only way I could remotely accept that term for merely declining to pay would be if the non-payment were arbitrarily applied. If the coverage is transparent and applied evenly, I don't think that the term would be appropriate.

First of all, to use that term there would have to be actual death involved. Not all rationing would qualify. Medicare rationing by not funding shingles vaccinations doesn't count because you don't die from shingles. You may hurt enough to wish you were dead but you don't die. There would have to be some clear and pretty immediate nexus with death and reason to otherwise expect a considerable number of years of quality life. If the panel recommended against kidney transplants for kids who are otherwise healthy, then I could accept the term. Except that there are charities who already do a great job of providing for really sick kids. For the public system to defer to charities is preferable, IMO. If charities habitually covered such costs, then the Commission recommending against them could not reasonably be called a "death panel" because the alternative to public coverage is not death.

One aspect of this issue that I find interesting is that all the fuss about "death panels" comes from folks who traditionally prefer the use of charity to government welfare. I am fascinated at the role switch. You think the right would be busy setting up charities rather than railing about rationing.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News