Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (317963)	8/2/2009 2:10:13 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793957

"I don't think it's about cutting costs; it's about quality," said Tia Powell, director of the Montefiore-Einstein Center for Bioethics. Pointing to extensive research, she said: "The good news is, if you get people in an environment that is of their choosing, where there is support and they have good pain control, it is very likely to extend their life." She's right, a good result like that doesn't cut costs at all. It's much cheaper to die. The real angle that conservatives should be pushing is that under a federalized system, a central committee of federal bureaucrats will be making the decisions on what constitutes "best practice" for end-of-life care. They will apply a formula just like Britain's NICE committee does because that is what federal bureacrats so: Prognosis: so many years left. Quality of life good/fair/poor. X Dollars per year*quality of life factor=$ permissible spending on Granny. It will be like this because it can't be like anything else, once you remove personal knowledge from the case. Expect conscientious doctors to game the system like hell, reducing spending even further, and wasting their time.