Vegas Free-for-All - Arizona death panel?

jphelan

Jan 9, 2011
2:23am

THIS WILL BE AN UNPOPULAR VIEW.....

When resources are scarce, how should they be distributed? By the government or the free market?

I say the free market, using the priciples of supply and demand. Everyone wants a 65" 3D television, but only a select few are willing (or able) to pay $2000 for one. Should the government instead distribute these TV's to families that need them most?

Now for livers and kidneys, I think the free market medical system we have today in the US does the best it can with limited resources. Would a "single payer" government system be more efficient or fair? I say not!

Is our medical system perfect? No - but it is the best in the world. How could we make it better? Tort reform for one and letting insurance companies sell insurance across state lines. One politician said he would love to have the choice of purchasing health insurance from Flo or the Geko and I agree.

MoneyLA

Jan 9, 2011
3:27am

Block User

whoa... there is some misinformation here.

in the case of organ transplants such as kidneys -- unless you have a live donor such as a friend or relative who is willing to make a direct donation to someone such as a friend or relative, there are various medical boards which decide who is the best "match" for that organ. when I got my transplant it was determined that in the entire country I was the best match. indeed it was as near as perfect a match as I could get. in pre op the doctors told me that had I been on vacation in europe and didnt get this particular kidney it would have been a 15 to 20 year wait to get another match as good as this one.

where do I draw the line? I dont when it comes to medical care. But I do draw the line when it comes to government waste, military overspending, and continuing to fight wars years after they were won. (I thought the Iraq war was over when Hussein was captured?)

But again, do your cost analysis. If a transplant costs less than 14 months of dialysis-- do the transplant, doesnt that make sense? Return the dialysis patient to the work force. Get them off disability. Make them taxpayers instead of tax recipients.

If my commodities broker friend had a transplant and returned to work for one year -- the taxes on his income (lets use 20%) would pay for his transplant costs, plus it would save the $15-thou a month his dialysis costs.

My friend the movie editor makes about $100,000 a year (movie editing is not salaried or steady work). His transplant might have cost $200-thou (I dont know the exact cost, of course) but I know that at the dialysis center the price was $12,000 a month, discounted to $8,000 per month for insurance patients. So his "transplant payback" came in about two years plus he is working again, no longer drawing disability.

More importantly I dont draw any lines with people's lives. Perhaps thats how I was brought up to think. God gave me a good life... and God gave me a second good life too. And every day I cry that some young person died in a traffic accident and I pray for that family that donated the organs--- two kidneys, pancreas, liver (divided between two people), lungs -- that were able to be harvested.

edited for typo

malibber

Jan 9, 2011
3:42am

Block User

Money made the best argument with the whole right to life thing. If you listen to most conservatives an unborn fetus has an absolute right to life. Ok say so the kid is born sick and needs an organ transplant which happens from time to time so there are the same conservatives saying to the newborn ok sorry kid you’re just not economically viable.

chefantwon

Jan 9, 2011
4:25am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: malibber
Money made the best argument with the whole right to life thing. If you listen to most conservatives an unborn fetus has an absolute right to life. Ok say so the kid is born sick and needs an organ transplant which happens from time to time there are the same conservatives saying to the newborn ok sorry kid you’re just not economically viable.

The fetus thingy dependsupon many things Mail. Would I like a kid born to a woman that 5 kids and is on welfare? Hell no!!

I do understand what you are saying, however someone is going to have to make those decisions. The average person won't be having much of a say when it happens.

MoneyLA

Jan 9, 2011
5:59am

Block User

China has a government policy of limiting child birth to one child per family. Is that the kind of system you would like to handle various problems here including welfare mothers with too many children.

Also, when transplant organs are needed, prisoner executions are ordered. There's an option!

Many years ago-- it could be thirty years ago-- there was a movie about a man with diabetes living in the USA who was getting insulin smuggled to him because in the future in the USA those over 65 were not permitted to get insulin, and were to die to take their burden off of society.

In India and the Philipines you can buy a kidney from a poor person for a cash payment. $150,000 gets you the kidney, the travel, and the surgery overseas -- if you want that gamble not knowing how carefully that donor's kidney was screened.

these are all very scary thoughts.

chefantwon

Jan 9, 2011
6:46am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: MoneyLA
China has a government policy of limiting child birth to one child per family. Is that the kind of system you would like to handle various problems here including welfare mothers with too many children.

Also, when transplant organs are needed, prisoner executions are ordered. There's an option!

Many years ago-- it could be thirty years ago-- there was a movie about a man with diabetes living in the USA who was getting insulin smuggled to him because in the future in the USA those over 65 were not permitted to get insulin, and were to die to take their burden off of society.

In India and the Philipines you can buy a kidney from a poor person for a cash payment. $150,000 gets you the kidney, the travel, and the surgery overseas -- if you want that gamble not knowing how carefully that donor's kidney was screened.

these are all very scary thoughts.

The prisoner option is quite out of the question as we do have a rather large problem with AIDS and related diseases which are not good for transplants. Limiting births, can't do that one due to our population problems. We suffer from the same issue as Europe, not enough births to replace the dead folks. So we have to pop out as many folks as possible (actually at least 3 rug rats per adult).

We have that issue of freedom which we would have to curtail by force in order to enact a new public (government) agenda. We would need to get rid of unwanted folks first to shine the best light on it for the masses. This of course means all those welfare folks are toast, this action would free up boatloads of housing, a crapload of big screen tv's, and quite a few new cars. Baldheaded folks will crop up in there somewhere, but I'm expecting a few years before anything happens to us chrome domes.

All of it would continue until you have 2 classes, the rich and the fodder for them.

jphelan

Jan 9, 2011
9:10am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: MoneyLA
whoa... there is some misinformation here.

in the case of organ transplants such as kidneys -- unless you have a live donor such as a friend or relative who is willing to make a direct donation to someone such as a friend or relative, there are various medical boards which decide who is the best "match" for that organ. when I got my transplant it was determined that in the entire country I was the best match. indeed it was as near as perfect a match as I could get. in pre op the doctors told me that had I been on vacation in europe and didnt get this particular kidney it would have been a 15 to 20 year wait to get another match as good as this one.

where do I draw the line? I dont when it comes to medical care. But I do draw the line when it comes to government waste, military overspending, and continuing to fight wars years after they were won. (I thought the Iraq war was over when Hussein was captured?)

But again, do your cost analysis. If a transplant costs less than 14 months of dialysis-- do the transplant, doesnt that make sense? Return the dialysis patient to the work force. Get them off disability. Make them taxpayers instead of tax recipients.

If my commodities broker friend had a transplant and returned to work for one year -- the taxes on his income (lets use 20%) would pay for his transplant costs, plus it would save the $15-thou a month his dialysis costs.

My friend the movie editor makes about $100,000 a year (movie editing is not salaried or steady work). His transplant might have cost $200-thou (I dont know the exact cost, of course) but I know that at the dialysis center the price was $12,000 a month, discounted to $8,000 per month for insurance patients. So his "transplant payback" came in about two years plus he is working again, no longer drawing disability.

More importantly I dont draw any lines with people's lives. Perhaps thats how I was brought up to think. God gave me a good life... and God gave me a second good life too. And every day I cry that some young person died in a traffic accident and I pray for that family that donated the organs--- two kidneys, pancreas, liver (divided between two people), lungs -- that were able to be harvested.

edited for typo

Money - I think you missed my point. I was saying I trust the US medical system to decide who gets scarce organ transplants more that I would trust the government. Doctors are people that devote their life to making people well and the burearcrats seem to be best at lining their pockets.

Government's role in this process should be limited to promoting public service announcements encoruaging organ donation and making it easier through the drivers license renewal process.

Keep government out of my medicine and give me more choices please!

MoneyLA

Jan 9, 2011
9:43am

Block User

thanks. well, the government has nothing to do with transplants now -- doctors decide who gets what organ and actually the decision is based on a combination of tissue match and need, but tissue match is the number one factor with kidneys. if you are the best match for a kidney from a cadaver even if youve been waiting on the list for only one day you will get the kidney.

actually there is one preferential group of kidney recipients and that is those people who donated a kidney to some one else. federal law says if they later need a kidney they get it first, and I think that the plan calls for a guaranteed kidney within two weeks. this can be done because with modern anti rejection drugs you really dont need a "perfect match." the government put that into the donation law to help promote donations as well as paying for all of the costs for the donor including all medical testing, surgery, followups etc.

One of the actors on the old TV show St Elsewhere received a kidney given by a living anonynmous donor. I know of someone else who got a kidney from a coworker. And about a year ago I was playing VP at Pechanga when the wife said to her husband sitting next to me, "honey its time for your prograf." (prograf is the #1 anti rejection drug.) So I said to him, "I got a kidney, how about ayou?" Well he also got a kidney and his came from his son's friend. there are some very generous people in this world. God bless them.

edited to add: I should also acknowledge my host at Caesars who is the same blood type as me and offered his kidney. I told him no. And it was a good thing I did because about a year later his own brother went on dialysis.

shlomo

Jan 9, 2011
10:52pm

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: malibber
Money made the best argument with the whole right to life thing. If you listen to most conservatives an unborn fetus has an absolute right to life. Ok say so the kid is born sick and needs an organ transplant which happens from time to time so there are the same conservatives saying to the newborn ok sorry kid you’re just not economically viable.

I don't know if you're joking or just high, but you can't make that comparison with a straight face.

Whether you are pro-abortion rights or pro-life, it really doesn't have anything to do with the argument as to what's the best way to distribute healthcare in this country, given that we don't have infinite resources.

jphelan has it exactly right - there's no moral or ethical imperative that says it's OK to deny someone access to their own money (or healthcare or TVs or whatever it is that they've earned) so someone else can receive those resources.

Not that it's not a sad situation, as the crazy-man Money's sob story would suggest. But again, that's life.

dandiego

Jan 11, 2011
11:48am

Block User

Anyone who thinks they cant end up unemployed and without medical insurance is oblivious. Unless you have hundreds of thousands of dollars saved up, most people could end up needing assistance in less than one year.

Someone tried to equate Televisions to Medical care, I dont even know where to begin.

Something left out of the discussion is the fact that the hospital is just as guilty as the State. Hospitals are supposed to render life saving care but are choosing not to because they wont be paid. I dont know why the Hospital and doctors get a pass and the State takes all the blame.

«‹3 ›»

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:

Diamond Membership

$3 per month

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Limited Member Rewards Online

Join Now

Platinum Membership

$50 per year

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Exclusive Member Rewards Book

Join Now