Single Payer System = Death Panels.

[MilSpecs]

The family raised the money. The government blocked them from seeking treatment or leaving the country. Future subjects of the caliphate cheer loudly.

It's fucking infuriating.

I thought so too until I read about what he actually has. There is no treatment. He was going to be used as a lab rat in an experiment, of which the doctor doing the experimentation himself stated that it was very unlikely to improve his condition. His parents, in their desperation, agreed, and who can blame them? In some countries, however (England among them), children are considered to have their own human rights apart from what their parents deign to grant them. That is what this case is about, and the focus in the U.S. is, naturally, U.S.-centric. We look at it in the realm of health insurance, which to our citizens is a more pressing issue than the concept of children possessing intrinsic civil rights. Most people in the U.S. look at children as a form of property with limited rights, and that should cause a lot more outrage among us than who we pay insurance to.

So, the real issues are:

1) How much in the way of intrinsic human rights are children entitled to?
2) Where do we draw the line on what parents may consent to on behalf of their children?
3) Is human experimentation ethical when it's being performed for knowledge and won't help the patient? Is it ever ethical to experiment on a child?

[Penner]

DEATH PANELS is a cynical hypocritic Talking Point.

It's also hyperbolic talk as well. We can argue all we want but at the end of the day, there were many sick people WITHOUT health insurance a few years ago that would clearly want something like a hybrid of Single Payer and our current private health insurance system.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

The family raised the money. The government blocked them from seeking treatment or leaving the country. Future subjects of the caliphate cheer loudly.

It's fucking infuriating.

I thought so too until I read about what he actually has. There is no treatment. He was going to be used as a lab rat in an experiment, of which the doctor doing the experimentation himself stated that it was very unlikely to improve his condition. His parents, in their desperation, agreed, and who can blame them? In some countries, however (England among them), children are considered to have their own human rights apart from what their parents deign to grant them. That is what this case is about, and the focus in the U.S. is, naturally, U.S.-centric. We look at it in the realm of health insurance, which to our citizens is a more pressing issue than the concept of children possessing intrinsic civil rights. Most people in the U.S. look at children as a form of property with limited rights, and that should cause a lot more outrage among us than who we pay insurance to.

So, the real issues are:

1) How much in the way of intrinsic human rights are children entitled to?
2) Where do we draw the line on what parents may consent to on behalf of their children?
3) Is human experimentation ethical when it's being performed for knowledge and won't help the patient? Is it ever ethical to experiment on a child?

Somebody being sensible, finally, the post.

[Fife]

I have to admit it sort of amusing to watch a bunch of abortion on demand advocates get all preachy about saving the children when the aggrieved party is the state.

And this is a really good Purity Spiral going on in here.

So, the real issues are:

1) How much in the way of intrinsic human rights are children entitled to?

All of them.

2) Where do we draw the line on what parents may consent to on behalf of their children?

Line drawing is why we have courts. I would say it's pretty clear that on the wrong side of the line are medical procedures intended to cause harm, disease, or disability to a child (or any person under a disability). See, e.g., abortion, puberty blockers for sexual preference, refusing necessary treatment, &c.

3) Is human experimentation ethical when it's being performed for knowledge and won't help the patient? "Human experimentation" is a trigger phrase.

What does this mean? It appears that all medicine, all science, is a process of experimentation. I also object to "won't help." This implies certainty, or intent to cause waste and/or injury. I'm willing to accept that a patient with informed consent can make a choice about the difference in "won't help" and "might or might not help."

Is it ever ethical to experiment on a child?

With the objection noted, Yes. It is ethical to try out new medical ideas on children who need help under the right circumstances. What a shitty way to frame the question.

See, e.g., from this week's news: https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2017/07 ... m_medium=2

As miraculous as Eden's experience was, it's important to note that it's just a single case-report. This one case cannot prove that hyperbaric oxygen therapy would work for others in similar situations.

[ssu]

So, the real issues are:

1) How much in the way of intrinsic human rights are children entitled to?
2) Where do we draw the line on what parents may consent to on behalf of their children?
3) Is human experimentation ethical when it's being performed for knowledge and won't help the patient? Is it ever ethical to experiment on a child?

Looking at the name of this thread, I thought the real issue was that Americans pay insanely more money on their health care than anybody else in the World on a health care system that gives them less coverage, far more expensive medicine etc, and basically works far more lousily than other systems when measured in things like average life expectancy, which is on the level of Cuba and Costa Rica.

In other countries there typically is a single payer system...

But if Americans want to create profits for Big Pharma and the Insurance companies, by all means.

[SuburbanFarmer]

So, the real issues are:

1) How much in the way of intrinsic human rights are children entitled to?
2) Where do we draw the line on what parents may consent to on behalf of their children?
3) Is human experimentation ethical when it's being performed for knowledge and won't help the patient? Is it ever ethical to experiment on a child?

Looking at the name of this thread, I thought the real issue was that Americans pay insanely more money on their health care than anybody else in the World on a health care system that gives them less coverage, far more expensive medicine etc, and basically works far more lousily than other systems when measured in things like average life expectancy, which is on the level of Cuba and Costa Rica.

In other countries there typically is a single payer system...

But if Americans want to create profits for Big Pharma and the Insurance companies, by all means.

Must protect profitssssessss.

[ssu]

And I should say that government single payer systems ARE NOT efficient, they usually have a lot of waste, bureucracy etc. which make them less efficient.

...which just tells what a huge racket the whole US health care system is. A racket.

And of course, if you are an American doctor, this all would be a great thing...



...if you wouldn't have such high cost on malpractice insurance.

Litigation costs in the US are twice those in other countries, with half of US payments going to legal costs rather than compensating patients. Few other countries allow cases to be decided by jurors. Most use judges or administrative procedures to determine liability. Canada and the United Kingdom impose caps on pain and suffering awards to “screw the injured”.

Most European countries prohibit contingency fees which are almost exclusively used in the United States. Canada, Europe and Australia all have loser-pays provisions in their medical malpractice systems. The US does not. Sweden’s average award for 2004: $22,000. US median award for 2005: $400,000 with 21% of awards being more than $1 million. Internists in Canada pay between $1800 and $3200 per year for malpractice insurance. Internists in Cook County and Madison County, Illinois pay more than $41,000 per year. Obstetricians in Cook County pay nearly $180,000 per year in malpractice insurance.

So, in the end it's insurance companies and lawyers, I guess who are the winner besides big Pharma.

[The Conservative]

DEATH PANELS is a cynical hypocritic Talking Point.

It's also hyperbolic talk as well. We can argue all we want but at the end of the day, there were many sick people WITHOUT health insurance a few years ago that would clearly want something like a hybrid of Single Payer and our current private health insurance system.

I've been saying something like this for a while. Insurance companies offer a national plan, they are offered in all 50 states, you buy one somewhere, you go anywhere and can get treatment if required. They follow specific guidelines, entities Medicare and Medicaid are used for what they originally meant to, people get moved off of them and onto the federal plans.

These plans are HMO (inside the 50 states) PPO (Covered outside the country) People would be able to switch at will, and costs would be reduced because we wouldn't be talking about 10,000 people on one plan, we'd be talking 10 million+ the number of people on the plan would reduce costs and risks.

I really don't know why this is not being offered... make it so all pre-existing conditions are covered, and those who can pay do, those who can't are covered at a reduced rate (10% of income)

[Okeefenokee]

So, the real issues are:

1) How much in the way of intrinsic human rights are children entitled to?
2) Where do we draw the line on what parents may consent to on behalf of their children?
3) Is human experimentation ethical when it's being performed for knowledge and won't help the patient? Is it ever ethical to experiment on a child?

Looking at the name of this thread, I thought the real issue was that Americans pay insanely more money on their health care than anybody else in the World on a health care system that gives them less coverage, far more expensive medicine etc, and basically works far more lousily than other systems when measured in things like average life expectancy, which is on the level of Cuba and Costa Rica.

In other countries there typically is a single payer system...

But if Americans want to create profits for Big Pharma and the Insurance companies, by all means.

Must protect profitssssessss.

grumps is done. roll catpics.

[SuburbanFarmer]

I made my points pretty clearly, I think. Since they weren't refuted, I suppose they stand on their own merit.

Just responding to ssu's observation that our system is broken - and it is very broken.