Below The Beltway

I believe in the free speech that liberals used to believe in, the economic freedom that conservatives used to believe in, and the personal freedom that America used to believe in.

Yes, There Will Be A Government Panel Deciding If You’re Entitled To Medical Care

Paul Krugman confirms it:

PAUL KRUGMAN, NEW YORK TIMES: Think about people on the right. They’re simultaneously screaming, they’re going to send all of the old people to death panels and it’s not going to save any money. That’s a contradictory point of view.

TAPPER: Death panels would save money, theoretically.

KRUGMAN: The advisory path has the ability to make more or less binding judgments on saying this particular expensive treatment actually doesn’t do any good medically and so we’re not going to pay for it. That is actually going to save quite a lot of money. We don’t know how much yet. The CBO gives it very little credit. But most of the health care economists I talk to think it’s going to be a really major cost saving. I have to say, I’m wearing an FDR tie in honor of the fact that we have gone from the New Deal to the Big Biden Deal, I guess we’re allowed to say.

TAPPER: Big bleeping deal?

KRUGMAN: Yes.

TAPPER: Peggy?

Anyone as uncomfortable as I am with the idea of a government panel deciding if you’ll be able to get that life-saving operation ?

9 Responses to “Yes, There Will Be A Government Panel Deciding If You’re Entitled To Medical Care”

  1. Darren says:

    But .. but .. the president told us there wouldn’t be any death panels!

    Uncomfortable? That’s pretty mild. It sure is fun to see everything that we’re getting now that the bill is passed just like Nancy said.

    I’ve transcended anger and entered the laughter stage. The democrats should enjoy their time in office now.

  2. Dave says:

    There’s already a panel that decides whether or not you get health care. It’s called an insurance company. And they are motivated totally by profit. They kill thousands of people a year by denying treatment all so they can put more dollars in their pocket.

    Give me a non-profit driven governmental agency make decisions any day. So far, in my 19 years of military service, it’s worked great. And for my 67 year olf mother, who just had her second hip replacement courtesy of Medicare, it’s worked great as well.

    Gosh, affordable health care for all. What a travesty.

  3. Chris Berez says:

    So HCR will make health care more affordable for everyone! (except the young and healthy, who don’t make much money but will still have to pay out the ass). And Death Panels and health care rationing are just scare tactics and lies told by racist greedy Right Wingers! (except they aren’t).

    Sure, my life is about to get far more difficult and way more expensive. But when I’m out of a job because the new financial burden on my already struggling employer was just too much, I guess I’ll have to take comfort in knowing that the Democrats and Obama did it for my own good.

  4. Dave says:

    Man, spit out the kool-aid. You’ve swallowed the republican lies hook, line and sinker.

    This bill will actually eliminate death panels (the insurance companies that already kill thousands a year by denying treatment), and will also eliminate rationing (also already done by the insurance companies to pad their bottom line).

    And when you’re out a job, guess what? You’ll still have heath care.

    I’ve already learned it’s impossible to have a rational discussion with somene who only parrots the falsehoods perpetrated by the GOP and Fox news. It’s undfortuiante that the majority of this country is as stupid and ignornatn and unwilling to educate themselves as you.

  5. Dave

    Tell that to Paul Krugman

    He supports the bill and he admits that there will be a govt agency reviewing medical decisions

  6. Robert in SF says:

    I believe what he is talking about here is demonstrated efficacy of medical treatment…sort of like clinical trials now before pharmaceuticals are allowed to be sold/marketed in the USA (and other countries have their own regulations).

    There doesn’t have to be a ton of efficacy or safety over existing treatments for the new Rx to be approved, just as effective as existing treatment or if there is really no current treatment, then better than placebo….

    Clinical trials, much like medical science in general, can be very complicated, and for good reason. They represent a very small population of persons exposed to to treatments to start assessing the safety and efficacy. It’s just a start, though.

    The market alone cannot be used to vet medical treatments, I am sorry, but the FDA came around for good reason. The layman has little knowledge of the complicated issues of human physiology, chemical/biochemical pathways in the human metabolism, manufacturing and testing operation controls, analytical methods for purity, and toxicological assessment of regimes proposed, just to name a few of the areas that go into medical treatment.

    And if left solely to the market, the number of outrageous claims and expensive straws thrown out for desperate people to grasp at would naturally skyrocket. And unless you make the entire process of medical treatment transparent, from the elimination of patents and medical record privacy and arbitration/privacy agreements, then the laymen will be actively prevented from having the knowledge they need to make the best decisions for themselves, especially in times of crisis (when “You need this /supposed/ life saving treatment …*right now* or * immediately* to save your life…here sign all these contracts and pay us this amount and maybe we can help /or this will definitely work better than anything else ever could/ but if it doesn’t and you tell anyone, we will sue you and make you pay all our lawyer bills, and since we pick the arbitrator we win!”

    The government wants to be the independent observer/standard watcher who make the companies back up their claims and not waste people’s money on treatments that are no more effective than the current marketed version….

    Sorry Marketing will spin whatever they can to make it seem like this drug or that treatment is the best thing for you. And people who are already on their “death bed” won’t have the time or inclination for a ton of research. And Life keeps us all from researching in depth before we get sick….

    You can disagree about the efficiency of the government. What would you recommend instead? Or what watcher can we have for the watchers, perhaps?

  7. Kurt says:

    In other words, Grandma will just be told to “take a pain pill,” as Obama said, rather than getting the pacemaker which could extend her life a few years.

    As far as the claim that insurance companies currently act as “death panels,” that is not completely true. Insurance companies can deny the request to pay for treatment, but that’s not the same thing as denying treatment. In other words, the insurance company could deny the request to pay for the pacemaker, but that doesn’t keep Grandma from still getting a pacemaker if she can find another way to pay for it. The “death panel,” on the other hand is the final decision on the matter.

  8. Jim says:

    “In other words, Grandma will just be told to “take a pain pill,” as Obama said, rather than getting the pacemaker which could extend her life a few years.”

    No, it says “The advisory path has the ability to make more or less binding judgments on saying this particular expensive treatment actually doesn’t do any good medically.”

    Pacemakers are effective and do extend life so comparing a pain pill to it is not a good comparison of what will be done. It is more like having a new pacemaker that was just developed that costs $5,000, but does not have any improved results than the one for $1,000. So they would deny the $5,000 pacemaker but go with the $1,000 pacemaker.

    Second, have you ever tried to get an hospital to do a surgery (non-emergency room) without insurance approval? You need to pay upfront what they think it will cost. How many times have you seen fundraisers so someone can have that $50,000 surgery or other medical procedure that an insurance company has declined? It’s because they do not do it until its paid for because the hospital knows that it will not be paid by the insurance company. Banks have to support their costs as well and they are no going to do free care, plus if they did and the people cannot pay, the cost is passed on to us when we need to go to the hospital.

  9. Jim says:

    opps I meant to say hospitals are not banks for free care and have to support their costs as well and they are no going to do free care, plus if they did and the people cannot pay, the cost is passed on to us when we need to go to the hospital.

[Below The Beltway is proudly powered by WordPress.]