I mean, they’re never going to shut up again about this crap, are they? “You plan to kill us!”
“Whom do we plan to kill?”
“Alla us.”
“Who are you? We’re going to kill everyone once they get old?”
“Yes. Prove that you won’t!”
“How could we possibly prove that? Why on earth would we want to kill people? We’re going to get old ourselves, you know. We want to kill ourselves?”
"Yes!!’ etc.
So why not just get the names of everyone who thinks like a paranoid idiot that we (???) are out to kill them and, since we’re going to get blamed for it, just knock them all off right now? Clean up the gene pool, raise the national IQ a few points, lower the volume on this tedious discussion–win-win-win. The only downside, I figure, is we’d have to live with the guilt of actually being genocidal killers, but I can live with that better than I can live with having to take these discussions seriously.
Until it’s time for me to be put to death, anyway.
I don’t get it - the AARP is the most powerful lobby in the U.S. Why are people assuming the goverment would discriminate *against *old people? Have they stopped voting?
When I was a kid I saw Logan’s Run and Soylent Green. I’ve also seen Gattica, Conspiracy Theory and Blade Runner. I know what the government is up to, you goddamned dirty apes!
Well, I AM trolling–if you take the OP as a serious, straightforward, non-sarcastic and extremely outrageous proposal designed to get up the hackles of any sarcasm-impaired readers. So far, only Shodan reads it that way, so maybe I am trolling him. Apologies, Shodan–I’ll try to identify my totally over-the-top sarcastic OPs in the future for your reading comprehension. (Tip: usually, when someone describes himself or his group as “genocidal killers,” there may be some dangerous sarcasm in the vicinity. Beware. And be very scared.)
Ok. Better now. Just to be clear, you aren’t suggesting that people *actually *go out and kill folks, which would violate U.S. law. It was pretty clear to me that you weren’t seriously advocating illegal activity, but I’ve had a couple of thread reports . . . If you really *were *suggesting illegal activity, well, knock it off.
The point of these proposed boards is that they will have the power to control who gets medicine, when, where, and how. That is, you have to go begging to them to see if they’ll graciously decide to fund your treatments. If they decide it’s too expensive, you will more or less have no recourse.
The concept of them as Death Boards may be exaggerated, but it’s hardly unprecedented. The use of bureaucratic rules to avoid personal responsibility is an old one, and this happens all the time in some other countries. National Health in Britain, for example, sometimes uses these boards and denies people treatments they desperately need.
In short, the reason it became an issue is because it is an issue elsewhere, has been ignored by the political classes which have exempted themselves and ensured they will have the best care regardless, and because they refuse to answer a straight question.
The point of these proposed boards is that they will have the power to control whether the government pays for medicine. You will still be able to buy medicine yourself even if you’re “condemned” by the death panel, or to purchase supplemental insurance which will provide it for you. Believe it or not, private insurers already have death panels- they’re just not called that because conservatives are much, much better at dumbing down debate than liberals.
Hell, Michael Moore had to make a whole fucking movie to say something about private health insurance; Sarah Palin was able to say the same thing about government health plans in two words.
I’m not sure how this is different that what exists currently in the U.S. If you have coverage (and millions of Americans don’t), you have to go begging to your insurance company to see if they’ll graciously decide to fund your treatments, and since they have battalions of lawyers on retainer, they can almost certainly find a way to deny coverage (or at least delay it for years) if they really want to.
Actually, I figure a government plan that covers a wide variety of basic car addressing the health issues faced by 90% of the population would be a good start, and the private insurance companies can sell coverage for the more exotic or unusual treatments that make up the remaining 10%, which an individual or employer can choose to buy or not. Similarly, private insurance will still be useful for travellers and for employees in dangerous occupations who want more elaborate coverage.
Heck, I remember “The Oregon Plan” from a few years back that, roughly, tried to compile a database of ailments based on major factors including:
[ul][li]How common it was;[/li][li]How dangerous it was;[/li][li]How expensive it was to treat; and[/li][li]What the prognosis was if treated.[/ul][/li] #1 on the list was viral pneumonia, which is fairly common, moderately dangerous, cheap to treat, and chances for full recovery if treated were good. The last item on the 700+ list was anencephaly, i.e. an newborn missing most or all of its brain. This condition was relatively rare, it was terminal, it was expensive, and recovery chances were nil. The idea was that under the plan, the state could cover the first 500 or so ailments, and would give only minimal coverage (i.e. basic palliative care) for the rest. Private insurance companies could cover those, if they wanted.
Anyway, that’s what I remember from seeing the plan described on 60 Minutes a few decades back. I assume I have some details wrong and/or the plan has significantly evolved since then. The point was that a combination of pragmatic medicine and applied statistics could yield a plan that could cover 90% of the people 90% of the time. Sure, there will be individual horror stories, there’s no way to get around it, but until we have unlimited energy and replicator technology, it may be the least worst option.
How is that any different than how private health insurance companies operate right now? Do you think no one’s ever been denied necessary care by the local health insurance company flunky?
Pardon my ignorance, but I was under the impression that under the Obama plan, as opposed to (a) what Congress may end up doing to it or (b) what right-wing bloggers and commentators may represent it as, public funds would be used to supplement what is covered by private insurance programs, so that nobody is forced to go without care for lack of money or because private claims reviewers determine that there is some loophole that private insurance can use to deny coverage. If Rand Rover should elect to have penis enlargement surgery, and his own insurance will not carry it, and the public plan rejects it as “unnecessary elective surgery,” he would still be free to have such surgery and pay for it out of his liquid assets.
What the Obama plan would do is ensure that little Lisa, whose mother is barely making a go of it on the $600 a month she gets from SSA (her late husband having crashed into a bridge abutment while DUI) and the money she gets from 29 hours a week clerking for minimum wage at Dollar Discount Center (where only management gets health insurance), is able to afford healthcare. Or Joe, a five-year employee of Amalgamated Widgets (and covered by the health insurance he and AW have been paying into during that time), who blacked out leaving work one day and it was discovered his adult-onset diabetes, which he has had an undiscovered mild case of for at least seven years, has become critical enough to warrant treatment – but whose insurance rejected his claim as “undisclosed pre-existing condition” (the fact that he was not even aware of it to disclose it mattering not), well, he too deserves to get medical care.
