Loosely based on this thread in the Pit: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=545309. As it is the Pit, it turned into a pitting against a poster, and left the “real” issue behind, which Sateryn76 and I tried to revive on page 5.
First of all: please do not confuse the issue with comments about what is or is not in the current health care bill. This debate is not (intended) to be about that subject.
Second: lets all try and keep our panties from being bunched up about “death panels”. This is about rationing health care, because many people (myself included) do not think it is likely or reasonable to assume that everyone will get all the care they want or need for free (paid by the gov’t) all the time. Its a wonderful fantasy, but that’s all it is.
So here’s the hypothetical situation:
Reply back from me:
that’s the question I now dump in GD: should the child in this hypothetical case get the care?
I will go out on a limb and say, no, in this case, I’m sorry, the child does not get the care, just due to high cost and low probabilities. That is this debate, what is your take on it? If yes, the child gets the care, then where do we draw the line?