Robert Reich tell the truth (sometimes) on healthcare.

[Danno 1,228]

Even in the current system (indeed most health systems in the world, I'd imagine) - a Dr will rule against performing a traumatic surgery on an elderly patient if they're not likely to survive the procedure or likely complications.

Its all about discretion.

Awwe, come on Geno, no one is even talking about doing procedures in which the patient might not survive, thats a medical decsion... Clearly this is about allocating funds.

The reality is panels will be convened to determine guide lines about what will and will not be done for whom, and these decisions are based on the "best use" of limited funds.

What you referring to is determined currently by a health insurance company that is only interested in its bottom line. There has never been limitless supplies of money to give every possible procedure to every patient even IF you can get a Dr to recommend it.

Clearly you want there to be some evil socialist plot involved and find one you will, even if that means ignoring current reality.

I don't mind repeating this, when you buy Insurance you pay a certain premium for certain coverage.

If you want "unlimited coverage", you can buy it.

I know of instances where someone I would deem a silly candidate for a hip-replacement (due to age)

in fact was covered to get one.

[Peikko 1,575]

Your being a Doctor really helps sway this argument Danno

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Even in the current system (indeed most health systems in the world, I'd imagine) - a Dr will rule against performing a traumatic surgery on an elderly patient if they're not likely to survive the procedure or likely complications.

Its all about discretion.

Awwe, come on Geno, no one is even talking about doing procedures in which the patient might not survive, thats a medical decsion... Clearly this is about allocating funds.

The reality is panels will be convened to determine guide lines about what will and will not be done for whom, and these decisions are based on the "best use" of limited funds.

If this is already the case under the current system (and it is - insurance companies determine whether or not a person's treatment will be covered under a policy or whether they can buy a policy in the first place), then it isn't a legitimate criticism of healthcare reform that doesn't address that issue.

In other words - its not new. Stop trying to pretend that it is.

You (and Palin) can shove your contrived outrage.

I don't mind repeating this, when you buy Insurance you pay a certain premium for certain coverage.

If you want "unlimited coverage", you can buy it.

I know of instances where someone I would deem a silly candidate for a hip-replacement (due to age)

in fact was covered to get one.

A "certain premium" is often so high that people are priced out of the system entirely.

[cdneh 3,112]

People are too wrapped up in spinning the issue to see what is obvious and has been common practice for the longest time.

The only reason the Palin's of the world are making these kinds of arguments is to object to health reform (in general) at any cost and use issues that are already present in the current health system as criticisms of future reforms.

Not only are their claims irrelevant, they're deeply dishonest

Sarah is pretty.

She's a wanker

Your opinion. Thanks for sharing.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

People are too wrapped up in spinning the issue to see what is obvious and has been common practice for the longest time.

The only reason the Palin's of the world are making these kinds of arguments is to object to health reform (in general) at any cost and use issues that are already present in the current health system as criticisms of future reforms.

Not only are their claims irrelevant, they're deeply dishonest

Sarah is pretty.

She's a wanker

Your opinion. Thanks for sharing.

Who knew. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What a ridiculous outrage. Oh well, it's Newsbusters...

[HAL 9000 96]

Well that makes absolute sense - to make best use of limited funds. To imply that means that the elderly will just be 'let go' is ludicrious - unless of course you are implying that the American people as a community are too stupid to stop this from happening. Are you implying that?

Shhh... this is what I was saying yesterday about rewording death panels into the system! Naughty Dimocrats!