HealingWell
Search Close Search
☰

How do you define "death panel"?

Support Forums
>
Prostate Cancer
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
12
❬ ❬ Previous Thread |Next Thread ❭ ❭
Posted 10/7/2011 12:44 PM (GMT 0)

Remember when the media laughed at the term "death panels"? Well, to me, this task force and its recommendations pretty much amount to a "death panel."

In a different thread, Qualityoverquantity said, "If I do nothing to treat my PCa I will still live to be well over 60 years old, probably over 70, so is spending all that money on my treatment, which may or may not extend my life, better than putting that money into treating a younger person?"

That's a very generous and self-sacrificing attitude, and if I truly believed that the money saved would be spent wisely, I might even tend to agree with it. Unfortunately, money not spent in one area is generally wasted in another.

But it almost certainly describes the situation we're going to be facing more and more as the American Baby Boomers enter their "golden years." Young people are not going to want to spend the nation's resources extending the lives of us older folks. In fact, they probably will not be able to generate enough revenue to do so, and decisions will have to be made about who is entitled to what kinds of medical services. It's not going to be pretty. I predict we'll all be hearing the word "criteria" more and more, as in "We'd like to provide you with the medical services you need, but I'm afraid that at your age you don't meet the criteria for care."

It's not going to stop with PSA tests. Cardiac by-pass surgery and similar treatments for us older folks may soon be found to be medically not warranted after a certain age. Just my opinion.

Post Edited (clocknut) : 10/7/2011 6:56:20 AM (GMT-6)

Posted 10/7/2011 1:38 PM (GMT 0)
I respect your opinion Clocknut, but not in agreement with you. Most of the money we are talking about is end of life care and then choices might have to be made, but "death panel" is just a scare tactic to me.
Michael
Posted 10/7/2011 1:57 PM (GMT 0)
I guess I agree with you, Michael.  The term "death panel" fails because people view it as an exaggeration.  Some descriptors just don't work, and this is one of them.

"Preventive Services Task Force" works much better.  "Preventive" is always a good thing.  "Services" are something we all want.  "Task Force" connotes good, hard work and a focused aim."  It has a nice, Orwellian ring to it.  :-)

Seriously, I realize this is a controversial subject and that some strongly support the task force's recommendations.  But, it's also true that this group is recommending where, and on whom, our nation's medical resources should be spent....and it's not on us!

 

Posted 10/7/2011 2:17 PM (GMT 0)
This could become a locked thread, just a Kreskin like prediction. But I liked it right away, kind of nice to hear the bluntness and truth over lip service and spinnings that go on at high levels. But, you didn't hear that from me (lol).
Posted 10/7/2011 2:28 PM (GMT 0)
Good morning, Zufus. When you and I agree on something, I might need to take a second look at my opinions, LOL.

Seriously, though, in today's news, there's a story titled "Feds to design Health Care for the Masses." You can read it at http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MANDATED_HEALTH_BENEFITS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-10-06-19-09-42

It says in part that, "The federal government has never before attempted to define what constitutes essential medical benefits for Americans with private insurance," said Stephen Finan, a top policy expert for the American Cancer Society."

It also states that whatever medical services are included, they must be "cost effective."

All of these changes are woven from the same cloth: This bubble of Baby Boomers is overwhelming the healthcare system, and "The times, they are a-changin.'

I'm not trying to be political or cast blame in any direction. It's just an undeniable reality.
Posted 10/7/2011 3:46 PM (GMT 0)
Most of the money we are talking about is end of life care and then choices might have to be made, but "death panel" is just a scare tactic to me.

yep, parrotted by that fair and balanced news channel cool .  there you go again CN.

ed

 

Posted 10/7/2011 3:54 PM (GMT 0)
Really uncalled for Ed, but I respect your right to express yourself as you see fit. We will have to agree to disagree, and have a great day my brother.

Michael

Posted 10/7/2011 3:59 PM (GMT 0)
i'm agreeing with you and you disagree with me?  okay man cool .

ed

 

Posted 10/7/2011 4:02 PM (GMT 0)
my issue is with clocknut who feels he must continually interject his politics into this board.  this ain't the place for it, and you really don't want to see me on my soapbox. 

ed

Posted 10/7/2011 4:28 PM (GMT 0)
Yep,  that's me alright, continually injecting my politics.  I'm not going to argue with you F8, but there's nothing political in anything I've posted on this topic.  I guess you're trying to make it political with your cheap shot about the "fair and balanced" network (where the heck did that come from?), but that's you, not me.

The fact that the ageing Baby Boomer population is going to stress many areas of our economy, including the medical area, is hardly a political statement, and the fact that organizations like the PSTF are going to make some pretty arbitrary decisons about how resources are to be allocated is also simple reality...not politics.

When you're not too busy attacking fellow HW members, you might try Googling "baby boomers health care system" and look at all the "political" stuff there ("political" meaning, contrary to your world view).

If you have a problem with my posts, how about just blocking me and keep your smart aleck remarks to yourself?

Post Edited (clocknut) : 10/7/2011 11:50:31 AM (GMT-6)

Posted 10/7/2011 6:32 PM (GMT 0)
If you have a problem with my posts, how about just blocking me and keep your smart aleck remarks to yourself?

you're not getting off the hook that easy, Pal.  why don't you find a political forum to spew your crap?

ed

Posted 10/7/2011 6:36 PM (GMT 0)
you betchcha' clocknut wink .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_panel

ed

Posted 10/7/2011 6:37 PM (GMT 0)
I guess these arguments must have gone on in the UK before the National Health Service came into existence in 1948. I'm glad I'm young enough not to have been a participant, but I'm also glad the benefits of the system they devised are still available for me to enjoy today. smilewinkgrin


John
Posted 10/7/2011 6:43 PM (GMT 0)
I don't like the term "death panel" at all in the context that it is being used by the media. It has nothing but negative political overtones, and it sends a very erroneous message about health care issues in general, and is only meant to scare a certain segment of the population.

No one in the medical profession or industry is talking about making life or death decisions for patients or their treatments.

Politics need to stay out of it in my opinion.

david in sc
Posted 10/7/2011 9:15 PM (GMT 0)
Sorry Ed, I am a little slow these days.

Michael

Posted 10/7/2011 9:30 PM (GMT 0)

F8 said...
Most of the money we are talking about is end of life care and then choices might have to be made, but "death panel" is just a scare tactic to me.
yep, parrotted by that fair and balanced news channel [img]/community/emoticons/cool.gif[/img] . there you go again CN.

ed


Meanwhile we as a supposedly advanced nation have the only medical care institutions that demands a profit. How does medical insurance make it's profit? From a combination of overcharging their subscribers and denying benefits. There are your real existing death panels. They aren't made up of government bureaucrats but corporate lackeys who are expected to make a profit. But that never was said by those fair and balanced folks.
Posted 10/7/2011 10:04 PM (GMT 0)
Now Ziggy can use the term "death panels" to describe the inurance companies and medical care institutions, and F8 probably won't have a problem with that.

Acutally, I'm sorry I introduced the term death panels. It's definitely too loaded a term to try to start off a conversation with. What my wife and I were talking about, and what I really intended to say, is that health decisions which are likely to affect our lives are apt to be made by bean counters with green eyeshades, corporate executives, government bureaucrats, and some doctors. The term "Death panels" has always been a misnomer. "Death panels" connotes something far too personal. Recommending against PSA testing or screening is a serious health decision of national proportions, and it certainly has the potential to have a detrimental effect on men's health. It wasn't made by a "death panel," but by a "task force."

This has apparrently caused F8 a great deal of mental anguish.

In increasingly challenging times, health decisions are not likey to be as personal as a group sitting in a dark room and deciding where or not Joe Smith should live or die. Of course that won't happen.

As in the case at hand, task forces will make recommendations; the recommendations will be implemented as policy; and whether or not you get a particular test or treatment or coverage will be determined by whether or not you meet the criteria established by the insurance companies and the government. This is not a political statement. It's just the way things work, regardless of which political party happens to be in power when resources are scarce.

As for F8.....this guy has some sort of a problem.

I thought personal attacks weren't allowed here on HW. Guess I'm mistaken.

I can't remember when one member here told another to go somewhere else and "spew his crap" but maybe ole Ed gets a pass?
Posted 10/7/2011 11:21 PM (GMT 0)
Clocknut,
You bring up a very contraversial issue that is bound to stir emotions. I'll play devil's advocate on this issue. If you had to pay for end of life treatment out of your own pocket then what would be the threshold that you would pay to have another year of life? would it be a million dollars? Would you borrow the money for your family to pay back? How much would you be willing to take away from your family for that extra year? The real fact that is that someone has to pay as the treatment costs must come from somewhere. They either come from increased insurance premiums to everyone or to increased taxes if the government or Medicare pays or the individual if he has enough money saved. The vast majority of helathcare costs are incurred in the last 2 years of life. Is the money better spent to treat your son who may have 40 years left? These are tough decisions, but in the current economic enviornment every dollar we spend we borrow 40%. There is no free lunch and someone along the line will finally have to pony up. In a perfect world everyone should have the best heath care available, and we should also have everlasting peace and no crime. Realistically none of these are achievable. In the real world there will always be rationing of healthcare. It's only a matter of who makes the decision on rationing. It will always be the one who is directly paying for those services, the individual, the insurance companies or the government.
JT
Posted 10/8/2011 1:10 AM (GMT 0)
We weigh lives vs. costs in many areas of modern life.

I work in highway planning and we can absolutely save thousands of lives on the highways if money is no object. We could start by lowering the interstate speed limit to 25. We don't do it because somebody did a cost/benefit analysis. We could put airbags on the guardrails for only a gagillion bucks per mile, but we don't.

This principle applies to airline safety, product safety, food safety, chemical contaminants, pollution -- the list goes on and on. Yeah, in a perfect world every life is priceless. Regrettably, it ain't a perfect world.
Posted 10/8/2011 2:03 AM (GMT 0)
Moderator Hat ON.

This one was headed off the rails on the first post. I'm debating deleteing the whole thing. But for now, I think both sides have been presented.

How it goes from here will make my decision.

 

Posted 10/8/2011 3:42 PM (GMT 0)
spew his crap was a bit too harsh.  i apologize.  you've made your disdain know for national healthcare before. dude i was born at night but not last night.

on a positive note you and i both received good news about our health recently.  i'd rather talk about that instead of perpetuating fear mongering.  all of us on this forum live with enough fear without creating any. 

a panel is not going to determine when i die.  i know that for a certainty.

ed

Posted 10/8/2011 3:53 PM (GMT 0)
Hey, Ed, let's bury the hatchet and move on, OK? 

Seriously, I would wager that if we met in person we would find that we have a lot more in common than we have differences.  Whether or not I have full confidence in a national healtcare system should be a side issue that doesn't divide two guys who have fought off prostate cancer.  It's something I would hope that we can just agree to disagree on.

I agree I was wrong to use the dreaded phrase.  It may not be clear from my posts in this thread, but I also don't like and don't believe in the term.  I think that if you re-read what I wrote here, I was trying to say that we'll never see those panels.  Instead, we need to be alert for decisions made on high by task forces and bureaucrats that affect men's health....that these are the "panels" we need to watch for, before our men's health issues become compromised and good men die because of bad decisions.

Have a great weekend.  I'll try not to spew.  turn

Posted 10/8/2011 4:07 PM (GMT 0)
okay clocknut it's behind us as far as i'm concerned cool .  i actually have excellent medical benefits now that i figure might be adversely affected by any national program so there's fear of the unknown for me too. 

the scariest thing my urologist told me last week is "you worry to much.  i think we have this thing beat."  i'm not wired that way.  you'll never hear me say "i've beaten cancer" but i hope to be able to say "my cancer is in remission" some day.  peace cool .

ed

 

Posted 10/8/2011 5:11 PM (GMT 0)
Hey Ziggy,

Ziggy said:

"Meanwhile we as a supposedly advanced nation have the only medical care institutions that demands a profit. How does medical insurance make it's profit?"

Actually, it is my understanding that several other countries have medical institutions (e.g. hospitals) that are for profit (i.e. the hospitals are run by private companies and not the government).  I believe you might be refering to other advanced countries that have a single payer (the government) who control the patients costs, and the profits a doctor or hospital can make.  And, I would agree that because of this we spend 18% of our GDP on medical care (high proportion is insurance administrative costs) versus the 5 to 10% of GDP for Great Britian, Germany, Australia, Taiwan, Japan, etc., etc..

By the way the US also has a single payer (the federal government) for about 30% of its population (medicare, medicaid, retired veterans and retired federal employees).  It would appear that recent legislation will expand this base.  For these people the Federal Government already is the "Death Panel".

 

Posted 10/8/2011 6:17 PM (GMT 0)
I agree with JT, someone has to pay for the medical services we use and it's not reasonable to assume there is no limit to resources.
If there is a limit, then it must be decided what services to cover no matter whether ther payer is the government, insurance or individual.
As an individual there is no limit I accept for others to pay for my treatment. However as a society, we can't afford this. As knowledge and statistics and budgets are integrated, some limits must be placed, otherwise we won't have any other resources as a society.
To call these decisions "death panels" is to engage in extreme and highly political hyperbole.
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
12