Claim: The NHS kills off 130,000 elderly patients every year

[rwg3]

Death awaits us all. We don't know how many days we are allotted. Unfortunately disability also awaits the majority of us before we die. The issue of prolonging life and or the withholding of care has been around as long as man. In many cultures pain relief until death is a viable choice for family and care provider. The issue of death panels as portrayed in the media is just flat earth wrong. However the idea of rationing of healthcare resources is absolutley correct in today's world. There is no sysytem available to the majority of people that can give all the services one would wish for, so somebody has to draw the line that says no more. I personally would be more comfortable with a "expert" panel of providers and human rights workers reviewing my case, than with some unknown case manager in utilization review at the insurance company reading outlier statistics and plan limits and working under a bonus plan based on budgetary management.
In any case this "news" is not new news and will continue to get reserrected any time some one wants to score some political goal. That is of course unless, the country suddenly grows a collective consience and decides to act on an issue for the benefit of all.

[Heartland Patriot]

Death awaits us all. We don't know how many days we are allotted. Unfortunately disability also awaits the majority of us before we die. The issue of prolonging life and or the withholding of care has been around as long as man. In many cultures pain relief until death is a viable choice for family and care provider. The issue of death panels as portrayed in the media is just flat earth wrong. However the idea of rationing of healthcare resources is absolutley correct in today's world. There is no sysytem available to the majority of people that can give all the services one would wish for, so somebody has to draw the line that says no more. I personally would be more comfortable with a "expert" panel of providers and human rights workers reviewing my case, than with some unknown case manager in utilization review at the insurance company reading outlier statistics and plan limits and working under a bonus plan based on budgetary management.
In any case this "news" is not new news and will continue to get reserrected any time some one wants to score some political goal. That is of course unless, the country suddenly grows a collective consience and decides to act on an issue for the benefit of all.

I'm always reminded of the somewhat cheesy distopian sci-fi film "Logan's Run" where everyone has to go to "Carousel" to be "renewed" (executed) when they are thirty, with the almighty state being the arbiter of their deaths even though they'd done nothing wrong to warrant death...it simply wasn't in some over-arching government plan that they live to their natural end and they had outlived their programed "usefulness" to that society...and make fun all you want to, its fine, it was a cheesy '70s movie. But jokes about "death panels" belie the fact that if the government has complete control of your healthcare, it very may well mean your life comes to an end because some bureaucrat deems you unworthy of whatever medical attention you may need because you've outlived whatever "usefulness" the government deems you to have.

[anygunanywhere]

Proper hospice care ensures that the person receives adequate pain control, food, and water as they course to a natural death. Mrs. Anygunanywhere, RN, made certain my mom was adequately cared for as she progressed to her death. We consulted with our parish priest to ensure we were doing what we were supposed to do. Mom was never denied water or food. She ate her favorite Blue Bell ice cream all the way to the end. This is what she wanted.

The death panels will be a fact if obamacare is not repealed.

As is typical, once laws in this country are enacted, rarely are they repealed.

Those approaching retirement should be very very concerned.

Mrs. Anygun and I are in that stage.

God help us all.

Anygunanywhere

[gdanaher]

Until Congress actually legislates a 'death panel', it will remain in the realm of Sarah Palin fiction. Your insurance company likely has its own version right today without the benefit of being able to blame it on the president. They call it medical necessity review or something similar.

[VMI77]

Until Congress actually legislates a 'death panel', it will remain in the realm of Sarah Palin fiction. Your insurance company likely has its own version right today without the benefit of being able to blame it on the president. They call it medical necessity review or something similar.

If we get Obamacare, costs will rise exponentially (or perhaps I should say continue to rise...), so it will only be a matter of time before health care is rationed to those of us who aren't rich. It doesn't matter what you call it, the government will be making decisions about whose lives are worth spending money on, and since the nature of any bureaucracy is to be bureaucratic, these decisions will be arbitrary, not logical or compassionate. Unless the government gets out of the healthcare business, even without Obamacare, costs will continue to rise beyond our collective ability to pay, and there will be a similar result, forced by reality rather than government diktat.

[anygunanywhere]

Until Congress actually legislates a 'death panel', it will remain in the realm of Sarah Palin fiction. Your insurance company likely has its own version right today without the benefit of being able to blame it on the president. They call it medical necessity review or something similar.

Fiction?

Not quite.

You are right that there is currently review, but euthanasia is not the order of the day here in the US. Yet.

Go live in the Netherlands or Brussels. Different story.

There is nothing that the lefty socialists want more than to be like europe where human life has no worth unless you are young, strong, beautiful, and born.

Anygunanywhere

[Heartland Patriot]

Proper hospice care ensures that the person receives adequate pain control, food, and water as they course to a natural death. Mrs. Anygunanywhere, RN, made certain my mom was adequately cared for as she progressed to her death. We consulted with our parish priest to ensure we were doing what we were supposed to do. Mom was never denied water or food. She ate her favorite Blue Bell ice cream all the way to the end. This is what she wanted.

The death panels will be a fact if obamacare is not repealed.

As is typical, once laws in this country are enacted, rarely are they repealed.

Those approaching retirement should be very very concerned.

Mrs. Anygun and I are in that stage.

God help us all.

Anygunanywhere

Thank you for putting it in a simple and straightforward fashion. What you stated there is a far cry from what the article stated about how patients have been left to die in the UK. I apologize for getting long-winded trying to make a point, but I get spun up and over-do it. I agree with you and once again, thanks.

[chasfm11]

NOT sure what all it actually involves. When my granddad passed away in October last year, his Parkinson's was so bad - he was very miserable and ready to go. They gave him fentinel patches and kept him comfortable but he stopped taking food and didn't want feeding tubes or anything.

When it's time, it's time. I don't how different this approach is - no hospital bed since he wanted to die at home.

The article and the issue are not precise, but neither is the process. My objection would be taking the decision-making process out of the hands of the patient/family and the doctor and giving to to bean-counting bureauocrats.

Absolutely! When it's time, it is time. We don't let our pets suffer, please don't prolong my helpless suffering and embarrasment. Let me exit these earthly bounds with a shred of dignity, please.

There is just one small problem....who is going to make the decision? We are emotionally invested in the decisions for our pets. Even then, a lot of those decisions are made financially (i.e. the medical procedures to fix the pet's problems are higher than the owner is willing to pay) rather than based on the quality of life.

There is a simple solution: move to England. I'm sure that one of their doctors would happily (and rather quickly) dignify your exit if you come down with anything serious. Their whole system is based on political "who you know" and a stray American is not going to have much clout in getting medical resources for life preservation.

[puma guy]

NOT sure what all it actually involves. When my granddad passed away in October last year, his Parkinson's was so bad - he was very miserable and ready to go. They gave him fentinel patches and kept him comfortable but he stopped taking food and didn't want feeding tubes or anything.

When it's time, it's time. I don't how different this approach is - no hospital bed since he wanted to die at home.

The article and the issue are not precise, but neither is the process. My objection would be taking the decision-making process out of the hands of the patient/family and the doctor and giving to to bean-counting bureauocrats.

Absolutely! When it's time, it is time. We don't let our pets suffer, please don't prolong my helpless suffering and embarrasment. Let me exit these earthly bounds with a shred of dignity, please.

There is just one small problem....who is going to make the decision? We are emotionally invested in the decisions for our pets. Even then, a lot of those decisions are made financially (i.e. the medical procedures to fix the pet's problems are higher than the owner is willing to pay) rather than based on the quality of life.

There is a simple solution: move to England. I'm sure that one of their doctors would happily (and rather quickly) dignify your exit if you come down with anything serious. Their whole system is based on political "who you know" and a stray American is not going to have much clout in getting medical resources for life preservation.

England has a long standing practice of denying treatment. My dad had a friend whose daughter was the "Pirate Girl" on a game show called "Treasure Hunt" in the late 1950's. She was on the "$64,000 Question". She did well for a girl from Pasadena, married (a producer I think) and moved to England afterward; had a child and the child became ill. This sets the time frame. I cannot remember what the child's problem was, but it was something treatable, but terminal if not. They couldn't get treatment for the boy, so she and her husband moved back to the US where he got help. I remember her father telling the strory and that was my introduction to Socialized Medicine or the National Health Service as it's called in Great Britain.

[chasfm11]

NOT sure what all it actually involves. When my granddad passed away in October last year, his Parkinson's was so bad - he was very miserable and ready to go. They gave him fentinel patches and kept him comfortable but he stopped taking food and didn't want feeding tubes or anything.

When it's time, it's time. I don't how different this approach is - no hospital bed since he wanted to die at home.

The article and the issue are not precise, but neither is the process. My objection would be taking the decision-making process out of the hands of the patient/family and the doctor and giving to to bean-counting bureauocrats.

Absolutely! When it's time, it is time. We don't let our pets suffer, please don't prolong my helpless suffering and embarrasment. Let me exit these earthly bounds with a shred of dignity, please.

There is just one small problem....who is going to make the decision? We are emotionally invested in the decisions for our pets. Even then, a lot of those decisions are made financially (i.e. the medical procedures to fix the pet's problems are higher than the owner is willing to pay) rather than based on the quality of life.

There is a simple solution: move to England. I'm sure that one of their doctors would happily (and rather quickly) dignify your exit if you come down with anything serious. Their whole system is based on political "who you know" and a stray American is not going to have much clout in getting medical resources for life preservation.

England has a long standing practice of denying treatment. My dad had a friend whose daughter was the "Pirate Girl" on a game show called "Treasure Hunt" in the late 1950's. She was on the "$64,000 Question". She did well for a girl from Pasadena, married (a producer I think) and moved to England afterward; had a child and the child became ill. This sets the time frame. I cannot remember what the child's problem was, but it was something treatable, but terminal if not. They couldn't get treatment for the boy, so she and her husband moved back to the US where he got help. I remember her father telling the strory and that was my introduction to Socialized Medicine or the National Health Service as it's called in Great Britain.

Those who are politically connected have no problem getting treatment. For those affluent enough to afford it, I understand that the second alternative is to travel to India where high quality medical treatment is supposed to be available to foreigners who can pay. And the treatments are a lot more affordable than they might have been back in the UK. So a two tier system is available and the only ones who are denied treatment are the masses under the National plan. I suspect that the US will end up with exactly the same condition if Obamacare is upheld and fully implemented. Those who think that it is a good idea today might change their mind when they are on the wrong side of the care decisions. By then, it will be too late.

[VMI77]

Those who are politically connected have no problem getting treatment. For those affluent enough to afford it, I understand that the second alternative is to travel to India where high quality medical treatment is supposed to be available to foreigners who can pay. And the treatments are a lot more affordable than they might have been back in the UK. So a two tier system is available and the only ones who are denied treatment are the masses under the National plan. I suspect that the US will end up with exactly the same condition if Obamacare is upheld and fully implemented. Those who think that it is a good idea today might change their mind when they are on the wrong side of the care decisions. By then, it will be too late.

I don't think rich people have to travel to India...my understanding is that there are private hospitals and private doctors in the UK for the rich. The NHS is for us proles.

http://www.privatehealth.co.uk/privatespecialists/


Costs seem to be on par with the US:

http://www.privatehealth.co.uk/private- ... an-prices/

[rwg3]

I don't think rich people have to travel to India...my understanding is that there are private hospitals and private doctors in the UK for the rich. The NHS is for us proles.

http://www.privatehealth.co.uk/privatespecialists/


Costs seem to be on par with the US:

http://www.privatehealth.co.uk/private- ... an-prices/[/quote]

Quite true. Many of the for profit Hospital chains have divisions that operate overseas. They are private pay clinics and serve the charge paying wealthy, not those on the government plan.

So this discussion comes down to, some pigs are more equal than others, to paraphase. When dealing with issues that could be classified as the "common good" it is hard to align the curent tax code and health care system with the needs of the masses. Not saying they are wrong but the results are glaringly obvious. If you don't think that care rationing is a current standard in this country, then you have not spent time in many Medicaid facilities in poor communities. There are always places that do the exceptional but the vast majority try to make ends meet on something less in income than expense.

While I truly favor the free market economy there are just some areas that it does not achieve the results desired in a modern judeo-christian values based society. Healthcare is the prime example. To repeat myself from an earlier post, this is not new news. Anyone remember Charles Dickens in a Christmas Carol, " are there no prisons or workhouses?" and "if they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."?

[chasfm11]

It isn't just people from the UK, the India medical tours are used by Canadians and others

http://www.trip2medi.com/faq.php

The key is that you don't have to be uber rich to be able to do better than the medical options, especially in dentistry, than are offered in the UK. Notice that the ad includes knee replacements and other procedures that have long waiting lists.

I worked in Europe and talked with several colleagues from other countries. The people from France and Germany never complained about their healthcare. I didn't find anyone from the UK who didn't complain.

[Heartland Patriot]

It isn't just people from the UK, the India medical tours are used by Canadians and others

http://www.trip2medi.com/faq.php

The key is that you don't have to be uber rich to be able to do better than the medical options, especially in dentistry, than are offered in the UK. Notice that the ad includes knee replacements and other procedures that have long waiting lists.

I worked in Europe and talked with several colleagues from other countries. The people from France and Germany never complained about their healthcare. I didn't find anyone from the UK who didn't complain.

First off, I'm NOT saying I want a "national healthcare system". But, I do want to know, WHY aren't the people in France and Germany complaining, and the Brits are? What is the big difference in their systems?

[VMI77]

I don't think rich people have to travel to India...my understanding is that there are private hospitals and private doctors in the UK for the rich. The NHS is for us proles.

http://www.privatehealth.co.uk/privatespecialists/


Costs seem to be on par with the US:

http://www.privatehealth.co.uk/private- ... an-prices/

Quite true. Many of the for profit Hospital chains have divisions that operate overseas. They are private pay clinics and serve the charge paying wealthy, not those on the government plan.

So this discussion comes down to, some pigs are more equal than others, to paraphase. When dealing with issues that could be classified as the "common good" it is hard to align the curent tax code and health care system with the needs of the masses. Not saying they are wrong but the results are glaringly obvious. If you don't think that care rationing is a current standard in this country, then you have not spent time in many Medicaid facilities in poor communities. There are always places that do the exceptional but the vast majority try to make ends meet on something less in income than expense.

While I truly favor the free market economy there are just some areas that it does not achieve the results desired in a modern judeo-christian values based society. Healthcare is the prime example. To repeat myself from an earlier post, this is not new news. Anyone remember Charles Dickens in a Christmas Carol, " are there no prisons or workhouses?" and "if they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."?

It's not possible to have a health care system without rationing. The question is, how is care going to be rationed? When health care is "free" demand is going to exceed supply, so the only way to limit demand is by arbitrary rationing. If the system was market based, the rationing system would be the ability to pay....but then without government involved and grossly distorting the market, services would be more affordable. Our system is not only rationed in the sense you allude to but on the market side...with the medical profession and pharmaceutical companies in collusion with the government to prop up prices, and in all kinds of ways, to limit supply.

Now several decades of socialist thought have bred a large segment of the population that sees all kinds of things, but especially medical care, as "entitlements." With "rights" (entitlements) come responsibility, but the entitlement mentality is the enemy of individual responsibility. In just two generations the shame of taking handouts has been erased and substituted with the arrogance of entitlement. No country can survive an "entitled" population at the bottom, or at the top. If this country does not reject socialist dogma and return to the concept of individual responsibility then we are finished as the land of liberty.

That said, it doesn't mean I favor a Dickensian dystopia. But the system Dickens wrote about was not a free market in anything --it was what we'd call today a form of crony capitalism (the same kind of system we've been constructing for ourselves under the pretense of "free markets"). I'm also not suggesting some kind of libertarian utopia. What I favor is the Federal Government returning to the performance of the limited functions allowed by the Constitution, which do NOT include robbing Peter to pay Paul. Those powers not enumerated for the Federal Government belong to the States, and the People. 50 different States trying different methods to solve a problem might well produce a reasonable solution and under such a system if the socialist wackos in California want to bankrupt themselves with "entitlements," they'll be on their own, and won't be getting bailed out from the residents of Texas. Under such a system wacky notions will have consequences.