Death Panels

Well if you insist, I'll take that one, over near the magnolia tree.

Well if you insist, I’ll take that one, over near the magnolia tree.

Britain considering proposal to deny costly drugs to those over 70 on a “you’ve had your fair innings” theory of social utility.

Patients who have had a ‘fair innings’ could be denied life-saving drugs under  proposed health reforms.

The plans would mean experts taking into account whether there  is a ‘wider societal benefit’ to giving a patient crucial medicines.

The NHS rationing body, Nice, fears the Department of Health proposals could see younger people deemed a higher priority for drug treatments because they have more years ahead of them – potentially contributing more to the economy – than the elderly.

Personally, I’d take exactly that approach to my own care: I have no desire to wipe out my puny estate at the expense of my children merely to prolong my life, if death is near, but  I find it ironic that Sarah Palin was torn to pieces for suggesting that national healthcare would result in “death panels” and that ObamaCare’s “Cost Containment Review Panels” would turn into exactly that. Now, it seems, Paul Krugman was right: what happens in England won’t stay in England.

8 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

8 responses to “Death Panels

  1. Walt

    Dude –
    Where are we headed? I ASKED YOU WHERE ARE WE HEADED??

    Do we want a pabulum puking society where no one is ever offended? THAT IS WHAT WE ASPIRE TO? THAT SUCKS!! Where will all be Nancy girls? That is a great business model. NOT!! You don’t care about having control over your own destiny? YOU LITTLE WORM!!

    I am sick and tired of this milquetoast idea of utopia. A big government deciding what is best. No free will. No one ever getting offended. Getting offended is part of life. DEAL WITH IT YOU HOMO’S. And I mean no disrespect to our gay brethren. I think they are fabulous. And really good at ice dancing.

    But these PC Police are NAZI’S!! YES I SAID IT!! They want a homogeneous world, where no one’s feelings are ever hurt. Where everyone is the same. Where there is no exceptionalism. WELL THAT WORLD SUCKS, YOU DWARF LITTLE RETARDS!! If I can’t call you an untalented, disgusting little prancy hack, what kind of world do we live in? IT WILL NOT STAND!! WHO ARE THEY DO DECIDE?

    Anyhows, this whole libtard philosophy is based on unsustainable principles that defy the laws of human nature. So it will never work. People ARE different, and that is a good thing. Are you the same as me? NO!! Thank God. Who wants a civil servant, affirmative action educated, incompetent retard making life and death decisions? NOT ME!!

    We either deal with the facts, or we play a losing hand. The libtards are trying to build LaLa land, where they decide who lives or dies.

    Anyhows again, we had a pants popping day at the Olympics yesterday. I will report back later!! SNOW DAY!!
    Your Pal,
    Walt

  2. Peg

    Soylent Green aside, however, we SHOULD have the ability to determine our final days and hours when we are younger and in command of our faculties… The ethical issue of our generation.

    But the critical point is WE should be deciding for ourselves – not the government with some specific age, like getting a driver’s license!

  3. Anonymous

    If the evil government or the evil insurance companies don’t put some kind of limit on what gets spent to prolong life and try to postpone the inevitable fate of death for everyone, then what gets spent by a few people will bankrupt the rest of us pretty quickly. So I’m all for limits …whether it’s by age (70 is a little young, but 80 seems pretty reasonable) or from setting a lifetime cap on healthcare spending per person. People who don’t like it are perfectly free to buy additional insurance or pay for drugs or treatments themselves

    And I agree that Sarah Palin was unfairly criticized for talking about policies that need to be part of any healthcare payment program to ensure their long-term viability

    • Anonymous

      I think the age limit should be one year less than you’ve been on this earth, and imposed the day before you are diagnosed with a previously treatable cancer. But then, if you read this blog, you’re probably rich so can afford your medicines regardless.

  4. When life has no value

    Look at this amazing story linked to this awful story – want to bet the decision the healthcare cost review panels will impose on Americans?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2561124/Mother-told-abort-baby-gives-birth-healthy-baby-boy-keeping-emotional-diary-day-pregnancy.html

    Of course, the eugenics proponent and founder of Planned Parenthood, Maggie Sanger, would be thrilled with the latest abortion report out of NYC that shows her racist goal of eliminating blacks (today, I’m sure this would extend to non-white Hispanics) and the poor is going quite well; even if the numbers are down, the proportions are just right. What progress. http://nypost.com/2014/02/17/abortion-rate-plummets-in-new-york-city/

    But then maybe she was right. Why encourage poor people to have children when the educational, medical and social resources (word used lightly) almost ensures a worthless life? Those children are probably better off dead and we should be thankful for the liberals who make sure of it. If there is a chance that a child will not be perfect, then suck ‘em out and start over; if their life might be difficult, suck ‘em out and sterilize the mom. If mom’s career is humming, suck ‘em out, freeze your eggs and wait for it to be convenient.

    • Walt

      You actually think a child is better off dead? REALLY?? A dead baby? You sicken me.
      What’s funnier than a dead baby?
      A dead baby sitting next to a kid with down syndrome.
      You brought this on yourself.

  5. LAK

    Where does the Queen & Philip fit in for meds??!!
    How old are they?