Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 11:15 PM
Sun Nov 29
11 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
tips@gawker.com
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder | Email
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield | Email
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate | Email
Media:
Hamilton Nolan | Email
Politics:
Alex Pareene | Email
Investigations:
John Cook | Email
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan | Email
Nights:
Adrian Chen | Email
Azaria Jagger | Email
Ravi Somaiya | Email
Weekends:
Foster Kamer | Email
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
08/15/09
08/15/09
The entire article is here and is a scary read. Some highlights, "The fundamental challenge to theories of dis- tributive justice for health care [what is this exactly?] is to develop a principled mechanism for defining what fragment of the vast universe of technically available, effective medical care services is basic and will be guaranteed socially and what services are discretionary and will not be guaranteed socially. Such an approach accepts a two-tiered health system-some citizens will receive only basic services while others will receive both basic and some discretionary health services [to be decided by government bureaucrats]. Within the discretionary tier, some citizens will receive few discretionary services, other richer citizens will receive almost all available services, creating a multiple-tiered system."
He also, "suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed...Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia."
In 2009, he co-wrote another article on a similar topic, "Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions" in the journal The Lancet. The article advocates a health allocation system termed the "complete lives system". This system is based on the combination of "four morally relevant principles: youngest-first, prognosis, lottery, and saving the most lives".
So, I guess the death panel statement was true after all.
08/15/09
President Obama said this last year about his grandmother's hip replacement:
"I don’t know how much that hip replacement cost. I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement, just because she’s my grandmother. Whether, sort of in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill is a sustainable model is a very difficult question."
[www.nytimes.com]
I think that most people agree that healthcare needs fixing. But most people also agree that moving toward a government takeover is not the solution. For example, Medicare only works because hospitals that are undercut on Medicare can charge privately insured patients more.
Ms. McCaughey should not have gone as far as she did with her death-panel comment. But otherwise, she has provided some valuable information, in the articles she has written. It would be nice to see someone discuss these points on the merits rather than talk about physical appearance, children's vaginas, etc., although that is what people do when they are losing.
08/15/09
You are welcome to circumvent the list if someone is willing to give an organ to you you directly. This works better for kidneys and livers than it does for hearts, faces and hands.
08/15/09
We're talking about a.) what is IN THE BILL, which, as of now, there is no bill, just drafts.
b.) You and I both know a Wikipedia entry is the first resource of the desperate liar, as it can be edited to say all number of things.
08/15/09
08/15/09
08/15/09
This is somewhat different. Organs are in short supply; at the moment, we cannot make more on demand, as we can with many medical products/drugs/services. And so they are rationed. Public-health-insurance provision would apply this rationing theory to all health services, including services/products of which we can make more.
08/16/09
There is NO difference whatsoever except for the increased efficiency and compassion provided when the government is looking after you, as opposed to a giant consortium with a profit motive.
08/15/09
As such, those chiclets are growing, if only by perception.
Good luck sleeping with that mental image stuck in your noodle, kiddies.
08/15/09
08/14/09
08/14/09
08/14/09
08/14/09
08/14/09
08/14/09
08/14/09
08/14/09
Menopause is reversible, people!
08/14/09
08/14/09
08/14/09
08/14/09
08/14/09
08/14/09
08/15/09
08/14/09
08/14/09
Sounds like a job opening! Glenn Beck is actually a meth-addicted leatherdaddy! It's true, look it up!
08/14/09
08/14/09
08/14/09