Sebelius: I can’t suspend the lung-transplant rules for a dying 10-year-old

[Ravi]

Sebelius: I can’t suspend the lung-transplant rules for a dying 10-year-old

Why are there ANY government rules for transplants?

There aren't.

 

[eflatminor]

If you let the market control it, only the wealthiest would be able to afford it.

Bullshit. First of all, there would be far more organs available for transplant. Secondly, you have zero evidence that the market would not seek to provide services to the less-than-wealthy. There's money to be made from customers at all levels of income. For the truly poor, there is as there has always been, charity. Government control of the market for transplants doesn't ensure poor people get service, it ensures relatively few get any service at all...as this dying little girl clearly demonstrates.

 

[eflatminor]

Sebelius: I can’t suspend the lung-transplant rules for a dying 10-year-old

Why are there ANY government rules for transplants?

There aren't.

Oh really? Then why can't one freely buy and sell organs to meet the demand for transplants?

 

[dblack]

did you object to death panels used by private companies? ie insurance companies denying treatment of so call experimental things? death panels have existed in one form or another for many years.,...it aint no new thing

Yes, but we aren't forced to subscribe.

 

[Coyote]

If you let the market control it, only the wealthiest would be able to afford it.

Bullshit. First of all, there would be far more organs available for transplant.

I don't think there would be, especially for children. What governs the availability of organs is a variety of factors not the least of which, a person (for many organs) has to die and die in such a way that the organ isn't damaged and can be quickly retrieved and is not diseased.

It might slightly increase availability, but it would also put organs into the hands of business' and cartels and decisions would not be made in terms of need but in terms of who has the money or the power to make best case. The price for organ transplants would go up because you'd have to factor in payments to the donor.

Secondly, you have zero evidence that the market would not seek to provide services to the less-than-wealthy.

"The market" is comprised of entities who's goal is to make a profit. While they might provide services to the less-than-wealthy (most likely if there is government money to support it) - I think that would be minimal. What evidence do you have?

There's money to be made from customers at all levels of income. For the truly poor, there is as there has always been, charity. Government control of the market for transplants doesn't ensure poor people get service, it ensures relatively few get any service at all...as this dying little girl clearly demonstrates.

No. The only thing this girl demonstrates is that there are others ahead of her on the list who are equally or more in need. There's never going to be enough organs that match up in tissue and size and condition - that's not going to change. The system we have now is the fairest and it's not determined by either corporate executives or government bureaucrats.

 

[dblack]

If you let the market control it, only the wealthiest would be able to afford it.

?

How on earth do you imagine that scenario?

 

[Coyote]

If you let the market control it, only the wealthiest would be able to afford it.

?

How on earth do you imagine that scenario?

Because the cost would go up substantially - a person could choose to buy an organ directly from another person - it would go to the highest bidder don't you think?

 

[ogibillm]

I think Sebelius got it right.


and for the reasons I hate obamacare and all it portends and pretends it will do or replace.

heres the point; under the bad old system in place now, an insurance co. very easily would have made this same call, nope sorry, its not in line with the agreed provisions etc. as in the coverage as written .........and they would have had the snot beat out of them for it.....so whats changed?


I love it how the left can use/create caricatures of po' folks or children ( and granny over the cliff) denied care under the same private ins. co., comparison with this Obamacare decision she just made, yet, they are 'bad' and supported by people (republicans) that just want to see people die and keep the good care to themselves....

another high water mark for lefty hypocrisy....



go ahead, prove me wrong lefty's, let me see you tear Sibelius up......I'll be back....

this has nothing to do with insurance. it has to do with rules in place for organ transplants. obamacare isn't a factor, and there was no 'obamacare decision'

and the rules are there for a reason.

 

[eflatminor]

If you let the market control it, only the wealthiest would be able to afford it.

?

How on earth do you imagine that scenario?

Because the cost would go up substantially - a person could choose to buy an organ directly from another person - it would go to the highest bidder don't you think?

If that were true, the Soviet Union would have been the most cost effective economy the world has ever known.

Central planning NEVER results in lower prices.

Costs would in fact decrease because COMPETITION and CHOICE would enter into the picture, something you can't get with top down control.

Stop thinking like a Marxist.

 

[ogibillm]

?

How on earth do you imagine that scenario?

Because the cost would go up substantially - a person could choose to buy an organ directly from another person - it would go to the highest bidder don't you think?

If that were true, the Soviet Union would have been the most cost effective economy the world has ever known.

Central planning NEVER results in lower prices.

Costs would in fact decrease because COMPETITION and CHOICE would enter into the picture, something you can't get with top down control.

Stop thinking like a Marxist.

it's your belief that somehow the market for hearts, lungs, and livers would somehow become flush with product if there weren't government rules on selling said organs?

where would those organs come from?

 

[eflatminor]

If you let the market control it, only the wealthiest would be able to afford it.

Bullshit. First of all, there would be far more organs available for transplant.

I don't think there would be, especially for children. What governs the availability of organs is a variety of factors not the least of which, a person (for many organs) has to die and die in such a way that the organ isn't damaged and can be quickly retrieved and is not diseased.

This is beside the point.

It might slightly increase availability, but it would also put organs into the hands of business' and cartels and decisions would not be made in terms of need but in terms of who has the money or the power to make best case.

You're overlooking competition and choice, the only factors that drive costs down.

The price for organ transplants would go up because you'd have to factor in payments to the donor.

Wrong Comrade. The prices would decrease dramatically as the supply of organs increased and competition kicked in.

Secondly, you have zero evidence that the market would not seek to provide services to the less-than-wealthy.

"The market" is comprised of entities who's goal is to make a profit. While they might provide services to the less-than-wealthy (most likely if there is government money to support it) - I think that would be minimal. What evidence do you have?

Yes, profit that REQUIRES consumers willing to VOLUNTARILY pay for the service. No competition with central planners, no ability to choose a lower price.

There's money to be made from customers at all levels of income. For the truly poor, there is as there has always been, charity. Government control of the market for transplants doesn't ensure poor people get service, it ensures relatively few get any service at all...as this dying little girl clearly demonstrates.

No. The only thing this girl demonstrates is that there are others ahead of her on the list who are equally or more in need.

And a limited number of organs from which to choose...which would NOT be the case with a free market. There'd be PLENTY of organs because of that evil profit motive...

There's never going to be enough organs that match up in tissue and size and condition - that's not going to change.

Strawman. There would be lots more organs. There would be competition and choice and the inevitable downward pressure on prices. That WOULD change.

The system we have now is the fairest and it's not determined by either corporate executives or government bureaucrats.

Which results in this girl's death. But hey, you and your central planners know what's best for everyone, right? Pass.

 

[eflatminor]

Because the cost would go up substantially - a person could choose to buy an organ directly from another person - it would go to the highest bidder don't you think?

If that were true, the Soviet Union would have been the most cost effective economy the world has ever known.

Central planning NEVER results in lower prices.

Costs would in fact decrease because COMPETITION and CHOICE would enter into the picture, something you can't get with top down control.

Stop thinking like a Marxist.

it's your belief that somehow the market for hearts, lungs, and livers would somehow become flush with product if there weren't government rules on selling said organs?

Yes.

where would those organs come from?

Individuals selling their organs upon their death.

 

[Coyote]

?

How on earth do you imagine that scenario?

Because the cost would go up substantially - a person could choose to buy an organ directly from another person - it would go to the highest bidder don't you think?

If that were true, the Soviet Union would have been the most cost effective economy the world has ever known.

Central planning NEVER results in lower prices.

Oh I agree.

The thing is, you are painting this all or nothing scenario and it isn't. At the moment - organ transplant is not governed entirely by either approach - the market determines the cost of the surgery, but regulation is needed to ensure that organs are distributed to the most in need first - not those who can afford it first.

The market has no moral compass. And that is where your approach is lacking.

Costs would in fact decrease because COMPETITION and CHOICE would enter into the picture, something you can't get with top down control.

Competition does not always increase choice - that's a bit of a fallacy. After a certain point it decreases choice as fewer and bigger entities squash out competition.

Stop thinking like a Marxist.

What exactly is Marxist in my thoughts?

 

[Oddball]

If you let the market control it, only the wealthiest would be able to afford it.

?

How on earth do you imagine that scenario?

Because the cost would go up substantially - a person could choose to buy an organ directly from another person - it would go to the highest bidder don't you think?

What do you think someone is going to sell one of their kidneys for....25 bucks?

 

[Oddball]

Because the cost would go up substantially - a person could choose to buy an organ directly from another person - it would go to the highest bidder don't you think?

If that were true, the Soviet Union would have been the most cost effective economy the world has ever known.

Central planning NEVER results in lower prices.

Oh I agree.

The thing is, you are painting this all or nothing scenario and it isn't. At the moment - organ transplant is not governed entirely by either approach - the market determines the cost of the surgery, but regulation is needed to ensure that organs are distributed to the most in need first - not those who can afford it first.

The market has no moral compass. And that is where your approach is lacking.

"The market" is an abstraction and cannot, by its very definition, have any sense of this subjective thing called "morality"...This is a good thing.

The one with no moral compass is the heartless ghoul bureaucrat who flippantly says "some people live, some die".

Costs would in fact decrease because COMPETITION and CHOICE would enter into the picture, something you can't get with top down control.

Competition does not always increase choice - that's a bit of a fallacy. After a certain point it decreases choice as fewer and bigger entities squash out competition.

Common anti-market myth...Please Google the "rule of three".

Here, I'll give you a start...Rule of three (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

this is your future...now where did we hear about DEATH PANELS?
Links in article at site

SNIP:

posted at 8:01 pm on June 4, 2013 by Allahpundit

Portrait of a bureaucratic nightmare: A little girl’s dying from cystic fibrosis and has three to five weeks to live unless she gets a lung transplant before then. The good news is that adult lungs can be modified for a child her age in a way that’ll save her life — except that, because she’s only 10, she’s not eligible for them. The “adult” list starts at 12; everyone younger than that goes to the children’s list, where lungs are much harder to come by. The question is, does Sebelius have the authority to suspend those age limitations and make the girl, Sarah Murnaghan, eligible for an adult transplant?

I honestly don’t know the answer. Murnaghan’s parents say Sebelius’s authority is clear; Sebelius herself claims that HHS’s lawyers have told her she can’t do it. A life hangs in the balance. On one side:


nder existing policy all adults in the region with her blood type will be offered the lungs first, her parents say, even those more stable and with less severe conditions. The girl’s parents called for a change in the policy after their appeal was denied…

United Network for Organ Sharing, also a nonprofit under contract with the government, said a committee would review the policy and the public would have a chance to comment on any proposed changes. But spokeswoman Anne Paschke said any changes most likely won’t come quickly enough to benefit Sarah or others like her.

“The policy development process is not fast,” she said in an email to The Associated Press. “Organ allocation policies are created to transplant as many people as possible overall, result in the fewest waiting list deaths overall and result in the best possible survival overall. In developing policies, committees and the board weigh data, medical evidence and experience, and public input.”

all of it here
Sebelius: I can?t suspend the lung-transplant rules for a dying 10-year-old « Hot Air

We should change the transplant list rules every time a 10 year old is dying.

 

[dblack]

If you let the market control it, only the wealthiest would be able to afford it.

?

How on earth do you imagine that scenario?

Because the cost would go up substantially - a person could choose to buy an organ directly from another person - it would go to the highest bidder don't you think?

Ahh... OK. I thought you were talking about health care in general. Yes, at the extreme ends, there will be treatments/organs/procedures that only rich people will be able to afford. No denying that.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

this is your future...now where did we hear about DEATH PANELS?
Links in article at site

I hate Obamadummy! Before his government death panels, there were enough transplant organs for everyone who needed them! Now because he is mean and hates America decisions have to be made about who gets transplants and who doesn't. He's horrible!

 

[ogibillm]

If that were true, the Soviet Union would have been the most cost effective economy the world has ever known.

Central planning NEVER results in lower prices.

Oh I agree.

The thing is, you are painting this all or nothing scenario and it isn't. At the moment - organ transplant is not governed entirely by either approach - the market determines the cost of the surgery, but regulation is needed to ensure that organs are distributed to the most in need first - not those who can afford it first.

The market has no moral compass. And that is where your approach is lacking.

"The market" is an abstraction and cannot, by its very definition, have any sense of this subjective thing called "morality"...This is a good thing.

The one with no moral compass is the heartless ghoul bureaucrat who flippantly says "some people live, some die".

Costs would in fact decrease because COMPETITION and CHOICE would enter into the picture, something you can't get with top down control.

Competition does not always increase choice - that's a bit of a fallacy. After a certain point it decreases choice as fewer and bigger entities squash out competition.

Common anti-market myth...Please Google the "rule of three".

Here, I'll give you a start...Rule of three (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

do you think that if you were in need of heart transplant there would be three available matching donors at the same time represented independently that you would be able to negotiate a lower price with?

 

[eflatminor]

Because the cost would go up substantially - a person could choose to buy an organ directly from another person - it would go to the highest bidder don't you think?

If that were true, the Soviet Union would have been the most cost effective economy the world has ever known.

Central planning NEVER results in lower prices.

Oh I agree.

The thing is, you are painting this all or nothing scenario and it isn't. At the moment - organ transplant is not governed entirely by either approach - the market determines the cost of the surgery, but regulation is needed to ensure that organs are distributed to the most in need first - not those who can afford it first.

The market has no moral compass. And that is where your approach is lacking.

Hundreds of millions of consumers making voluntary choices is moral. Central planners suggesting they know what's best for everyone else is not. And let's not forget, my approach would assure the availability of lungs for this little girl. Your approach ensures she will die. You were saying something about morality?

Costs would in fact decrease because COMPETITION and CHOICE would enter into the picture, something you can't get with top down control.

Competition does not always increase choice - that's a bit of a fallacy. After a certain point it decreases choice as fewer and bigger entities squash out competition.

If fewer entities control a market, it's because consumers have made that choice. Nothing stops new entrants into markets to ensure the bigger players remain competitive. Nothing expect government of course.

Stop thinking like a Marxist.

What exactly is Marxist in my thoughts

Everything you've stated. EVERYTHING.