-
Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/
something to get your head around
- Thread starter Glink
- Start date
Yep, the privileged few. He has a good point but I doubt there will be a national discussion about it or that anything will ever change. Organ donations will never be fair to all. Even if money played no role in it there are always more losers than winners, unless at some point we can harvest and grow our own....which seems might be a real possibility in years to come.
Not sure organ transplant is the substantive issue here Doc, or maybe I am not understanding you. The issue is the present expectation that we are bound by duty to purchase million dollar medical procedures for everybody and anybody on Medicare or Medicaid in all instances, including instances where the successful procedure would only extend life by a few months. If you are rich and can afford it great; if that is what you choose to do. But the math just does not work out on a national scale. Healthcare makes up 23% of the current budget, which equates to 35% of actual revenue. (I think on these numbers) The system is not sustainable. The money is not always going to be there. Tough subject for sure.
I don't agree with that premise. Transplant organs are in short supply. I don't think money should push a person to the front of the line.
I agree with you, money should not push a person to the head of the line. Organs should not be available via auction.
Read it again counselor. That is not the issue.
No, I understood the premise of the article (and I'm diggin' that market-ticker blog, btw). I just disagree with the tangential notion that if you're rich, you can jump ahead in the transplant line. It seems the author of the article agrees with me.
I also agree that there aren't enough resources to provide every possible bit of life extending care to everyone and that it's a tough notion we'll have to tackle sooner than later.
Don't worry! Since they can't cut off the money, they have created a critical drug shortage, instead.
I am too dumb to understand this. Try again.
I understand there were a couple points to the post. And know that of course there will have to be a time and place when the inevitable has to be faced and further life extending / life saving treatment will cease. Where will that line be drawn? Will it be the same for everyone? This has always been the case, nothing new. This is also the issue that brought up government death panels that many of us discussed a few years ago. It is an issue that there is no easy answer to.