Ration End-Of-Life Care IQ2US + WNET

Just because we can extend life, should we? The U.S. is expected to spend $2.8 trillion on health care in 2012. Medicare alone will cost taxpayers $590 billion, with over 25% going toward patients in their last year of life. If health care is a scarce resource, limited by its availability and our ability to pay for it, should government step in to ration care, deciding whose life is worth saving? In other words, how much is an extra month of life worth?

For: Dr. Art Kellerman
For: Peter Singer

Against: Sally Pipes
Against: Ken Connor

===================================

===================================

[adriagreen]

I was very surprised in the fact that I changed to undecided because I thought for sure I would stay gong ho in my opinion that everyone deserves a second chance but when Dr. Kellerman made the statement about "prolonging life is to prolong the process of death" I instantly thought about my views in a different way because I never considered the agony of prolonging death to the patient to bring happiness to the family.

[Tapinpardude]

There are many reasonable arguments on both sides of such a debate topic of this video. Although there are many good ideas for supporting and for opposition of such a debate, I would argue that the real issue all begins with how our health system is currently implemented. It is driven not by what we as a society deem as responsible, compassionate care but simply by the profit motive. How can anyone argue that the free market should decide what type of care you receive based such incentives?

[adriagreen]

My thoughts on this debate are. I originally voted for option 2 which was against, but listening to each parties arguments, they all had very good positions in why they felt the way they did and had sound facts to prove their arguments, So I am know undecided in the fact that I have to agree with both sides and say I actively listened and tool into consideration view points I had not look at before.

[gedoug]

So, Doc is saying his profession needs a law to force them to sit down with a patient and be honest?

[WhateverWasLeft]

I'm surprised that the option of euthanasia wasn't even mentioned. What if the patient simply wants to spare himself and others the pain (and costs) of extending his life when facing a terminal illness, knowing that it will end within weeks or months regardless. Why not provide him with the option of pulling the plug voluntarily and painlessly, without suffering in addition to the pain reducing treatment? Quite a few modern Western democracies have already adopted this policy.

[Archaneus]

Mostly because the audiences for these debates are fairly intelligent and seeing as intelligence and education have a direct correlation with liberalism, well, I think we can safely say they're not the ones showing themselves to be assholes.

[gedoug]

The Doc is just the type that will be placed on the board making decisions about life and death by placing a dollar value on it.

[copdout]

Edited? Why? Why was Conner's points about rationing being the lazy man's attempt to balance the budget edited from this video? Is it such a valid thought that someone didn't want that seed planted in the minds of the listeners? Funny how tried to control American's thoughts by omitting such a valid point made by Conner. For the unedited debate, go to NPR.org and search

[Archaneus]

Eh, I mean, what do you expect? It's not like they had anything they could say. This was like an argument between evolution and creation. No matter what the creationists say, they can't win, they have no evidence or rationality on their side.

[mopmonmoonpie]

Also if u cant wrk out why they chose expensive procedures in a system governed by insurance companies ure obviously not as astute as u probably think u are. So ill spell it out for you, its called profit, the same reason ure all put in braces whether u need them or not & why u all get ure foreskins taken off. Money.