- Joined
- Mar 14, 2013
- Messages
- 28,152
- Reaction score
- 3
“I think Obamacare wins the day because it changed expectations,” the pundit said. “Look at the terms of the debate. Republicans are not arguing the free market anymore. They have sort of accepted the fact that the electorate sees health care as not just any commodity. It’s not like purchasing a steak or a car. It is something people now have a sense that government ought to guarantee.”
320 Million people including millions of illegals. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget projected a $2.8 trillion a year for single payer. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal government took in a bit under $3.3 trillion in revenue in 2016. Meaning the government would have to nearly double it's current tax revenue to pay for a single payer system for just the first 10 years.
Top-tier Democrats are already readying their base to accept Single Payer as the only option for America and the Republicans do not disagree. With single payer comes the Complete Lives System, while fighters of Single Payer claim to be compassionate and caring, the Complete Lives System is anything but.
The Complete Lives System, co-authored by Ezekiel J. Emanuel, M.D., Ph.D., is based on five underlying principles: Youngest First, Prognosis, Save the Most Lives, Lottery, and Instrumental Value. The aim of the system is to achieve equal outcomes so as to achieve “complete lives.” The system basically seeks to redistribute “life years” from older individuals to younger individuals.
The proposed mechanism to achieve this is a centralized system of rationing medical care that limits care for older individuals in favor of providing it to younger individuals. The authors of the Complete Lives article claim this is not age discrimination because all individuals are subject to aging and older individuals have already lived through the age of younger individuals and thus have a greater number of life years.
The Youngest First principle is actually a misnomer, as not all younger individuals are deemed worthy of receiving needed medical care. Children and infants, for example, are deemed to be less worthy of receiving medical care than adolescents and young adults because society has invested more in adolescents and young adults than it has in children and infants. The authors argue that those societal investments will be wasted unless the adolescent or young adult is allowed to live a complete life.
The worth of an individual is determined from the standpoint of the individual’s worth to society. Placing the needs of society above the needs of the individual is a core tenet of socialism and communism.
The Complete Lives System clearly discriminates against individuals based on young age, and the contorted argument that those who have obtained more life years should have medical care redistributed to those who have lived fewer life years is not offered to rebut a claim of age discrimination against the very young.
The Complete Lives System gives great weight to age as an objective measure to be used in rationing care. The authors generated an age-based graph to prioritize who gets care. The graph favors those in the 15-40 age group and disfavors the elderly and the very young. The probability of receiving a medical intervention falls precipitously past age 55.
The Complete Lives System also attempts to adjust for the investment to which people of a certain age are “morally entitled,” so as not to discriminate against victims of the “social injustice” of unequal wealth. In addition, the Complete Lives System advocates rationing care based on prognosis, or potential for living a complete life—a subjective, sometimes inaccurate judgment.
Full text here: http://blog.jonolan.net/wp-content/...blicanism_and_Deliberative_Democracy_Meet.pdf
Consideration of the importance of complete lives also supports modifying the youngest-first principle by prioritizing adolescents and young adults over infants. Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. Similarly, adolescence brings with it a developed personality capable of forming and valuing long-term plans whose fulfillment requires a complete life.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-40740693
This is our future.
320 Million people including millions of illegals. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget projected a $2.8 trillion a year for single payer. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal government took in a bit under $3.3 trillion in revenue in 2016. Meaning the government would have to nearly double it's current tax revenue to pay for a single payer system for just the first 10 years.
Top-tier Democrats are already readying their base to accept Single Payer as the only option for America and the Republicans do not disagree. With single payer comes the Complete Lives System, while fighters of Single Payer claim to be compassionate and caring, the Complete Lives System is anything but.
The Complete Lives System, co-authored by Ezekiel J. Emanuel, M.D., Ph.D., is based on five underlying principles: Youngest First, Prognosis, Save the Most Lives, Lottery, and Instrumental Value. The aim of the system is to achieve equal outcomes so as to achieve “complete lives.” The system basically seeks to redistribute “life years” from older individuals to younger individuals.
The proposed mechanism to achieve this is a centralized system of rationing medical care that limits care for older individuals in favor of providing it to younger individuals. The authors of the Complete Lives article claim this is not age discrimination because all individuals are subject to aging and older individuals have already lived through the age of younger individuals and thus have a greater number of life years.
The Youngest First principle is actually a misnomer, as not all younger individuals are deemed worthy of receiving needed medical care. Children and infants, for example, are deemed to be less worthy of receiving medical care than adolescents and young adults because society has invested more in adolescents and young adults than it has in children and infants. The authors argue that those societal investments will be wasted unless the adolescent or young adult is allowed to live a complete life.
The worth of an individual is determined from the standpoint of the individual’s worth to society. Placing the needs of society above the needs of the individual is a core tenet of socialism and communism.
The Complete Lives System clearly discriminates against individuals based on young age, and the contorted argument that those who have obtained more life years should have medical care redistributed to those who have lived fewer life years is not offered to rebut a claim of age discrimination against the very young.
The Complete Lives System gives great weight to age as an objective measure to be used in rationing care. The authors generated an age-based graph to prioritize who gets care. The graph favors those in the 15-40 age group and disfavors the elderly and the very young. The probability of receiving a medical intervention falls precipitously past age 55.
The Complete Lives System also attempts to adjust for the investment to which people of a certain age are “morally entitled,” so as not to discriminate against victims of the “social injustice” of unequal wealth. In addition, the Complete Lives System advocates rationing care based on prognosis, or potential for living a complete life—a subjective, sometimes inaccurate judgment.
Full text here: http://blog.jonolan.net/wp-content/...blicanism_and_Deliberative_Democracy_Meet.pdf
Consideration of the importance of complete lives also supports modifying the youngest-first principle by prioritizing adolescents and young adults over infants. Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. Similarly, adolescence brings with it a developed personality capable of forming and valuing long-term plans whose fulfillment requires a complete life.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-40740693
This is our future.
