CNBC Columnist Approves Of Health Care Rationing

Jul 2011
7,153
179
Hicks: New Organ-Sharing Guidelines May Prompt National Conversation

The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) recently released organ procurement guidelines for public comment that are sure to prompt ethical debate.

In the first overhaul of the system in 25 years, UNOS announced younger, healthier people will be given priority preference for kidneys over older, sicker people.

This is a major change over the previous system which favored patients on a waiting list – first come, first served – irrespective of age or health condition.

<snip>

Allocating medical resources will be a national priority – one that healthcare professionals, bioethicists and the public will all weigh in on. The first step in addressing these issues is to stop demonizing the “R” word and admit that we have to make difficult choices – choices that will not please everyone.

Whether you agree or disagree with the new criteria set forth by UNOS, I view it as an attempt to use limited resources in a way that will do a maximum of good. They should be applauded for the courage to tackle this difficult issue despite the chorus of critics. We can only hope that more healthcare professionals will follow UNOS’ lead in addressing medical allocation issues with an eye towards moral and practical solutions. It is a conversation that will engage all levels of society, and one we cannot afford to put off.
News Headlines

So. It starts. The arguments and rationalizations for health care rationing. Not only do the Liberals want to engage in class warfare to rationalize tax increases, now they want to engage in age warfare. Soon, the pliable young people will be willing to throw their elders under the bus for the sake of a little more health care.

What a sad, sorry state of affairs the Liberals have brought us to.

sigh...
 
Nov 2010
23,156
14,835
So. It starts. The arguments and rationalizations for health care rationing. Not only do the Liberals want to engage in class warfare to rationalize tax increases, now they want to engage in age warfare. Soon, the pliable young people will be willing to throw their elders under the bus for the sake of a little more health care.

What a sad, sorry state of affairs the Liberals have brought us to.

sigh...
what does this have to do with health care reform and liberals? Organ transplantation is already rationed. There are such a limited amount of organs and many things that may effect the long term success of a and there are several factors which disqualify people from the organ donation list, or bumped them up. If they are a drug abuser, if they have other conditions, they are put a lower priority

And a younger person with a better chance of recovery because they are healthier, and with more life to live should get preference over somebody who is old. With limited resources, you have to ration it smartly.

Your post is completely disingenuous, trying to make this about health care rationing as a whole, and even more pathetically, about "liberals'. There is not a limited supply of general medical resources, but there is for organ transplants, so the two are not even comparable.
 
Last edited:

jackalope

Former Staff
Jan 2010
51,139
17,672
Maine
Whoa ... yes, I'd imagine the changes will spark controversy.


This is the saddest thing in the article:

There are 87,000 Americans on a waiting list for a donor kidney, and only 17,000 will get one each year.

They should change organ donation boxes on driver's licenses to 'opt out' instead of 'opt in'. I don't know if that would be illegal, or too much controversy in and of itself, but why take to the grave what you no longer need?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Babba

jackalope

Former Staff
Jan 2010
51,139
17,672
Maine
what does this have to do with health care reform? Organ transplantation is already rationed. There are such a limited amount of organs and many things that may effect the long term success of a and there are several factors which disqualify people from the organ donation list, or bumped them up. If they are a drug abuser, if they have other conditions, they are put a lower priority

And a younger person with a better chance of recovery because they are healthier, and with more life to live should get preference over somebody who is old. With limited resources, you have to ration it smartly.

Your post is completely disingenuous, trying to make this about health care rationing as a whole, and even more pathetically, about "liberals'. There is not a limited supply of general medical resources, but there is for organ transplants, so the two are not even comparable.

Yea, I just ignored all the comments. They were completely unrelated to the article, which I thought was an important article.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Babba
Nov 2010
23,156
14,835
Whoa ... yes, I'd imagine the changes will spark controversy.


This is the saddest thing in the article:




They should change organ donation boxes on driver's licenses to 'opt out' instead of 'opt in'. I don't know if that would be illegal, or too much controversy in and of itself, but why take to the grave what you no longer need?
I believe this was put into place (forgot the state, maybe Colorado) and the people went nuts about it, claiming it was not right. Yeah, that is appalling, and it should be "opt out". Its ridiculous that perfectly good organs that could save lives go to waste because people never opt in for it, or what I find even worse, those that think they need their organs in death for religious or other purposes. Or family members that don't allow it. THe person is dead, their body will either be burned or allowed to rot, why not save a life.

Not sure why it should spark controversy. Younger people have more life left than older people. They had more years already of life, why should the organs go to people with more life to live and who are more healthier and likely to benefit more from the very limited amount of available organs?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jackalope
Feb 2010
27,367
1,965
So. It starts. The arguments and rationalizations for health care rationing. Not only do the Liberals want to engage in class warfare to rationalize tax increases, now they want to engage in age warfare. Soon, the pliable young people will be willing to throw their elders under the bus for the sake of a little more health care.

What a sad, sorry state of affairs the Liberals have brought us to.

sigh...
In the first overhaul of the system in 25 years, UNOS announced younger, healthier people will be given priority preference for kidneys over older, sicker people.
Makes sense to me.
 
Jul 2011
7,153
179
what does this have to do with health care reform? Organ transplantation is already rationed. There are such a limited amount of organs and many things that may effect the long term success of a and there are several factors which disqualify people from the organ donation list, or bumped them up. If they are a drug abuser, if they have other conditions, they are put a lower priority

And a younger person with a better chance of recovery because they are healthier, and with more life to live should get preference over somebody who is old. With limited resources, you have to ration it smartly.

Your post is completely disingenuous, trying to make this about health care rationing as a whole, and even more pathetically, about "liberals'. There is not a limited supply of general medical resources, but there is for organ transplants, so the two are not even comparable.
It doesn't take much to figure out that Ms. Hicks is a Liberal. After all, she made nine contributions of $200.00 or more to Obama's Presidential campaign in 2007 and 2008. As a VP of a marketing and public relations firm she is well suited and well placed to be used to change public opinions on the subject of rationing.

This is just the beginning. As Obamacare increases government costs for health care to unsustainable levels, the idea of government rationing MUST be made acceptable.

The rest of your post is just your opinion that rationing...based on age...should be acceptable. You could have saved yourself some time and just said that you agree with her.
 
Jul 2011
7,153
179
In respect to opt-out vs opt-in:

Yes, the question did arise in Colorado.

My view is that people should be given a choice and if they decline to make a choice it should not be made for them.

End of story.
 

Macduff

Moderator
Apr 2010
98,043
34,650
Pittsburgh, PA
what does this have to do with health care reform? Organ transplantation is already rationed. There are such a limited amount of organs and many things that may effect the long term success of a and there are several factors which disqualify people from the organ donation list, or bumped them up. If they are a drug abuser, if they have other conditions, they are put a lower priority

And a younger person with a better chance of recovery because they are healthier, and with more life to live should get preference over somebody who is old. With limited resources, you have to ration it smartly.

Your post is completely disingenuous, trying to make this about health care rationing as a whole, and even more pathetically, about "liberals'. There is not a limited supply of general medical resources, but there is for organ transplants, so the two are not even comparable.
There really should be a greater supply of donated organs. Outside of health issues that preclude organ donation, there's really not a good reason not to be an organ donor.
I keep hearing people say that they don't want to be a donor because they think a doctor will let them die to get the organs. That's ridiculous on the face of it. That would mean a doctor is willing to violate his oath, open himself up to criminal charges and a civil suit, take a hit on his professional record, and just be willing to make the inhuman decision to let a life slip through his hands; all to possibly help out another team of doctors somewhere else in the country that he has never even met.
 
Nov 2010
23,156
14,835
It doesn't take much to figure out that Ms. Hicks is a Liberal. After all, she made nine contributions of $200.00 or more to Obama's Presidential campaign in 2007 and 2008. As a VP of a marketing and public relations firm she is well suited and well placed to be used to change public opinions on the subject of rationing.

This is just the beginning. As Obamacare increases government costs for health care to unsustainable levels, the idea of government rationing MUST be made acceptable.

The rest of your post is just your opinion that rationing...based on age...should be acceptable. You could have saved yourself some time and just said that you agree with her.
Again, your response has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the argument or any arguments made by me.

But I know, you are of the camp that thinks everything is up to opinion and there is no such things as a rational, well informed opinion and one based on complete ignorance. Sounds like your "opinion" that there is something wrong with this policy is simply because the person that put it forward is a liberal, which is not a well informed opinion. Or maybe you would actually like to elaborate on why you think this policy is wrong, considering the very limited supply of organs?

I know, its really because the person who proposed it is a liberal and that's all you do, is attack liberals, no matter how stupid the attack is