Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Here is a classic example of why I am opposed to any form of gubmint run health care system. Obamacare, or any other.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/02/24 ... latestnews

No gubmint official has the right to over rule my decisions regarding my or my family's health care choices.

At least you started a new thread for it...


Yup, when you have a dispute with a private corporation the court system may act as an arbitrator, but when you have a dispute with the government, they put a gun to your head and ask...

"Do you feel lucky MF?"

This just makes me mad This is another case of Doctors thinking they are God and can do whatever the hell they please with me and my family.

Private insurers deny life saving care all the time. Resources are limited and must be allocated wisely-the only difference in Canada is its a government bureaucrat instead of a health insurance company employee.

The United Network for Organ Sharing (which determines who gets which organ in the US) is now debating whether to give younger people highest priority (why this had not been done previously I do not know).

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/o ... d=12992027

Is this too a "death panel"?

Kreutz wrote:Private insurers deny life saving care all the time. Resources are limited and must be allocated wisely-the only difference in Canada is its a government bureaucrat instead of a health insurance company employee.

Yes, but there is a key difference, choice. I determined what contract I was willing to pay for or even none at all. In the private case I am simply bearing out the consequences of my decisions, while in the government case I am stuck with whatever someone else decides. Huge difference in how resources are allocated. You are right though, there is no such thing as 100% care for everyone...we wouldn't do anything, but health care and still wouldn't achieve it.

Kreutz wrote:The United Network for Organ Sharing (which determines who gets which organ in the US) is now debating whether to give younger people highest priority (why this had not been done previously I do not know).

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/o ... d=12992027

Is this too a "death panel"?

Again, it comes down to choice. If I want to donate my organs than I can do so under the terms of those organizations which provide that service. Ultimately the recipient is paying for access to the network of organs based on the prioritization scheme of that organization. Unfortunately, there really isn't competition for this sort of thing so it ends up being a binary choice. Personally, I think the families and donors should be able to have more say in how they get used and I wouldn't mind some competition in that market. Want to donate, but you want to prioritize to young people? Sure thing. How about poor people? No problem. Want to sell stuff off to the highest bidder to provide for your family? Sure, that may make you a jerk, but IMHO its your call. Perhaps more people would do it if there was some tangible financial benefit for donating? I don't know what the people participating on the giving side want, but if an organization provides them what they want they will get many more donors. Just like all markets, provide what people want and you'll always be busy.

gunderwood wrote:Want to sell stuff off to the highest bidder to provide for your family? Sure, that may make you a jerk, but IMHO its your call.

Funny you mention that, I was once mocked by a hospital exec for suggesting people legally sell their organs (while alive for the ones they can spare or dead otherwise).

Plus the price would go down fast as supply increased.

Kreutz wrote:

gunderwood wrote:Want to sell stuff off to the highest bidder to provide for your family? Sure, that may make you a jerk, but IMHO its your call.

Funny you mention that, I was once mocked by a hospital exec for suggesting people legally sell their organs (while alive for the ones they can spare or dead otherwise).

Plus the price would go down fast as supply increased.

I threw it out as one possibility. I'm really not sure what the market wants, but providing the right incentive would surely increase supply, which is the primary problem from what I understand. Too many people need organs and not enough people donating. Enough people have reservations about the idea that they choose no; i.e. the "good Samaritan" incentive is not sufficient to supply enough organs to meet demand.

I'm open to any ethical suggestion as a possible solution.