Gyroscopic Investing

Is this the first indication of an Obamacare death panel? Who is on this govt appointed panel and who is paying them? This recommendation of less treatment for those 60 and older with blood pressures below 150/90 seems both ominous and ridiculous.

"Panel members stressed that they are not changing the definition of high blood pressure: 140 over 90. But they say adults aged 60 and older don't need to take blood pressure drugs unless their levels reach 150 over 90 or higher."

http://www.newsmaxhealth.com/Health-New ... /id/542590

Or maybe a sign of trying to use a more fact-driven approach to healthcare? Popping more pills isn't always better. And anyway, it's a guideline, not an edict.

New Blood Pressure Guidelines

"We really couldn't see additional health benefits by driving blood pressure lower than 150 in people over 60 [years of age]," James explained. "It was very clear that 150 was the best number."

"We are concerned that relaxing the recommendations may expose more persons to the problem of inadequately controlled blood pressure," said AHA president-elect Dr. Elliott Antman, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women's Hospital and a professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston.

It would be up to my doctor to figure out what's best in my case. Unless my HMO gets in the way of course...

My opinion about the whole "death panel" thing is that if you don't like the idea of government bureaucrats making decisions about your healthcare then be ready to pay for it yourself. If the medical treatment is being paid for with public money then I don't see any way that rationing doesn't come into play. Taxpayer resources are not unlimited (contrary to what Obama might believe).

Love this quote from Thomas Sowell..

"The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics."

"Or maybe a sign of trying to use a more fact-driven approach to healthcare? Popping more pills isn't always better."

Not treating blood pressure levels in the 140-149 range sure sounds like a bad idea to me. But then again, I'm not on a death panel.

ns2 wrote:...if you don't like the idea of government bureaucrats making decisions about your healthcare then be ready to pay for it yourself.

Goverment bureaucrats won't decide, they leave it up to your doctor. But HMO bureaucrats might indeed decide they won't pay for whatever your doctor thinks should be done. So in that case, if you don't like the idea of HMO bureaucrats making decisions about your healthcare then be ready to pay for it yourself.

ns2 wrote:Taxpayer resources are not unlimited (contrary to what Obama might believe).

That's the problem, we taxpayers don't have unlimited resources. Unlike uncle Sam, we can't print money. (We can mine bitcoin, but that probably won't be enough)

Reub wrote: "Or maybe a sign of trying to use a more fact-driven approach to healthcare? Popping more pills isn't always better."

Not treating blood pressure levels in the 140-149 range sure sounds like a bad idea to me. But then again, I'm not on a death panel.

And maybe you're correct. The AHA was wondering too. But both you and the AHA can do your research and show why it might not be a good idea.

The JNC 8 reached its conclusions after reviewing more than 30 years of clinical studies. However, the AHA is concerned that those studies could not have assessed the full damage of long-term high blood pressure.

From today's NY Times:

"The committee, composed of 17 academics, was tasked with updating guidelines last re-examined a decade ago."

Ah, there you go!

Reub wrote: "The committee, composed of 17 academics, was tasked with updating guidelines last re-examined a decade ago."

Meaning?

The American Medical Association’s New Blood Pressure Guidelines Would Reduce Medication. Good Idea?

Paul James, a medical professor at the University of Iowa, ...
James led a group of 17 medical experts to revise the guidelines, which recommend that clinicians regularly assess blood pressure while encouraging “evidence-based”? lifestyle and adherence interventions until the goal is met. "For all persons with hypertension, the potential benefits of a healthy diet, weight control, and regular exercise cannot be overemphasized. These lifestyle treatments have the potential to improve [blood pressure] control and even reduce medication needs,”? the experts wrote.

Blood Pressure Medication Linked to Increased Rate of Death

The authors write, “In this observational study, we have shown for the first time, to our knowledge, that decreasing systolic BP to lower than 130 mm Hg in patients with diabetes and CAD was not associated with further reduction in morbidity beyond that associated with systolic BP lower than 140 mm Hg, and, in fact, was associated with an increase in risk of all-cause mortality. Moreover, the increased mortality risk persisted over the long term.”?

Reub,

You were recently complaining about the dangerous expansion of the welfare state. Now, you're lamenting towards death panels limiting those benefits...

Which is it?  Should the government offer limited benefits, or unlimited benefits?  Or none at all?

moda0306 wrote: Reub,

You were recently complaining about the dangerous expansion of the welfare state. Now, you're lamenting towards death panels limiting those benefits...

Which is it?  Should the government offer limited benefits, or unlimited benefits?  Or none at all?

Yes

Exactly.

Am I missing some humor here, dragoncar and Reub?

moda0306 wrote: Am I missing some humor here, dragoncar and Reub?

I'm just saying that the government should offer limited benefits, unlimited benefits, or none at all.  Up to you if that qualifies as humor."

Exactly!

As long as we have government funded healthcare (medicare, medicaid), then please please please give us death panels.  Government funded healthcare must be rationed, otherwise it will bankrupt the state. 

I am still shocked that so many people don't get the need for rationing of any good (healthcare, unemployment, military) that is paid for out of public funds.  Of course it would be great to have infinite healthcare, infinite unemployment insurance, infinite funds for F35 fighters, etc.  The trouble is we do not have infinite money - thus the need for rationing. 

All goods are rationed, in the end, because nothing is infinite. The question is how we want to ration them. By one's ability to bludgeon others (i.e. might makes right)? By one's ability to demonstrate productive contributions to society (i.e. prices)? By one's popularity (i.e. politics)?

Pointedstick wrote: All goods are rationed, in the end, because nothing is infinite. The question is how we want to ration them.

This is a reality that many refuse to face.  Or if they are facing it, are lying about it  to the public. 

dragoncar wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Am I missing some humor here, dragoncar and Reub?

I'm just saying that the government should offer limited benefits, unlimited benefits, or none at all.  Up to you if that qualifies as humor."

Well that certainly covers the available options, doesn't it ...

Well unlimited benefits are impossible. None is quite unlikely.  Referring to a limiting mechanism as "death" panels is a bit ridiculous.

Pointedstick wrote: All goods are rationed, in the end, because nothing is infinite. The question is how we want to ration them. By one's ability to bludgeon others (i.e. might makes right)? By one's ability to demonstrate productive contributions to society (i.e. prices)? By one's popularity (i.e. politics)?

Price could just be another form of force. If I claim an inherantly public good (woodland, a lake) as my own and then put a "price" on it, that's just "might" with a guise of "production."

moda0306 wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: All goods are rationed, in the end, because nothing is infinite. The question is how we want to ration them. By one's ability to bludgeon others (i.e. might makes right)? By one's ability to demonstrate productive contributions to society (i.e. prices)? By one's popularity (i.e. politics)?

Price could just be another form of force. If I claim an inherantly public good (woodland, a lake) as my own and then put a "price" on it, that's just "might" with a guise of "production."

Duh!   Like I keep saying, we can never escape "might makes right." The entire veneer of civilization is just a thin layer separating us from the reality that force drives everything and probably always will.

The question in my mind is about how we can direct the inherent force of the universe to ends that tend to maximize freedom and happiness.

Hmmm from the title I was thinking this was a thread about the Texas state clemency board that reviews death sentences.

Ad O, the 2 boards are actually one and the same.

With regards to rationing.......Health Care is provided by humans. There is a thoretical limit to what can be provided I suppose although because of technology that amount is always increasing.

What we can do to expand that is make it more profitable for humans to provide Healthcare. This is accomplished by lowering costs and having the consumers get wealthier. This is a function of free markets, capitalism, voluntary exchange etc.

So if you want people to have more access to better and cheaper healthcare the answer is to get the violence (government) as far away from Healthcare as possible. Don't let the building of hospitals depend on government decree, nor the sanctioning of doctors or nurses or medicine. Don't let the government steal money and resources from other industries that would make us wealthier, to funnel it into healthcare people would otherwise choose to not buy. Don't let the government or violence prevent doctors and nurses from traveling to where they can profit the most. Don't let the government hold up development of new medicines and then enforce monopolies on drug manufacture.

The solutions are so simple. Put down the guns and stop advocating violence and threats.

Or charge the government with providing healthcare and let it ration it. The result will be lots of uneccessary suffering and premature deaths and needless misery. The Americans have chosen the latter. Bring on the Healthcare crisis. They had already driven up costs and screwed up insurance. I've said all along and in several threads this Obamacare nonsense was just the next step to create a bigger crisis. The result of the crisis will be the demand for total government control and everyone will really get a taste of how wonderful violence-based healthcare is.

K,
I think you hit the nail on the head.
Also we need to address ridiculous malpractice claims. 

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote: K,
I think you hit the nail on the head.
Also we need to address ridiculous malpractice claims. 

... Mountaineer

Yes absolutely.

This is another function of the law and not voluntary interaction. The different areas we could explore are so voluminous.

Mountaineer wrote: K,
I think you hit the nail on the head.
Also we need to address ridiculous malpractice claims. 

... Mountaineer

I wonder why the criticizers of capitalism never mention lawyers? (rhetorical question alert).