Difference between revisions of "Talk:Death panel"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Replied to the reply to my reply....is that a re-re-reply?)
(Example)
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 21: Line 21:
  
 
Anyway, there is not need to apologize.  I appreciate people looking over my work and catching problems.  Thanks for speaking up! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 09:10, 25 January 2016 (EST)
 
Anyway, there is not need to apologize.  I appreciate people looking over my work and catching problems.  Thanks for speaking up! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 09:10, 25 January 2016 (EST)
 +
 +
==Example==
 +
This is a good example of gibberish inserted by longterm trolls that essentially confuse and twist the meaning of the article subject into an entirely different direction:
 +
:"Life or death outcomes from decisions about availability or non-availability of health care have been occurring throughout human history.  In the United States these decisions ultimately arise from the free market system, both before and since the enactment of [[Obamacare]].  Under [[Obamacare]], there has often been more government bureaucracy involved in the process, but it has always been complex." [https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Death_panel&diff=prev&oldid=1188328]
 +
Conservapedia, unfortunately, has not effectively policed this type of trolling.  And many such nonsensical, seemingly intelligent or coherent statements remain in Conservapedia after many years.  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 05:21, 26 February 2021 (EST)
 +
 +
Vandal patrol does not consist of simply reverting blanked pages and juvenile delinquent attacks against certain Admins. An Admins job is to work with editors supervise mainspace contribs.  This article was effectively twisted far its original meaning, and remained so for at least 5 years. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]]</sup> 05:27, 26 February 2021 (EST)

Revision as of 10:27, 26 February 2021

Did you actually read the linked article? Also, your first sentence indicates that you think these "panels" actually exist. Really??? SamHB (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2015 (EST)

Did I read it? Yes. Do I believe they exist? No. Do I believe that this could happen in the future? Yes. Your argument headed in the right direction, but didn't make it all the way. The point is, private insurance companies DO choose what to pay for and what not to, but if they refuse, you can try to pay it on your own. It is not hard to believe that the U.S. system will eventually be changed to a single-payer version of this government "insurance". That means that the government will start make these choices, and if they refuse to pay, you have no other option. They have cut you off, and there is no other way to get treatment. Who makes these decisions? In theory, it is a "Death panel." DavidB4 (talk) 14:45, 23 December 2015 (EST)

OK. What I objected to was your seeming acceptance of their existence, while referencing an article that debunks this. Could "death panels", in the most extreme and conspiratorial sense come into being at some point? Yes. Society has to try to keep this from happening.
>> Who makes these decisions? In theory, it is a "Death panel."
Well, yes, in theory. In both theory and practice, life-and-death decisions happen all the time. This can be called "health care rationing" for a variety of reasons, like availability of money, or "health care triage" for a variety of reasons. It can happen for reasons completely separate from any malicious intent, such as getting the wrong number in a clinical trial of a drug that turns out to be successful. Staying alive is, in many cases, a tricky business.
>>That means that the government will start make these choices, and if they refuse to pay, you have no other option.
Yes. Society needs to keep the government from limiting people's choices or making our health care system dysfunctional. It's incredibly complex and incredibly inefficient at present.
I'm not an expert on this topic by any means. I simply looked at your article and concluded that you are one of those people that say one thing while citing a source that says the opposite. That conclusion was wrong, and I apologize. SamHB (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2015 (EST)


Making the health care system work is a very complex business. And yes, people die because of aspects of how it is done.


Well, thanks for keeping an eye out for that--I'd hate to end up citing a contradictory source as a supporting one. Perhaps I should clarify my point of view in the article, but I wanted to simple explain the idea, not my opinion. You are entirely correct--society must stand against such policies. If everyone holds firm, this should never happen. However, I'm sure that if they do come into existence, they will start out as something seemingly helpful and friendly. For example, a panel which determines the best care for the elderly who have no family. If that happens, it will only expand from there. If not resisted as a whole, it will eventually become reality as a whole.

Anyway, there is not need to apologize. I appreciate people looking over my work and catching problems. Thanks for speaking up! --David B (talk) 09:10, 25 January 2016 (EST)

Example

This is a good example of gibberish inserted by longterm trolls that essentially confuse and twist the meaning of the article subject into an entirely different direction:

"Life or death outcomes from decisions about availability or non-availability of health care have been occurring throughout human history. In the United States these decisions ultimately arise from the free market system, both before and since the enactment of Obamacare. Under Obamacare, there has often been more government bureaucracy involved in the process, but it has always been complex." [1]

Conservapedia, unfortunately, has not effectively policed this type of trolling. And many such nonsensical, seemingly intelligent or coherent statements remain in Conservapedia after many years. RobSFree Kyle! 05:21, 26 February 2021 (EST)

Vandal patrol does not consist of simply reverting blanked pages and juvenile delinquent attacks against certain Admins. An Admins job is to work with editors supervise mainspace contribs. This article was effectively twisted far its original meaning, and remained so for at least 5 years. RobSFree Kyle! 05:27, 26 February 2021 (EST)