One-armed Knife Sharpener
- Apr 7, 2013
This still amazes me that he is not being crucified over this. If this was any Republican politician responsible for this, all hell would break loose. They certainly would not still be in office, being propped up as a media darling, and taken seriously as a leader in this "crisis". And probably brought up on charges, if at all possible.
They blame Trump for every one of the 150k deaths (which is completely unreasonable) but Cuomo gets to shrug off the people he killed by his direct order.This still amazes me that he is not being crucified over this. If this was any Republican politician responsible for this, all hell would break loose. They certainly would not still be in office, being propped up as a media darling, and taken seriously as a leader in this "crisis". And probably brought up on charges, if at all possible.
Right. Yet the "Trumpers" are the gullible blind being led by the nose. Get the fuck out of here with that nonsense.They blame Trump for every one of the 150k deaths (which is completely unreasonable) but Cuomo gets to shrug off the people he killed by his direct order.
That is fucking unbelievable. Who gets to decide these factors and how to weight them? The health care facility? That's some of the most bigoted shit I have ever seen in my life. It should be like all health care. First come first serve. Are we seriously going to go down the route of "Eh, that person's old and probably going to die soon anyway"? You all can GTFO with that.So this one's fun.
"Never let a crisis go to waste," the old adage goes, and the coronavirus fiasco has demonstrated this principle in action more times than one can count.mises.org
Relevant portions of the article...
Just as a reminder of the kind of central planners we are dealing with, this is the same Pennsylvania Department of Health that decreed on May 12 that nursing homes "must continue to take new admissions, if appropriate beds are available, and a suspected or confirmed positive for COVID-19 is not a reason to deny admission." Months later, nearly 70 percent of coronavirus fatalities in the state have occurred in nursing homes.
Not being content with causing such a disaster, the state health department has issued guidance on how healthcare facilities should ration the limited supply of the new drug Remdesivir in the event that there are not enough doses to go around, but notes that the guidelines should apply to any scarce form of treatment. While certainly an unpleasant subject to address, it is true that in the face of scarcity the limited supply of Remdesivir or any other treatment will need to be rationed and that some kind of method of choosing will be needed. Scarcity is simply a fact of life that must be dealt with. However, because the distribution of Remdisivir has been taken over by the federal government, which distributes it to state governments, which in turn distribute it to healthcare providers, the process has unavoidably become political.
Putting all the jargon aside, the guideline is very clear about several points. First, it is not considered acceptable to distribute care via a random lottery, or on a first-come-first-served basis. Rather, healthcare providers must take into consideration "community-benefit" when rationing care and the department recommends the use of a weighted lottery system.
As you can see, the example lottery that the health department provides uses three different criteria to determine how a patient’s lottery chance is weighted: membership in a disadvantaged community, being an essential worker, and likelihood of death in the next year.
While the state’s determination of who is and who is not an essential worker is arbitrary and has been full of problems, one can at least see the logic behind such a consideration, as well as for those patients who are not likely to live much longer, although one must question where the state gets the authority to dictate such things to hospitals.
What raises the most concern is the idea that members of "disadvantaged communities" should be given a better chance at receiving treatment than others. According to the guidance, because "low-income communities and certain racial/ethnic minorities" are being disproportionately burdened by the coronavirus, the end goal of public health is served by benefitting some groups over others. According to the guidance, "the rationale is that a core goal of public health is to redress inequities that make health and safety less accessible to disadvantaged groups."
One might have thought that the main goal of public health was to save as many lives as possible. But instead, it seems that the state department of health considers the emergency room to be the perfect place to start "mitigating the structural inequities that cause certain communities to bear the greatest burden during the pandemic."
The guidance goes on to recommend some procedures for how membership in a "disadvantaged community" should be determined. After noting that both members of low-income communities and racial minorities have been adversely affected by the virus and therefore deserve an increased chance of receiving treatment, the racial component drops entirely from consideration in recommendations, no doubt because such discrimination would be highly illegal and result in a torrent of lawsuits against the state and any hospital foolish enough to try it. The guideline is explicit that "no one is excluded from access based on age, disability, religion, race, ethnicity, national origin, immigration status, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity and to ensure that no one is denied access based on stereotypes, perceived quality of life, or judgments about a person's worth." However, one can’t help but think that if racial discrimination were not illegal the logic of this guidance would dictate that it be undertaken in the name of "equality."
What that list is lacking is a prohibition on discrimination based on socioeconomic status, which is the method the guidance suggests should be used for the purposes of weighing the lottery. Specifically, it recommends the use of the Area Deprivation Index, which is based on data from the 2015 American Community Survey. Hospitals would use the index’s Neighborhood Atlas to enter a patient’s address and determine if they are a disadvantaged community member.
That is fucking unbelievable. Who gets to decide these factors and how to weight them? The health care facility? That's some of the most bigoted shit I have ever seen in my life. It should be like all health care. First come first serve. Are we seriously going to go down the route of "Eh, that person's old and probably going to die soon anyway"? You all can GTFO with that.