# Death Panels..Canadian Style



## Lumpy 1 (Oct 23, 2013)

After sticking all our youth with our debt and Dem-O-Care..reasonably, you gotta wonder.

---------------------

Last week Canada&#8217;s Supreme Court ruled that doctors could not unilaterally ignore a Toronto family&#8217;s decision to keep their near-dead husband and father on life support. In the same breath, however, the court also confirmed that, under the laws of Ontario, Canada&#8217;s most populous province, a group of government-appointed adjudicators could yet overrule the family&#8217;s choice. That tribunal, not the family or the doctors, has the ultimate power to pull the plug.

In other words: Canada has death panels.

Canada has death panels, and that?s a good thing.


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez (Oct 23, 2013)

Lumpy 1 said:


> After sticking all our youth with our debt and Dem-O-Care..reasonably, you gotta wonder.
> 
> ---------------------
> 
> ...



*For those who actually WON'T read the article, and there will be MANY:*

".......At issue in the Ontario case was the fate of Hassan Rasouli, a retired engineer who has been comatose in a Toronto hospital since he suffered complications following brain surgery three years ago. When Rasouli&#8217;s doctors determined that he had no reasonable prospect of recovery, they sought to pull the plug. His family, convinced that Rasouli was slowly recovering, took his doctors to court.

Last Friday, they won. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled 5&#8211;2 that Ontario doctors may not decide to withhold treatment from patients in Rasouli&#8217;s condition without consent from the next-in-line decision maker. 

In Rasouli&#8217;s case, that is his wife. But, if she refuses consent, then her husband&#8217;s doctors can still ask for a ruling from Ontario&#8217;s Consent and Capacity Board. The Supreme Court confirmed last week that the board has the power to overrule her.""""

""""....But American critics of Canadian health care will declare that merely asking this question is unacceptable, unethical, even unthinkable&#8212;and that it proves that the Canadian system gives doctors a dangerous incentive to kill off their patients as quickly as possible. They are wrong.""

*Sorry, dumbass.  Apparently you don't read either. *


----------



## bendog (Oct 23, 2013)

I realize you are not parroting some RW site for sensational purposes, but the Slate article doesn't make sense.  First, it acknowledges that the accepted US practice is when a family of a comatose person, who made no directed care provision prior to incapacity, disagrees with a treating physician's opinion that life support should be terminated, generally courts must decide the issue.  

BUT, the article notes the family and the treating physician DISAGREE in this case.  That is, it is the same facutal scenario as in the prior set of facts.  The only difference is that apparantly in Ontario there's a board of docs, lawyers and lay people.

Consent and Capacity Board

The article honeslty states there's little differnce in having a judge or an administrative board make the decision in that it's still an independent decider in chief.  

But then for whackadoodle notions the article then veers off and opinies Canucks trust the gummit more than us, and that's why they don't have guns.  WTF?


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Oct 23, 2013)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > After sticking all our youth with our debt and Dem-O-Care..reasonably, you gotta wonder.
> ...



..I read the article and you missed the point....Big Surprise


----------



## tinydancer (Oct 23, 2013)

Oh we have death panels. Oh that we do.

Oh and our free health care costs us every mother trucking time we buy something.

It's called the GST. You pay it you little bastards. Every time in your life. I want you to feel this pain liberals.

PAY IT. for your free health care. PAY IT.


----------



## Noomi (Oct 23, 2013)

Lumpy 1 said:


> After sticking all our youth with our debt and Dem-O-Care..reasonably, you gotta wonder.
> 
> ---------------------
> 
> ...



He is practically dead. He cannot be saved. Keeping him alive drains the healthcare system - the taxpayers. If they want to keep him alive, pay for his treatment. If not, pull the plug.


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 23, 2013)

Ew.

As I've always said, the death cultists know that they're advocating murder. They just don't care.


----------



## Political Junky (Oct 23, 2013)

I certainly hope if I were unconscious for 3 years that someone would pull the plug.


----------



## Noomi (Oct 23, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Ew.
> 
> As I've always said, the death cultists know that they're advocating murder. They just don't care.



He is unresponsive, and practically dead as it is. Pulling the plug will not be murder.


----------



## tinydancer (Oct 23, 2013)

We are down to 5% on everything in our lives.

We think it's a bonus.


----------



## tinydancer (Oct 23, 2013)

Noomi said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Ew.
> ...



In certain religions you can't pull the plug. You just can't do it. It's wrong.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 23, 2013)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> *For those who actually WON'T read the article, and there will be MANY:*
> 
> ".......At issue in the Ontario case was the fate of Hassan Rasouli, a retired engineer who has been comatose in a Toronto hospital since he suffered complications following brain surgery three years ago. When Rasoulis doctors determined that he had no reasonable prospect of recovery, they sought to pull the plug. His family, convinced that Rasouli was slowly recovering, took his doctors to court.
> 
> ...



So, it's EXACTLY as Lumpy said, then?


----------



## tinydancer (Oct 23, 2013)

Political Junky said:


> I certainly hope if I were unconscious for 3 years that someone would pull the plug.



Then sign away like my mother did.

You give away your life. Thats acceptable. 

You give your life away. YOU CHOOSE TO DIE.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 23, 2013)

Political Junky said:


> I certainly hope if I were unconscious for 3 years that someone would pull the plug.



How about after 3 minutes?

I'm just sayin.....


----------



## tinydancer (Oct 23, 2013)

No one on this planet gets to choose if I live or die.


----------



## francoHFW (Oct 23, 2013)

MORE anecdotal, out of context, BS headline hysteria...


----------



## tinydancer (Oct 23, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > I certainly hope if I were unconscious for 3 years that someone would pull the plug.
> ...



Big one in Britain with the Liverpool pathway........................

They got bonus money for offiing people. Its the classic.

What could go wrong?


----------



## Noomi (Oct 23, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> No one on this planet gets to choose if I live or die.



If you are only being kept alive by a machine, are you really alive?


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Oct 23, 2013)

francoHFW said:


> MORE anecdotalout of conext, BS headline hysteria...



You're in perpetual hysteria..that's what I like about you..


----------



## tinydancer (Oct 23, 2013)

francoHFW said:


> MORE anecdotalout of conext, BS headline hysteria...



Hey you moron.

Why don't you explain the liverpool pathway to us all.

You just do this.


----------



## Noomi (Oct 23, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



If someone has been lying in a bed for three YEARS, it is safe to say that there is no hope. Keeping them alive only prolongs the agony of the family, and it prolongs the natural death of someone who should have passed away years before.

My family discussed this issue years ago. We've decided that if something like this happened to us, we'd spend three months on life support, and if, after that time, we hadn't begun to make a recovery, we'd pull the plug.


----------



## francoHFW (Oct 23, 2013)

I guess you hater dupes think insurers never have deals like this lol. Idiots.


----------



## tinydancer (Oct 23, 2013)

Noomi said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > No one on this planet gets to choose if I live or die.
> ...



I beleive you have a choice. My mother chose to die. But she made that choice. It was one of the worst I ever went through. Because I believed different than her.

But she chose this. I respected her wish. I agonized all the way thru it. One day we will sort it out on the other side but I thought I would die fullfiling her wish. 

I do respect my mother's wish though. She made the decision. I fulfilled her wish. As hard as it was. I fullfiled her wish.


----------



## Dot Com (Oct 23, 2013)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > After sticking all our youth with our debt and Dem-O-Care..reasonably, you gotta wonder.
> ...



Oops Lumy 1 !!!


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 23, 2013)

Lumpy 1 said:


> After sticking all our youth with our debt and Dem-O-Care..reasonably, you gotta wonder.
> 
> ---------------------
> 
> ...



Of course they have death panels, all government medical care will eventually end up with a death panel of some type.


----------



## Noomi (Oct 23, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



That was her wish, what is yours? Do you want to let nature take its course, or stay alive by a machine, just lingering?
IMO the kindest option is to let nature take over.


----------



## tinydancer (Oct 23, 2013)

Noomi said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



I'd only ask this. Party down. Bring in the freaking beers. Remember me and sing away. 

Give it. Rock on. Do what I did for Pa. Give me a bobber because I love to fish. Give me a bullet because I love to hunt. Give me a black and purple negligee because I love to..........omgosh I won't say it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 23, 2013)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > After sticking all our youth with our debt and Dem-O-Care..reasonably, you gotta wonder.
> ...





> But they are also only wrong in part.



I read, I even keep reading.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 23, 2013)

Noomi said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Ew.
> ...



He is dying anyway, dropping this rock on his head won't be murder. After all, someone can catch it before it hits.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 23, 2013)

Noomi said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > No one on this planet gets to choose if I live or die.
> ...



Ever here of iron lungs? I guess all the people in those wer really dead, even if they could talk to the doctors. We should have just pulled the plugs.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Oct 23, 2013)

Democrats range from basically "yeah, go ahead" to "Death Panels could never happen"



I guess they haven't been fully informed of what to think yet...


----------



## tinydancer (Oct 23, 2013)

Noomi said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



She chose death. 
Living Will . Do Not Resuscitate .I'm watching her pass. You stand there helplessly.

Death is strange.


----------



## Noomi (Oct 23, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



They lived in a machine, I would want someone to pull the plug on me.


----------



## tinydancer (Oct 23, 2013)

Lumpy 1 said:


> Democrats range from basically "yeah, go ahead" to "Death Panels could never happen"
> 
> 
> 
> I guess they haven't been fully informed of what to think yet...



No fair that you are so cute. 

Obviously no one in America is up to speed on NHS.


----------



## tinydancer (Oct 23, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



But see you could choose.

OK let me do this for you.

A man. A giant of a man reduced to 65 pounds. That was my father. 215 pounds of a truck driver Danny Boone wanting to live. 

Never wanting to die. At what point do you say he has no right to live any more? Does anyone have the right to choose if he lives?

But I'll tell you honestly if my father had asked me to take him out I would have. These are horrible questions we face. 

Blessedly God took him before I was faced with this question and this answer.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Oct 23, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I'm sorry for your loss Tinydancer...I'm certain he loved you deeply as well.


----------



## Clementine (Oct 23, 2013)

bendog said:


> I realize you are not parroting some RW site for sensational purposes, but the Slate article doesn't make sense.  First, it acknowledges that the accepted US practice is when a family of a comatose person, who made no directed care provision prior to incapacity, disagrees with a treating physician's opinion that life support should be terminated, generally courts must decide the issue.
> 
> BUT, the article notes the family and the treating physician DISAGREE in this case.  That is, it is the same facutal scenario as in the prior set of facts.  The only difference is that apparantly in Ontario there's a board of docs, lawyers and lay people.
> 
> ...




The only difference I can see is that the court must adhere to the law when handing down a decision and they listen to all sides of the argument.

If a government appointed panel is just handed that power, they make the decision unilaterally.    The decision by a panel is likely to center around cost.   

Also, in Canada, retirees don't get the same quality of medical treatment as those who work.   A friend of mine brings in about $200,000 a year, nearly half of which is taken by the government.   He gets good care now, but has been told if he retires, the amount of care he is entitled to will be significantly reduced.   It's almost like the government only takes care of those that make money so they can steal it.   When you become a burden of the state instead of a payer, they could care less if you live or die.

I think Obamacare will be similar, because all socialized countries face the same problems.   I doubt we'll see as many elderly people getting hip replacements, pacemakers and other expensive procedures.    One Democrat stated years ago that senior citizens have a duty to die.   I don't think much has changed in the way many leftwing nuts are thinking except that now they make decisions on peoples' lives, so their heartless views will seal the fate of many.


----------



## tinydancer (Oct 23, 2013)

Lumpy 1 said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



I was always daddys girl.

He made me tough. I didn't make it through rock n roll without being truck driver tough. 

It's true when they say dad's count. I loved him so much and fathers do count big time. Not that my mom wasn't cool. She was awesome too.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Oct 23, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



Heart warming..in my humble opinion your parents are surely proud of you..

I have three daughters and a son, I would hope that when I move along, each one of them truly believes I loved them best...


----------



## Vox (Oct 23, 2013)

DaGoose said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > After sticking all our youth with our debt and Dem-O-Care..reasonably, you gotta wonder.
> ...



don't LIE.
the family did not want any plugs pulled.The bastard greedy "husband" did.
It was a reverse case of the "death panels" issue.

although I have clearly mixed feelings towards the Canadian case...you can not have a comatose person on a ventilator and pressors in the ICU for 3 years. I am sorry - this does not happen even in the US  
If the person is not breathing on his own for 3 years - he is not recovering.
Modern medicine can keep people in between life and death for years.Does not mean it is the right thing to do.


----------



## Darkwind (Oct 23, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > After sticking all our youth with our debt and Dem-O-Care..reasonably, you gotta wonder.
> ...



There it is.   It was only a matter of time before this attitude began to manifest itself in those who adhere to progressive ideology.

Soon, it will be, "Keeping certain people alive who disagree with our vision of society are drains on the system."

I expected the whole "The system cannot care for everyone" mantra to show up a few years after the theft of healthcare freedom, but I knew it would show up.


----------



## Darkwind (Oct 23, 2013)

Political Junky said:


> I certainly hope if I were unconscious for 3 years that someone would pull the plug.


Its called a living will.

Look it up.


----------



## Vox (Oct 23, 2013)

Darkwind said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > I certainly hope if I were unconscious for 3 years that someone would pull the plug.
> ...



it is useless.
It works until you do not loose consciousness - after that even if you have a living will - the next of kin ( usually husband or wife) can overrule it.

It is not as easy as it seems to be.

Here is a description of the debacle with the living will and direct wishes of one of the most famous cardiovascular surgeons in the history of medicine - what he wanted, how he made his own diagnosis, and what happened and who ruled when he lost consciousness:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/25/health/25surgeon.html?pagewanted=all

it is a long article but it is worth reading.
It actually makes one pretty sad realizing that even with all the power and smarts one is always dependent on the wishes of others when he/she becomes helpless...


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez (Oct 23, 2013)

Lumpy 1 said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> > Lumpy 1 said:
> ...



*And I see you're making a great case for it with this post.  You were implying by your brevity that Canada has death panels.  The author explains that they do not.  *


----------



## tinydancer (Oct 23, 2013)

Lumpy 1 said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Lumpy 1 said:
> ...



Three daughters. Oh holy toledo. My eldest just made it to stockholm. OMG its so awesome. 

Her and her husband have got this brass ring and it is amazing I am just so thrilled for her.


----------



## tinydancer (Oct 23, 2013)

My great grandfather can you imagine this he came to this land with three daughters. Right from the get go it has to be a nightmare.


----------



## tinydancer (Oct 23, 2013)

Think about my poor gido.

One period times three.........the poor son of a gun.............................


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Oct 23, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



A great parent loves the job... You obviously love the job.

Although, it near broke my heart when 3 of my grown children moved out. There still is a whole lot of pride in them when all you went through, works out.


----------



## Esmeralda (Oct 23, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > After sticking all our youth with our debt and Dem-O-Care..reasonably, you gotta wonder.
> ...



Exactly. Canada has nationalized medical care.  The government, the taxpayer, is paying for this man's treatment. To keep him alive when there is no hope of recovery drains money  out of the health care system.  The family's desire to keep him on life support is an emotional decision; the doctor's decision to take him off life support is a logical, practical decision.  Also, as has been noted, this is the same in the US, essentially.  If a family insists on keeping someone with no chance of recovery on life support, the hospital can take the case to court and have the court decide.  Unless a family is paying for all the expenses, they should not have the right to prolong life when there is no chance of recovery and force the taxpayer to foot the bill for their emotional decision and inability to let the patient die a natural death.


----------



## Dragonlady (Oct 23, 2013)

Lumpy 1 said:


> Last week Canadas Supreme Court ruled that doctors could not unilaterally ignore a Toronto familys decision to keep their near-dead husband and father on life support. In the same breath, however, the court also confirmed that, under the laws of Ontario, Canadas most populous province, a group of government-appointed adjudicators could yet overrule the familys choice. That tribunal, not the family or the doctors, has the ultimate power to pull the plug.
> 
> In other words: Canada has death panels.
> 
> Canada has death panels, and that?s a good thing.



Bullshit.  The Supreme Court ruled that the hospital could not unilaterally decide to pull the plug without the consent of the family.  But the Decision said that the hospital could apply through the judicial court to terminate care for the man who has been in a persistent vegative state for some time.  There is no group of government appointed adjudicators who will decide this man's fate. 

Death panels are a lie meant to frighten Americans who are too willing to swallow anything to frighten them into thinking our health care system is awful.  It's not even close to awful, it's actually excellent, and the quality of care given has given Canadians a longer life expectancy than the US.


----------



## Esmeralda (Oct 23, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > Last week Canadas Supreme Court ruled that doctors could not unilaterally ignore a Toronto familys decision to keep their near-dead husband and father on life support. In the same breath, however, the court also confirmed that, under the laws of Ontario, Canadas most populous province, a group of government-appointed adjudicators could yet overrule the familys choice. That tribunal, not the family or the doctors, has the ultimate power to pull the plug.
> ...



Well said!!!


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Oct 23, 2013)

Esmeralda said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Lumpy 1 said:
> ...



You're for pulling the plug no matter what the family or Doctors say.. got it.


----------



## tinydancer (Oct 23, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > Last week Canadas Supreme Court ruled that doctors could not unilaterally ignore a Toronto familys decision to keep their near-dead husband and father on life support. In the same breath, however, the court also confirmed that, under the laws of Ontario, Canadas most populous province, a group of government-appointed adjudicators could yet overrule the familys choice. That tribunal, not the family or the doctors, has the ultimate power to pull the plug.
> ...



Get back to me you Toronto bitch from hell. Get back to me when you can talk about two doctors who decided to off a a Jewish guy out here and they  were so pissed off that they could not take hm off life support they were going to walk off the job.  They literally were going to kill him by walking off the job. 

Fuck off and I know your kind. I was Toronto after all smart ass. I know this shit very well.


----------



## tinydancer (Oct 23, 2013)

Lumpy 1 said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Typical canuck liberal.


----------



## tinydancer (Oct 23, 2013)

Esmeralda said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Lumpy 1 said:
> ...



My dime.

He stays alive.

Quebec and Ontario are on my dime. 'He stays alive. You bitches from hell. Dragon lady you sure you want to be posting all this shit up here when I know you are going  to backing Olivia?


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Oct 23, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > Last week Canadas Supreme Court ruled that doctors could not unilaterally ignore a Toronto familys decision to keep their near-dead husband and father on life support. In the same breath, however, the court also confirmed that, under the laws of Ontario, Canadas most populous province, a group of government-appointed adjudicators could yet overrule the familys choice. That tribunal, not the family or the doctors, has the ultimate power to pull the plug.
> ...



Try again but try to comprehend the article first..


----------



## Peterf (Oct 23, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Certain religions - well, all religions - are wrong and should have no say in making or applying law.


----------



## tinydancer (Oct 23, 2013)

Esmeralda said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Lumpy 1 said:
> ...



You want to fuck with me too?


----------



## tinydancer (Oct 23, 2013)

Peterf said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Orthodox Jew out here. Should not even have been a question. But these bastard doctors wanted to make some kind of statement. If it had gotten wilder I was going to go up and block the doors.


----------



## tinydancer (Oct 23, 2013)

I'm a sort of born again christian by the way I was not going to let this happen to this man or his family. 

I was not going to allow government or two freaking doctors that after all I paid for all my life with taxes tell me this man had to die.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Oct 23, 2013)

Peterf said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



So  according to you government has the right to trample on a citizens (religious freedoms) Constitutional Rights and decide on life or death ie.. "Life & Death Panels"..


----------



## Dragonlady (Oct 23, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> Oh we have death panels. Oh that we do.
> 
> Oh and our free health care costs us every mother trucking time we buy something.
> 
> ...



Again, this is false. The GST is a federal tax which had nothing to do with health care. Health care is funded by the provinces.  

This tax came about because of the North American Free Trade Agreement and replaced the manufacturing tax, this allowing Canadian manufacturers to sell goods to Americans at a lower cost.

Please don't spread misinformation.


----------



## tinydancer (Oct 24, 2013)

Dragon Lady. Wanna dance on our health care system?

Hey just for fun why don't you tell everyone who you fired because  tey fucked up so bad and that Obama hired to run his healthcare website?

Why don't you tell the Americans who they outsourced to Montreal bitch and has completely fucked up their system girl?

Oh and has cost them the original bid?


----------



## Dragonlady (Oct 24, 2013)

Lumpy 1 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Try again but try to comprehend the article first..
> ...


----------



## tinydancer (Oct 24, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Oh we have death panels. Oh that we do.
> ...



*cough* what company did the American government hire?

What company did the Ontario government fire?

Explain it to the American public dragon lady. Over half a billion dragon lady. 

And before I take you out on the GST on how money is transferred in the government I don't want to publicaly shame you again.


----------



## tinydancer (Oct 24, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...


----------



## Dragonlady (Oct 24, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> *cough* what company did the American government hire?
> 
> What company did the Ontario government fire?
> 
> ...



What bearing does the ACA website have on this court case?  Answer:  None. So why are you even bringing it up in this thread?

The latest version of the Canada Health Act was passed in 1985, although publically funded health care in Canada originated in the 1960's when Lester Pearson was prime minister. 

The GST was introduced in Canada on January 1, 1991. So please explain to me how we managed to have unfunded health care in this country for 30 years prior to the introduction of the GST. 

Health care in Ontario is funded by the Employers Health Tax which is 0.98% on salaries up to $200,000. and slightly higher on salaries over this amount. In additional, employees pay $25 per month as a payroll deduction.  

Federal transfer payments to the provinces and which are used, in part, to fund portions of our health care, are paid from income taxes received from the originating provinces.

Your ignorance on Canadian government knows no bounds. Last week you said Pierre Trudeau was responsible for Canadian Banking regulations which saved our banks from requiring bailouts. That would be Finance Minister Paul Martin and Prime Minister Jean Chretien. 

Please check your facts before making comments on things you clearly know little to nothing about.


----------



## auditor0007 (Oct 24, 2013)

Lumpy 1 said:


> After sticking all our youth with our debt and Dem-O-Care..reasonably, you gotta wonder.
> 
> ---------------------
> 
> ...



The whole problem with this argument is that it has nothing to do with killing anyone.  The patient is going to die; it's only a matter of when.  Life support is the only thing keeping the patient alive and there is not going to be a change in the patient's condition.  Eventually the patient will have to be taken off of life support and then will die.  This is the type of shit we do in the US that costs billions of dollars per year.  We extend people's lives for no reason at all.  These are people who are not going to get better.  They are only alive because a machine keeps them that way, and it costs everyone.  

But, it's that big bad boogeyman, the *DEATH PANEL*  that we must all fear.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Oct 24, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...


----------



## Peterf (Oct 24, 2013)

Lumpy 1 said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...




According to me relatives have no right, constitutional or other,  to have taxpayers subsidise their religious beliefs by paying to keep someone who is brain dead 'alive' indefinitely.


----------



## Peterf (Oct 24, 2013)

auditor0007 said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > After sticking all our youth with our debt and Dem-O-Care..reasonably, you gotta wonder.
> ...



In Sweden I will not be kept 'alive' artificially for an indefinite period.   Do I therefore live in fear of some 'death panel'?    Absolutely not!    So your 'that we must all fear' line is just an unsupported assertion.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Oct 24, 2013)

Peterf said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > Peterf said:
> ...


 
soooo.. only pull the plug if their brain dead, seems humanitarian enough to me.


----------



## Neotrotsky (Oct 24, 2013)

Lumpy 1 said:


> NoTeaPartyPleez said:
> 
> 
> > Lumpy 1 said:
> ...



They sure did

_In the same breath, however, the court also confirmed that, under the laws of Ontario, Canada&#8217;s most populous province, 
a group of government-appointed adjudicators could yet overrule the family&#8217;s choice. That tribunal, not the family or the doctors, has the ultimate power to pull the plug._​

Which is why Slate is trying to spin it 
to sound good. The usual "socialism is good" crap 

Besides, reactionary leftists always like when people have to prostrate themselves 
before the state.

Which is why, you see so many Papa Obama apologists come out to defend this,,,,


----------



## Noomi (Oct 24, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



If that was my dad and he told me he wanted to live, then he would have his wish. At least, I like to think I would follow his wishes. I haven't been in such a situation, so I don't know.


----------



## Neotrotsky (Oct 24, 2013)

Lumpy 1 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Lumpy 1 said:
> ...


----------



## Geaux4it (Oct 24, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > After sticking all our youth with our debt and Dem-O-Care..reasonably, you gotta wonder.
> ...



Talking about a drain on the tax payer, Then why don't we pull the plug on welfare? They are essentially dead until the end of the month. This man has every right to live as those scum I just mentioned

-Geaux


----------



## Noomi (Oct 24, 2013)

The man has the 'right' to live if he can choose to live - he can't. He's a vegetable.


----------



## Neotrotsky (Oct 24, 2013)

Noomi said:


> The man has the 'right' to live if he can choose to live - he can't. He's a vegetable.



Maybe the state should tell people when to have abortions?


----------



## Noomi (Oct 24, 2013)

Neotrotsky said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > The man has the 'right' to live if he can choose to live - he can't. He's a vegetable.
> ...



If its a child involved, the State should certainly be able to force an abortion, but only if the life of the child is at risk, or if the child wants the abortion.


----------



## Geaux4it (Oct 24, 2013)

Noomi said:


> The man has the 'right' to live if he can choose to live - he can't. He's a vegetable.



Then it is up to his wife to decide as they have agreed.

Not the people, doctors, or the government

-Geaux


----------



## Neotrotsky (Oct 24, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Why stop with children. 

Why not adult women?
Choose for them, when to have one?
Even when they don't want one.

Maybe keeping some fetuses  "alive drains the healthcare system - the taxpayers"



Like they do in China


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Oct 24, 2013)

Noomi said:


> The man has the 'right' to live if he can choose to live - he can't. He's a vegetable.



I don't know why but your callousness still surprises me..


----------



## Neotrotsky (Oct 24, 2013)

I have a feeling, you have not seen anything yet


----------



## Dragonlady (Oct 24, 2013)

Lumpy 1 said:


> I'm reminded of my Aunt Gladys who needed treatments for ovarian cancer. The Canadian health care system refused those treatments and she died. She would have lived several more years according to her and her doctors but it wasn't prudent, financially.
> 
> You don't have to call it "Death Panels" but the results are still the same..
> 
> btw.. I was born in London, Ontario and my beloved Aunt Gladys is buried there.



I am sorry for your loss but I find it difficult to believe that your Aunt was refused treatment. Perhaps her cancer was very advanced and unlikely to respond to treatment. There are some forms of ovarian cancer which are virtual death sentences. Perhaps, given her odds, she opted for quality of life for the time remaining. 

My 91 year old grandmother was diagnosed with liver cancer. She received aggressive treatment, including surgery and radiation. At the time she was bedridden, suffering from advanced Alzheimer's and living in a nursing home. They were talking about chemo for her. 

Given her age and overall health at the time, I couldn't believe the money and effort expanded on her treatment. 

I know of some cancer patients with low survival rate cancers who aggressively use every option to extend their lives and they are never refused treatment. Others will opt for quality of life without chemo for whatever time remains, but it's always the patient's choice.


----------



## Peterf (Oct 24, 2013)

Geaux4it said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > The man has the 'right' to live if he can choose to live - he can't. He's a vegetable.
> ...



Yes it is up to the wife if she is paying.   But it is not up to the wife to demand other people's money to satisfy her religious or other principles.


----------



## Dragonlady (Oct 24, 2013)

Peterf said:


> Yes it is up to the wife if she is paying.   But it is not up to the wife to demand other people's money to satisfy her religious or other principles.



The wife has every right to require the Canadian health care system to pay for her husband's treatment IF he expressed the wish that extraordinary measures be used to keep him alive.  But if she doesn't have a power of attorney for personal care and there is no evidence that HE wanted this done, she's on shaky ground.  

Hospitals are now asking patients what they want done in the event of "unexpected consequences" before any procedures now, and patients sign forms outlining their wishes before the procedures, just because of cases like this one.

The Ontario Care and Capacity Tribunal - the so-called "death panel" does exist, but its role is to determine whether or not the patient is capable of making their own decisions, and who has the right to speak for the patient if the patient is incapacitated, not to decide who lives and who dies.  They mediate between family members if one family members wants to pull the plug and others do not.

My ex-mother-in-law's children were involved in a dispute at the end of her life.  She had made her wishes known to her oldest daughter (a registered nurse) and given her a power of attorney for personal care, but her sons objected to pulling the plug and accused their sister of wanting to "kill their mother".  In such a case, the Care and Capacity Tribunal would have clearly decided that the daughter (a) had the right to make such a decision;  and (b) such decision was in keeping with the stated wishes of the patient when she was fully capable of making such decisions.

In cases where there is no power of attorney and there is *clear* evidence that the patient did not want extraordinary measures taken to save their life, the adjudicators (panel of 3, minimum), can decide to pull the plug, but only in cases where there is compelling evidence that this was the patient's wish.  That's why hospitals are now asking these questions before any procedure.

That's not the same thing as the government deciding who can live or who dies, as suggested by posters in this thread.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 24, 2013)

What happens when someone chooses not to be put to death and the panel decides they are not capable of making that decision?  What happens when the panel decides the family and appointed decision maker is too emotionally involved to make that decision?


----------



## ClosedCaption (Oct 24, 2013)

OP's a dumbass for linking to an article that blow himself out the water.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Oct 24, 2013)

ClosedCaption said:


> OP's a dumbass for linking to an article that blow himself out the water.



I can't be blamed for your comprehensive problems...maybe you were reading something you didn't want to hear and simply blocking it out, a popular Democrat character flaw indeed.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Oct 24, 2013)

Lumpy 1 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > OP's a dumbass for linking to an article that blow himself out the water.
> ...



"Comprehension" dodge check

Next:  "Cant explain it" dodge


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Oct 24, 2013)

ClosedCaption said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



You get that a lot is my guess...


----------



## tinydancer (Oct 25, 2013)

Lumpy 1 said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



I was his princess before before Disney Inc. made it a staple for your daughter. Not bad for a truck driving hockey playing old man.

He showed me all four corners of the net. He horrified my mother when he he said it was me singing "three blind mice" at a Toronto vs Chicago game. 

Don't ask about the eggs in Buffalo cheering for the Leafs. 

Dads make a difference. 

When I put up those lyrics that daddy me put me on his knees and that he told me I could be anything I wanted to be.............

It's the damn truth. 

Oh and he was not happy with Alice Cooper driving me home. Or hitchhiking to Boston. Or walking out that door one night saying I'll call you from California with a teddy, a small suitcase and five dollars in my hand. 

But he loved me thru thick and thin. I was a handful. 

I was desperate at his end of days. I was carrying him to the washroom before we figured it out that it would be easier if I made a bed pan out of a laundry detergent container. 

I learned a lot of lessons with my dad's death in the new world where this sweetest young lady apparently till I came back up from Tennessee was trying to keep down his cholesterol level. 

She was just in shock when I had to inform her my dad's toast. It's party time. 

I'm bringing in he Timmy's and the Molson's. Girl really couldn't get it that the last thing my dad needed was to watch his weight. Good girl though. Just didn't understand.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 25, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> Big one in Britain with the Liverpool pathway........................
> 
> They got bonus money for offiing people. Its the classic.
> 
> What could go wrong?



Only the little people, though.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 25, 2013)

Noomi said:


> If you are only being kept alive by a machine, are you really alive?



Dunno, let me go down to the dialysis center and ask.....


----------



## Neotrotsky (Oct 25, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > If you are only being kept alive by a machine, are you really alive?
> ...




think of it like this

if you are being kept alive by an umbilical cord
are you really alive ?


----------



## Vox (Oct 25, 2013)

Lumpy 1 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > The man has the 'right' to live if he can choose to live - he can't. He's a vegetable.
> ...



it should not. vegetables should not surprise you


----------



## Vox (Oct 25, 2013)

Lumpy 1 said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> > Lumpy 1 said:
> ...



well, some might still have certain perfusion in their brain but be dead nevertheless.

It is a VERY difficult issue to discuss - both ways.


----------



## Vox (Oct 25, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Big one in Britain with the Liverpool pathway........................
> ...



yessssss, here we get to the very core of the problem which is rarely discussed - rationed care means CORRUPTION


----------



## Vox (Oct 25, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > If you are only being kept alive by a machine, are you really alive?
> ...



BTW, British patients are being dumped off dialysis after 75 - enough by their standard.
Some end up on OUR tax support - first through EMTALA then getting green cards as refugees who will suffer unusual punishment if they are deported. And obviously on all our social network support.
talking about stupid


----------



## Dragonlady (Oct 25, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> What happens when someone chooses not to be put to death and the panel decides they are not capable of making that decision?  What happens when the panel decides the family and appointed decision maker is too emotionally involved to make that decision?



Capacity hearings are to decide if a patient has the capacity to refuse treatment or voluntary commitment to a mental institution. No one is being "put to death". If a patient is conscious and talking, no one is ever going to pull the plug on their treatment. 

The Tribunal is usually called upon to decide who has the right to make decisions on behalf of a patient in the absence of a power of attorney and where family members are fighting over the decision. At that time, they review evidence of what the patient's wishes were.

It is not the role of the Tribunal to decide who lives or dies, but rather to decide which family member has the right to decide whether or not to pull the plug. In such cases, the patient is unable to speak for his or her self.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Oct 25, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



Thanks for the insight Tinydancer.. I'd love to sit down at the kitchen table, share a coffee (or whatever) and discuss memories, life and perspectives with You. It would be the best of times..


----------



## Neotrotsky (Oct 25, 2013)

Lumpy 1 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > The man has the 'right' to live if he can choose to live - he can't. He's a vegetable.
> ...



It is is the way of all statists

Just can't wait for the same quality of people that designed and implemented 
Papa Obama care to do their wonderful work on the IPAB 

Hopefully the Supreme Court will rule that their word is final
Just like in Canada now 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXzQD2SRESs]The Obsolete Man - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Noomi (Oct 26, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> What happens when someone chooses not to be put to death and the panel decides they are not capable of making that decision?  What happens when the panel decides the family and appointed decision maker is too emotionally involved to make that decision?



You have to question how much money they are costing the taxpayer to keep them alive, and is it worth it when they will never wake up?

If they are costing the taxpayer millions of dollars to keep them alive by artificial means, then the hospital - and even the State - should be able to petition the courts to either send the family a bill for expenses, or pull the plug.


----------



## Dragonlady (Oct 26, 2013)

Noomi said:


> You have to question how much money they are costing the taxpayer to keep them alive, and is it worth it when they will never wake up?
> 
> If they are costing the taxpayer millions of dollars to keep them alive by artificial means, then the hospital - and even the State - should be able to petition the courts to either send the family a bill for expenses, or pull the plug.



Under the Canada Health Act, it is illegal for doctors or hospitals to bill patients for listed services.


----------



## tinydancer (Oct 26, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > What happens when someone chooses not to be put to death and the panel decides they are not capable of making that decision?  What happens when the panel decides the family and appointed decision maker is too emotionally involved to make that decision?
> ...



The person who is dying paid taxes all their life. High fines as I think of them over decades and never used.

They are owed. 

I don't know about you in Aussie land but I have spent over all my years of working a fortune in future health care.

So, and with all due respect, fuck you that at the end of my days which I pray are not up and coming that the "system" takes care of me. 

I never go to hospitals. 3 children overnight births and right out again. 

I paid in. Haven't used my ticket.


----------



## Dragonlady (Oct 26, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> I never go to hospitals. 3 children overnight births and right out again.
> 
> I paid in. Haven't used my ticket.



You make it sound like that's unique or unusual. Overnight stays in hospital for live births are the norm and have been for more than 25 years. 

Of course you also had the option of having your child at home, barring complications, and having a midwife attend the birth. Most women opt for the hospital delivery.


----------



## Noomi (Oct 27, 2013)

Everyone pays taxes, but they get used up for other things, not medical treatment necessarily.
Sorry, if you want to stay alive even when there is no hope of a recovery, you can pay the bill, or your family can.


----------



## FJO (Oct 27, 2013)

Noomi said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > No one on this planet gets to choose if I live or die.
> ...



A pacemaker is a machine.

Thousands of people have pacemakers.

Are they alive?


----------



## beagle9 (Oct 27, 2013)

Clementine said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > I realize you are not parroting some RW site for sensational purposes, but the Slate article doesn't make sense.  First, it acknowledges that the accepted US practice is when a family of a comatose person, who made no directed care provision prior to incapacity, disagrees with a treating physician's opinion that life support should be terminated, generally courts must decide the issue.
> ...


Check this thought out, and then think about it in the scheme of things.  You see our leftist gooberment would rather focus on paying for sex changes for prisoners, than to grant a person who worked all his or her life all their options until the very end in this nation. Our leftist gooberment also would rather advocate killing the children in the womb so much so that they will have never had gotten old enough to become a burden on the state. Our leftist gooberment is working hard to make sure that weird and un-natural procedures are paid for freely for the whining liberals, but then they want to dis-respect the sickly who had worked all their life by complicating the end of life situation for them and their families ?   I bet they can't help but think about what the gooberment is doing in all of this other waste in which they engage in, and yet all the while being so quick to write someone off in order to ease the pressures of moneys in the scheme of things all at the same time ? The waste in this nation by our gooberment, flies in the faces of our citizens who deserve the best at the end of their lives, and I mean the best they do deserve. Many times it is about money and not the patients ability to withstand the next treatment, even if they were to die in that treatment, at least something was still being done for them up until the end. Now if their family and them feel that the situation is hopeless then so be it, but to refuse medical treatment to a patient over money is unacceptable and should always be unacceptable in America.


----------



## Neotrotsky (Oct 27, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Everyone pays taxes, but they get used up for other things, not medical treatment necessarily.
> Sorry, if you want to stay alive even when there is no hope of a recovery, you can pay the bill, or your family can.




Agree
it is such a burden for the state

We should also make women have abortions where the children are
going to be sickly. These kids are not going to produce much in terms
of taxes and cost the gov't money.

Wouldn't you agree?


----------



## Intense (Oct 27, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Everyone pays taxes, but they get used up for other things, not medical treatment necessarily.
> Sorry, if you want to stay alive even when there is no hope of a recovery, you can pay the bill, or your family can.



Kinda contradicts your Socialist Utopia principles.... Oh I forget.... Socialist Utopias, do not have principles, just flavors of the day.  

Who should pay for life style consequences in your mind? Is that somehow different? Protected? 

What is your guarantee that Someone can't come out of a Coma? Pulling the plug?  Got it.

Funny seeing you advocate certain forms of personal responsibility, why stop there?


----------



## Noomi (Oct 27, 2013)

FJO said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



The heart will still beat without a pacemaker, and a pacemaker doesn't drain the health care system day after day.


----------



## Noomi (Oct 27, 2013)

Neotrotsky said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Everyone pays taxes, but they get used up for other things, not medical treatment necessarily.
> ...



If people purposefully have a child they know will require medical treatment for the rest of their lives, they can pay for the care themselves because the taxpayer shouldn't have to.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Oct 27, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



How about a welfare mother with a drug problem...what then?


----------



## Intense (Oct 27, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



We Each require Medical Treatment for the rest of our lives, in one way or another.


----------



## The T (Oct 27, 2013)

Lumpy 1 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Neotrotsky said:
> ...


GUBMINT...[aka TAXPAYERS]..._gotta pay..._


----------



## The T (Oct 27, 2013)

Neotrotsky said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Everyone pays taxes, but they get used up for other things, not medical treatment necessarily.
> ...


What a can of worms YOU open...and right UP the Statist alley for population control...


----------



## Neotrotsky (Oct 27, 2013)

I agree that the decision for any medical decision should
be between a person and their doctor without the state 
determining the allocation of resources. 

Sadly, the left's insistence 
on gov't intrusion in the market will necessitate the gov't making such
decisions on death and birth. Most on the left choose to hide from that reality or
are comfortable with the likes of the idiots who planned the Papa Obamacare website making
decisions for us.


----------



## Neotrotsky (Oct 27, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Well if the state can play a role in end of life medical treatments
that would hasten the time of death to save the state money.

why not beginning of life to save the state money?
A person could say anything about taking care of a sickly baby
what if they have no assets?

Talk about money. Odds are the dying person at least paid some money into the system
But a very handicapped child, they may never put any money into the system.
The state could save a lot of money. 

Why not?
Is there really any difference?

What's the big thing?
A doctor determines that an abortion would be the best 
medical treatment for the women.

We can legally subject a patient to court-ordered forced care
right now for a lot of things.


----------



## The T (Oct 27, 2013)

Neotrotsky said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Neotrotsky said:
> ...


 
The STATE wants to play GOD.


----------



## Noomi (Oct 28, 2013)

Lumpy 1 said:


> How about a welfare mother with a drug problem...what then?



Force her into rehab and take her kids away until she completes the program and is drug free.


----------



## Noomi (Oct 28, 2013)

Intense said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Neotrotsky said:
> ...



Not to the extent of a severely disabled person, though.


----------



## Political Junky (Oct 28, 2013)

[/QUOTE]
We Each require Medical Treatment for the rest of our lives, in one way or another.[/QUOTE]

And who do you suggest should pay for all that care?


----------



## Neotrotsky (Oct 28, 2013)

The T said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



and the radical left- run from the truth


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 28, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > What happens when someone chooses not to be put to death and the panel decides they are not capable of making that decision?  What happens when the panel decides the family and appointed decision maker is too emotionally involved to make that decision?
> ...



The bottom line then is there is no "right" to health care.  It is a boon, granted or withheld at the pleasure of the panel.  The basis of that boon is how much the care will cost.   As explained by the presidunce, obama, a 95 year old woman, fully conscious, functioning, living a life with daily enjoyments could be denied a pacemaker because it is too expensive.  Give the woman a pill until she dies.   

Every time medical care is dispensed under a government supported system, the panel will evaluate the cost of the treatment v. the benefit to the state.  It might be someone in a persistent vegetative state today, but tomorrow it will be a woman who serves no purpose but to enjoy bingo and butterscotch pudding.    At least according to obama, and that might be the only time he ever told the truth.

The purpose of government death panels is to turn the medical care system into a system more like a veterinarian.  You take your cat to the vet.  He tells you that your beloved cat is seriously ill and needs surgery of $5,000, with follow up care of perhaps $10,000 more.  As the owner, you know your cat is old with not much life expectancy left at best.  You elect to humanely euthanize him.  Not because he could not make a full recovery and last another five years, but because five more years is not worth the cost.   You are the owner.  The cat is the pet.  As a pet, the cat has no say over his own life nor any right to live beyond the pleasure of your decision, you hold all power of life an death.   That's what national health care does.   It turns us all into house pets with the government as owner.  We become owned.  We have as much say over personal decisions of life and death as any slave on the plantation when the master knows the slave has outlived his or her usefulness.  As much value as any animal.

The government should really stop lying and calling it a right to health care.  There is no RIGHT to health care.   There is health care at the pleasure of the government.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 28, 2013)

We Each require Medical Treatment for the rest of our lives, in one way or another.[/QUOTE]

And who do you suggest should pay for all that care?[/QUOTE]

The minute you pass the payment of medical care to the state as its obligation you also agree that your life is going to be only as long as the government says it will be.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 28, 2013)

Neotrotsky said:


> think of it like this
> 
> if you are being kept alive by an umbilical cord
> are you really alive ?



The left kill millions who are kept alive through an umbilical cord. In fact, it's pretty much a religious rite for the left.


----------



## AquaAthena (Oct 28, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> We Each require Medical Treatment for the rest of our lives, in one way or another.



And who do you suggest should pay for all that care?[/QUOTE]

The minute you pass the payment of medical care to the state as its obligation you also agree that your life is going to be only as long as the government says it will be.[/QUOTE]

Doesn't everyone "get this?"   The government is already setting up  death panels, whose members determine the health care of the citizens. It's very simple and comes as no surprise to those of us who have been following the subversive tactics of the creators of the train wreck called the [Un]affordable Care Act. It is designed to reduce health care costs, through the early demise of the population who contributes nothing to it, and to the young and middle-class who can't afford their payments or deductibles....


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 28, 2013)

FJO said:


> A pacemaker is a machine.
> 
> Thousands of people have pacemakers.
> 
> Are they alive?



The real question facing our rulers is who will get a pacemaker?

No doubt that the IRS will determine whether the prospect is a loyal party member - if not - well then resources will be used other places. Even if one is a party member, the death panel must determine if your value to the state is high enough to justify using a pacemaker on you. 

Remember, the era of medical advances is over - we will not move forward anymore, so what we have must be tightly rationed.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 28, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > After sticking all our youth with our debt and Dem-O-Care..reasonably, you gotta wonder.
> ...



I cannot imagine keeping someone 'alive' in that manner, when there is no hope of recovery. I would damn any member of my family were they to do that to me. When hope of real life is gone, time to complete the circle of life.


----------



## Neotrotsky (Oct 28, 2013)

I hear you

Even the start, if a pregnancy will result in a very handicapped child
then abort it whether the mother wants it or not.

Talk about money. Odds are the dying person at least paid some money into the system
But a very handicapped child, they may never put any money into the system.
The state could save a lot of money.


----------



## healthmyths (Oct 28, 2013)

why isn't this moved to Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare board????


----------



## Dragonlady (Oct 28, 2013)

Neotrotsky said:


> I hear you
> 
> Even the start, if a pregnancy will result in a very handicapped child
> then abort it whether the mother wants it or not.
> ...



Those in the US who opposed government funded health care have used these scenarios to frighten Americans into opposing single payer government funded health care for generations. The plain fact is that every other first world nation in the world has single payer and government management of their health care system and yet none of these countries has forced abortions for children born handicapped or death panels for the sick and elderly. And ALL first world nations except the US have universal health care as a right. 

Last but not least, the cost of health care outside the US is substantially cheaper than the US.


----------



## Neotrotsky (Oct 28, 2013)

Do communist nations force abortion?

what happens as nations start to reach their critical debt levels 
like Greece and the other PIGS?

Really
What's the big thing?
Does a pregnant women have any more rights than a dying person ?

You must be for denying end of life treatments to save the gov't money, right?


A doctor determines that an abortion would be the best 
medical treatment for the women.

We can legally subject a patient to court-ordered forced care
right now for a lot of things.


A lower court in Massachusetts  tried to force an abortion
and the gov't does not even have full control of healthcare, yet.

Does one really think that some 'feel good' 'pro-women" "my body-my choice'
liberal chant is going to stop the gov't.

They have even tried in Britain
Mentally disabled woman escapes forced abortion

A young woman with learning difficulties has won the right to decide the fate of her unborn baby after doctors lost their application to carry out an abortion without her consent.


----------



## Dragonlady (Oct 28, 2013)

Note that I said First World Nations, not totalitarian dictatorships. There are no first world communist nations. 

In Britain they tried to force a mentally handicapped woman to have an abortion and FAILED. In the US, they used forced sterilization for the handicapped to prevent them from becoming pregnant. No moral high ground there.


----------



## Neotrotsky (Oct 28, 2013)

Sure
it was to point out that statism will do what it wants
Yes, we even tried in MA to force an abortion

When the gov't is at the limits of its debt levels
and economic growth/ creativity is at or near zero

it is not going to care about anyone rights, imagined or real


----------



## Dragonlady (Oct 28, 2013)

US insurance companies cap treatment costs, refuse payment for experimental treatments and tell doctors what tests they will and will not pay for, all in an effort to reduce claims and increase profits. 

I don't see much difference except that the thing you fear will happen under single payer, has already happened with insurance company rationing in the US. 

And you have the most expensive health care in the world by far.


----------



## Neotrotsky (Oct 28, 2013)

Well in a real free market 
the consumer has more control

2) I have the ability to change plans; buy better- improve my situation

3) Free markets have always delivered the most goods to the most people

4) Gov't will claim to be equal - we only need to see Papa Obama send his
kids to private schools that he denies poor black kids from going to back taking away
their vouchers, to see that will not be true.  Do really think politicians and their friends will be equal with us?

5) Gov't will provide the lowest service with no way to improve or escape it

If you feel comfortable have the same kind of idiots who designed the Obamacare website
making healthcare decisions for you- good luck with that


----------



## bendog (Oct 28, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> US insurance companies cap treatment costs, refuse payment for experimental treatments and tell doctors what tests they will and will not pay for, all in an effort to reduce claims and increase profits.
> 
> I don't see much difference except that the thing you fear will happen under single payer, has already happened with insurance company rationing in the US.
> 
> And you have the most expensive health care in the world by far.



All true.  And before posting, I want to acknowledge that the tea party prevents any coherent conservative response, because they vehmently oppose using tax funds (even it doesn't raise individual rates) to subsidize the working poor and those with prior conditions.

However, the conservative response would be to enact laws to make the markets transparent, e.g. show how much plans pay out in relation to cost, require hospitals and other providers to reveal how much they charge for various procedures, allow younger people only insure themselves for catastrophic care ....

Instead, what we have is essentially a system that favors monopolies, e.g. medicare can force providers to take less because they have market share, or an insuror who has the vast amount of marketshare in a state can do much the same thing.  But, that cost setting has nothing to do with how good a plan, or a healthcare provider, is at what they do, and in fact individuals have no way of knowing.


----------



## Neotrotsky (Oct 28, 2013)

One should add - 
real tort reform to prevent lawyers from extracting as much economic rent as possible 
competition across state lines


----------



## Newby (Oct 28, 2013)

Esmeralda said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Lumpy 1 said:
> ...



And what about the elderly patient who is diagnosed with terminal cancer or heart disease, or any other illness?  They're going to be a drain on 'the system' as well, right?  They're old anyway, and don't contribute financially to society any longer, so why waste money giving them health care.  Just keep them comfortable with a few pain meds and let nature take its course, right? Is that okay too?  If not, what distinguishes any of those scenarios from the one you described above?


----------



## bendog (Oct 28, 2013)

If a person has terminal cancer, or any other terminal illness, why should public or private insurance pay for coverage beyone making him/her as comfortable in passing as possible?  Or do I misunderstand?


----------



## Neotrotsky (Oct 28, 2013)

No one denies scarce resources
which one would be better at having the best quality
and deliver the most goods to the most people?

Gov't or a true free market?


----------



## GHook93 (Oct 28, 2013)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > After sticking all our youth with our debt and Dem-O-Care..reasonably, you gotta wonder.
> ...



Are you just willful ignorant, very young and ignorant or just retarded? The ruling said that a doctor can't make the decision to pull the plug against the next-of-kin or prior wishes of the patient. HOWEVER, the court did say that the Consent and Capacity Board can and does have the right to authorize pulling the plug against the next-of-kin or PATIENT'S wishes.

That is almost worst. A doctor at least has dealt with the family and the patients. He has experienced their pain first hand and has to discuss with the in person. There is the human element. A faceless government board who has never met the family, met the patient and has ZERO emotional ties to the case is set to make the decision. You think they are looking at what is best for the family or best for the bottomline. You think they are judged by their cost cuting and budget meeting or by satisfying people's wishes that never make it into any reports. They won't meet the family, they won't see the patient, they won't hear the patient's story and all they have to do is have their secretary write a letter!

It's worse, you almost want the doctor making the decision over a faceless board with no ties to the case looking solely to cut costs! 




> Last Friday, they won. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled 52 that Ontario doctors may not decide to withhold treatment from patients in Rasoulis condition without consent from the next-in-line decision maker. In Rasoulis case, that is his wife. But, if she refuses consent, then her husbands doctors can still ask for a ruling from Ontarios Consent and Capacity Board. The Supreme Court confirmed last week that the board has the power to overrule her.
> 
> Most media coverage of the Canadian ruling has focused on the first partthat doctors cannot overrule family membersrather than the secondthat an administrative tribunal can. Most Ontarians are evidently content withor indifferent to, or simply ignorant ofthe fact that the Consent and Capacity Board has the power to make difficult, even existential health care decisions on behalf of patients who are still (technically) alive. Americans, I expect, would be apoplectic.


----------



## Newby (Oct 28, 2013)

bendog said:


> If a person has terminal cancer, or any other terminal illness, why should public or private insurance pay for coverage beyone making him/her as comfortable in passing as possible?  Or do I misunderstand?



As soon as a price tag is put on the value of life, evil has won.


----------



## GHook93 (Oct 28, 2013)

bendog said:


> If a person has terminal cancer, or any other terminal illness, why should public or private insurance pay for coverage beyone making him/her as comfortable in passing as possible?  Or do I misunderstand?



My mother was told she was terminally cancerous and told her that chemo probably won't help. She elected to try it and hope for the best. She beat the odds and 11 years later is still here.


----------



## Steven_R (Oct 28, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Ew.
> 
> As I've always said, the death cultists know that they're advocating murder. They just don't care.



A single death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic. 

I am always amazed at the people who just decide a policy trumps human life, and in the case of so many policies, will mathematically ensure death for untold numbers of people. The thing is, the people who advocate those polices just never assume their loved ones will ever be in the "got to die" category, so what do they care? It comes down to playing God by deciding who lives and who dies.


----------



## tinydancer (Oct 28, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Everyone pays taxes, but they get used up for other things, not medical treatment necessarily.
> Sorry, if you want to stay alive even when there is no hope of a recovery, you can pay the bill, or your family can.



I've been a paying customer to my Health Insurer for decades. The company AKA the Canadian Government is obligated to take care of my health while I am alive.

And btw the taxes we pay in Canada for the "privilege" of "free health care" are very high. 

Reading all your posts Noomi, I don't know what you do for a living now, but you are truly suited to be on a death panel. 

You have the perfect callous and cold hearted attitude to be an executioner errrrrrrrr panelist .

This lady and America needs you!









Here's where you can send your resume:

US Department of Health & Human Services
Address: 200 Independence Ave SW, Washington, D.C., DC 20201, United States
Phone:+1 202-690-7000
Hours:

Monday 8:30 am  5:00 pm


----------



## Neotrotsky (Oct 28, 2013)

GHook93 said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > If a person has terminal cancer, or any other terminal illness, why should public or private insurance pay for coverage beyone making him/her as comfortable in passing as possible?  Or do I misunderstand?
> ...



I like to hear good stories like yours. 
good for you and your family
you are blessed


----------



## Neotrotsky (Oct 28, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Ew.
> ...



They even assume that somehow the "womb" will be hands off 
from the gov't.


----------



## bendog (Oct 28, 2013)

GHook93 said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > If a person has terminal cancer, or any other terminal illness, why should public or private insurance pay for coverage beyone making him/her as comfortable in passing as possible?  Or do I misunderstand?
> ...



I'm glad for you.  But the question is why should I pay for it.  The premise behind insurance is that there is a set ( or group) of conditions that have treatments that have some % of efficacy in allowing people to live some extended time.  These treatments have a dollar cost.  Premiums are based upon paying that cost, along with a profit margin ... which could be regulated or in a single payor there is only administrative costs.

If I want an experimental treatment, or some treatment not shown to have the % of efficacy, I can have it, but others don't have to pay for it.


----------



## tinydancer (Oct 28, 2013)

Newby said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



They paid into the system. You don't get away with not paying into the system. It's the way it is for free health care you see. 

I could if I was such a cold hearted soul make the case that because I have been a good paying customer all my life, the government owes me and not a child with leukemia or MS who might never ever become a paying tax payer. 

Here's where we've not only hit the slippery slope we have slid to the bottom and are digging farther down. 

All one has to do is to look at the NHS in Britain. They have what's called the "Liverpool Pathway".

It was originally designed to assist people in as painless way as possible to help people exit their life.

Sounded great on paper. Guess what? Huge scandal. The government found out that hospitals were getting bonuses for "helping people on their way" and freeing up more beds.

Some bean counter will always find a way to screw up perfectly well intentioned programs.


----------



## Noomi (Oct 28, 2013)

GHook93 said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > If a person has terminal cancer, or any other terminal illness, why should public or private insurance pay for coverage beyone making him/her as comfortable in passing as possible?  Or do I misunderstand?
> ...



That is a tough one because sometimes, doctors can get it wrong - but rarely. 90% of the time, if you have terminal cancer, chemo won't help.
Your mother was the exception.


----------



## Newby (Oct 29, 2013)

Noomi said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > bendog said:
> ...



The point is, it's her body, so she should be able to pick the treatment she wants and make her own CHOICES, a word you pro abortionists are very familiar with.  The government shouldn't be making her decision for her.  You can't preach 'CHOICE' out of one side of your mouth, and 'MANDATE' out of the other.  Well, you can, but it just shows your agenda for what it truly is.  Do you really care about a woman's choice to control her own body and her own health care, or do you only care when it fits your agenda?


----------



## Noomi (Oct 29, 2013)

Yes, she should be able to make her own choices - but should she able to choose to make the taxpayers pay for treatment that isn't going to help her? I think that when we expect people to just hand over thousands of dollars in taxes for something that will not work, the person should be asked to pay for it themselves.


----------



## Dragonlady (Oct 29, 2013)

Newby said:


> The point is, it's her body, so she should be able to pick the treatment she wants and make her own CHOICES, a word you pro abortionists are very familiar with.  The government shouldn't be making her decision for her.  You can't preach 'CHOICE' out of one side of your mouth, and 'MANDATE' out of the other.  Well, you can, but it just shows your agenda for what it truly is.  Do you really care about a woman's choice to control her own body and her own health care, or do you only care when it fits your agenda?



The government doesn't make any decisions for you.  You pick your doctors and your doctor determines your treatment.  If you want a particular type of treatment, and your doctor agrees with you, then that's what you get.

There are no pre-approvals, and there is no paperwork to complete when you're done.  The doctor bills OHIP.  

If you want services that aren't listed, like cosmetic surgery, you have to pay for them yourself, but you still have the option of getting the services you want.  And the costs for unlisted services are still cheaper than the US.


----------



## Neotrotsky (Oct 30, 2013)

ST. JOHN'S, Newfoundland &#8212; The premier of Canada's east coast province is undergoing heart surgery in the United States this week because the treatment he is seeking was not available in his home province.


----------



## Newby (Oct 30, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Yes, she should be able to make her own choices - *but* should she able to choose to *make the taxpayers pay for treatment that isn't going to help her*? I think that when we expect people to just hand over thousands of dollars in taxes for something that will not work, the person should be asked to pay for it themselves.



Anything before 'but' is typically a lie.    The doctor's don't even know if a treatment will help a patient or not before the treatment is done.  It's not up to you, the government, or anyone besides her and her doctor to determine what treatment is right for her or not.  Or are you putting a cost on life?  An unborn child's life is meaningless to you, so it goes that  human life itself is meaningless as well.  The hypocrisy of your stance on this situation compared to your stance on abortion is glaring and revealing.   I'm guessing you would be just fine for the taxpayer paying for someone's abortion too, even tho I feel an abortion is not going to 'help' any woman in any situation.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 30, 2013)

bendog said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > bendog said:
> ...



The reason why you should pay for it, is because that cancer patient paid into the system herself, for someone else that she may have felt shouldn't have received that treatment.   Sex change operations for prisoners, abortions, pacemakers for those on death row, organ transplants for alcoholics and drug addicts, drug treatment programs.  It's a long list of treatments and procedures that not everyone agrees with providing or paying for.    We are lied to and told that when we need lifesaving treatment it will be there on the basis of having paid into the system.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 30, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> The government doesn't make any decisions for you.  You pick your doctors and your doctor determines your treatment.



And if you like your insurance, you can keep it....

The lies you leftists tell. You don't get to "pick" your doctor, you won't even see a doctor. A PA will supervise a host of "technicians" with little to no medical training. The person who treats you will have certificate from some school that advertises on daytime TV and funds students with Obamabucks - no high school diploma needed. Ebonics encouraged!



> If you want a particular type of treatment, and your doctor agrees with you, then that's what you get.



And magic lolipops and flying horses....



> There are no pre-approvals, and there is no paperwork to complete when you're done.  The doctor bills OHIP.
> 
> If you want services that aren't listed, like cosmetic surgery, you have to pay for them yourself, but you still have the option of getting the services you want.  And the costs for unlisted services are still cheaper than the US.



And, if you are a bit older than the guidelines accept, treatment will be withheld - you have an obligation to die...


----------



## FJO (Oct 30, 2013)

Let me tell you, as a Canadian, about health care in Canada.

First, keep in mind, that Canada is a confederation of 10 provinces, similar to the confederation of 50 states in the United States. If any American tells me that the health care in all 50 of the United States is equal, I will tell them that they are liars, and I can base that on the fact that, while a Canadian citizen, I lived in the States for six years, at an apartment paid for by the company I worked for, with all my meals paid for and an automobile provided. I did that while I was a self-educated computer programmer, who developed a system that was unique and made our company less prone to be victims of fraud.

For that I earned the invitation to work in our company's head office with all the perks, described above.

While I was commuting to and working in the States, I had a chronic pain in my shoulder, for which there seemed to be no cure, except for prescription of (after naproxen, viox, arthrotec and celebrex) 
morphine, which I had to take around the clock. In Canada, I had to wait six months to see a specialist only to be told that "I don't do shoulders, only hips and knees". Another five months got me to see a specialist who managed to squeeze me in for a 45 minute orthroscopic surgery in three months.

That was all in the province of Ontario, which is Canada's largest province in population.

When I moved to Manitoba, in order to be closer to our grandchildren, I found a surprising and delightful difference. No long waits for anything. Almost instantaneous response in the most up-to-date and modern facilities. Doctors who care and make an effort to honor and keep the time of appointments.

Even socialized medicine has its advantages.

While working in the States, I explored the possibility of getting rid of the pain. I would have had to wait no more than two weeks for the same surgery that I finally got in Ontario in about a year and a half.


----------



## Interpol (Oct 30, 2013)

Pulling the plug WOULD be murder and here's my reasoning; when we decide to pull the plug on a family member who will not recover, we think we're doing the humane thing, but we're actually starving the person to death. 

We should be euthanizing the comatose person, which puts them to sleep the same way you do when you have an operation, and then another drug stops the heart. It's so much more humane than "pulling the plug".


----------



## Dragonlady (Oct 30, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> And, if you are a bit older than the guidelines accept, treatment will be withheld - you have an obligation to die...



Not true.  My mother had triple by-pass surgery at the age of 77.  My husband's grandmother had cancer surgery and radiation at the age of 91.  No one has treatment withheld.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Oct 30, 2013)

Just sayin..

Wait times for medical treatment getting longer: Fraser Institute report | CTV News


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 30, 2013)

Noomi said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Lets tone it down a little.

You're saying pull the plug if no improvement after 3 years. I understand your position.

Now, lets say someone has migraine for 3 years and there is no hope migraine will stop. Would you "pull the plug" on migraine medications? Just don't say it's different...


----------



## francoHFW (Oct 30, 2013)

So after 3 years, a family refuses to unplug, and can stop it in the court- and that's the horrible death panel...just another way the hater dupes are out of their tiny minds....we'll have special hospitals for the plugged up to spend until theY finally die of old age- BRILLIANT. LOL


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 30, 2013)

Esmeralda said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Lumpy 1 said:
> ...



Cool explanation. Let's try it this way.

US has welfare laws. The government, the taxpayer, is paying for their existence. To keep paying them, when there is no hope they will ever try to live on their own drains money from the welfare system... figure out the rest on your own.


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 30, 2013)

auditor0007 said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > After sticking all our youth with our debt and Dem-O-Care..reasonably, you gotta wonder.
> ...



We ALL going to die, it's only a matter of when. So lets just deny any help to anyone... cause it cost money to taxpayers.

You see, liberals are all for "helping middle class", but when it really comes to exactly that issue, they are first to change their mind and turn their blind eye.


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 30, 2013)

Peterf said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



So, back to the States, why government demand other people's money to pay for someone's contraception?


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 30, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > What happens when someone chooses not to be put to death and the panel decides they are not capable of making that decision?  What happens when the panel decides the family and appointed decision maker is too emotionally involved to make that decision?
> ...



Cool, let's then ask how much money cost taxpayers to keep all those people on welfare and is it worth to keep giving them money if they never intend to work... just sayin'.


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 30, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Reply to red highlight...

At the same time, they wouldn't look to save any money to keep homosexual AIDS patient on cocktail drugs, because it fit their agenda. Why not to pull the plug there?


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 30, 2013)

Noomi said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > bendog said:
> ...



Cocktail drugs for AIDS wont cure you, so in your own words, why bother. Pull the plug, right?


----------



## Noomi (Oct 30, 2013)

Ame®icano;8073678 said:
			
		

> US has welfare laws. The government, the taxpayer, is paying for their existence. To keep paying them, when there is no hope they will ever try to live on their own drains money from the welfare system... figure out the rest on your own.



How do you know they won't get a job, or are you just assuming?


----------



## Noomi (Oct 30, 2013)

Ame®icano;8074386 said:
			
		

> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



Drugs for HIV won't prevent AIDS, but it does slow down the progression of the disease.


----------



## Dragonlady (Oct 30, 2013)

Lumpy 1 said:


> Just sayin..
> 
> Wait times for medical treatment getting longer: Fraser Institute report | CTV News



The Fraser Institute is a radical right wing think tank that has as part of its agenda, the destruction of the Canada Health Act and the introduction of US style health care in Canada.

I have yet to read a single "study" they've put out that is statistically reliable.  This is the Ontario Government website wait time page:

Wait Times - Ministry Programs - Public Information - MOHLTC

This is the reliable information.


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 31, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Ame®icano;8073678 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The same way you know that patient won't recover after 3 years.


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 31, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Ame®icano;8074386 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I wasn't talking about HIV.


----------



## Luissa (Oct 31, 2013)

Lumpy 1 said:


> After sticking all our youth with our debt and Dem-O-Care..reasonably, you gotta wonder.
> 
> ---------------------
> 
> ...



There is so much bullshit ignorance in that article, it's annoying. 

Due your homework on the Canadian system, and what actually happens. 

For one, the case they speak of is a prime example of why you should look it up.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Oct 31, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > Just sayin..
> ...



Just wondering, what makes the "Fraser Institute" so radical right wing. 

 I get that you wholeheartedly trust your government for reliability, integrity and fairness, that's not the case in the United States.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Oct 31, 2013)

Luissa said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > After sticking all our youth with our debt and Dem-O-Care..reasonably, you gotta wonder.
> ...



Oh, Shut Up....


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Oct 31, 2013)

Luissa annoyed,...who knew...


----------



## Newby (Oct 31, 2013)

Ame®icano;8073678 said:
			
		

> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



End of discussion... great post!


----------



## Newby (Oct 31, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Ame®icano;8073678 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



  How do you know a patient isn't going to get better, or are you just assuming?


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 31, 2013)

Lumpy 1 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Lumpy 1 said:
> ...



Anyone who doesn't agree with them will be labeled as radical. At the same time they call themselves reasonable and moderate... no shit, pure angels.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Oct 31, 2013)

Ame®icano;8078178 said:
			
		

> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...



I guess it's something like Democrats actually hating Tea Party Members for believing in the Constitution, a reasonable budget and that government is too controlling and isn't the answer.


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 31, 2013)

Lumpy 1 said:


> Ame®icano;8078178 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



TP is hated by establishment GOP too that is nowdays much closer to the Democrats then to the TP. Only reason they claim to be on the right is because they are bit less left then Democrats themselves.


----------



## Dragonlady (Oct 31, 2013)

So you think that doctors and hospitals in the US aren't giving false hope to families of comatose patients just to continue to collect fat fees for keeping their loved ones alive.  Doctors are recommending expensive tests patients don't need from labs the doctors own just because there's a payment due on the doctor's Mercedes?

When you have a for profit medical system, it's easy for doctors to abuse the system to pad their incomes.


----------



## Steven_R (Oct 31, 2013)

How much of that is unnecessary padding and how much is because of the way malpractice suits are abused? How many tests are just redundant, but the doc orders it anyways because if he doesn't he'll get sued?


----------



## tinydancer (Nov 1, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> So you think that doctors and hospitals in the US aren't giving false hope to families of comatose patients just to continue to collect fat fees for keeping their loved ones alive.  Doctors are recommending expensive tests patients don't need from labs the doctors own just because there's a payment due on the doctor's Mercedes?
> 
> When you have a for profit medical system, it's easy for doctors to abuse the system to pad their incomes.



Socialized medicine has bad actors as well. In Britain the NHS has been ordered to stop giving bonuses for killing patients errrrrrrrrr putting them on the Liverpool Pathway.

Imagine that. Bonuses for freeing up bed space in such a novel way.


----------



## The T (Nov 1, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > So you think that doctors and hospitals in the US aren't giving false hope to families of comatose patients just to continue to collect fat fees for keeping their loved ones alive. Doctors are recommending expensive tests patients don't need from labs the doctors own just because there's a payment due on the doctor's Mercedes?
> ...


 
Pretty much what *IPAB* is in Obamacare?


----------



## tinydancer (Nov 1, 2013)

Just so you know I'm not bullshitting.   Imagine real death panels with government incentives to "off" patients.

Truth. Promoting and meeting targets. Isn't this lovely? And please pay particular attention to the fact that only 57% of patients families were informed that their loved one was being put on the "pathway".

The source is BBC. I wanted that for any mamby pamby libs on the board who couldn't bear to read anything by the Daily Mail.

*Bonus payments

About 55,000 people die in the East each year. Half die in hospital, usually with a chronic illness such as heart disease, cancer or stroke.

The BBC sent Freedom of Information requests to 20 NHS trusts requesting details about their use of LCP.

Only half provided the information, with some saying that they did not collate figures.

The investigation found that Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, which runs Addenbrooke's Hospital in Cambridge, is in line for a £1m bonus from the Government for promoting end-of-life care, including the LCP.

The money is paid if the hospital meets targets in training nurses in palliative care in the eight wards where there are the the most deaths, and in identifying terminally ill patients.

The trust said it did not keep figures on the use of LCP.

However, a national dying audit, which was a snapshot of deaths, found that only 57% of patients had their care plan discussed with relatives or carers.

Since then, the hospital has taken on an end-of-life care "facilitator" to ensure that conversations with patients and relatives take place.

*

BBC News - Liverpool Care Pathway: More than 10,000 patients placed on plan


----------



## The T (Nov 1, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> Just so you know I'm not bullshitting.  Imagine real death panels with government incentives to "off" patients.
> 
> Truth. Promoting and meeting targets. Isn't this lovely? And please pay particular attention to the fact that only 57% of patients families were informed that their loved one was being put on the "pathway".
> 
> ...


Never doubted it. I've heard about it. Thanks for the link.


----------



## tinydancer (Nov 1, 2013)

The T said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Just so you know I'm not bullshitting.  Imagine real death panels with government incentives to "off" patients.
> ...



The actual Liverpool Care Pathway Plan as originally intended is a truly sensitive and caring way for a doctor and a dying patient to work together on a humane "exit strategy" for the patient.

But then you get bean counters involved and bureaucrats involved and not only do you get a slippery slope for the health care system now it  hits rock bottom and keeps on digging. 

Government always fucks up. Pardon my french, but it's true.


----------



## The T (Nov 1, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...


And precisely why politicians need to stay out of the way of how people conduct their personal matters. But the whole point is ultimate control by the same politicians, isn't it? And this is what ObamaCare means to accomplish as well. People had better wake up.


----------



## tinydancer (Nov 1, 2013)

The T said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



This will give you an idea of how crazy it gets with socialized medicine. Say you need a procedure done that the province you are in cannot give you.

You apply and if you are turned down you get a chance to appeal. 

This is in Ontario. Pay particular attention who is on the board that you the little guy is up against.

*In this province, a patient whose application for out-of-province care is turned down can appeal to the Health Services Appeals and Review Board (HSARB).

According to lawyer Perry Brodkin, almost all those appeals are rejected.

Part of the problem, he says, is that patients try to represent themselves at the hearings  and find themselves up against a battery of high-priced OHIP and ministry lawyers.

And high legal costs mean its only worthwhile hiring a lawyer if the procedure is expensive.

When were talking $25,000 only, the legal fees are going to be pretty close to that.

If your appeal is granted, you get nothing. If your appeal is denied, you pay the $25,000 (for the procedure) plus all the legal fees, he said.

Either way, youre out of pocket.

So who makes up these panels?

Well, of HSARBs 43-person board, 31 are lawyers. One is a chartered accountant, one is a mortgage underwriter and the rest are a mix of educators and consultants. The position pays $398 a day.

So much for the little guy.*

'Death panels' a fact of life in Ontario | Ontario | News | Toronto Sun


----------



## tinydancer (Nov 1, 2013)

This is what a death panel in action looks like. Worth the read. Link provided.

If she lived in either Saskatchewan, Manitoba or British Columbia she would have access to this medication.

*OHIP doesn't cover drug that could extend dying mom's life

 TORONTO - Tell me how you do it.

How do you tell two children, ages seven and nine, that their mom has only two months to live?

How do you tell those children there could be an empty seat at the table this Christmas?

Then how do you tell those children that there&#8217;s a drug that could give their mom another 18 months of life &#8212; but the government has turned her down for coverage for that drug?*

OHIP doesn't cover drug that could extend dying mom's life | Ontario | News | Toronto Sun


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 1, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> How much of that is unnecessary padding and how much is because of the way malpractice suits are abused? How many tests are just redundant, but the doc orders it anyways because if he doesn't he'll get sued?


I think it can easily be abused by both in the situation. 

Incentivizing wrongfully the system or running it without strict oversight for we the patients and the good doctors who work hard to do right, causes it all to fail in the end for everyone. 

We always needed strict oversight to look out for abuse and fraud, but for some reason that went lacking for far to long in this nation, and it has ended up where we are at right now in all of this.

The gnashing of teeth and the whining can be heard for miles and miles around now, but whose fault was it ultimately and sadly enough in the end ?


----------



## Dragonlady (Nov 1, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> This is what a death panel in action looks like. Worth the read. Link provided.
> 
> If she lived in either Saskatchewan, Manitoba or British Columbia she would have access to this medication.
> 
> ...



OHIP doesn't cover ANY drugs unless they're administered in hospital.  This is why Canadians purchase supplemental insurance - to cover those things OHIP doesn't cover.

There is nothing to prevent this family from purchasing the drug themselves.  The cost is $4,000 per month.  I guess from your post, you're going to donate to this woman's website.


----------



## Contumacious (Nov 1, 2013)

Lumpy 1 said:


> After sticking all our youth with our debt and Dem-O-Care..reasonably, you gotta wonder.
> 
> ---------------------
> 
> ...




And that my friend is the definition of fascism

...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; *the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone.... 


Benito Mussolinihttp://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.asp*

.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Nov 1, 2013)

Contumacious said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > After sticking all our youth with our debt and Dem-O-Care..reasonably, you gotta wonder.
> ...



To strong of a word my friend, truth hurts their "feelings".


----------



## tinydancer (Nov 1, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > This is what a death panel in action looks like. Worth the read. Link provided.
> ...



OHIP does cover drugs outside of the hospital.

 I believe it runs for at least 6 months after being released from the hospital under a policy called Compassionate drug policy. Not sure if applicable in this woman's case. We can squabble one day about Harris vs McGuinty on health care one day.

But you are clouding the greater issue of people believing they are paying into a government run medical insurance policy and finding out that in a heartbeat the government top heavy with highly paid bureaucrats will fuck them over. 

And don't try to pretty up our system to the posters on the board. We have major failures in all our provincial plans.

I saw a very nice poster, I think she had a handle FJO who was thrilled with Manitoba coverage. Made this really nice post. Happy to be alive out here. YAY! Another refugee from Ontario. 

 Lord almighty though, she must be up close to Winnipeg or in Winnipeg and doesn't know that the bloody provincial NDP government shut down the only health center south of Steinbach for over a year with only a clinic available.

Obviously she doesn't know about our plight and fight from the south east of the province. 

Hell's bells I was closer to my funeral home in Vita (half and hour away and glad I know the family) than an emergency room up in Steinbach. An hour away with an ambulance driving like it's in the Grand Prix and strapped into the back praying you don't hit a deer. 

BUT it still beats OHIP. 

It's a sad day on the planet when I'd rather trust a private insurance company than a government run health plan but that's where we are today.

Tommy Douglas is rolling in his grave that the Canadian government would pay for a lesbian haunted house in Toronto rather than for medication to help a woman live longer.

(For those that are unaware the taxpayers paid for a Lesbian Haunted House in TO complete with scary replicas of male genitalia. Not kidding)

I'm personally saving for my life exit strategy. It involves a cabana in the Keys, jaked margaritas, in an ocean breeze 

 I intend to leave this planet in style and who needs morphine when tequila is available. 

Oh and btw donation was sent before I started street fighting in this thread. I had read about her plight in the Sun.


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 2, 2013)

Political Junky said:


> I certainly hope if I were unconscious for 3 years that someone would pull the plug.


I guess you never read stories where people have awoken from these conditions even after a long period of time right, and (imho) it should never be about money, but rather that the patient is still living with brain activity that suggest a possible come back according to professionals in the field in which their dealing with.

They may could move the patient to an area that is set up to allow these patients to be monitored and/or to pass away in a dignified way after all hope has been exhausted in such cases, and where as it leaves everyone knowing that they had done all that they could afterwards when the person finally goes. I mean it's not like these people are ending up in this specific condition by the thousands in these hospitals, so why the hurry up and be done with them that is found to be the issue that is going on with them in these cases ? Has anyone done the stats on how many of these kinds of patients are in hospitals right now, and do they constitute these kinds of actions by their numbers, in which people suggest like noomi that the health care industry will collapse under the weight of it all, otherwise if giving them even one more day maybe to see if it works out somehow to their benefit by those days given to them ?


----------



## Dragonlady (Nov 2, 2013)

It needs to be said here that situations such as the young mother seeking the cancer drug, and those seeking out of province treatment, and the man in the original post are rare cases - the exception rather than the rule.  Such cases are so exceptional that they are headlines on the nightly news.

In the US, people being denied treatment by their insurance companies for new drugs, being cut off of treatment because they've reached their cap, and going bankrupt because of the costs of medical care are so common, they aren't even remarked upon as unusual.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Nov 2, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> It needs to be said here that situations such as the young mother seeking the cancer drug, and those seeking out of province treatment, and the man in the original post are rare cases - the exception rather than the rule.  Such cases are so exceptional that they are headlines on the nightly news.
> 
> In the US, people being denied treatment by their insurance companies for new drugs, being cut off of treatment because they've reached their cap, and going bankrupt because of the costs of medical care are so common, they aren't even remarked upon as unusual.



It would seem that with private insurance you would have recourse, with government, not sooo much.


----------



## tinydancer (Nov 2, 2013)

Tommy Douglas the grandfather of socialized medicine in Canada only wanted catastrophic health care for farmers who were devastated by disease or injury and couldn't bring in the crops. 

Well, well, well, decades later after politicians, bean counters and bureaucrats got hold of his idea we are now at the point of being raped by taxes and levies all in the name of healthcare.

A monolith of bureaucracy hurtling to a duplicate of the NHS (but over my dead body and other conservatives who will not allow it to happen)


----------



## The T (Nov 2, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> Tommy Douglas the grandfather of socialized medicine in Canada only wanted catastrophic health care for farmers who were devastated by disease or injury and couldn't bring in the crops.
> 
> Well, well, well, decades later after politicians, bean counters and bureaucrats got hold of his idea we are now at the point of being raped by taxes and levies all in the name of healthcare.
> 
> A monolith of bureaucracy hurtling to a duplicate of the NHS (but over my dead body and other conservatives who will not allow it to happen)


And the sad part of it all? NONE of what's going on has to do with 'healthcare'...only _control._


----------



## tinydancer (Nov 2, 2013)

The T said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Douglas the grandfather of socialized medicine in Canada only wanted catastrophic health care for farmers who were devastated by disease or injury and couldn't bring in the crops.
> ...



All one has to do is look at Britain's NHS and go " Oh no there goes Tokyo here comes Godzilla".

A behemoth of bureaucracy that makes one want to bazooka barf.


----------



## HenryBHough (Nov 2, 2013)

Sad, but consider the greater good.

The money saved by letting this lady die will save every Candaian about 1/4 of a cent on their taxes.


----------



## Noomi (Nov 2, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> This is what a death panel in action looks like. Worth the read. Link provided.
> 
> If she lived in either Saskatchewan, Manitoba or British Columbia she would have access to this medication.
> 
> ...



It is sad, but you need to understand that us taxpayers cannot save everyone. We can't fund a drug which few people will ever need, just to prolong the life of someone who will die anyway.

These drugs are expensive, and they cost tens of thousands - how much should the government be expected to fund? We can't save everyone. Its sad, but that is life.
The drug might give her another 18 months, but it may not. Without it, she supposedly has 2 months to live, but she could live for another 18 months, we just don't know.


----------



## Dragonlady (Nov 3, 2013)

tinydancer said:


> Tommy Douglas the grandfather of socialized medicine in Canada only wanted catastrophic health care for farmers who were devastated by disease or injury and couldn't bring in the crops.
> 
> Well, well, well, decades later after politicians, bean counters and bureaucrats got hold of his idea we are now at the point of being raped by taxes and levies all in the name of healthcare.
> 
> A monolith of bureaucracy hurtling to a duplicate of the NHS (but over my dead body and other conservatives who will not allow it to happen)



This is utter bullshit from top to bottom.

Douglas established the continent's first single payer health care system which covered hospital care for most of the population of the Province of Saskatchewan.  He wanted universal coverage, but the province couldn't afford it in 1946.  

Tommy Douglas left provincal politics to head the newly formed New Democratic Party.  The NDP favours social democracy and is supported by unions, and working people.  It has never formed a government in Canada, although it is currently the official opposition, and has formed governments in a number of provinces, including Ontario.  

Tiny Dancer is a font of misinformation on Canadian Health Care and taxation.  80% of Canadians are very satisfied with our health care system according to a survey conducted by MacLeans magazine.  Our per capita costs are nearly half of what Americans pay, and our life expectancy is longer than the US.  Our taxes are higher than those paid by Americans, but when you factor the cost of health insurance in the US, Canadians come out ahead, because our health care is covered by our taxes.


----------



## Newby (Nov 4, 2013)

Noomi said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > This is what a death panel in action looks like. Worth the read. Link provided.
> ...



How much should the insurance companies be expected to fund?  They can't save everyone.  It's sad, but that is life.

Yet when it's the insurance companies that give that line of bullshit, it's used as a reason to turn control of healthcare over to the government so that these kinds of things don't happen. So what's changed other than substituting tax payer for insurance company? What's better? 'We have to save the sick people from the evil insurance companies!!' and other lies are used to convince stupid people to turn their liberty over to the government.  Your 'argument' completely deconstructs the reasons that were given to have government controled healthcare in the first place, and sadly most just like you, are too stupid to even realize it.


----------



## Luissa (Nov 4, 2013)

Newby said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



When private insurances does it, why don't cons call it death panels?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 4, 2013)

Luissa said:


> When private insurances does it, why don't cons call it death panels?



Because there are other options. Other companies competing.

Now that we have Fascist Care - there is one option - and only one.


----------



## Newby (Nov 4, 2013)

Luissa said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



So you support it as long as the government is the one saying 'no' to treatment?  You support Noomi's comment?


----------



## Barbarap (Nov 4, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > When private insurances does it, why don't cons call it death panels?
> ...



Other options? 
Well, yes, if you have so much money you don't know what to do with it.   

But for us regular folks, it isn't an option to suddenly switch insurance, especially when the illness is demanding life or death decisions and/ or the insurance is tied to employment.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 4, 2013)

Barbarap said:


> Other options?
> Well, yes, if you have so much money you don't know what to do with it.



A year ago, if the Kaiser plan you had didn't meet your needs, you could switch to Health First or Aetna and negotiate a plan to your liking.

Now you take what Dear Leader orders you to take.

Options, vs. no option.



> But for us regular folks, it isn't an option to suddenly switch insurance, especially when the illness is demanding life or death decisions and/ or the insurance is tied to employment.



Now insurance is tied to the IRS with basically a single level of service determined by bureaucrats - and you say it's BETTER?

Be serious....


----------



## Barbarap (Nov 4, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Barbarap said:
> 
> 
> > Other options?
> ...



You can switch insurance during open enrollment which happens once a year. 

If your health care is tied to employment, then you may be restricted further. 

If you have a pre existing condition (and one might think this could be the case since current insurance isn't meeting the need) then good luck getting any other policy.


----------



## Barbarap (Nov 4, 2013)

Ah, by the way..... The ACA does not offer a single level of service. They offer at least three levels in my state with various insurers offered for each level. 

I have more choices should I sign up for the ACA than I currently have with my employer provided insurance.


----------



## Barbarap (Nov 4, 2013)

Just to be clear, I don't think the ACA is perfect but it is a step in the right direction.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 4, 2013)

Barbarap said:


> Ah, by the way..... The ACA does not offer a single level of service. They offer at least three levels in my state with various insurers offered for each level.
> 
> I have more choices should I sign up for the ACA than I currently have with my employer provided insurance.



So, we went from limitless possibilities to 3, but that is somehow more choice?

You wouldn't piss on my head and tell me it's raining, would you?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 4, 2013)

Barbarap said:


> Just to be clear, I don't think the ACA is perfect but it is a step in the right direction.


----------



## Barbarap (Nov 4, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Barbarap said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, by the way..... The ACA does not offer a single level of service. They offer at least three levels in my state with various insurers offered for each level.
> ...



I never said there were limitless options. But, hey... Don't let facts get in the way of the nice spin you got going there!


----------



## Barbarap (Nov 4, 2013)

And, if the 'unlimited possibilities' you are talking about means the current market for insurance...... You are still wrong. 

People are limited by location, finances, pre existing conditions, formularies and a whole bunch of other things.


----------

