Death panels are here!

[koshergrl]

So the article says that if a man doesn't have insurance, a hospital can kill him..

Which is what we said all along. Death panels. People who kill people based on their biased and uneducated determination of their quality of life, their financial, and/or ideological, status.

I think this one is a little of each.

I see, so you're going to focus on 'death panels' even though this is not the 'death panels' that were talked about when passing Obamacare. That right wing lie was about a government agency that was going to decide who lived or died if they HAD Obamacare insurance. This is a completely different nut.

KG is nuts about abortion, and this is really what the bs about "death panels" is about, and that's what G5000 attempted to explain, I think. I mean everyone I know doesn't like abortion. It would be a really good thing if no woman ever decided abortion was the least really crappy option out there. But that's really not the issue with "death panels" despite the nutters' attempts to confuse things.

A ventilator is something they put you on if you are so sick you cannot breath. Generally people who cannot breath are considered to be "dying." We all die in the end. Generally its considered ethical and humane to put a person on a ventilator is there is some hope that whatever is preventing their not being able to "breath" can be treated, and they will be able to "breath" in the future. If it is a medical certainty that the person will NEVER BE ABLE TO BREATH, THEY ARE DYING.

KG's schtick is life must be preserved at all costs, be they financial, ethical, moral or humane. As a society we have not really come to terms with terminal illnesses. It's not exactly a secret that hospice care for cancer patients includes a shot of morphine to put a person out of their misery near the end, and the person says when they can't take the pain anymore. But those people are not being "kept alive" with a machine that breathes for them with the certainty that they will never be able to breath again without a fucking tube stuck down their throat into their lungs and a machine that forces air into the lungs.

there is no rational comparison to ventilator support and abortion. Regardless of how you feel about either. KG thrives on misapprehension and irrelevancies.

I agree with a lot of what you say and KG is completely off her rocker.

That said, I think we're talking about what to do with those who are dying because of lack of insurance/medical care, no?

Not really. The ethical issue is when can docs refuse to continue providing treatment even if a patient or their family wants it to continue. The converse is when can docs refuse a family, or patient's, request that treatment cease. Both those questions really do, in real life, come about without any regard to money.

Well, in this specific case I believe it is because the patient doesn't have healthcare, or at least that was my take on it.

Money does have place in the equation when a patient has none. That is, if a doc can ethically say "she's so damn sick and dying giving her anything beyond antibiotics and comfort treatment is inhumane, and I won't do it," a person with money will inevitably find some doc who'll keep them "alive" for money.

It's strange how we treat dying people. I had a mother in law whom they twice kept alive with antibiotics when she had pneumonia. The woman had dementia and recognized no one other then my wife and I and our daughter. Ethically, the docs had to give her antibiotics despite the fact that pretty much everyone wanted her to just pass. I keep a .38 with 158 grain soft nose bullets.

I don't have the answers here, I feel I don't know enough right now as to when the hospital has the right to end someone's life against the wishes of the patient or family. What if someone has a month, 2 months, 6 months or 2 years left?

Anyway, just to be clear, my whole argument in this is if the patient is dying only because of lack of insurance.[/QUOTE]
No, the patient is dying because the hospital won't treat him.

There's a difference.

 

[koshergrl]

I hadn't heard of this one in OP but recently became aware of deaths of 26 and 27-year-olds that could not afford insulin and passed away.

I imagine they had insurance.

It's not about insurance. It's about the disgusting attitude that a group of people get to determine who lives and who dies, according to their perception of the other person's quality of life, and their perception of that person's value.

 

[jc456]

the hospital will always get paid. ALWAYS

Bull shit.

At best they make some of the money back by charging all of us who can pay even more.

dude you can say bull shit as often as you like. the fact is the hospital always gets their dime. ALWAYS

The folks at the hospital my wife works at would laugh at you for such ignorance. They lose millions of dollars a year treating those that cannot pay. They recoup very little of it. There is no charity that comes in after the fact and says "here is the money for that guy that could not pay".

You are dealing from a position of ignorance and it shows with each post.

so you agree that hospitals do the right thing and treat suffering humans without money.

They have no choice, they are compelled to by law.

I thought they took an oath.

 

[HappyJoy]

I see, so you're going to focus on 'death panels' even though this is not the 'death panels' that were talked about when passing Obamacare. That right wing lie was about a government agency that was going to decide who lived or died if they HAD Obamacare insurance. This is a completely different nut.

KG is nuts about abortion, and this is really what the bs about "death panels" is about, and that's what G5000 attempted to explain, I think. I mean everyone I know doesn't like abortion. It would be a really good thing if no woman ever decided abortion was the least really crappy option out there. But that's really not the issue with "death panels" despite the nutters' attempts to confuse things.

A ventilator is something they put you on if you are so sick you cannot breath. Generally people who cannot breath are considered to be "dying." We all die in the end. Generally its considered ethical and humane to put a person on a ventilator is there is some hope that whatever is preventing their not being able to "breath" can be treated, and they will be able to "breath" in the future. If it is a medical certainty that the person will NEVER BE ABLE TO BREATH, THEY ARE DYING.

KG's schtick is life must be preserved at all costs, be they financial, ethical, moral or humane. As a society we have not really come to terms with terminal illnesses. It's not exactly a secret that hospice care for cancer patients includes a shot of morphine to put a person out of their misery near the end, and the person says when they can't take the pain anymore. But those people are not being "kept alive" with a machine that breathes for them with the certainty that they will never be able to breath again without a fucking tube stuck down their throat into their lungs and a machine that forces air into the lungs.

there is no rational comparison to ventilator support and abortion. Regardless of how you feel about either. KG thrives on misapprehension and irrelevancies.

I agree with a lot of what you say and KG is completely off her rocker.

That said, I think we're talking about what to do with those who are dying because of lack of insurance/medical care, no?

Not really. The ethical issue is when can docs refuse to continue providing treatment even if a patient or their family wants it to continue. The converse is when can docs refuse a family, or patient's, request that treatment cease. Both those questions really do, in real life, come about without any regard to money.

Well, in this specific case I believe it is because the patient doesn't have healthcare, or at least that was my take on it.

Money does have place in the equation when a patient has none. That is, if a doc can ethically say "she's so damn sick and dying giving her anything beyond antibiotics and comfort treatment is inhumane, and I won't do it," a person with money will inevitably find some doc who'll keep them "alive" for money.

It's strange how we treat dying people. I had a mother in law whom they twice kept alive with antibiotics when she had pneumonia. The woman had dementia and recognized no one other then my wife and I and our daughter. Ethically, the docs had to give her antibiotics despite the fact that pretty much everyone wanted her to just pass. I keep a .38 with 158 grain soft nose bullets.

I don't have the answers here, I feel I don't know enough right now as to when the hospital has the right to end someone's life against the wishes of the patient or family. What if someone has a month, 2 months, 6 months or 2 years left?

Anyway, just to be clear, my whole argument in this is if the patient is dying only because of lack of insurance.

No, the patient is dying because the hospital won't treat him.

There's a difference.

Yeah, because of lack of insurance. Now, for the hundredth time what would you do to save this guys life and others?

 

[HappyJoy]

Bull shit.

At best they make some of the money back by charging all of us who can pay even more.

dude you can say bull shit as often as you like. the fact is the hospital always gets their dime. ALWAYS

The folks at the hospital my wife works at would laugh at you for such ignorance. They lose millions of dollars a year treating those that cannot pay. They recoup very little of it. There is no charity that comes in after the fact and says "here is the money for that guy that could not pay".

You are dealing from a position of ignorance and it shows with each post.

so you agree that hospitals do the right thing and treat suffering humans without money.

They have no choice, they are compelled to by law.

I thought they took an oath.

Who pays?

 

[jc456]

KG is nuts about abortion, and this is really what the bs about "death panels" is about, and that's what G5000 attempted to explain, I think. I mean everyone I know doesn't like abortion. It would be a really good thing if no woman ever decided abortion was the least really crappy option out there. But that's really not the issue with "death panels" despite the nutters' attempts to confuse things.

A ventilator is something they put you on if you are so sick you cannot breath. Generally people who cannot breath are considered to be "dying." We all die in the end. Generally its considered ethical and humane to put a person on a ventilator is there is some hope that whatever is preventing their not being able to "breath" can be treated, and they will be able to "breath" in the future. If it is a medical certainty that the person will NEVER BE ABLE TO BREATH, THEY ARE DYING.

KG's schtick is life must be preserved at all costs, be they financial, ethical, moral or humane. As a society we have not really come to terms with terminal illnesses. It's not exactly a secret that hospice care for cancer patients includes a shot of morphine to put a person out of their misery near the end, and the person says when they can't take the pain anymore. But those people are not being "kept alive" with a machine that breathes for them with the certainty that they will never be able to breath again without a fucking tube stuck down their throat into their lungs and a machine that forces air into the lungs.

there is no rational comparison to ventilator support and abortion. Regardless of how you feel about either. KG thrives on misapprehension and irrelevancies.

I agree with a lot of what you say and KG is completely off her rocker.

That said, I think we're talking about what to do with those who are dying because of lack of insurance/medical care, no?

Not really. The ethical issue is when can docs refuse to continue providing treatment even if a patient or their family wants it to continue. The converse is when can docs refuse a family, or patient's, request that treatment cease. Both those questions really do, in real life, come about without any regard to money.

Well, in this specific case I believe it is because the patient doesn't have healthcare, or at least that was my take on it.

Money does have place in the equation when a patient has none. That is, if a doc can ethically say "she's so damn sick and dying giving her anything beyond antibiotics and comfort treatment is inhumane, and I won't do it," a person with money will inevitably find some doc who'll keep them "alive" for money.

It's strange how we treat dying people. I had a mother in law whom they twice kept alive with antibiotics when she had pneumonia. The woman had dementia and recognized no one other then my wife and I and our daughter. Ethically, the docs had to give her antibiotics despite the fact that pretty much everyone wanted her to just pass. I keep a .38 with 158 grain soft nose bullets.

I don't have the answers here, I feel I don't know enough right now as to when the hospital has the right to end someone's life against the wishes of the patient or family. What if someone has a month, 2 months, 6 months or 2 years left?

Anyway, just to be clear, my whole argument in this is if the patient is dying only because of lack of insurance.

No, the patient is dying because the hospital won't treat him.

There's a difference.

Yeah, because of lack of insurance. Now, for the hundredth time what would you do to save this guys life and others?

it's not up to us, it is up to the people we elect to protect life.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Embryos aren't fully formed humans, I don't pretend they are.

People with birth defects are not fully formed either, should we kill them?

You want government to make abortion illegal on your terms, for your reasons though, correct? Which would be moral.

No, not really. I am if nothing else a pragmatist. What I would really like to see is abortions to decline through preventing more pregnancies and though education. If we could get more people to understand that it is a human being that is killed in an abortion and not just a lump of cells being removed I think it would go a long way in reducing the number we have. But, maybe that is just a pipe dream.

I do not expect the law to ever be changed as it is not practical to do so. There is nothing in place to deal with an extra millin or so unwatned babies every year.

The fact that you think of unborn embryos as children is on you, it's not a clinical definition, so I disagree with you. Calling them babies or children is understandable and I've done the same but in reality it's a euphemism.

There is no clinical definition for the word.

That it's a moral issue? I never said it wasn't.

yes, you keep saying it is a moral issue, but you never once give a moral justification for it. How can it be a moral issue if it is not morally justified?

There is a reason you have to go with the value route and not the moral route when defending abortion.

I bring up morality because it's usually libertarians who do not want government to make laws on personal morality, maybe I'm wrong?

you are not wrong, but we do care about the liberty for all humans, not just the ones "fully formed". That is the problem with abortion, it deprives a human of its very life, there is no greater removal of liberty that that.

Because the person at that point has constitutional rights.

We could change that if we really wanted to. At one time black people do not have those rights and we corrected that error.

You didn't answer my IVF question. Should that procedure end because ultimately that's going to lead to murder (in your eyes)?

Do you think women who get abortions should face the death penalty?

I never said it led to murder, murder is purely a legal term, not a moral one.

It is also a red herring that has little to do with abortion. I have stated in this thread and often that for me personally the "arbitrary line" is at implantation, so IVF does not fall into my views on abortion.

Do you think women should be allowed to get an abortion in the case of rape?

I personally think it is wrong to punish a baby for the actions of its father, but since less than 1% of abortions are done for the reason I do not focus on that.

 

[jc456]

dude you can say bull shit as often as you like. the fact is the hospital always gets their dime. ALWAYS

The folks at the hospital my wife works at would laugh at you for such ignorance. They lose millions of dollars a year treating those that cannot pay. They recoup very little of it. There is no charity that comes in after the fact and says "here is the money for that guy that could not pay".

You are dealing from a position of ignorance and it shows with each post.

so you agree that hospitals do the right thing and treat suffering humans without money.

They have no choice, they are compelled to by law.

I thought they took an oath.

Who pays?

I supposed they pay for their license.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Bull shit.

At best they make some of the money back by charging all of us who can pay even more.

dude you can say bull shit as often as you like. the fact is the hospital always gets their dime. ALWAYS

The folks at the hospital my wife works at would laugh at you for such ignorance. They lose millions of dollars a year treating those that cannot pay. They recoup very little of it. There is no charity that comes in after the fact and says "here is the money for that guy that could not pay".

You are dealing from a position of ignorance and it shows with each post.

so you agree that hospitals do the right thing and treat suffering humans without money.

They have no choice, they are compelled to by law.

I thought they took an oath.

Hospitals take an oath? I didn't know that was possible.

 

[HappyJoy]

I agree with a lot of what you say and KG is completely off her rocker.

That said, I think we're talking about what to do with those who are dying because of lack of insurance/medical care, no?

Not really. The ethical issue is when can docs refuse to continue providing treatment even if a patient or their family wants it to continue. The converse is when can docs refuse a family, or patient's, request that treatment cease. Both those questions really do, in real life, come about without any regard to money.

Well, in this specific case I believe it is because the patient doesn't have healthcare, or at least that was my take on it.

Money does have place in the equation when a patient has none. That is, if a doc can ethically say "she's so damn sick and dying giving her anything beyond antibiotics and comfort treatment is inhumane, and I won't do it," a person with money will inevitably find some doc who'll keep them "alive" for money.

It's strange how we treat dying people. I had a mother in law whom they twice kept alive with antibiotics when she had pneumonia. The woman had dementia and recognized no one other then my wife and I and our daughter. Ethically, the docs had to give her antibiotics despite the fact that pretty much everyone wanted her to just pass. I keep a .38 with 158 grain soft nose bullets.

I don't have the answers here, I feel I don't know enough right now as to when the hospital has the right to end someone's life against the wishes of the patient or family. What if someone has a month, 2 months, 6 months or 2 years left?

Anyway, just to be clear, my whole argument in this is if the patient is dying only because of lack of insurance.

No, the patient is dying because the hospital won't treat him.

There's a difference.

Yeah, because of lack of insurance. Now, for the hundredth time what would you do to save this guys life and others?

it's not up to us, it is up to the people we elect to protect life.

If that's not a dodge then I don't know what is. I'm asking what the laws should be to save the guys or pay his bills. So, what would someone on the right have done?

 

[HappyJoy]

The folks at the hospital my wife works at would laugh at you for such ignorance. They lose millions of dollars a year treating those that cannot pay. They recoup very little of it. There is no charity that comes in after the fact and says "here is the money for that guy that could not pay".

You are dealing from a position of ignorance and it shows with each post.

so you agree that hospitals do the right thing and treat suffering humans without money.

They have no choice, they are compelled to by law.

I thought they took an oath.

Who pays?

I supposed they pay for their license.

Who pays the insurance bills?

 

[jc456]

dude you can say bull shit as often as you like. the fact is the hospital always gets their dime. ALWAYS

The folks at the hospital my wife works at would laugh at you for such ignorance. They lose millions of dollars a year treating those that cannot pay. They recoup very little of it. There is no charity that comes in after the fact and says "here is the money for that guy that could not pay".

You are dealing from a position of ignorance and it shows with each post.

so you agree that hospitals do the right thing and treat suffering humans without money.

They have no choice, they are compelled to by law.

I thought they took an oath.

Hospitals take an oath? I didn't know that was possible.

yeah the building does. that is if that's all you think a hospital is.

 

[jc456]

so you agree that hospitals do the right thing and treat suffering humans without money.

They have no choice, they are compelled to by law.

I thought they took an oath.

Who pays?

I supposed they pay for their license.

Who pays the insurance bills?

I supposed they pay for their insurance as well.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The folks at the hospital my wife works at would laugh at you for such ignorance. They lose millions of dollars a year treating those that cannot pay. They recoup very little of it. There is no charity that comes in after the fact and says "here is the money for that guy that could not pay".

You are dealing from a position of ignorance and it shows with each post.

so you agree that hospitals do the right thing and treat suffering humans without money.

They have no choice, they are compelled to by law.

I thought they took an oath.

Hospitals take an oath? I didn't know that was possible.

yeah the building does. that is if that's all you think a hospital is.

Actually hospitals are businesses, they are not just the building. And the business does not take an oath.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I hadn't heard of this one in OP but recently became aware of deaths of 26 and 27-year-olds that could not afford insulin and passed away.

Does not surprise me. My son is a Type-1 and insulin is damn expensive even with great insurance.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

He needs to move over here. There are diabetics in my family. They get insulin,metaformin,glicazide whatever without charge. They also get related care "free". Eye tests and and chiropody.
And they also get "free" prescriptions for any other ailments.There is a small charge for non diabetics.

Its not strictly free as they all work and pay national insurance.

Nobody should die because they cant afford medicine.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

They have no choice, they are compelled to by law.

I thought they took an oath.

Who pays?

I supposed they pay for their license.

Who pays the insurance bills?

I supposed they pay for their insurance as well.

Who pays for those that have no insurance since you say that Govt should force them to be cared for?

Do you think that since the Govt forces them to be cared for it should be the responsibility of the government to pay for their bills?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I hadn't heard of this one in OP but recently became aware of deaths of 26 and 27-year-olds that could not afford insulin and passed away.

Does not surprise me. My son is a Type-1 and insulin is damn expensive even with great insurance.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

He needs to move over here. There are diabetics in my family. They get insulin,metaformin,glicazide whatever without charge. They also get related care "free". Eye tests and and chiropody.
And they also get "free" prescriptions for any other ailments.There is a small charge for non diabetics.

Its not strictly free as they all work and pay national insurance.

Nobody should die because they cant afford medicine.

I do not know where "here" is, but he is 16 and he has actually started to look into the healthcare systems of other countries with the idea of moving. He has seen first hand how our system fucks over those with conditions like his unless they are wealthy enough to overcome the obstacles.

 

[jc456]

so you agree that hospitals do the right thing and treat suffering humans without money.

They have no choice, they are compelled to by law.

I thought they took an oath.

Hospitals take an oath? I didn't know that was possible.

yeah the building does. that is if that's all you think a hospital is.

Actually hospitals are businesses, they are not just the building. And the business does not take an oath.

sure they do. The top executives in order to be in business as a hospital must take an oath to treat the patience that walk in. Along with every doctor they hire.

 

[jc456]

I thought they took an oath.

Who pays?

I supposed they pay for their license.

Who pays the insurance bills?

I supposed they pay for their insurance as well.

Who pays for those that have no insurance since you say that Govt should force them to be cared for?

Do you think that since the Govt forces them to be cared for it should be the responsibility of the government to pay for their bills?

well actually, they offer up financial assistance.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I hadn't heard of this one in OP but recently became aware of deaths of 26 and 27-year-olds that could not afford insulin and passed away.

Does not surprise me. My son is a Type-1 and insulin is damn expensive even with great insurance.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

He needs to move over here. There are diabetics in my family. They get insulin,metaformin,glicazide whatever without charge. They also get related care "free". Eye tests and and chiropody.
And they also get "free" prescriptions for any other ailments.There is a small charge for non diabetics.

Its not strictly free as they all work and pay national insurance.

Nobody should die because they cant afford medicine.

I do not know where "here" is, but he is 16 and he has actually started to look into the healthcare systems of other countries with the idea of moving. He has seen first hand how our system fucks over those with conditions like his unless they are wealthy enough to overcome the obstacles.

Thats tough when he is so young. I know what a rotten disease it is. Here is the UK. Diabetics get treated like people not customers.