Death panels are here!

[jc456]

yes hospitals and healthcare professionals should care for sick people period. Money isn't the issue. There are ways to recover costs. Just are. There are many charitable organizations who help with people today. so please!

So, what you are saying is that you are ok with the government forcing private individuals and companies to provides goods and services that the one receiving them cannot pay for.

I do not know what you do for a living, but would you be ok if the government forced your industry to do that and told you "well, there are lots of charities, go ask them for money".

Would you be ok with the government forced restaurants to serve anyone that came in asking for the food but could not pay and told them to go ask the charities to pay them back?

How about a landlord, should they be forced to provide a place to live to those who cannot pay and they too can go ask charities for their money back?

the government does in my industry. We have to manufacture per many guidelines set by both industry and government. what industry doesn't have to?

The government forces your industry to give your product and services to people who cannot pay for it?

I think you are not telling the truth.


Would you be ok with the government forced restaurants to serve anyone that came in asking for the food but could not pay and told them to go ask the charities to pay them back?

yep

 

[Harpy Eagle]

yes hospitals and healthcare professionals should care for sick people period. Money isn't the issue. There are ways to recover costs. Just are. There are many charitable organizations who help with people today. so please!

So, what you are saying is that you are ok with the government forcing private individuals and companies to provides goods and services that the one receiving them cannot pay for.

I do not know what you do for a living, but would you be ok if the government forced your industry to do that and told you "well, there are lots of charities, go ask them for money".

Would you be ok with the government forced restaurants to serve anyone that came in asking for the food but could not pay and told them to go ask the charities to pay them back?

How about a landlord, should they be forced to provide a place to live to those who cannot pay and they too can go ask charities for their money back?

they just told Starbucks they are not allowed to stop someone from using their bath rooms.

That is not the same as forcing starbucks to give that same person some coffee and a snack.

 

[HappyJoy]

So, are you going to answer the question of should hospitals and healthcare professionals be compelled by law to provide services and care to those who cannot pay for it?

Or are you going to just hide behind stupid talking points all night.

Maybe if you email your party leader he will send you an email with the right talking points so you can answer the question

yes hospitals and healthcare professionals should care for sick people period. Money isn't the issue. There are ways to recover costs. Just are. There are many charitable organizations who help with people today. so please!

BTW, do organ doners families pay for their loved ones organs after they pass? Or do the hospitals and doctors harvest the service for free?

That's not an answer. You can't count on charities to always have the money to do the right thing. How do you save this guy's life that has no insurance? Please, share with us the conservative solution.

sure I can. There are many, shriners, Moose, Catholic charities, there are sports charities. many resources to contact to cover costs. There is now the social network to have voluteers donate money. works really well. soooo many options to avoid cutting off life as a murderer.

So, in essence what you are saying is the guy should die if charities do not have enough money to pay for peoples' insurance bills. That's not really a substantive solution. Looks more like a cop out to me.

Pee Wee?

I don't care what you call it, just keep it away from me.

 

[jc456]

yes hospitals and healthcare professionals should care for sick people period. Money isn't the issue. There are ways to recover costs. Just are. There are many charitable organizations who help with people today. so please!

So, what you are saying is that you are ok with the government forcing private individuals and companies to provides goods and services that the one receiving them cannot pay for.

I do not know what you do for a living, but would you be ok if the government forced your industry to do that and told you "well, there are lots of charities, go ask them for money".

Would you be ok with the government forced restaurants to serve anyone that came in asking for the food but could not pay and told them to go ask the charities to pay them back?

How about a landlord, should they be forced to provide a place to live to those who cannot pay and they too can go ask charities for their money back?

they just told Starbucks they are not allowed to stop someone from using their bath rooms.

That is not the same as forcing starbucks to give that same person some coffee and a snack.

sure it is. They already gave away their coffee.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

yes hospitals and healthcare professionals should care for sick people period. Money isn't the issue. There are ways to recover costs. Just are. There are many charitable organizations who help with people today. so please!

So, what you are saying is that you are ok with the government forcing private individuals and companies to provides goods and services that the one receiving them cannot pay for.

I do not know what you do for a living, but would you be ok if the government forced your industry to do that and told you "well, there are lots of charities, go ask them for money".

Would you be ok with the government forced restaurants to serve anyone that came in asking for the food but could not pay and told them to go ask the charities to pay them back?

How about a landlord, should they be forced to provide a place to live to those who cannot pay and they too can go ask charities for their money back?

the government does in my industry. We have to manufacture per many guidelines set by both industry and government. what industry doesn't have to?

The government forces your industry to give your product and services to people who cannot pay for it?

I think you are not telling the truth.


Would you be ok with the government forced restaurants to serve anyone that came in asking for the food but could not pay and told them to go ask the charities to pay them back?

yep

That is a very socialist point of view, but that is at least consistent with the rest of your views.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

yes hospitals and healthcare professionals should care for sick people period. Money isn't the issue. There are ways to recover costs. Just are. There are many charitable organizations who help with people today. so please!

So, what you are saying is that you are ok with the government forcing private individuals and companies to provides goods and services that the one receiving them cannot pay for.

I do not know what you do for a living, but would you be ok if the government forced your industry to do that and told you "well, there are lots of charities, go ask them for money".

Would you be ok with the government forced restaurants to serve anyone that came in asking for the food but could not pay and told them to go ask the charities to pay them back?

How about a landlord, should they be forced to provide a place to live to those who cannot pay and they too can go ask charities for their money back?

they just told Starbucks they are not allowed to stop someone from using their bath rooms.

That is not the same as forcing starbucks to give that same person some coffee and a snack.

sure it is. They already gave away their coffee.

The government forces them to give away their coffee? Really...can you provide a link please.

 

[jc456]

yes hospitals and healthcare professionals should care for sick people period. Money isn't the issue. There are ways to recover costs. Just are. There are many charitable organizations who help with people today. so please!

BTW, do organ doners families pay for their loved ones organs after they pass? Or do the hospitals and doctors harvest the service for free?

That's not an answer. You can't count on charities to always have the money to do the right thing. How do you save this guy's life that has no insurance? Please, share with us the conservative solution.

sure I can. There are many, shriners, Moose, Catholic charities, there are sports charities. many resources to contact to cover costs. There is now the social network to have voluteers donate money. works really well. soooo many options to avoid cutting off life as a murderer.

So, in essence what you are saying is the guy should die if charities do not have enough money to pay for peoples' insurance bills. That's not really a substantive solution. Looks more like a cop out to me.

Pee Wee?

I don't care what you call it, just keep it away from me.

no one is going near you. Not sure what any of what you are writing has to do with covering costs of a sick humans.

 

[jc456]

yes hospitals and healthcare professionals should care for sick people period. Money isn't the issue. There are ways to recover costs. Just are. There are many charitable organizations who help with people today. so please!

So, what you are saying is that you are ok with the government forcing private individuals and companies to provides goods and services that the one receiving them cannot pay for.

I do not know what you do for a living, but would you be ok if the government forced your industry to do that and told you "well, there are lots of charities, go ask them for money".

Would you be ok with the government forced restaurants to serve anyone that came in asking for the food but could not pay and told them to go ask the charities to pay them back?

How about a landlord, should they be forced to provide a place to live to those who cannot pay and they too can go ask charities for their money back?

the government does in my industry. We have to manufacture per many guidelines set by both industry and government. what industry doesn't have to?

The government forces your industry to give your product and services to people who cannot pay for it?

I think you are not telling the truth.


Would you be ok with the government forced restaurants to serve anyone that came in asking for the food but could not pay and told them to go ask the charities to pay them back?

yep

That is a very socialist point of view, but that is at least consistent with the rest of your views.

the hospital will always get paid. ALWAYS

 

[jc456]

yes hospitals and healthcare professionals should care for sick people period. Money isn't the issue. There are ways to recover costs. Just are. There are many charitable organizations who help with people today. so please!

So, what you are saying is that you are ok with the government forcing private individuals and companies to provides goods and services that the one receiving them cannot pay for.

I do not know what you do for a living, but would you be ok if the government forced your industry to do that and told you "well, there are lots of charities, go ask them for money".

Would you be ok with the government forced restaurants to serve anyone that came in asking for the food but could not pay and told them to go ask the charities to pay them back?

How about a landlord, should they be forced to provide a place to live to those who cannot pay and they too can go ask charities for their money back?

they just told Starbucks they are not allowed to stop someone from using their bath rooms.

That is not the same as forcing starbucks to give that same person some coffee and a snack.

sure it is. They already gave away their coffee.

The government forces them to give away their coffee? Really...can you provide a link please.

why did they then? to stay in business?

 

[Some Guy]

the hospital will always get paid. ALWAYS

But how? That's the issue. You can't just say "oh they'll get paid, it's ok" without addressing how... unless you want them to eventually all disappear completely.

 

[HappyJoy]

Actually it's a moral question best left up to the mother and I'm not so sure a man who skirted the 'is a puppy more valuable than 1 million embryos' question really the best one to be making decisions for her.

No, it is not a moral question, even you yourself admited the thing being aborted is a human being. it is a value question, which is why you keep bringing up value.

Of course it's a moral question, just like assisted suicide and the death penalty, it wreaks of it.

But, if you want to call it a 'value' question, why didn't you just automatically pick the 1 million embryos over the puppy? I mean, you have no choice now and you probably will pick them but you evaded the question at first.

So, now we are choosing which is more valuable, the life of the baby in the womb or the convenience of the mother.

I'm not picking anything, I'm leaving it up to the mother. I would save the puppy first though if that helps you see where I'm at.

It seems that in your mind the convenience of the mother is more valuable than the life of the child being aborted.

Once again, I'm leaving that to the mother, I don't have to make the decision for her.

Lucky for you the SCOTUS agrees with you.

Nifty.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So, what you are saying is that you are ok with the government forcing private individuals and companies to provides goods and services that the one receiving them cannot pay for.

I do not know what you do for a living, but would you be ok if the government forced your industry to do that and told you "well, there are lots of charities, go ask them for money".

Would you be ok with the government forced restaurants to serve anyone that came in asking for the food but could not pay and told them to go ask the charities to pay them back?

How about a landlord, should they be forced to provide a place to live to those who cannot pay and they too can go ask charities for their money back?

the government does in my industry. We have to manufacture per many guidelines set by both industry and government. what industry doesn't have to?

The government forces your industry to give your product and services to people who cannot pay for it?

I think you are not telling the truth.


Would you be ok with the government forced restaurants to serve anyone that came in asking for the food but could not pay and told them to go ask the charities to pay them back?

yep

That is a very socialist point of view, but that is at least consistent with the rest of your views.

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.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So, what you are saying is that you are ok with the government forcing private individuals and companies to provides goods and services that the one receiving them cannot pay for.

I do not know what you do for a living, but would you be ok if the government forced your industry to do that and told you "well, there are lots of charities, go ask them for money".

Would you be ok with the government forced restaurants to serve anyone that came in asking for the food but could not pay and told them to go ask the charities to pay them back?

How about a landlord, should they be forced to provide a place to live to those who cannot pay and they too can go ask charities for their money back?

they just told Starbucks they are not allowed to stop someone from using their bath rooms.

That is not the same as forcing starbucks to give that same person some coffee and a snack.

sure it is. They already gave away their coffee.

The government forces them to give away their coffee? Really...can you provide a link please.

why did they then? to stay in business?

It is good PR, which brings in more business. Same reason Budweiser gives away cans of water during natural disasters.

The difference here is a company choosing to do something and the government forcing them to do it. You, being a socialist support the latter.

 

[jknowgood]

Thanks Obama and democrats.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Of course it's a moral question, just like assisted suicide and the death penalty, it wreaks of it.

Not a good comparison as both of those the person dying has a say in the outcome. The baby being aborted is never given a chance to give it's opinion.

But, if you want to call it a 'value' question, why didn't you just automatically pick the 1 million embryos over the puppy? I mean, you have no choice now and you probably will pick them but you evaded the question at first.

you are the one that made it a value question when you started to compare values. Once you did that there was nothing moral about it.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Thanks Obama and democrats.

No, thanks to the Texas GOP controlled congress and the GOP governor that signed the bill allowing these sorts of things to happen..some guy named GW Bush...maybe you have heard of him.

 

[jknowgood]

Thanks Obama and democrats.

No, thanks to the Texas GOP controlled congress and the GOP governor that signed the bill allowing these sorts of things to happen..some guy named GW Bush...maybe you have heard of him.

Obama care was suppose to take care of our healthcare, totally. It's a failure.

 

[HappyJoy]

Of course it's a moral question, just like assisted suicide and the death penalty, it wreaks of it.

Not a good comparison as both of those the person dying has a say in the outcome. The baby being aborted is never given a chance to give it's opinion.

The embryo (babies are born) doesn't have a fucking clue what's going on so do maybe we want to compare this to pulling the plug on a vegetable? It's still a moral question, I understand you don't want to accept that because you believe the government should stay out of moral dilemmas, but taking a life certainly has moral implications, no?

But, if you want to call it a 'value' question, why didn't you just automatically pick the 1 million embryos over the puppy? I mean, you have no choice now and you probably will pick them but you evaded the question at first.

you are the one that made it a value question when you started to compare values. Once you did that there was nothing moral about it.

OK, how come you haven't picked the one million embryos yet over the puppy?

 

[bendog]

A Tragic Case of Modern Bioethics: Denying Life-Sustaining Treatment to a Patient Who Wanted to Live

A Texas man was taken off life support despite his objections and the objections of his family according to this article. It was all done because a hospital ethics committee decided to do it.

And the ethics committee cannot be questioned in any way, nor can we know who they are and these people need no qualifications.

Scary stuff

"Do no harm", aye?

Dime to a dollar his insurance ran out.

Read the article, he had no insurance and there is a Texas law to protect the hospital.

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.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Thanks Obama and democrats.

No, thanks to the Texas GOP controlled congress and the GOP governor that signed the bill allowing these sorts of things to happen..some guy named GW Bush...maybe you have heard of him.

Obama care was suppose to take care of our healthcare, totally. It's a failure.

Without a doubt, but it is not the cause of all the problems in our healthcare today, all it did was make things worse.

What happened to this guy is tied directly to laws passed by the State of Texas

 

[HappyJoy]

A Tragic Case of Modern Bioethics: Denying Life-Sustaining Treatment to a Patient Who Wanted to Live

A Texas man was taken off life support despite his objections and the objections of his family according to this article. It was all done because a hospital ethics committee decided to do it.

And the ethics committee cannot be questioned in any way, nor can we know who they are and these people need no qualifications.

Scary stuff

"Do no harm", aye?

Dime to a dollar his insurance ran out.

Read the article, he had no insurance and there is a Texas law to protect the hospital.

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?