Death Panels..Canadian Style

[Noomi]

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]

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?

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.

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

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

 

[Political Junky]

[/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]

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.

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 STATE wants to play GOD.

and the radical left- run from the truth

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

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]

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]

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.

 

[Ava]

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]

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]

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

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

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.

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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