- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 25,566
- Reaction score
- 36,346
- Location
- American Refugee in Europe
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The people who would be put down have been paying into medicare for their entire working lives. When it comes time to cash a bit of that out, it's "Sorry homie, we mismanaged your money and are facing bankruptcy, we're going to have to put you down."If the government is paying the bill, why isn't it their decision to make? You can't have someone else pay your bills and still expect to retain full authority over every decision about your life. Don't like it? Don't have socialized medicine.
To some extent you can harp about the LEAN a particular piece of news takes. Yes, you can project something in a good or bad light.
Are you, however, suggesting there are outright lies in the OP? Because last I checked, a lie, once printed, is libel, and that's illegal. At least, it is in the US.
The people who would be put down have been paying into medicare for their entire working lives. When it comes time to cash a bit of that out, it's "Sorry homie, we mismanaged your money and are facing bankruptcy, we're going to have to put you down."
Germany has socialized medicine, and their entire system costs half of what ours does, from my experience is better quality in a lot of aspects, and they don't put down anybody.
Why? Because the government has never been so large it has so much power, what i fear is a total take over by the government, we are losing our freedom for our security.What is it that you think is happening? What do you fear for the inferior US "system"?
I'm not going to get in the middle of your discussion over the details, but to me a lie IS where something is put in an inappropriate context thereby pushing an agenda. Even if the facts are not "incorrect" without their proper context, they are a lie.
If the government is paying the bill, why isn't it their decision to make? You can't have someone else pay your bills and still expect to retain full authority over every decision about your life. Don't like it? Don't have socialized medicine.
Lie by omission. I won't disagree with this, but I will state that trying to enforce that would kill the media. People, as a general rule, have very short attention spans. They don't want to have to read something that gets 9 inches of text in the paper, 4 inches of which is back ground info. Typically.
Editing down is important, and often, it's the context, and not the actual "news" itself, that gets axed. Editors assume, usually rightly so, that a person is willing to read, say, 150 words on a story. The one present, because of context, has 230 words. What would you rather they cut, the piece of news itself, or the back ground story that provides context?
Where does the government get the money to "pay the bill"?
To some extent you can harp about the LEAN a particular piece of news takes. Yes, you can project something in a good or bad light.
Are you, however, suggesting there are outright lies in the OP? Because last I checked, a lie, once printed, is libel, and that's illegal. At least, it is in the US.
Why? Because the government has never been so large it has so much power, what i fear is a total take over by the government, we are losing our freedom for our security.
The reality is that not everything is about money. And there is a stark difference between those that cannot and will not support themselves and a those who at the moment are unable to pay for life saving medical care.
You mentioned reality, as if there is no way to intervene in reality. Myself I aim higher I dont give in so easily that I would accept that today in modern times that we should let people die at of need of money to pay for medical care. And fortunately your way of thinking is in the minority. BTW it is only people like you that are talking about the lazy idiots the rest of us have observed that compassion can be met with sacrifices. Your problem is that all you are concerned about is deadbeats but I am not even talking about deadbeats, I am talking about the reality that some people are just not available to pay huge amounts of money for a service that would save their life. We are actually talking about people that worked very hard all their lives or children that could not chose their parents nor their families.
But then compassion is the last thing on your mind when it comes to your bank account isnt Evenstar?
These people paid into medicaid for their entire working lives, and when it comes time to pay for a single life support machine and a cot, medicaid tells them to **** off. Tell me again how not getting something you paid for makes you a deadbeat.
It is exceedingly difficult for family to make that decision. Most families? They can't do it. Actually? Loving pet owners are sometimes kinder to their dogs than they are to their mothers.
If someone wants to fight for their life, then that is NOBODY else's business. It is up to that person and their family to decide on whether or not they want to go through the "agony" and not anyone else's, especially the government. If they are going to refuse to pay for medical care, then they should NOT be getting their grubby hands into the medical business.
It's a personal decision and should be made solely by the individual without pressure from outside sources over "money." That is just sick!
ok. Who should pay for it? The money has to come from somewhere.
The same way any OTHER medical care is paid for. Whether one self-pays or has insurance.
How can people not realize how dangerous it is for the government to put limitations on our healthcare choices? Unreal! :shock:
What if the person can't cover the additional costs? Then who pays?
The same way any OTHER medical care is paid for. Whether one self-pays or has insurance.
How can people not realize how dangerous it is for the government to put limitations on our healthcare choices? Unreal! :shock:
Insurance companies have been putting limitations on our healthcare choices since the very first health insurance policy was sold. I don't know what people don't understand about this. Doctors have protocols they follow, in part, because of insurance company restrictions on payment. This is nothing new.
The same way we pay for it now.
Are you actually saying that poor people should NOT have the privilege of choice, simply because they don't have money? So basically if you can't BUY your life, the government can decide to deny possible life-saving treatments just because they're expensive?
That's the way it's always been. Everything has a cost, and those who have more money get better care. It may not be fair, but fairness and justice are only abstract and subjective concepts. I'm not saying it's right, it just is. We simply can't afford to keep people alive with expensive procedures when death is eminent. It's foolish and emotion driven.
I'll bet you would be singing a different tune if it was one of YOUR loved ones. And like I said a lot of times chemo is a palliative treatment. Are we going to let people with esophageal cancer choke to death on their own tumors because the treatment might be "expensive?" How cold!
You are generalizing a subject that can only be addressed on a case by case level.No. Not life saving, life prolonging. Agony prolonging. It's utterly pointless. Are we going to take money from education and put it towards the care of terminally ill people? It's got to come from somewhere.
Not letting people suffer is completely logical on all levels.That wouldn't surprise me. People don't use logic, they use emotions. And when emotions dictate policy, we end up on a financial cliff.
Ok good then perhaps you could save us all a little money and kill yourself now?I don't have enough money to be compassionate.
Almost no one who has paid into social security, medicaid, or medicare will pay enough into these systems to cover their costs. Fact. Of course exceptions exist, but this remains fact for a majority of people. In fact, most people are receiving benefits they never paid for. This isn't about compassion, it's about math. Either the money is there, or it's not. And I'm sorry to inform you- it is not. The money to pay for terminally ill people to eke out another several miserable months on the tax payer's dime simply doesn't exist. According to a source cited in this thread a few pages back, it costs $10,000 a day to maintain someone in the intensive care unit. $50 billion a year to maintain terminally ill patients, and up 30% of that cost has no meaningful impact. If people want to think with their emotions, fine, but at some point they need to come back down here to reality and understand that everything has a cost.
They don't turn away people who WANT treatment for cancer. Insurance companies will refuse to pay, but a patient can STILL get treatment. Also, a lot of times chemotherapy is a palliative procedure and is NEVER expected to be curative at all.
Are we going to deny cancer patients palliative chemotherapy too? It's just as expensive.
Palliative medicine utilizes a multidisciplinary approach to patient care, relying on input from physicians, pharmacists, nurses, chaplains, social workers, psychologists, and other allied health professionals in formulating a plan of care to relieve suffering in all areas of a patient's life. This multidisciplinary approach allows the palliative care team to address physical, emotional, spiritual, and social concerns that arise with advanced illness.
Palliative care:
- provides relief from pain, shortness of breath, nausea, and other distressing symptoms;
- affirms life and regards dying as a normal process;
- intends neither to hasten nor to postpone death;
- integrates the psychological and spiritual aspects of patient care;
- offers a support system to help patients live as actively as possible;
- offers a support system to help the family cope;
- uses a team approach to address the needs of patients and their families;
- will enhance quality of life;
- is applicable early in the course of illness, in conjunction with other therapies that are intended to prolong life, such as chemotherapy or radiation therapy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?