• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bill Kevorkian Gates on Death Panels

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
23,778
Reaction score
7,659
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
[video]http://www.breitbart.tv/bill-gates-death-panel-advocate/[/video]

They are called "Death Panels" because that is precisely what they would be.
That's it Bill Kevorkian... government sanctioned death.

Let's have that discussion... for we are not afraid to have it. Not at all.

.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
[video]http://www.breitbart.tv/bill-gates-death-panel-advocate/[/video]

They are called "Death Panels" because that is precisely what they would be.
That's it Bill Kevorkian... government sanctioned death.

Let's have that discussion... for we are not afraid to have it. Not at all.

.
Oh, get off it. It makes absolutely no sense to spend $1 million to keep someone alive for the next three months. Especially, if I might add, if it's me. We spend sooo much money postponing death that could be put to better use. When people have a terminal illness, they aren't even told that unless they specifically ask. They just keep getting chemotherapy/whatever at $10,000 per treatment 'til their poor lil' bodies finally succumb to the poisons they're pumping them full of. Give them comfort care. Let them go, for God's sake.
 

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
23,778
Reaction score
7,659
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Oh, get off it. It makes absolutely no sense to spend $1 million to keep someone alive for the next three months. Especially, if I might add, if it's me. We spend sooo much money postponing death that could be put to better use. When people have a terminal illness, they aren't even told that unless they specifically ask. They just keep getting chemotherapy/whatever at $10,000 per treatment 'til their poor lil' bodies finally succumb to the poisons they're pumping them full of. Give them comfort care. Let them go, for God's sake.
Maggie,

It's the individuals choice to go or not.

First it is 3-months when they'll whack you, then it is four, then it is you are terminal and denied, and who are these people to be telling us when our time is up? And who says their predictions are always correct?

Sorry, giving these people the power to tell me, my friends or family when to kick the bucket ain't gonna happen... not if I can help it.

That's the scary part of government "care". You're a cost, not a life. It's the Kevorkian Government.

Should Pope John Paul II been knocked off a few months before he died, and if he would be an exception... why would he be an exception?

Government Death Panels degrade the value of life. In fact they don't value life... and, have you seen government do anything well? Just wait until they get this power.

Here's a case from Oregon, and this was for $4,000 a month:

"It was horrible," Wagner told ABCNews.com. "I got a letter in the mail that basically said if you want to take the pills, we will help you get that from the doctor and we will stand there and watch you die. But we won't give you the medication to live."

Critics of Oregon's decade-old Death With Dignity Law -- the only one of its kind in the nation -- have been up in arms over the indignity of her unsigned rejection letter.

Death Drugs Cause Uproar in Oregon - ABC News
.
 
Last edited:

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Maggie,

First it is 3-months, then it is four, then it is you are terminal and denied, and who are these people to be telling us when our time is up?

Sorry, giving these people the power to tell me, my friends or family when to kick the bucket ain't gonna happen... not if i can help it.

That's the scary part of government "care". You're a cost, not a life. It's the Kevorkian Government.

Should we have knocked Pope John Paul II off a few months before he died, and if he is an exception... why is he an exception?

Government Death Panels degrade the value of life. In fact they don't value life.

.
There are Doctor Death Panels. There are Insurance Company Death Panels. UHC will change nothing. But something should. I don't advocate "knocking someone off." No one does. However, it makes no sense, nor is it humane, to keep people alive "for as long as technology allows." I can't afford it. Neither can you.
 

MKULTRABOY

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
10,621
Reaction score
2,104
Location
In your dreams...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Sure the decision couldnt possibly be standardized and incorporated into law with criteria on when patients should be let go an not with the consent of the patient and family members. No way. Thats too rational, society couldnt do that. Its the secret socialist nurse with the shot full of red syrum that comes in the night and finishes you off because you voted McCain.

Do I read you right?
 

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
23,778
Reaction score
7,659
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
There are Doctor Death Panels. There are Insurance Company Death Panels. UHC will change nothing. But something should. I don't advocate "knocking someone off." No one does. However, it makes no sense, nor is it humane, to keep people alive "for as long as technology allows." I can't afford it. Neither can you.
Maggie, you don't know what I can afford.

It's a family decision, not Mommy Dearest DC, and illustrates another reason why government should not be involved with health care.

Just wait until they get your DNA and can tell you what problems you are likely to encounter... no, no, no... keep these bastards away from life and death decisions of this kind.

It's not their business.

Sure the decision couldnt possibly be standardized and incorporated into law with criteria on when patients should be let go an not with the consent of the patient and family members. No way. Thats too rational, society couldnt do that. Its the secret socialist nurse with the shot full of red syrum that comes in the night and finishes you off because you voted McCain.

Do I read you right?
LOL...

.
 
Last edited:

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Oh, get off it. It makes absolutely no sense to spend $1 million to keep someone alive for the next three months. Especially, if I might add, if it's me. We spend sooo much money postponing death that could be put to better use. When people have a terminal illness, they aren't even told that unless they specifically ask. They just keep getting chemotherapy/whatever at $10,000 per treatment 'til their poor lil' bodies finally succumb to the poisons they're pumping them full of. Give them comfort care. Let them go, for God's sake.
If you can afford it, why not spend that money to stay alive?
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
24,062
Reaction score
8,687
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Maggie, you don't know what I can afford.

It's a family decision, not Mommy Dearest DC, and illustrates another reason why government should not be involved with health care.

Just wait until they get your DNA and can tell you what problems you are likely to encounter... no, no, no... keep these bastards away from life and death decisions of this kind.

It's not their business.



LOL...

.
I agree that as long as you can afford it. That is don't use tax payer funded medical care and don't use insurance that the rest of us use. No use running up premiums for the rest of us.:lol:
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Maggie, you don't know what I can afford.

It's a family decision, not Mommy Dearest DC, and illustrates another reason why government should not be involved with health care.

Just wait until they get your DNA and can tell you what problems you are likely to encounter... no, no, no... keep these bastards away from life and death decisions of this kind.

It's not their business.



LOL...

.
It's not a family decision. No way, Jose'. It's MY decision. Give me the facts. Cold and hard as they are. Let ME decide. It will always be all about ME, Zimmer. It has nothing to do with you.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
If you can afford it, why not spend that money to stay alive?
Stay alive for what? So I can breath? Get real, Mr. Vicchio. There's quality -- there's quantity. You want to be kept alive in la-la-land on morphine? No, thank you!!
 

EnigmaO01

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
13,230
Reaction score
5,785
Location
Indiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Oh, get off it. It makes absolutely no sense to spend $1 million to keep someone alive for the next three months. Especially, if I might add, if it's me. We spend sooo much money postponing death that could be put to better use. When people have a terminal illness, they aren't even told that unless they specifically ask. They just keep getting chemotherapy/whatever at $10,000 per treatment 'til their poor lil' bodies finally succumb to the poisons they're pumping them full of. Give them comfort care. Let them go, for God's sake.
And dont' forget doctors make money off those poisons. Talk about a conflict of interest!

As an RN student I know better when a doctor flim flams a family that their loved ones needs chemo when they are terminal. I had this happen to an aunt that was beyond hope with a brain tumor. The family got suckered and the doctor made more money for his golf outings. Fortunately the scumbag died shortly after her death in a motorcycle accident.

My aunt died a horrible undignified death when they could have let her live out the rest of her life in dignity. She developed all kinds of nasty side effects of the chemo including disgusting oral infections such as thrush etc. etc. Probably was puking her guts out and had constant diarrhea too.
 
Last edited:

Crunch

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
4,063
Reaction score
890
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Oh, get off it. It makes absolutely no sense to spend $1 million to keep someone alive for the next three months. Especially, if I might add, if it's me. We spend sooo much money postponing death that could be put to better use. When people have a terminal illness, they aren't even told that unless they specifically ask. They just keep getting chemotherapy/whatever at $10,000 per treatment 'til their poor lil' bodies finally succumb to the poisons they're pumping them full of. Give them comfort care. Let them go, for God's sake.
Maggie..... I had a friend that was 26 YO. He was diagnosed with a brain tumor and given 6 months to live and was advised to accept it and not pursue treatment. His dad was a millionaire and could afford any and all treatments.

My friend lived a pretty much normal life until age 31.… I’m sure he felt the 5 extra years were worth the price.

Sometimes doctors are wrong.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Maggie..... I had a friend that was 26 YO. He was diagnosed with a brain tumor and given 6 months to live and was advised to accept it and not pursue treatment. His dad was a millionaire and could afford any and all treatments.

My friend lived a pretty much normal life until age 31.… I’m sure he felt the 5 extra years were worth the price.

Sometimes doctors are wrong.
Whether or not he felt that those 5 years were worth the money his father spent is not really the point. The question is whether those five years would be worth the cost to the state if he were not paying for it himself.
 

Crunch

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
4,063
Reaction score
890
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Whether or not he felt that those 5 years were worth the money his father spent is not really the point. The question is whether those five years would be worth the cost to the state if he were not paying for it himself.
What is your life worth?
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
What is your life worth?
To me and my friends/family, quite a lot.
To the rest of society, something less.

Rather than engaging in emotional reasoning, why not try to address my point?

Imagine that someone on Medicaid is dying from a disease. There's a medicine that can treat the disease, but it's quite expensive. In which of these situations should Medicaid pay for the drug?

1) The drug costs $1,000,000, but it will cure the person.
2) The drug costs $25,000,000, but it will cure the person.
3) The drug costs $1,000,000, and it only has a 10% chance of curing the person.
4) The drug costs $1,000,000, and on average it will only extend life by 6 months.
5) The drug costs $50,000 per month, but the person will live so long as they get it.

I'd be interested to hear anyone's answers to this.
 

mpg

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
7,795
Reaction score
1,784
Location
Milford, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
To me and my friends/family, quite a lot.
To the rest of society, something less.

Rather than engaging in emotional reasoning, why not try to address my point?

Imagine that someone on Medicaid is dying from a disease. There's a medicine that can treat the disease, but it's quite expensive. In which of these situations should Medicaid pay for the drug?

1) The drug costs $1,000,000, but it will cure the person.
2) The drug costs $25,000,000, but it will cure the person.
3) The drug costs $1,000,000, and it only has a 10% chance of curing the person.
4) The drug costs $1,000,000, and on average it will only extend life by 6 months.
5) The drug costs $50,000 per month, but the person will live so long as they get it.

I'd be interested to hear anyone's answers to this.
Excellent post. From a philosophical point of view, all 5 of those questions are pertanent, but #4 is probably the one that's closest to real life. I'm not dodging the other questions though. #1 is tough, but I would definitely vote no on #2. People say that you can't put a price on human life, but we have to, otherwise things like cars might be illegal for the sake of safety. The fact is that cars increase wealth by allowing society to function, and in turn that wealth pays for health care, so one way or another, you have to put a price on human life.
 

Vicki

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
22
Reaction score
6
Location
Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Instead of having a group of people decide who will get to live or die, gawd that is a horrible thought, why doesn't the government put a cap on what a person can sue a doctor, make insurance companies non-profit, stop allowing illegals to receive free health care, and loosen the rules allowing nurses and aides to provide some of the simple services? This would decrease costs and not turn into a hitler nation where a group of people get to say I'm not going to extend your life because I want to pay some teacher a better salary. The thought is just sickening, reminds me of a court deciding if a person should get the death penalty and these people haven't done a crime but setenced to die.
 

tacomancer

Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
41,692
Reaction score
22,267
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Instead of having a group of people decide who will get to live or die, gawd that is a horrible thought, why doesn't the government put a cap on what a person can sue a doctor, make insurance companies non-profit, stop allowing illegals to receive free health care, and loosen the rules allowing nurses and aides to provide some of the simple services? This would decrease costs and not turn into a hitler nation where a group of people get to say I'm not going to extend your life because I want to pay some teacher a better salary. The thought is just sickening, reminds me of a court deciding if a person should get the death penalty and these people haven't done a crime but setenced to die.
If a better education results in a higher standard of living and better health and longevity, than it may be the right investment. Its a sucky decision, but the fact is those decisions are already being made, so its not something new we are discussing here.
 

Vicki

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
22
Reaction score
6
Location
Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
If a better education results in a higher standard of living and better health and longevity, than it may be the right investment. Its a sucky decision, but the fact is those decisions are already being made, so its not something new we are discussing here.
I'm speechless...I feel there should be no price on life.
 

tacomancer

Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
41,692
Reaction score
22,267
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I'm speechless...I feel there should be no price on life.
This is the way I look at it. You have limited resources and you want to save as much life as possible with it, right? Because while life is priceless, more life is still better than less life. So, if you channel your resources to something that saves the most life, you have done the best you can. However, if you channel your resources in such a way that by saving one life, three (arbitrary number, but using it to make a point) lives are wasted, you have done harm.
 

Vicki

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
22
Reaction score
6
Location
Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
This is the way I look at it. You have limited resources and you want to save as much life as possible with it, right? Because while life is priceless, more life is still better than less life. So, if you channel your resources to something that saves the most life, you have done the best you can. However, if you channel your resources in such a way that by saving one life, three (arbitrary number, but using it to make a point) lives are wasted, you have done harm.
I truly understand your view and understand what you are saying. I just wish they could lower medical costs so no one would have to make a decision like this. Seems there are steps that would help so much. Maybe that is something I should write my representatives about.
 

winston53660

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
29,265
Reaction score
10,128
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I truly understand your view and understand what you are saying. I just wish they could lower medical costs so no one would have to make a decision like this. Seems there are steps that would help so much. Maybe that is something I should write my representatives about.
In y situation it is not so much about money but it is about the availability of a heart. There is only so many of the things around ya know?
 
Top Bottom