[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.
"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
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.
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?
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?
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...
.
Maggie,
It's the individuals choice to go or not.
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...
.
If you can afford it, why not spend that money to stay alive?
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.
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.
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?
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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?