Right, so you really don't understand why that's a horrible argument. I'm not advocating complete income equality. I just take issue with the fact that CEO's are paid 400 times what their workers make. Even better are investors and stock brokers and hedge fund managers. These are people who spend all day playing with other people's money, creating absolutely nothing of value, and making millions of dollars while doing it. You chose neurosurgeon because that's a high value job that actually requires a lot of training. Of course they should be paid more than a kid flipping burgers. The stock broker shouldn't be, though, because the kid flipping burgers creates more value than him, and I don't think burger flipping jobs should even exist. I take issue with the fact that some people buy houses as abstract investments without planning on ever actually living in them while their previous owners are kicked out onto the street. That's what income inequality is about.
I disagree with how you're presenting your scenario. I don't come at this issue from desperation or cost savings, I come at it from creating an incentive system and holding people accountable for their own choices. Providing full medical care to people who choose not to buy insurance is rewarding that choice - why should you and I buy insurance if we know that we'll get the same level of care if we skip it?
Exactly. Insurance is designed to cover rare events, not everyday expenses. The cockamamie system we have now is like having auto insurance which pays for every fill up, every car wash, every oil change, every tune-up, every tire balancing, every windshield wiper replacement, etc. Auto insurance covers rare events, like fender benders, like being sued for a million dollars for an accident you caused, like your hospital care if you injure yourself in an accident you caused, etc. These events don't happen to people every day.
I didn't say it was an easy or a kind choice. but, sadly, I fear that unless we do something now, our children will be forced to do something drastic later.
"soylent green is people"
Like I've said before, just because this government is an incompetent, corrupt piece of **** doesn't mean all governments are necessarily incompetent, corrupt pieces of ****.
blah, blah, blah typical class warfare talking points. :yawn:
If you couldn't afford to get your mom or child cancer treatment, should they be allowed to die?
Translation: I can't counter any of your points, so I'm going to act all superior, stop talking to you, and hope no one notices I don't have a leg to stand on.
yes
.
funny coming from a guy whose entire "counter" to my point was to cry "strawman" and "you obviously don't understand".
pot...meet kettle. :lamo
Yeah. You didn't understand. So I explained it. You pretty obviously still don't understand, and I doubt you ever will. That's OK, though, because you serve as a good example of everything that's wrong with your position.
Funny how all this would be solved if we just adopted the obvious solution: universal healthcare.
If you couldn't afford to get your mom or child cancer treatment, should they be allowed to die?
Okay, now you have some points that are different from the original basic question.
Yes, part of the problem is a lot of people get very sick, nearly die, are saved by medical intervention.... but sometimes they don't simply get well and go back to work. They have ongoing issues that may render them disabled. If they lose their job they may lose their health coverage. (COBRA is a joke, if you're unemployed you can't afford to pay four times what you were paying before). They may end up uninsured, but with ongoing medical needs they can't pay for that are needed to keep them alive, or maybe to provide some reasonable quality of life. This describes most elderly person's last 2-5 years of life... but sometimes this can be a younger person and the situation may go on for decades.
Now, when society ends up paying this person's medical bills.... regrettably yes, there does come a point where the question has to be asked "is it worth it to keep this person alive a few more years at $____ expense?"
I really hate to say that... it sounds so ugly. Life is so precious it is appalling to have to put a dollar value on someone's remaining years. I lost both my parents in the past few years, so this sort of thing is fresh in my mind... but God knows I cherished the time I had with them, even in their declining years.
But still, we DO have to make that call at some point. If it is going to take a $750,000 for the treatments to keep Gramma alive in a nursing home bed for maybe another year or two, and she doesn't have the money or assets to cover it.... then we have to stop and think about how much we're asking society to shell out for this, and what the benefit is.
If $750,000 will restore some person to a productive working life and give them another 15 or 20 years, maybe it is worth it to society.
OTOH if $750,000 just means that Granny lays in the nursing home bed, struggling for every breath, trying not to take too much morphine for the pain, for another 12 months instead of passing away next week... maybe we have to ask if the time and the quality of life is really worth that much money out of other people's pockets.
I hate to put it that way; I hate to even think like that. But (no shock to those who know me), let me tell ya a true story...
My Mom was a little woman with a heart of gold, a whim of steel, and enough courage and determination for a longboat full of Viking warriors. :lol: She fought old age like a trooper. When she had to go on oxygen, she carried her small tank with her to the grocery store, the hair salon, church, family gatherings and wherever she wanted to go. She seemed unstoppable.
But no one is, in the long run. Three years passed and she was no longer able to drive herself. Another year passed and she could barely walk from room to room, and never left the house again except to go to the doctor. Life became a series of health-crises and rides to the ER that she barely survived, growing closer in frequency. She, who had always done for others, decided she no longer wanted to live as a disabled person utterly dependent on others. A few months more and she had another crisis, another trip to the hospital. They wanted to intubate her and put her on a respirator... they told us that this time, she probably wouldn't come off of it and would spend her last weeks like that. We said no... she'd been on it before and hated it. We called in hospice and made sure she was as comfortable as possible, and waited. In a few hours time, she passed away with her family around her.
I'm pretty sure she preferred it that way; in fact she'd told me things that lead me to beleive that she would've preferred to pass on around the time she couldn't drive anymore, almost two years earlier. The quality of life wasn't worth it for a woman who'd always been a dynamic powerhouse.
This shamed me, because the previous two times she'd gone to the ER in the past year, it had been because I made her go... she didn't want to, she wanted to die at home.
Sometimes we hang on past the point of all reason, when what we need to do is let go.
Anyway... my 0.02
G.
If we never "allow" the uninsured to die, then we already have universal health care.
Everyone at some point falls sick and dies. It is not in anyone's control to make a decision about it. It's gonna happen. Ultimately the only question is to what degree we will demand our neighbors relinquish their property to pay for the efforts to delay this inevitability.
No, we shouldn't let them die. We should support private charities that help those who cannot help themselves. We should keep in touch with our neighbors and friends, helping them out individually as needed. My church always gives money to people who need surgeries or other procedures, but they have little to no insurance. It's our duty to help each other, not wave people off and tell them some government official will come help them.
I find it so strange that you can hold a position like this, and yet be against socialism. Socialism is about society. That's why it's called SOCIALism. It's about us all pitching in for the common good. It's not about throwing people on the mercy of some faceless government employee. If people need medical care, they go to the hospital, and they get it. That's it. No strings attached.
The difference between us is that you think money should be forced by law out of the pockets of those who earned it and given to those who didn't earn it. In your world, citizens aren't charitable, they're enslaved. People aren't working to earn for themselves to do with as they please, they're working just to have the government do with it as it pleases.
This is what socialists don't understand about charity. Charity isn't merely giving money to people who need it. It's about hearts as well. When you freely give your money to others, it not only changes their financial situation, but it changes their hearts...and yours. In a society where money is forced from your pocket, there is no compassion, just duty. A compassion-less world is not a place I want to live.
I find it so strange that you can hold a position like this, and yet be against socialism. Socialism is about society. That's why it's called SOCIALism. It's about us all pitching in for the common good. It's not about throwing people on the mercy of some faceless government employee. If people need medical care, they go to the hospital, and they get it. That's it. No strings attached.
I know your entire post makes for a long quote, but I didn't want to butcher it by slicing it up. I, too, am facing my mortality. Like your mother, I'm on oxygen. I've had midnight EMT rides to the ER. I can't walk from room to room without gasping. I'm pretty much housebound except for doctor visits. My husband is quite a bit older than me, and we both know if he goes first I soon won't be able to care for even my most basic needs.
Am I worth $750,000 in nursing home care for the next couple of years? Hell, no, I am not. My problem is that my government does not give me the option of choosing death with dignity. They will charitably allow me to kill myself, although I'd be arrested or committed at taxpayer expense if I fail. But they will not allow my physician to give me the medication to assure a quick, painless, clean death. So I either put a bullet in my brain, forcing someone to wash the resulting gore out of the walls, or I hang myself, tape a plastic bag over my head... you get the picture.
I'm not insulted by the "let granny die" crowd. I'm insulted by the "force granny to gasp for every breath in torment for months until she dies" crowd. There's quite a difference! :mrgreen:
Thank you for sharing that, it took courage to put that out here among the sharks. My respect.
Sometimes some hard decisions have to be made. The hospice people told us that giving Mom morphine would probably make her more comfortable, but might reduce her respiration and shorten the hours/days she might have left; then they left the decision to us. I and my sisters talked about it for a few minutes and decided that the kindest thing we could do was give her lots of morphine and not drag things out. It was a heart-wrenching decision but we felt it was kindest. I told them to remember that I wanted the same if I was ever unconscious and beyond help.
You will be in my thoughts and prayers, Dianna.
Quote Originally Posted by DiAnna View Post
I know your entire post makes for a long quote, but I didn't want to butcher it by slicing it up. I, too, am facing my mortality. Like your mother, I'm on oxygen. I've had midnight EMT rides to the ER. I can't walk from room to room without gasping. I'm pretty much housebound except for doctor visits. My husband is quite a bit older than me, and we both know if he goes first I soon won't be able to care for even my most basic needs.
Am I worth $750,000 in nursing home care for the next couple of years? Hell, no, I am not. My problem is that my government does not give me the option of choosing death with dignity. They will charitably allow me to kill myself, although I'd be arrested or committed at taxpayer expense if I fail. But they will not allow my physician to give me the medication to assure a quick, painless, clean death. So I either put a bullet in my brain, forcing someone to wash the resulting gore out of the walls, or I hang myself, tape a plastic bag over my head... you get the picture.
I'm not insulted by the "let granny die" crowd. I'm insulted by the "force granny to gasp for every breath in torment for months until she dies" crowd. There's quite a difference!
I know your entire post makes for a long quote, but I didn't want to butcher it by slicing it up. I, too, am facing my mortality. Like your mother, I'm on oxygen. I've had midnight EMT rides to the ER. I can't walk from room to room without gasping. I'm pretty much housebound except for doctor visits. My husband is quite a bit older than me, and we both know if he goes first I soon won't be able to care for even my most basic needs.
Am I worth $750,000 in nursing home care for the next couple of years? Hell, no, I am not. My problem is that my government does not give me the option of choosing death with dignity. They will charitably allow me to kill myself, although I'd be arrested or committed at taxpayer expense if I fail. But they will not allow my physician to give me the medication to assure a quick, painless, clean death. So I either put a bullet in my brain, forcing someone to wash the resulting gore out of the walls, or I hang myself, tape a plastic bag over my head... you get the picture.
I'm not insulted by the "let granny die" crowd. I'm insulted by the "force granny to gasp for every breath in torment for months until she dies" crowd. There's quite a difference! :mrgreen:
You guys always talk about how easy it is to raise taxes on someone else. I guess it's equally easy to let someone else's kid die.
No, we shouldn't let them die. We should support private charities that help those who cannot help themselves. We should keep in touch with our neighbors and friends, helping them out individually as needed. My church always gives money to people who need surgeries or other procedures, but they have little to no insurance. It's our duty to help each other, not wave people off and tell them some government official will come help them.
I agree. I see no reason to prolong anyone's suffering when their time has come. But when it comes to children, especially, they should never be uninsured. Adults, I'll admit, have less of my sympathy.
of course it is, but I admire Oscar for at least trying to be consistent. I don't believe that many people can really be that cold towards their own children or siblings to write them off and say essentially: "oh well. Let nature take its course." But it is easy for many people to apply such cold logic to those they have no ties to. That being said, I see no point in prolonging the lives of seniors.
But still, we DO have to make that call at some point. If it is going to take a $750,000 for the treatments to keep Gramma alive in a nursing home bed for maybe another year or two, and she doesn't have the money or assets to cover it.... then we have to stop and think about how much we're asking society to shell out for this, and what the benefit is.
If $750,000 will restore some person to a productive working life and give them another 15 or 20 years, maybe it is worth it to society.
OTOH if $750,000 just means that Granny lays in the nursing home bed, struggling for every breath, trying not to take too much morphine for the pain, for another 12 months instead of passing away next week... maybe we have to ask if the time and the quality of life is really worth that much money out of other people's pockets.
You guys always talk about how easy it is to raise taxes on someone else. I guess it's equally easy to let someone else's kid die.
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?