Death panels are here!

[jc456]

You don't need to conduct a study to observe fact. Are you suggesting that losing insurance coverage can cause death? What are you imaging? That the shock of reading a cancellation notice might induce a heart attack?

You're not very bright either. The lack of healthcare that you get without insurance. I provided a link. Why don't you prove that a lack of health insurance isn't detrimental to your health when you're sick?

It's not a question of being bright. It don't accept your implied premise - that insurance is the only way to get health care

Or that lack of insurance kills people.
It's a physical impossibility.

it's the stupid left's misconception of life. like all of life is.

There's a basic logical problem at the heart of their view on these matters: they equate not helping someone with hurting them.

just like keeping our money is the government giving us something.

 

[koshergrl]

You don't need to conduct a study to observe fact. Are you suggesting that losing insurance coverage can cause death? What are you imaging? That the shock of reading a cancellation notice might induce a heart attack?

You're not very bright either. The lack of healthcare that you get without insurance. I provided a link. Why don't you prove that a lack of health insurance isn't detrimental to your health when you're sick?

It's not a question of being bright. It don't accept your implied premise - that insurance is the only way to get health care

Or that lack of insurance kills people.
It's a physical impossibility.

it's the stupid left's misconception of life. like all of life is.

There's a basic logical problem at the heart of their view on these matters: they equate not helping someone with hurting them.

And they equate killing someone with helping them.

Because they're fucking crazy freaks. We need to lock them up.

 

[Dragonlady]

I agree with a lot of what you say and KG is completely off her rocker.

That said, I think we're talking about what to do with those who are dying because of lack of insurance/medical care, no?

Not really. The ethical issue is when can docs refuse to continue providing treatment even if a patient or their family wants it to continue. The converse is when can docs refuse a family, or patient's, request that treatment cease. Both those questions really do, in real life, come about without any regard to money.

Well, in this specific case I believe it is because the patient doesn't have healthcare, or at least that was my take on it.

Money does have place in the equation when a patient has none. That is, if a doc can ethically say "she's so damn sick and dying giving her anything beyond antibiotics and comfort treatment is inhumane, and I won't do it," a person with money will inevitably find some doc who'll keep them "alive" for money.

It's strange how we treat dying people. I had a mother in law whom they twice kept alive with antibiotics when she had pneumonia. The woman had dementia and recognized no one other then my wife and I and our daughter. Ethically, the docs had to give her antibiotics despite the fact that pretty much everyone wanted her to just pass. I keep a .38 with 158 grain soft nose bullets.

I don't have the answers here, I feel I don't know enough right now as to when the hospital has the right to end someone's life against the wishes of the patient or family. What if someone has a month, 2 months, 6 months or 2 years left?

Anyway, just to be clear, my whole argument in this is if the patient is dying only because of lack of insurance.

No, the patient is dying because the hospital won't treat him.

There's a difference.

Yeah, because of lack of insurance. Now, for the hundredth time what would you do to save this guys life and others?

No, NOT for lack of insurance.

What is happening is hospitals and pigs like you are killing people as a punishment for not obtaining insurance.

It's not the *fault* of the victims of terrorism when walleyed jihadists blow them up, or stab them, or take planes down.

Likewise, it isn't the *fault* of patients when their care providers kill them for failing to obtain insurance.

When innocent people are killed, it is never their fault.

You people won't acknowledge that because your entire ideology is about killing...and if you admit that the people you kill don't deserve to die, you have to face the reality of who you really are.

The people who bring us:

and

You’re an unhinged idiot. You find a way to blame the left for the deaths caused by right wing policies, and that includes abortion. Left wing countries with free abortions have lower abortion rates than the USA because they have government funded healthcare, mandated maternity leave and job protections for pregnant women.

Americans offer none of these and then try to prevent poor women from aborting babies. Worse, they blame liberals for allowing women the right to choose.

Now you’re trying to blame a decision to take this man off life support as a punishment for not buying health care insurance. No, it’s not. It’s the result of running a for-profit medical system. Right wing policies always result in poor people dying.

My 89 year old mother-in-law has an aggressive form of cancer. It’s her second bout of cancer, and she has dementia. Her first cancer was 15 years ago. It’s highly unlikely that she’ll survive this time, but our government funded healthcare system is going to treat her cancer by the book and try to save her life.

So don’t try to blame this man’s death on liberalism. This is purely a free market decision.

 

[jc456]

Not really. The ethical issue is when can docs refuse to continue providing treatment even if a patient or their family wants it to continue. The converse is when can docs refuse a family, or patient's, request that treatment cease. Both those questions really do, in real life, come about without any regard to money.

Well, in this specific case I believe it is because the patient doesn't have healthcare, or at least that was my take on it.

Money does have place in the equation when a patient has none. That is, if a doc can ethically say "she's so damn sick and dying giving her anything beyond antibiotics and comfort treatment is inhumane, and I won't do it," a person with money will inevitably find some doc who'll keep them "alive" for money.

It's strange how we treat dying people. I had a mother in law whom they twice kept alive with antibiotics when she had pneumonia. The woman had dementia and recognized no one other then my wife and I and our daughter. Ethically, the docs had to give her antibiotics despite the fact that pretty much everyone wanted her to just pass. I keep a .38 with 158 grain soft nose bullets.

I don't have the answers here, I feel I don't know enough right now as to when the hospital has the right to end someone's life against the wishes of the patient or family. What if someone has a month, 2 months, 6 months or 2 years left?

Anyway, just to be clear, my whole argument in this is if the patient is dying only because of lack of insurance.

No, the patient is dying because the hospital won't treat him.

There's a difference.

Yeah, because of lack of insurance. Now, for the hundredth time what would you do to save this guys life and others?

No, NOT for lack of insurance.

What is happening is hospitals and pigs like you are killing people as a punishment for not obtaining insurance.

It's not the *fault* of the victims of terrorism when walleyed jihadists blow them up, or stab them, or take planes down.

Likewise, it isn't the *fault* of patients when their care providers kill them for failing to obtain insurance.

When innocent people are killed, it is never their fault.

You people won't acknowledge that because your entire ideology is about killing...and if you admit that the people you kill don't deserve to die, you have to face the reality of who you really are.

The people who bring us:

and

You’re an unhinged idiot. You find a way to blame the left for the deaths caused by right wing policies, and that includes abortion. Left wing countries with free abortions have lower abortion rates than the USA because they have government funded healthcare, mandated maternity leave and job protections for pregnant women.

Americans offer none of these and then try to prevent poor women from aborting babies. Worse, they blame liberals for allowing women the right to choose.

Now you’re trying to blame a decision to take this man off life support as a punishment for not buying health care insurance. No, it’s not. It’s the result of running a for-profit medical system. Right wing policies always result in poor people dying.

My 89 year old mother-in-law has an aggressive form of cancer. It’s her second bout of cancer, and she has dementia. Her first cancer was 15 years ago. It’s highly unlikely that she’ll survive this time, but our government funded healthcare system is going to treat her cancer by the book and try to save her life.

So don’t try to blame this man’s death on liberalism. This is purely a free market decision.

Americans offer none of these and then try to prevent poor women from aborting babies. Worse, they blame liberals for allowing women the right to choose.

they choose life or death. wow. Not even their bodies. I say that because if it was their bodies, the doctors aborting the babies wouldn't need to get them, babies, out of the womb. So, you are a proud baby killer advocate. wow.