Political Junky
Gold Member
- May 27, 2009
- 25,793
- 3,990
- 280
You swallowed the Con talking points, hook, line and sinker.Well, you know what? Aside from all the hyperbolic crap, lets address the thought of what "Death Panels" would supposedly do.
Not that there are "death panels", but hypothetically:
Shall we spend $100,000 Dollars to keep a 105-year-old person alive for another year, or shall we use that money to save the lives of 20 children down the road?
Since we're already borrowing to pay for Medicare, etc, this is a very real question, unless of course we get rid of Medicare, which would create a hell of a lot more death among old people than any "death panels" ever would.
If greatgrandma has great private insurance, government has no say. You apparently want to tell her how long she can live and under what circumstances. This sort of value judgement is exactly what the left wants to be able to make.
Ok...then if she has private insurance what's the issue? If death panels existed they would only apply to people that are being subsidized or covered BY the government. Therefore your point is invalid, if she has private insurance she wouldn't even be subject to the death panels in the first place.
See, this is the great fallacy in death panels in a liberal democratic economy. Unless everyone was on the public option (which, even if the democrats introduced one, everyone wouldn't change. Obviously you and I are quite satisfied with our private health care), death panels would only be applicable who would logically die WITHOUT the existence of the public option if their ailment is such that they require immediate medical attention.
That is to say, the only people that would be subject to death from death panels would just die if there was no safety net there in the first place. Hence, the reason why death panels are COMPLETELY pointless and economically unfeasible.