This is correct. They will counter with "but you have choice you can go somewhere else" but you really can't.Quote:
Originally Posted by spitvenom
|
This is correct. They will counter with "but you have choice you can go somewhere else" but you really can't.Quote:
Originally Posted by spitvenom
I knew what you meant, but it's still not that clear cut.Quote:
Originally Posted by spitvenom
Right NK that is the point go somewhere else and it is exactly the same. Just a different name different logo but the undertakers I mean writers job does not change.
Speech that has been my problem my entire life. I just don't understand why people just don't straighten up and learn to read my mind.
Can you provide an example where the plug was pulled based on an underwriter's recommendation ?Quote:
But how is that any different then an under writer at an insurance company? Regardless of what your Dr wants or you want the under writer tells you what you are going to get.
Based on the films that I saw of Terry Schiavo, she was responsive to her family, to outside stimulus (music, color, light, touch, etc.) and she had limited responses to conversation. There were even videos of her attempting to communicate verbally.Quote:
Originally Posted by spitvenom
I know that many "specialists" (especially the ones that supported Michael Schiavo) claimed that these were all "autonomic responses", but based on the films, I'm not convinced of that.
In any case, Schiavo did NOT follow the normal and usual pattern for people with her form of Persistent Vegitative State. Despite her supposed PVS, her responses were of a higher level than normal for a PVS case. On that basis alone, the decision to unhook her feeding tube was unjustified, in my opinion.
But again, the Schiavo case is just simply an illustration of what happens when the government gets involved in health care. Whether the decision of the government (the courts, in this case) was correct or not is beside the point. The point is the fact that the government got involved at all in what is really a matter between the doctor and the patient.
The MOST that the court should have decided was whether Michael Schiavo or Terry's parents, the Schindlers, were the legal guardians. Once guardianship was determined, the courts should never again have been involved in either ordering or stoping Terry's treatment. From that point on, it should have been a matter between the patient (and/or her legal guardian) and the Doctor. But the government insisted on getting involved over and over again, each time overrulling itself in unexpected ways that were pretty schizophrenic in nature.
Whether you agree with the decisions made in Schiavo's case or not is beyond the real point. The issue is the place of government in personal health care decisions. And I say that the government HAS no place in such decisions. The entire mess of the Schiavo case was due to government interference where it didn't belong.
Elliot
The day you can prove where a plug was pulled by a bureaucrat in a universal healthcare system. This is one of the rightys main assertions.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I hear you brother.Quote:
Originally Posted by spitvenom
Here they try to catch you while you're still alert to help push you along.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Oregon health plan covers assisted suicide, not drugs, for cancer patient
Speech Strange coincidence you posted that story. Last night I messing with my wife saying that if I ever had cancer I would not get any treatment (which of course I would treat). I should really freak her out and tell her we are moving to Oregon then show her that article.
But cancer drugs should be covered. And I think Assisted suicide should be covered. I know there are religious things about suicide but if you want to die I say go ahead.
Yes ;the "Remmelink Report" reported over 1000 cases of involuntary euthanasia in Holland... without the patients' knowledge or consent.Quote:
The day you can prove where a plug was pulled by a bureaucrat in a universal healthcare system. This is one of the rightys main assertions.
But.. All I need to do is show the thought process behind the main architects of the Dems plan... and I have done that more than once already.
Edit to add link
http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/fctholl.htm
I'm sure your wife thinks you're a fun guy :DQuote:
Originally Posted by spitvenom
I've always said if people want to die that's their choice... just don't drag others into it.Quote:
But cancer drugs should be covered. And I think Assisted suicide should be covered. I know there are religious things about suicide but if you want to die I say go ahead.
Oh yeah she thinks I am Hilarious :rolleyes:
I haven't really looked up anything but for the first 3 years I was out of school I worked at a very large Insurance Co. I know exactly how they work. If an under writer was having a bad day people didn't get covered. The guy would get a power trip from it. It was scary to think my treatment is all dangling because of how this person is feeling today. Now I know all people aren't like that but come on.
An underwriter at a private company can be fired for doing what you describe.Quote:
Originally Posted by spitvenom
Ever try to fire a government employee who was an AFSCME Union member? They are one of the two or three most powerful unions in the nation, and NOBODY who is one of their members gets fired for anything short of premeditated murder. (And that assumes that the government agency would give enough of a $h!t to even try.)
Even at it's WORST, in my opinion, a private company is better to deal with than the government.
Elliot
I think that applies just about everywhere. Heck, I'm guilty... I charge some customers more just because they're such a pain in the a$$. That's why a lot of men especially fear sending a meal back in a restaurant, they suspect something may be added for flavor and/or texture. Think of tenured professors or IRS agents or dare I say it, "going postal." Now imagine all those bureaucrats having a bad day with your government health care :DQuote:
Originally Posted by spitvenom
I guess what I don't understand is why is it so much worse if it is a government employee to you guys? They company I worked for knew how this guy was because I said something about it, but they didn't care he was saving the company money. One higher up actually said to me it's because of him we get to have company retreats at the red door spa. I quit after that.
Clearly this is being lost... it is not the issue of the money and if it is covered . It is an issue of if you can even get the treatment once the desk jocky says no.
Earlier I noted Camille Paglia's take on Palin.
This is what she wrote in Salon about Palin's "death panel" comments:
As a libertarian and refugee from the authoritarian Roman Catholic church of my youth, I simply do not understand the drift of my party toward a soulless collectivism. This is in fact what Sarah Palin hit on in her shocking image of a "death panel" under Obamacare that would make irrevocable decisions about the disabled and elderly. When I first saw that phrase, headlined on the Drudge Report, I burst out laughing. It seemed so over the top! But on reflection, I realized that Palin's shrewdly timed metaphor spoke directly to the electorate's unease with the prospect of shadowy, unelected government figures controlling our lives. A death panel not only has the power of life and death but is itself a symptom of a Kafkaesque brave new world where authority has become remote, arbitrary and spectral.
She's as idiotic as Palin.
Lol ;clearly..
Although the intelligencia of the left regards her as one of the leading teachers and social critics of our age.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:18 PM. |