The Affordable HealthCare Decision

[BuckeyeDennis]

The framers of the Constitution aren't to blame. They had no intention for there ever to be anything like the 16th Amendment.

Yes, I agree, and stand corrected. The problem is with the Constitution as it currently stands. The original framers gave us the means to change it, for better or for worse.

[frank81]

Then, it happened the way it should have happened. SHE decided when enough was enough. Not some health board who decided her remaining time left wasn't worth the effort so denied her treatment.

If a 100 year old woman wants to have a pacemaker, or a terminal cancer patient wants an operation to give them another week of life, AND they are able to pay for such procedures (either out of pocket or with the insurance plan of their choosing), then the service should be provided.

Medical decisions are made by the person paying the bill.

You're making the assumptions that doctors always clearly lay out all the costs, benefits, and risks and that patients are all qualified to clearly understand them and make rational decisions. For a doped up cancer patient in their 80's, or their distraught spouse, that doesn't sound likely. There is a profit motive to the hospital for those procedures to happen, so not everyone is on the same team.

[keakap]

Ahhh! But you 'overlook' the 'purpose' of govmnt is to protect the unwashed masses from themselves.

Holy Molie indeed!:mad:

Almost makes one yearn for the old days when the "unwashed" were the people who were sent to Washington by the Sovereign Citizen voters, who actually back then had an actual say in what the government was doing, and was.

;-)

[heathicus]

You're making the assumptions that doctors always clearly lay out all the costs, benefits, and risks and that patients are all qualified to clearly understand them and make rational decisions. For a doped up cancer patient in their 80's, or their distraught spouse, that doesn't sound likely. There is a profit motive to the hospital for those procedures to happen, so not everyone is on the same team.

That's one of the "inconveniences attending too much liberty" that I'm willing to accept.

[keakap]

"...he has never, repeat NEVER been caught lying."

Sorry, railing against drug users, while being an illegal drug user, is (in my book) lying!

On a different subject, which Kailua? Kailua/Kona. or the one near Waimanalo?
(I used to live in Waimanalo.)

steve

He didn't exclude himself from that railing, as an unwilling addict, illegal or otherwise. I hate thieves. If I stole something I would still say, truthfully, I hate thieves. But that's one thing. The other is simpler: lying is lying. Not lying is not lying. It may be something else, but it's not lying. Of course you've every right to have your own book, but unless it has "Webster's" on the cover...
And I guess my point was that if everyone has his own book there is NO definition of anything. Clinton thought he could define "is". (When the true meaning of "is" is Clinton IS a jerk.) The pervs think they can redefine marriage, when the truth IS that marriage IS marriage, the other carp is sham, phony, BS (Baloney Sandwich), evil. If not lying is lying then there is no such thing as lying. (or everything is lying.) (boinnnng)

Kailua-- on Oahu, windward side. And coincidentally we are mere yards from Waimanalo's border, still in the shadows of the Kooalau. It's still a very pretty part of the island. 'They' (corrupt politicians and their union owners) keep trying to widen the one road that goes through Waimanalo, but they meet resistance each time. The people of Waimanalo and Kailua know full well that the next step after that is another 4 or 5 thousand houses,and the permanent destruction of this piece of "paradise". When the ranches and farms are forced out, we're doomed.
I'm reminded of the time in '69 that I lived in Waikiki, and loved it. Now? "Improved" by developers et al? Waikiki has been a destination maybe a dozen times in twenty years, usually for a wedding or special dinner or such. It's not for locals anymore.
Pray for Waimanalo.

[wa2crk]

I haven't followed ALL of the posts here but I think that this one may be all that needs to be said on this subject.
There is a little girl in Baltimore that received a double lung transplant recently who is now getting ready to leave the hospital.
This child would be dead right now if it were not for a federal judge intervening in her case and overruling Kathleen Sebelius who ruled that the child should not have the surgery. Thank God for at least one level headed judge!!! Can anyone say "Death Panels"?
Bill V

[keakap]

Keakap, do NOT get me wrong. I agree with what you're saying, it's just that I got burned by Rush. ...
steve

Understood. I felt a bit "betrayed" (for lack of a better term) as well, until the whole story came out, which he didn't back away from, btw. Then I considered, or tried to, what pain and misery he had to be going thru to the point where he got hooked. Pills for pain, sure, but a talk show host going totally deaf? I couldn't fit in his shoes. But lying? "Intent to harm"? Don't fit, methinks.
And I would feel the same way about any addict that did NOT choose to be one.
I think.
Odd random thought: I've known addicts that didn't know they were, and until they did they could say they weren't.

[keakap]

... Anything outside of that scope should be a personal decision, paid for individually (out of pocket or supplemental insurance) and not by the group.

Good points. And what does it tell us when the personal decision and paying freely and individually are made ILLEGAL?

And to whom do we complain? It's now all run by czars, and they have unlisted numbers.

[keakap]

You're making the assumptions that doctors always clearly lay out all the costs, benefits, and risks and that patients are all qualified to clearly understand them and make rational decisions. For a doped up cancer patient in their 80's, or their distraught spouse, that doesn't sound likely. There is a profit motive to the hospital for those procedures to happen, so not everyone is on the same team.

Yah, si, uh-huh, and so froth. But, the use of terms "always", "all", "all" taint the position when talking about individual human beings. Then throw in "clearly", "doped up", & "distraught", topping it all off with "profit motive", and good grief what a poser!

Looks like the onliest sane thing to do is to get and keep the Fed Gummint the heck OUT of it, altogether.

It's ironic. The Left has waged the somewhat successful campaign against the Family, ethics, morality and responsibility for decades and now that they've mainly destroyed the mainstay of comfort care for that dopey 80 year old cancer patient and his deranged (or was that distraught?) spouse, they grab the microphone and screech "we are here to help you!"

Yeah. Right.

[keakap]

Chuck, I've been hearing for YEARS, it's time to put some bleach in the gene pool.

What about the congressional pool?

If there is EVER a group of "people" that need some STRONG bleach, it is both houses (and both parties) of congress.

steve

I am with you on that one, to the extent possible.
I would even vote for it!