PDA

View Full Version : Congress making your healt care decisions


Fast_Eddie
09-16-2009, 03:30 PM
Just an ironic thought. I can only think of one incident when Congress and the President got involved in the health care decisions of an individual. Life and death decisions made not by a doctor. Not by a famiy member. Not by a patient. But by Congress and the President.

Anyone remember?

Terri Schiavo. I'm curious, if Terri Schiavo hadn't had health insurance, would tax dollars have been spent to keep her alive against the wishes of her family? Why is it that many of the people who fought so hard to intervine in that case are now saying we can't afford health care for you and your family?

Fast_Eddie
09-16-2009, 03:43 PM
Why was Terri Schiavo's life worth so much more than Paxten Mitchell's?

http://consumerist.com/368634/

Why didn't the Republicans in Congress stand up for Paxten? Why aren't they standing up for the countless other Paxten Mitchells?

Fast_Eddie
09-16-2009, 04:43 PM
No takers? Shoot, I thought this one was pretty good.

merrylander
09-17-2009, 07:36 AM
A dear friend died because her insurance company decided that being in her late fifties did not warrant treatment for the cancer that eventually killed her. Maybe Paxton's insurance company did not want to pay because the bone marrow transplant treatment was developed at the University of Toronto in Canada.

Fast_Eddie
09-17-2009, 09:07 AM
A dear friend died because her insurance company decided that being in her late fifties did not warrant treatment for the cancer that eventually killed her. Maybe Paxton's insurance company did not want to pay because the bone marrow transplant treatment was developed at the University of Toronto in Canada.

I really would like some of our "I ain't paying" folks to chime in on this. Why was it Okay for Congress to sit by and let Paxton die? So far no one stepping up to defend it. Wonder what Rush or Beck would say. Sorry Paxton, we hate to see you die and all, but why should *I* pay save your life? Clearly Paxton didn't work hard enough. He was looking for a free ride.

Bigerik
09-17-2009, 09:47 AM
I really would like some of our "I ain't paying" folks to chime in on this. Why was it Okay for Congress to sit by and let Paxton die? So far no one stepping up to defend it. Wonder what Rush or Beck would say. Sorry Paxton, we hate to see you die and all, but why should *I* pay save your life? Clearly Paxton didn't work hard enough. He was looking for a free ride.

yeah, but what profit is there in keeping him alive? Can you imagine what treatment would have cost an insurance company? Man, think what that would due to their quarterly reports!!

Charles
09-17-2009, 09:21 PM
I really would like some of our "I ain't paying" folks to chime in on this. Why was it Okay for Congress to sit by and let Paxton die? So far no one stepping up to defend it. Wonder what Rush or Beck would say. Sorry Paxton, we hate to see you die and all, but why should *I* pay save your life? Clearly Paxton didn't work hard enough. He was looking for a free ride.

“I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity.” —President Franklin Pierce (1804-1869)

“I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan to indulge in benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds. I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution.” —President Grover Cleveland (1837-1908)

“I don’t like the income tax. Every time we talk about these taxes we get around to the idea of ‘from each according to his capacity and to each according to his needs.’ That’s socialism. It’s written into the Communist Manifesto. Maybe we ought to see that every person who gets a tax return receives a copy of the Communist Manifesto with it so he can see what’s happening to him.” —accountant and Commissioner of Internal Revenue T. Coleman Andrews (1899-1983)

Ask and you shall receive.

Chas

Bigerik
09-17-2009, 09:38 PM
Can you find something in there that allows for the occupation of a foreign country that was no threat to the United States?

Fast_Eddie
09-17-2009, 09:57 PM
“I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity.” —President Franklin Pierce (1804-1869)

“I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan to indulge in benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds. I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution.” —President Grover Cleveland (1837-1908)

“I don’t like the income tax. Every time we talk about these taxes we get around to the idea of ‘from each according to his capacity and to each according to his needs.’ That’s socialism. It’s written into the Communist Manifesto. Maybe we ought to see that every person who gets a tax return receives a copy of the Communist Manifesto with it so he can see what’s happening to him.” —accountant and Commissioner of Internal Revenue T. Coleman Andrews (1899-1983)

Ask and you shall receive.

Chas

I didn't ask any of those things.

I asked "Why was it Okay for Congress to sit by and let Paxton die?" And I asked "Why was Terri Schiavo's life worth so much more than Paxten Mitchell's?"

An answer would start something like this "It's ok that the insurance company didn't pay, and Congress did nothing to save Paxton's life because..."

Congress did indeed come between a doctor and a patient. They demanded health care for Terri Schiavo. Why not you and me?

By the way, I didn't vote for Pierce or Cleveland. And the implication of your quotes is that you would like to see all taxes done away with. I'd like to see how long it takes Bin Laden to take over our country if we did that. Actually, I wouldn't.

Grumpy
09-18-2009, 05:55 AM
Can you find something in there that allows for the occupation of a foreign country that was no threat to the United States?

Not sure what world you live in but every middle eastern country, including our allies over there, are a threat to us. :D

spasmo55
09-18-2009, 06:50 AM
As I recall the Shiavo case, it was about the husband having the right to disconnect her from Life Support against her parents wishes, not about paying for her health care.

I think you are mixing apples with oranges.

Having read the article you provided the link for, not much info there, I gotta ask just because the insurance wouldn't pay the parents found no other way to obtain the treatment? I'm asking a question here not making any kind of point.

Charles
09-18-2009, 07:05 AM
I didn't ask any of those things.

I asked "Why was it Okay for Congress to sit by and let Paxton die?" And I asked "Why was Terri Schiavo's life worth so much more than Paxten Mitchell's?"

An answer would start something like this "It's ok that the insurance company didn't pay, and Congress did nothing to save Paxton's life because..."

Congress did indeed come between a doctor and a patient. They demanded health care for Terri Schiavo. Why not you and me?

By the way, I didn't vote for Pierce or Cleveland. And the implication of your quotes is that you would like to see all taxes done away with. I'd like to see how long it takes Bin Laden to take over our country if we did that. Actually, I wouldn't.

I really would like some of our "I ain't paying" folks to chime in on this.

All I did was furnish you with some quotes from three people who felt that public charity and the income are not supported by the Constitution.

I did not offer my opinion.

Chas

noonereal
09-18-2009, 07:35 AM
I really would like some of our "I ain't paying" folks to chime in on this.

All I did was furnish you with some quotes from three people who felt that public charity and the income are not supported by the Constitution.

I did not offer my opinion.

Chas

Your opinion has been stated by you several times here.
Does, "I don't want anybody to tell me who I have to help" ring a bell?
In other words you prefer private charity that is non compulsory so that you can decide what constitutes "need" and a person who is "rightfully" needy. Correct?

Grumpy
09-18-2009, 08:41 AM
Your opinion has been stated by you several times here.
Does, "I don't want anybody to tell me who I have to help" ring a bell?
In other words you prefer private charity that is non compulsory so that you can decide what constitutes "need" and a person who is "rightfully" needy. Correct?


I know I prefer to choose who I am going to help. For instance we have a new 3rd grade teacher at our my kids school who has nothing. Normally the teachers have books and games in the classroom for the kids.

My wife and I just found out at meeting yesterday night and are going out to get this teacher what she needs. We will go and, get what she needs and hand it too her at the end of today.

If the gooberment were involved it would be voted on, argued about and only then could new taxes be levied, collected and dispersed only after a new czar was appointed, departments created, funds issued to the state, then passed down to the city, city sends em out to the school district and finally district sends em to the school in need. Whew... I like my way of handling it better

By the we ask for nothing in return. A thank you is not even necessary. We do this because we want to and because we were asked too.

merrylander
09-18-2009, 09:08 AM
Hmm?

"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, . . ."

Right there on the first page.

JJIII
09-18-2009, 12:09 PM
"Congress was granted the power to promote the general welfare of the nation by the Constitution of the United States. It means that Congress should provide laws that are in keeping with the principles of the self governed. It means that Congress may provide legislation that acts in a general best interest of a nation.


One view: It does not mean that Congress should create legislation that plunders the people in order to redistribute wealth. It does not provide for any entitlements for certain people."

From Wikipedia.

Main Entry: pro·mote
Pronunciation: \prə-ˈmōt\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): pro·mot·ed; pro·mot·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin promotus, past participle of promovēre, literally, to move forward, from pro- forward + movēre to move
Date: 14th century
1 a : to advance in station, rank, or honor : raise b : to change (a pawn) into a piece in chess by moving to the eighth rank c : to advance (a student) from one grade to the next higher grade
2 a : to contribute to the growth or prosperity of : further <promote international understanding> b : to help bring (as an enterprise) into being : launch c : to present (merchandise) for buyer acceptance through advertising, publicity, or discounting
3 slang : to get possession of by doubtful means or by ingenuity.

From Merriam- Webster

Promote does not mean "Take from me, give to them".

wajobu
09-18-2009, 12:17 PM
Based on all the denials of coverage and cancellations noted of late, I'd say that the current private market insurance is doing just fine with the concept of "death panels". It never ceases to amaze me how duped the followers of the right wing talking heads are at believing that things could possibly get worse. Big Business continues to put money in the pockets of their executives at the expense of both the stockholders and subscribers to their insurance plans.

noonereal
09-18-2009, 12:38 PM
Based on all the denials of coverage and cancellations noted of late, I'd say that the current private market insurance is doing just fine with the concept of "death panels".

Yep

It never ceases to amaze me how duped the followers of the right wing talking heads are at believing that things could possibly get worse.

noone yet has told me how bad medicare is yet they jump out of their skin at the prospect of everone receiving it.


Big Business continues to put money in the pockets of their executives at the expense of both the stockholders and subscribers to their insurance plans.

Then they insist that their explotied followers go out and teabag. Nothing but prostitution from what I can see.

Twodogs
09-18-2009, 01:26 PM
Nothing but prostitution from what I can see.

Oh my, I feel so dirty now.:rolleyes:

Charles
09-18-2009, 03:48 PM
"Congress was granted the power to promote the general welfare of the nation by the Constitution of the United States. It means that Congress should provide laws that are in keeping with the principles of the self governed. It means that Congress may provide legislation that acts in a general best interest of a nation.


One view: It does not mean that Congress should create legislation that plunders the people in order to redistribute wealth. It does not provide for any entitlements for certain people."

From Wikipedia.

Main Entry: pro·mote
Pronunciation: \prə-ˈmōt\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): pro·mot·ed; pro·mot·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin promotus, past participle of promovēre, literally, to move forward, from pro- forward + movēre to move
Date: 14th century
1 a : to advance in station, rank, or honor : raise b : to change (a pawn) into a piece in chess by moving to the eighth rank c : to advance (a student) from one grade to the next higher grade
2 a : to contribute to the growth or prosperity of : further <promote international understanding> b : to help bring (as an enterprise) into being : launch c : to present (merchandise) for buyer acceptance through advertising, publicity, or discounting
3 slang : to get possession of by doubtful means or by ingenuity.

From Merriam- Webster

Promote does not mean "Take from me, give to them".

Well put, Sir.

Chas

Fast_Eddie
09-18-2009, 03:54 PM
This is all very theoretical and clinical- citing the Constitution and all. Okay, I'll bite. Is the Fire Department unconstitutional? You don't get to choose who they help. And really, aren't a lot fires caused by people who are irresponsible? Why should I have to pay for that?

Charles
09-18-2009, 04:14 PM
Your opinion has been stated by you several times here.
Does, "I don't want anybody to tell me who I have to help" ring a bell?
In other words you prefer private charity that is non compulsory so that you can decide what constitutes "need" and a person who is "rightfully" needy. Correct?

As a matter of fact, it does. And being "compelled" to do anything has always been a sore spot me.

Now I will give my opinion.

In theory, it is not the governments mandate to take from me and give to thee. That is no more than theft.

In reality, the government has expanded its mandate to pretty much do as it damn well pleases. Since this is the way it is, and the way it's going to be, I favor government sponsored universal coverage. Provided it is fair and equitable...as I've said before, the same for everyone from the President down to Otis. And I'll go one step further, should anyone...politician, doctor, etc, etc, be caught gaming the system...they should be put on their knees and shot in the back of the head. On national teevee on the 6:00 news.

Now at times I'm an idealist, at times a realist, but right now I'm a betting man.

20 bucks says whatever comes out of the beltway is going to be unfair, too expensive, will reward the regulators at the expense of those it was enacted to help, and pretty much be no more than a stinking pile of shit.

We'll settle up in five years, should be time enough to pass judgment. Are we on?

Chas

Fast_Eddie
09-18-2009, 04:34 PM
20 bucks says whatever comes out of the beltway is going to be unfair, too expensive, will reward the regulators at the expense of those it was enacted to help, and pretty much be no more than a stinking pile of shit.

Would you agree that the current system does as well?

So your solution is to do nothing. There is no hope of ever improving anything, so don't even try?

Charles
09-18-2009, 04:40 PM
This is all very theoretical and clinical- citing the Constitution and all. Okay, I'll bite. Is the Fire Department unconstitutional? You don't get to choose who they help. And really, aren't a lot fires caused by people who are irresponsible? Why should I have to pay for that?

I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I don't think that fire departments are in the constitution anywhere. Must fall in with the "shall be regulated to the states" part.

While not a constitutional scholar, I can be a parsing little prick when I'm of a notion.

Back to the FD. Since they're all local, you can vote to have one, or not. And they're not there to save your house, they're there to keep you from burning the whole damn town down. Should it be negligence on your part, they can sue you for their expenses if they desire. Should it turn out to be arson, they have places for people like that.

This is like shopping at the A&P. Someone is always picking up an apple and putting it in the orange bin.

Chas

Charles
09-18-2009, 04:42 PM
Would you agree that the current system does as well?

So your solution is to do nothing. There is no hope of ever improving anything, so don't even try?

No, my solution is to try to get it pretty much right. I just have no faith.

And I would like to see a solution, very much so.

Chas

Fast_Eddie
09-18-2009, 04:55 PM
No, my solution is to try to get it pretty much right. I just have no faith.

And I would like to see a solution, very much so.

Chas

Thanks- good post. But you have to have some faith. No way it can get done if you don't.

Grumpy
09-18-2009, 05:25 PM
Sorry but the solution is to at least try to do it right for all. Not just for some.

Bigerik
09-18-2009, 06:22 PM
Back to the FD. Since they're all local, you can vote to have one, or not. And they're not there to save your house, they're there to keep you from burning the whole damn town down. Should it be negligence on your part, they can sue you for their expenses if they desire. Should it turn out to be arson, they have places for people like that.

Chas

What does "local" mean? Your town? Your state? Your country?

You can replace fire department with health care in the above example and it cold read the same.

So, does not providing health care for people who then go and spread their illness to the populace not the same as burning the town down?

Fast_Eddie
09-18-2009, 06:37 PM
Back to the FD. Since they're all local, you can vote to have one, or not.


I have never in my life had an opportunity on having a fire department or not. I've never had a fire. I've never needed a fire department. Why do *I* have to pay for *your* fire?

If you can't make the leap from fire department to health care, change the analogy to the millitary, the interstate highway system, the FBI, the CIA, etc.

Grumpy
09-18-2009, 07:40 PM
I have never in my life had an opportunity on having a fire department or not. I've never had a fire. I've never needed a fire department. Why do *I* have to pay for *your* fire?

If you can't make the leap from fire department to health care, change the analogy to the millitary, the interstate highway system, the FBI, the CIA, etc.


In most of our local cities "you" don't. The person who has had a fire is the one to pay the FD expenses.

Funny how everyone skips over my care for everyone argument and moves on to what I feel is totally irrelevant issues.

I will say this again. Why is it that some one who earns no or little money is more deserving then a gov health care program and my neighbors and me are not.

Fast_Eddie
09-18-2009, 07:42 PM
I will say this again. Why is it that some one who earns no or little money is more deserving then a gov health care program and my neighbors and me are not.

Who is saying that they are?

Charles
09-18-2009, 08:07 PM
What does "local" mean? Your town? Your state? Your country?

You can replace fire department with health care in the above example and it cold read the same.

So, does not providing health care for people who then go and spread their illness to the populace not the same as burning the town down?

By local, I meant a municipality. The state has a Fire Marshall, but not a state fire dep't., at least as far as I know.

Should someone have a deadly communicable disease, provisions are already in place for a quarantine.

The fire department exists to protect the public, health care exists to protect the individual, at least as I see it. A minute, but definitive distinction.

Now I'm an "every man for himself" kind of guy, but I'm also perceptive enough to realize that we now live in a collective world. And I've also stated that a government run universal coverage plan is what I favor...provided that it is the same for all.

And I've also pointed out that I can be a parsing little prick when I'm of a notion. And that is what we're engaged in, parsing.

Well, parsing is kind of a hoot at times...but let's cut to the chase.

I've seen people on death's door who were afraid to go to the doctor because they couldn't afford it. I've done the same, and my wife almost died trying to wait a week so her health insurance would become effective. Pretty much anything that could be done to someone by the health care industry and the insurance companies, not to mention half assed government regulations, has happened to me.

I've been down the prim rose path, and I have no illusions.

What's say we do the right thing. Make it easy, make it fair, and make it done. We're on the same page.

Unfortunately, we are at the mercy of the special interests and their hip pocket politicians. On this issue I'm willing to allow my love of my fellow man to supercede my love of individual rights. At this place, at this time, it's the right thing to do.

But I would like to see our betters come to the same conclusion. Until they do, nothing will work.

Chas

Bigerik
09-18-2009, 08:51 PM
Funny how everyone skips over my care for everyone argument and moves on to what I feel is totally irrelevant issues.

I will say this again. Why is it that some one who earns no or little money is more deserving then a gov health care program and my neighbors and me are not.

DAve, your comment about everyone deserving the same level of health care is so fundamentally correct and commonsensical (at least from this Canucks point of view) that I figured it didn't even need comment. Kind of like the sky is blue. However, judging by what I have seen of this debate in recent weeks, I certainly should not take it for granted that everyone would agree with this comment.
Then again, in a world where churches are fighting for large corporations to make huge profits while denying the little guy health care, I guess nothing should be taken for granted.

Fast_Eddie
09-18-2009, 09:04 PM
What's say we do the right thing. Make it easy, make it fair, and make it done. We're on the same page.

Unfortunately, we are at the mercy of the special interests and their hip pocket politicians. On this issue I'm willing to allow my love of my fellow man to supercede my love of individual rights. At this place, at this time, it's the right thing to do.


Sounds like a plan.

noonereal
09-19-2009, 06:27 AM
Now I'm an "every man for himself" kind of guy,

See, so am I. But now it means something different than before I got sick and lived among as the poor.

merrylander
09-19-2009, 07:19 AM
The same level of care for everyone is at the base of the Single Payer plan. One might argue that the 0.8&#37; tax on my taxable income there was progressive but I don't recall anyone getting their knickers in a twist about it.

As someone noted, is not curing a person rather than letting them spread their illness about "promoting the general welfare"? Does the name Typhoid Mary ring a bell? What are the major ads on TV all about, besides ED that is? Take Nyquil and you will be able to go to work tomorrow - and spread the flu throughout the workplace. If you had done that on my staff you would be sent home so fast your head would spin. There is the work ethic and there is downright stupidity.