Are you actually saying that poor people should NOT have the privilege of choice, simply because they don't have money? So basically if you can't BUY your life, the government can decide to deny possible life-saving treatments just because they're expensive?
Thank you, Quazi!
Are we going to deny cancer patients palliative chemotherapy too? It's just as expensive.
Americans want to keep the very rich dead breathing so that they can rule the mugs as before. Nutters!
Money spent on terminally ill people does not come from money earmarked for education, that is not how it works. The money simple does not exist for the other subject, what you said makes no sense, since money must be properly appropriated etc, there is a process earmarks money for certain things and you cannot legally use it for anything else.
Not letting people suffer is completely logical on all levels.That wouldn't surprise me. People don't use logic, they use emotions. And when emotions dictate policy, we end up on a financial cliff.
Ok good then perhaps you could save us all a little money and kill yourself now?I don't have enough money to be compassionate.
Almost no one who has paid into social security, medicaid, or medicare will pay enough into these systems to cover their costs. Fact. Of course exceptions exist, but this remains fact for a majority of people. In fact, most people are receiving benefits they never paid for. This isn't about compassion, it's about math. Either the money is there, or it's not. And I'm sorry to inform you- it is not. The money to pay for terminally ill people to eke out another several miserable months on the tax payer's dime simply doesn't exist. According to a source cited in this thread a few pages back, it costs $10,000 a day to maintain someone in the intensive care unit. $50 billion a year to maintain terminally ill patients, and up 30% of that cost has no meaningful impact. If people want to think with their emotions, fine, but at some point they need to come back down here to reality and understand that everything has a cost.
The mistake that you are making is that it can cost up to $10,000 a day to stay in a SCU/ECU. That does not mean that it costs that much for everyone all the time.
Medicare is a government ran insurance company. Medicare makes as much sense as private insurance companies. Which is none. People seem to like to blame the hospitals the doctors and even the patients for whats wrong with medical care in the US but most of the (not always though) they ignore insurance companies. The problem is that the system of using insurance companies in healthcare is really what is called privatized socialism. The Socialistic principles are the same and they do not work in the private sector any better than they work in the public sector. Of course those promoting socialism will tout countries with socialized medical care as they are medical utopias but they lack in many aspects just like privately owned insurance companies do. The only real difference is that in the socialized public version generally more people get ****ty coverage and they cut out the profits of private insurance companies. It is a half ass solution that really is only partially better than the current system in the US. There is a huge amount of room for improvement in those nation with socialized medical care.
If you ask me what I think the solution is, I will tell you that private insurance and government paid medical care both suck. If I had the solution I would make my own thread or start a movement to get it going. But I am only one individual and there are many minds that could figure this out if they were not stagnant minds locked in the battle over two screwed up systems. Because to those people it isnt really about improving the healthcare system its about promoting their ideologies. The healthcare issue is yet just another tool of propaganda for them.
I'm all for palliative medicine. You notice who isn't in the mix of experts, do you not? The patient and his family.Palliative medicine utilizes a multidisciplinary approach to patient care, relying on input from physicians, pharmacists, nurses, chaplains, social workers, psychologists, and other allied health professionals in formulating a plan of care to relieve suffering in all areas of a patient's life. This multidisciplinary approach allows the palliative care team to address physical, emotional, spiritual, and social concerns that arise with advanced illness.
- provides relief from pain, shortness of breath, nausea, and other distressing symptoms;
- affirms life and regards dying as a normal process;
- intends neither to hasten nor to postpone death;
- integrates the psychological and spiritual aspects of patient care;
- offers a support system to help patients live as actively as possible;
- offers a support system to help the family cope;
- uses a team approach to address the needs of patients and their families;
- will enhance quality of life;
- is applicable early in the course of illness, in conjunction with other therapies that are intended to prolong life, such as chemotherapy or radiation therapy.
I don't think anyone is arguing against palliative care here.
Thank you, Quazi!