• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

60,000 patients put on death pathway without being told...

FreedomFromAll said:
No man is left behind
When Americans Pull Together - CBS News

"Yet with the exception of a few loons and professional partisans, Americans opened their hearts and their billfolds - and they did so even though America itself is in the midst of hard times.
"

See you "loons and professional partisans" at the poles.
Click to expand...

That's a bit different from a majority coming together to pick the pockets of a minority of the people in the name of "compassion."
 
LowDown said:
That's a bit different from a majority coming together to pick the pockets of a minority of the people in the name of "compassion."
Click to expand...

Well there are two sets of "loons and professional partisans" at play here. Neither set represent compassion in society today.
 
j-mac said:
This is the fundamental evil face of progressivism. Remember the words of an early 20th Century progressive, George Bernard Shaw....

Click to expand...


"Justify your existence." hmmm well i don't think that video has much at all to do with anything that I have said here. In fact, not many people these days could justify their existence according to Shaw's standards. I'm not suggesting that anyone be hauled off to a death camp or any such nonsense. But occasionally, nature needs to do its work. Death is a natural part of life. And since all things come to an end, prolonging suffering for the sake of pretending to value humanity is foolish and reckless. How many people here really value the lives of strangers? Not many, I would bet. It's easy to be an armchair warrior. It costs you nothing.
 
j-mac said:
This is the fundamental evil face of progressivism. Remember the words of an early 20th Century progressive, George Bernard Shaw....

Click to expand...


How do you reach this conclusion? Under pure capitalism, many are unable to pay. Being unable to pay would then mean no treatment at all. At some point we have to talk actual issues and meaningless labels of left and right.
 
Boo Radley said:
How do you reach this conclusion? Under pure capitalism, many are unable to pay. Being unable to pay would then mean no treatment at all. At some point we have to talk actual issues and meaningless labels of left and right.
Click to expand...


I don't know what country you are speaking of, it certainly isn't the United States.
 
Evenstar said:
"Justify your existence." hmmm well i don't think that video has much at all to do with anything that I have said here. In fact, not many people these days could justify their existence according to Shaw's standards. I'm not suggesting that anyone be hauled off to a death camp or any such nonsense. But occasionally, nature needs to do its work. Death is a natural part of life. And since all things come to an end, prolonging suffering for the sake of pretending to value humanity is foolish and reckless. How many people here really value the lives of strangers? Not many, I would bet. It's easy to be an armchair warrior. It costs you nothing.
Click to expand...


With your opening statement....I understand that progressives are masters at re-labeling, or redefining what is said all in order to mask the ultimate goal of social utopia that you envision, however, Shaw beat you to it almost a hundred years ago, and at least he was straight forward with his progressive vision, and ends of his means. Today's progressive is trying too hard to hide what it is they want, and thus they just come off as liars.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Well there are two sets of "loons and professional partisans" at play here. Neither set represent compassion in society today.
Click to expand...

I support compassion under the condition that the cost does not outweigh the benefit.
 
Mathematician said:
I support compassion under the condition that the cost does not outweigh the benefit.
Click to expand...

Well that depends on who beneficiary doesnt it? I mean if two wolfs and a sheep are voting on dinner?

Throwing money at someone isnt really helping them and I am not asserting that money is the answer. In many cases all the money in the world will not ease the pain or save the persons life. The problem though is that many are treating the problem as a generalization as if we could use a one size fits all policy.

Couldnt we create a national slush fund give what you can on your tax returns but no one is compelled to donate. Church's are not above helping the needy or in many cases helping out lazy bums. Locally when disaster strike the community will pool their money together to help the victims. WHy not organize the compassion of the entire country to help those that need it most? Give what you can? Such behavior is in our proud heritage historically. Why should we make this a political wrestling match of ideologies?
 
LowDown said:
60,000 patients put on death pathway without being told but minister still says controversial end-of-life plan is 'fantastic' | Mail Online



The "care pathway" is where they sedate patients and then withdraw life sustaining care, basically killing them off.

Put the government in charge of health care and then see what happens when the government gets short of money.

The BHS basically pays a bounty for every patient finished off this way. 130,000 patients are killed this way yearly, apparently almost half of them without consent.

The British Health Minister calls the pathway "a great step forward."
Click to expand...
Yeah...they should be told, but I don't object to the practice.
 
j-mac said:
I don't know what country you are speaking of, it certainly isn't the United States.
Click to expand...

I limited that to pure capitalism. It's one reason there are no pure capitalist systems to speak of in the world. Here you hedge, giving treatment and passing the cost on to those who can pay, much more expensive and inefficient than any UHC system.
 
Boo Radley said:
I limited that to pure capitalism. It's one reason there are no pure capitalist systems to speak of in the world. Here you hedge, giving treatment and passing the cost on to those who can pay, much more expensive and inefficient than any UHC system.
Click to expand...

Oh, ok, you didn't make that very clear. The US isn't a pure capitalist system either. In fact, I could be wrong, but I don't know of any system in the world that is pure capitalism. Do you? Passing costs that are uncovered, and unpaid is how our system is done now, and it is flawed, causing rise in costs to those who do pay, however, what changes with Obamacare, other than the point at which that redistribution takes place? I mean, it is either business passing unfunded liability along, or it is government centralizing the system, and taking the money beforehand and redistributing it....Either way it is the same result. And I don't put much faith in the premise that government doing things more efficiently.
 
j-mac said:
Oh, ok, you didn't make that very clear. The US isn't a pure capitalist system either. In fact, I could be wrong, but I don't know of any system in the world that is pure capitalism. Do you? Passing costs that are uncovered, and unpaid is how our system is done now, and it is flawed, causing rise in costs to those who do pay, however, what changes with Obamacare, other than the point at which that redistribution takes place? I mean, it is either business passing unfunded liability along, or it is government centralizing the system, and taking the money beforehand and redistributing it....Either way it is the same result. And I don't put much faith in the premise that government doing things more efficiently.
Click to expand...
In what you quote I say there is no such system, and that there will be large numbers who would not be able pay for such care is ONE reason why.

And no, the result is not the same. Thre is no mechanism to monitor or see if the cost being passed on is what it actually costs, meaning a lot more room to gouge. It is not an efficient system; in fact, the system is chaotic and overrun with paperwork and overhead. Government as I speak of it (singled, two teired) could not do worse.
 
Boo Radley said:
In what you quote I say there is no such system, and that there will be large numbers who would not be able pay for such care is ONE reason why.

And no, the result is not the same. Thre is no mechanism to monitor or see if the cost being passed on is what it actually costs, meaning a lot more room to gouge. It is not an efficient system; in fact, the system is chaotic and overrun with paperwork and overhead. Government as I speak of it (singled, two teired) could not do worse.
Click to expand...

But that wasn't the bill of goods we were sold by Obama now was it? Obama and Pelosi didn't say "hey, let us take over a 6th of the economy, we will run it about the same".....No. They said that the system was broken, to which I think everyone agrees, and that they were going to make it better. Also, the infamous now statement by Pelosi, "we have to pass the bill, to see what's in the bill"... See, I don't even think that they can run it comparably, there is nothing that we see now that government runs, that doesn't constantly require more, and more taxpayer input. Think Post office.
 
j-mac said:
But that wasn't the bill of goods we were sold by Obama now was it? Obama and Pelosi didn't say "hey, let us take over a 6th of the economy, we will run it about the same".....No. They said that the system was broken, to which I think everyone agrees, and that they were going to make it better. Also, the infamous now statement by Pelosi, "we have to pass the bill, to see what's in the bill"... See, I don't even think that they can run it comparably, there is nothing that we see now that government runs, that doesn't constantly require more, and more taxpayer input. Think Post office.
Click to expand...

The post office ran quite efficiently for a long, long time. Like many private sector businesses, technology overtook them. So, your example isn't really as good as many think.

As for the stuff about Obama and Pelosi, which is meaningless to our discussion. What we have is not what either wanted. There is much borrowed from republicans in a failed effort to involve them.

However, I'm not speaking of the current reform, but the reform actually needed: UHC, a two tired single payer system. We don't have that.
 
Boo Radley said:
The post office ran quite efficiently for a long, long time. Like many private sector businesses, technology overtook them. So, your example isn't really as good as many think.

As for the stuff about Obama and Pelosi, which is meaningless to our discussion. What we have is not what either wanted. There is much borrowed from republicans in a failed effort to involve them.

However, I'm not speaking of the current reform, but the reform actually needed: UHC, a two tired single payer system. We don't have that.
Click to expand...

Well then, you are arguing for something that not only is NOT in place, but not likely to pass anytime soon. So, if you want hypothetical , I suggest that you start another thread about what you want and see if you get any takers.
 
j-mac said:
Well then, you are arguing for something that not only is NOT in place, but not likely to pass anytime soon. So, if you want hypothetical , I suggest that you start another thread about what you want and see if you get any takers.
Click to expand...

Nothing in the thread is addressing what has actually passed. Hell, it's about Liverpool and some are trying to hypothetically link it to what won't likely ever happen here. :2funny::2funny::2funny:
 
Boo Radley said:
Nothing in the thread is addressing what has actually passed. Hell, it's about Liverpool and some are trying to hypothetically link it to what won't likely ever happen here. :2funny::2funny::2funny:
Click to expand...

I don't know, I am not a fortune teller. But if, or when it does it must be nice to be in your position to ignore it, or simply say "huh, imagine that, I didn't think it would".... Meanwhile, worst case takes place.
 
j-mac said:
I don't know, I am not a fortune teller. But if, or when it does it must be nice to be in your position to ignore it, or simply say "huh, imagine that, I didn't think it would".... Meanwhile, worst case takes place.
Click to expand...

It's not realistic to think it would happen as a matter of policy. As I stated, it happens now in this country. People slip through, can't afford and don't have the wherewithal to navigate the system. How many? I can't say. But, your more than a bit off in your outrage.
 
The OP article looks like a great way to cut down Medicaid costs brought on by the Baby Boomers.
 
Boo Radley said:
It's not realistic to think it would happen as a matter of policy. As I stated, it happens now in this country. People slip through, can't afford and don't have the wherewithal to navigate the system. How many? I can't say. But, your more than a bit off in your outrage.
Click to expand...

Well, that's you opinion. And that is all it is.
 
Jerry said:
Yeah...they should be told, but I don't object to the practice.
Click to expand...

Neither do I if it's done right. They need to do something about the abuse of it.
 
j-mac said:
Well, that's you opinion. And that is all it is.
Click to expand...

You do realize opinions are we deal in on these sites? If you do, you shouldn't have to say it. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
You do realize opinions are we deal in on these sites? If you do, you shouldn't have to say it. ;)
Click to expand...

I felt I did, in your case you often mistake opinion for fact, and vice verse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom