• 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!

Obama discusses deathbed measures

Harry Guerrilla said:
I think under a government system, the incentive will be to not offer as much treatment to the elderly than to others merely because elderly are net tax users and not net tax payers.
Click to expand...

And thats how it should be, and it isn't today because the old are sick and need medicine so the pharamceutical companies run their schemes to get doctors to do all those tests on elderlies so they can give them ridiculously overpriced medicine that doesnt work for what its supposed to.


I'm pretty sure Obama mentioned pharmaceutical reform somewhere in his healthcare plan.

And honestly, why should an 80 year old person get a liver over a 25 year old. They shouldn't. There should be an age cuttoff to where you can either euthanize a human or give them enough medication to make them comfortable.

And I am in full support of human euthanization.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Mandating end of life treatment is exactly deciding treatment! :shock:
Click to expand...

Well why should we spend hundreds of thousand of dollars to get a 97 year old a heart transplant for them to die of natural causes in two years?! What benefit does a 97 year old give society? They live off social security and use our tax money for their health care with medicare and all that nonsense.
 
Democrat4life said:
Well why should we spend hundreds of thousand of dollars to get a 97 year old a heart transplant for them to die of natural causes in two years?! What benefit does a 97 year old give society? They live off social security and use our tax money for their health care with medicare and all that nonsense.
Click to expand...




So you are conceding, that it is indeed government making the medical decisions for the citizens.


Thats all I am interested in right now. Remember, it was promised government would not be in control of your medical decisions.
 
Democrat4life said:
And thats how it should be, and it isn't today because the old are sick and need medicine so the pharamceutical companies run their schemes to get doctors to do all those tests on elderlies so they can give them ridiculously overpriced medicine that doesnt work for what its supposed to.

I'm pretty sure Obama mentioned pharmaceutical reform somewhere in his healthcare plan.
Click to expand...

I only support repeals on extended patents and copyrights on medical procedures and medicines.

Democrat4life said:
And honestly, why should an 80 year old person get a liver over a 25 year old. They shouldn't. There should be an age cuttoff to where you can either euthanize a human or give them enough medication to make them comfortable.

And I am in full support of human euthanization.
Click to expand...

I don't support euthanization unless the person wishes it for them self or if they are never able to make that decision for them self.

As for body parts, people should be able to sell them. It would increase supply so this wouldn't be as a much a concern.
 
RightinNYC said:
Obama discusses deathbed measures - Los Angeles Times



Huge kudos to Obama for having the balls to say what needs to be said on this. Here's hoping he takes it one step further and reminds people that egardless of the health care system we have, you're not entitled to all the health care that you want. Elder care is one of the biggest black holes in our current system, and needs to be fixed if any new system has any hope of succeeding.
Click to expand...

No one's "entitled" to any health care at all.

If someone else has to provide it, it can't be a legislated entitlement.

I refer you to the Thirteenth Amendment for clarification.
 
danarhea said:
What bothers me is that the government gets the final decision on what treatment is acceptable. Of course, as it stands today, the insurance company is frequently the final decider. Whatever happened to the belief that the doctor is the most qualified to make these decisions?
Click to expand...

HillaryCare, 1993...."gee, the majority of health care expenses are incurred in the last six months of life".

Chilling statement to anyone who can think about what the bean counters in a government run socialized health care plan will do. I've no idea why SO MANY damn idiots can believe that the people who gave us the DMV feel that the bureaucrats handling a trillion dollar budget for socialized medicine will care more about you than the fat clerk making you wait in line for two hours at the DMV does.

And now we have a slimy tongued...er I guess that's silver-tongued Messiah saying, hey, why waste resources on people who are going to be dead soon anyway?

And the fools that don't think are lapping it up in a spasm of orgiastic awe.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
So you are conceding, that it is indeed government making the medical decisions for the citizens.


Thats all I am interested in right now. Remember, it was promised government would not be in control of your medical decisions.
Click to expand...

It is making medical decisions, but its not at the same time. They are simply deciding if its worth the country paying for someone to die in two years. And it isnt.

Harry Guerrilla said:
I don't support euthanization unless the person wishes it for them self or if they are never able to make that decision for them self.
Click to expand...

Of course it would be up to the person or their medical proxy. I would never support doctors just saying, "Ok, were going to euthanize you now." without consulting the patient first.

As for body parts, people should be able to sell them. It would increase supply so this wouldn't be as a much a concern.
Click to expand...


Absolutely not! People would start lieing, and denieing they have certain conditions just so they can sell a kidney.
That would also be such a morality issue it would never pass in congress, same thing with the human euthanization.
 
Democrat4life said:
It is making medical decisions, but its not at the same time. They are simply deciding if its worth the country paying for someone to die in two years. And it isnt.
Click to expand...


Wow, is this a benefit to the single payer system? That the government can put a value on YOUR life?

What about uhm, the promise that government would not be deciding?


If it wasn't going to be a single payer system, I could at least by the insurance I want, no?


This is draconian.
 
Democrat4life said:
Of course it would be up to the person or their medical proxy. I would never support doctors just saying, "Ok, were going to euthanize you now." without consulting the patient first.
Click to expand...

Agreed.



Democrat4life said:
Absolutely not! People would start lieing, and denieing they have certain conditions just so they can sell a kidney.
That would also be such a morality issue it would never pass in congress, same thing with the human euthanization.
Click to expand...

Ever wonder why there are blood shortages?
Because people are required to donate and not allowed to sell it.
I refuse to donate blood, especially when the people that it is given to are charged more than what it takes to procure the donation.

They could screen body parts for diseases before buying them. Its not a big deal.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Wow, is this a benefit to the single payer system? That the government can put a value on YOUR life?
Click to expand...
Sometimes its just not worth saving a life.

And thats the only decision the government would make. The ability to deny care to people who shouldn't get it.

What about uhm, the promise that government would not be deciding?
Click to expand...

Theyre deciding ONE thing. Wether it is worth saving a life.


[/QUOTE]
 
Democrat4life said:
Sometimes its just not worth saving a life.

And thats the only decision the government would make. The ability to deny care to people who shouldn't get it.
Click to expand...


So the very decision of life and death is left to the government.


Kinda scary if you ask me.




Theyre deciding ONE thing. Wether it is worth saving a life.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]



Uhm that's sorta a big thing, no?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Ever wonder why there are blood shortages?
Because people are required to donate and not allowed to sell it.
I refuse to donate blood, especially when the people that it is given to are charged more than what it takes to procure the donation.
Click to expand...
They started a new campaign in the higschools in florida were they offer incentives to high schoolers to donate blood.

So, some places are adressing the issue. And why should someone have to be paid to donate blood? They should just do it to be helpful.

Also, drug addicts will use that to get drug money. Its free money. What does a drug addict care about their blood?

They could screen body parts for diseases before buying them. Its not a big deal.
Click to expand...

Still. Most American workers are incompetent and lazy, hence why our health care system is so ****ed up and all of our jobs are outsourced to mexico. People in Mexico will work for a dollar, while most americans expect it to be handed to them.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
So the very decision of life and death is left to the government.


Kinda scary if you ask me.
Click to expand...

Your blowing it way out of proportion. They are deciding the value of a life and the amount of productivity they present to society.





Uhm that's sorta a big thing, no?
Click to expand...

I didn't say that. It is a very big thing, thats why I think it needs to be regulated very carefully, and properly written into law without loopholes for doctors and insurance companies to find.
 
TheHat said:
Can we rename it "Obama's Run"?

Nothing like killing people off b/c they are deemed unworthy by the government.
Click to expand...

Hyperbole and exaggeration much? You do realize that there is a huge difference between unnecessary procedures, and lifesaving procedures don't you?
 
Redress said:
Hyperbole and exaggeration much? You do realize that there is a huge difference between unnecessary procedures, and lifesaving procedures don't you?
Click to expand...

It takes a liberal to understand the concept :roll:

Thank you,
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
So the very decision of life and death is left to the government.


Kinda scary if you ask me.
Click to expand...

You need to go back and read what Obama said. Here, let me help you:

President Obama said:
In a nationally televised event at the White House, Obama said families need better information so they don't unthinkingly approve "additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care."
Click to expand...

Care to explain to me how "better information" means the government making a decision?
 
Redress said:
You need to go back and read what Obama said. Here, let me help you:



Care to explain to me how "better information" means the government making a decision?
Click to expand...




I was going by the OP's commentary and viewing this discussion in his context.
 
WillRockwell said:
I am really getting tired of the rightwing "slippery slope" arguments on every issue. You are dying of cancer with six months to live. Should you get hip replacement surgery, which takes every bit of six months to recover from? Somehow Councilman would like us to believe that if you don't have that surgery it constitutes euthenasia, and he quickly draws a line to Hitler. This type of response is juvenile, unhelpful, and irresponsible.
Click to expand...

So, have you ever tried guessing how the rational people feel about the flaming liberals who can't see the greased ramp but pretend their totally absurd irrelevant arguments have merit?

I mean, most people dying of cancer are concerned about beating the disease, not going through hip replacement. Sure there might be the stray oddball, but guess what? The very BEST way to no worry about people seeking hip replacement surgery is to make people who want new hips fork over their own cash for the deal.

Capitalism - the true grit that cures the slippery slope.
 
Anima said:
I'd doubt that, to be honest. In the UK at least, doctors and surgeons don't get paid per procedure; they just get a set yearly wage. Plus, performing unnecessary procedures is a brilliant way to end up being blacklisted or struck off as a doctor.
Click to expand...

Who gets to decide if the procedure is unnecessary?

Is that decision made before or after the event?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Just something to point out but your not responsible for your fathers bills.

The insurance company is, just forward them along.
Click to expand...

Does not the executor of the deceased's estate have to perform his task?

But...four years seems like an awfully long time for a for-profit company to be chasing bills.

Just imagine what it will be like with overpaid government clerks who think they're underpaid get involved.
 
Democrat4life said:
Well why should we spend hundreds of thousand of dollars to get a 97 year old a heart transplant for them to die of natural causes in two years?! What benefit does a 97 year old give society? They live off social security and use our tax money for their health care with medicare and all that nonsense.
Click to expand...

Okay.

Cite references showing that a 97 year old ever recieved someone's used heart, show that an 80 year old has recieved a used liver.

Let's say the 80 year-old liver dude is a guy named Sophocles (he wrote either the Antigone or the Electra when he was almost 90), and the 24 year old was named Ted Bundy, who was thirty something when he was caught.

OH! So you CAN'T predict real life issues, but you want the government to make those decisions anyway.
 
Democrat4life said:
Absolutely not! People would start lieing, and denieing they have certain conditions just so they can sell a kidney.
Click to expand...

That's valid enough.

Democrat4life said:
That would also be such a morality issue it would never pass in congress, same thing with the human euthanization.
Click to expand...

?

Congress is going to worry about "morality"? Hello? The left, especially people with Messianic Complexes, don't worry about morality, they say their aren't any moral absolutes, it's all conditional and relative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom