Healthcare is a Basic Human Right

[black dog]

There you go folks... this is what death panels look like in socialized medicine. Someone outside the family gets to decide quality-of-life based on cost, and if you live or die. Well, you should be happy dog... Charlie is dead.................... money saved.

The only reason Charlie was even alive was human intervention. How long would God have allowed this bag of jello live?
Death panels... Hogwash..
We sure don't have any problems giving massive does of morphine and other drugs to patients to shut down their body's organs when nearing the end of life..
We unplug braindead here everyday.
But yet it's a death panel to unplug a child that's a bag of jello. Please...

 

[Wishbone]

We need to stop dwelling on this healthcare ####!

Bourbon, Cigars and Rifle Ammo are basic human rights and need to be free!

 

[Gilligan]

We need to stop dwelling on this healthcare ####!

Bourbon, Cigars and Rifle Ammo are basic human rights and need to be free!

Now yr talking! I firmly believe that Trump needs to act now and re designate the BATFE a "convenience store chain".

 

[GURPS]

Now yr talking! I firmly believe that Trump needs to act now and re designate the BATFE a "convenience store chain".

Gov. Action I can Get Behind ......


Gilligan's Used Tanks .....

Cheap T-72's, T-62s, T-54/55's

Rock Bottom Prices on BRDM-2s, BTR-60 / 70 / 80

Scud Launchers

 

[luvmygdaughters]

It's absurd to pour huge amounts of money on a person that has zero quality of life.

This is true, yet, we still pump narcam into overdose victims, free of charge and at an alarming rate, just so they can use again. What quality of life is that?

 

[Hijinx]

It's absurd to pour huge amounts of money on a person that has zero quality of life.

This is true, yet, we still pump narcam into overdose victims, free of charge and at an alarming rate, just so they can use again. What quality of life is that?

You have a good point.

How about 3 strikes and you are out.

 

[vraiblonde]

The only reason Charlie was even alive was human intervention. How long would God have allowed this bag of jello live?
Death panels... Hogwash..
We sure don't have any problems giving massive does of morphine and other drugs to patients to shut down their body's organs when nearing the end of life..
We unplug braindead here everyday.
But yet it's a death panel to unplug a child that's a bag of jello. Please...

I object to you calling this baby a "bag of jello", but your point is spot on. This child was seriously ill. He was going to die within a couple years, even with extensive and expensive medical procedures. I understand his parents' grief, but at some point they had to realize that their son was never going to be well or have quality of life no matter how many machines they hooked him up to. They just made it worse by letting it go on for so long. But when you get internet retards involved, with their ignorance and protests and GoFundMe attention-whoring, I can see where the parents got confused and turned around.

 

[This_person]

I object to you calling this baby a "bag of jello", but your point is spot on. This child was seriously ill. He was going to die within a couple years, even with extensive and expensive medical procedures. I understand his parents' grief, but at some point they had to realize that their son was never going to be well or have quality of life no matter how many machines they hooked him up to. They just made it worse by letting it go on for so long. But when you get internet retards involved, with their ignorance and protests and GoFundMe attention-whoring, I can see where the parents got confused and turned around.

The question here really isn't about the quality of life of the patient, though. The question is who will it be that decides when the quality of life is below the threshold for the cost of maintaining the life?

Some people believe that the government should empower a panel to establish the return on investment, others believe that should be between the patient or next of kin and the medical community.

 

[vraiblonde]

The question here really isn't about the quality of life of the patient, though. The question is who will it be that decides when the quality of life is below the threshold for the cost of maintaining the life?

Some people believe that the government should empower a panel to establish the return on investment, others believe that should be between the patient or next of kin and the medical community.

And some of us believe that if you want extraordinary medical measures to try and achieve an unlikely outcome, you should pay for it yourself instead of asking the government/taxpayers to do it.

 

[PsyOps]

if there is NO Brain Activity, no movement is there life only because of machines breathing for you ....

What does this have to do with whether the family gets to decide or if the government gets to decide for you. I have already shown where the family felt there was a chance months ago to save their child, and the government stepped and refuse to allow them.

 

[PsyOps]

as for the last part doctors here will try to keep a 200 year old brain dead quadriplegic alive as long as someone will keeps paying the bills.

Why the exaggeration? We're talking about an infant who was refuse care that could have saved him. This isn't anyone's business but the family's to decide these things. And this wasn't even a decision of life or death, it was a decision as to whether the government would allow medical care to that child that the parents felt MIGHT have saved him.

 

[black dog]

He was born with irreversible brain damage, if left alone he would have died shortly after birth just as nature intended. And since they put him on life support when it was found the he had zero brain activity ( a bag of jello ) the machines should have been turned off.
Do you think the parents will give that GoFundMe 1.6 million to the government for alittle reimbursement for what has been spent on unnecessary health care and court costs?
Or buy a new flat in downtown on the square?

When we unplugged one of my grandmother's, the term bag of jello was used for having zero brain activity. Grandma just like baby Charlie is already dead if he actually was really ever alive,
it's just a bag of jello with a machine pumping air in and out of it.

 

[black dog]

What does this have to do with whether the family gets to decide or if the government gets to decide for you. I have already shown where the family felt there was a chance months ago to save their child, and the government stepped and refuse to allow them.

Because the family was / is running on emotions, not facts like the doctors.

When the doctors tell you that your Aunt Maybelline has zero brain activity after the car accident, you unplug the machine.. You don't spend 10 arguing about it.

 

[vraiblonde]

What does this have to do with whether the family gets to decide or if the government gets to decide for you.

Whoever pays, decides.

 

[PsyOps]

The only reason Charlie was even alive was human intervention. How long would God have allowed this bag of jello live?
Death panels... Hogwash..
We sure don't have any problems giving massive does of morphine and other drugs to patients to shut down their body's organs when nearing the end of life..
We unplug braindead here everyday.
But yet it's a death panel to unplug a child that's a bag of jello. Please...

Uh... so what. The only reason you're alive is because of human intervention. If you weren't cared from the very moment you were born you would have died. There were doctors who believed they had a method to cure that child early on. The parents wanted to give it a try. The British government refused that care. The government stepped in and made a decision that the parents should have been making. If the doctors failed, then we are right where we are now. Well, we'll never know if they could have succeeded, because the government felt they knew better.

You even made the case for cost vs quality of life. When such a decision is put in that context, that defines 'death panels'. The child wasn't worth the cost of saving.

We don't have problems ending a life we believe has already ended (for all intents and purposes); but that decision is left up to the family, not the government. You seem to conflate two things: my belief as to whether a life should be ended because it's over and who gets to make that decision.

 

[kwillia]

It's absurd to pour huge amounts of money on a person that has zero quality of life.

This is true, yet, we still pump narcam into overdose victims, free of charge and at an alarming rate, just so they can use again. What quality of life is that?

Good point!

 

[Merlin99]

Why the exaggeration? We're talking about an infant who was refuse care that could have saved him. This isn't anyone's business but the family's to decide these things. And this wasn't even a decision of life or death, it was a decision as to whether the government would allow medical care to that child that the parents felt MIGHT have saved him.

The only exaggeration is in the age, we'll call it a hundred and it still applies.

 

[This_person]

And some of us believe that if you want extraordinary medical measures to try and achieve an unlikely outcome, you should pay for it yourself instead of asking the government/taxpayers to do it.

I believe that the law in their case did not allow for that, they were fighting for that chance.

 

[This_person]

Whoever pays, decides.

Thus the argument to keep the government out of the health insurance industry.

 

[black dog]

Uh... so what. The only reason you're alive is because of human intervention. If you weren't cared from the very moment you were born you would have died. There were doctors who believed they had a method to cure that child early on. The parents wanted to give it a try. The British government refused that care. The government stepped in and made a decision that the parents should have been making. If the doctors failed, then we are right where we are now. Well, we'll never know if they could have succeeded, because the government felt they knew better.

You even made the case for cost vs quality of life. When such a decision is put in that context, that defines 'death panels'. The child wasn't worth the cost of saving.

We don't have problems ending a life we believe has already ended (for all intents and purposes); but that decision is left up to the family, not the government. You seem to conflate two things: my belief as to whether a life should be ended because it's over and who gets to make that decision.

His life was over when he was born, he's been kept alive either by his mother's body or machines.
Like others have posted, who writes the checks makes the decisions.
There was / is nothing their to save, even 10+ months ago there was nothing to save.
The doctors understand that.
What do to think was going to happen? His brain would start to function? He could get vision?

The state is making much better decisions than the parents..