|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 10, 2009 20:08:03 GMT -8
One of the most controversial aspects of Obamacare (or of any government run health care/insurance system) is the concept of determining what treatment a patient will receive based on a calculation of costs versus benefits. If you are relatively young and can be expected to work (and pay taxes!) for quite a few years, you will be taken care of. On the other hand, if you are old and not expected to live too much longer (Hmmm. . . just how long is "not too much longer?") then maybe you should just book a one way passage on an ice floe and be done with it. (If global warming has not melted all the ice floes, that is!) Is that type of language extreme? Perhaps. Let's hope it doesn't come to that. Or, maybe it already has . . . blogs.rep-am.com/worth_reading/?p=4326AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 11, 2009 16:47:19 GMT -8
One of the most controversial aspects of Obamacare (or of any government run health care/insurance system) is the concept of determining what treatment a patient will receive based on a calculation of costs versus benefits. If you are relatively young and can be expected to work (and pay taxes!) for quite a few years, you will be taken care of. On the other hand, if you are old and not expected to live too much longer (Hmmm. . . just how long is "not too much longer?") then maybe you should just book a one way passage on an ice floe and be done with it. (If global warming has not melted all the ice floes, that is!) Is that type of language extreme? Perhaps. Let's hope it doesn't come to that. Or, maybe it already has . . . blogs.rep-am.com/worth_reading/?p=4326AzWm I'd like chapter and verse from you, with references, of how the current House bill would lead to this. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 11, 2009 17:30:44 GMT -8
One of the most controversial aspects of Obamacare (or of any government run health care/insurance system) is the concept of determining what treatment a patient will receive based on a calculation of costs versus benefits. If you are relatively young and can be expected to work (and pay taxes!) for quite a few years, you will be taken care of. On the other hand, if you are old and not expected to live too much longer (Hmmm. . . just how long is "not too much longer?") then maybe you should just book a one way passage on an ice floe and be done with it. (If global warming has not melted all the ice floes, that is!) Is that type of language extreme? Perhaps. Let's hope it doesn't come to that. Or, maybe it already has . . . blogs.rep-am.com/worth_reading/?p=4326AzWm I'd like chapter and verse from you, with references, of how the current House bill would lead to this. =Bob First of all, does anyone know just what is in the bill or bills being considered? But more basically, I was merely trying to point out that there already has been a case in the U.S. in which a government offered to help a woman kill herself rather than provide needed medication. If it can happen in Oregon, it can happen at the federal level as well. It may not be inevitable, but at the same time it would be foolish to say that it is impossible. The trouble comes when the government gets desperate to cut costs, as it almost certainly will. Even good people, under that kind of pressure, can feel the necessity to put in place laws and rules that otherwise they would find abhorrent. AzWm |
|
