Home > Jay Bookman > Archives > 2008 > December > 18 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USLife-and-death questions dog health-care debate
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
He’s just a dog, you tell yourself. Yet somehow, that utterly rational thought doesn’t fend off the choking sensation in your throat as the vet delivers the news.
Just a dog?
He’s just the dog who was young and playful back when your kids were young and playful, a dog who grew up as the family grew up, and who, in the last few years, began to turn gray just as you have.
He’s just a dog who has always looked more fierce than he really is, which is just what you want in a family pet. He’s just a dog who insists on climbing upstairs every night in pain to sleep at the foot of your bed, loyal even in his arthritic old age.
Just a dog? No, no way.
But in the end, yes.
“We’re pretty sure Jackie has lymphoma —- cancer of the blood,” the vet says. “We’ll run some tests, but that’s how it’s looking.”
A few days later, when the diagnosis is confirmed, you start asking questions: How long does he have, is he in pain, what’s the treatment?
He’s not in pain, the vet says, but left untreated the disease could take him in a matter of weeks. Steroids could improve the situation for a little while, but with “canine chemotherapy” we could probably give Jackie another six to nine months.
So you ask the next question —- “How much would canine chemotherapy cost?” —- even though you know the answer will be “too much.”
And sure enough. It’ll cost up to $2,000, plus another $500 or so for X-rays and more tests. That’s a fraction of what similar treatment would cost for a human being, but for a 12-year-old dog, it’s still too much. So you decline. And right there, with that cold-blooded calculation, is where the free market approach to medical care starts to fall apart.
With a dog’s life at stake, you can think through the problem in terms of cost and benefit. With a human being, it would be inconceivable. And that’s not because an insurance company or other third party would pay most of the bill.
No, you don’t ask the price because with a human life at stake, it wouldn’t matter. You already know that whatever the cost, you’re going to do everything possible to pay it.
And in economic terms, that’s the problem. In theory, a willing seller and willing buyer will work out a fair price, with the potential buyer free to walk away if no deal can be struck. But when you combine a willing seller with a desperate, maybe pain-wracked or hope-starved buyer, the market warps and theory fails. The buyer is in no position to say no, and as a result can’t demand a lower price.
There’s another difference as well. Because of Jackie’s status as “just a dog,” we’ll be able to intervene to make sure he does not suffer needlessly in the days ahead. It’s an assurance that we cannot offer each other as human beings —- the same profound respect for human life that ensures we do not deny medical care to loved ones also makes it taboo to accelerate the process of death.
That taboo is costly. According to studies, an estimated 30 to 50 percent of all health care costs are incurred in a patient’s last six months of life. From a strict cost-benefit analysis, that is often money poorly spent because the odds of success are low. But it’s a price we correctly choose to pay to protect the dignity of human life.
Sometimes, though, the lines between right and wrong aren’t drawn so easily. A few years ago, Congress rushed into emergency session to try to ensure that artificial life supports weren’t removed from Terri Schiavo, a brain-dead Florida woman who had been comatose for years. To those who wanted to keep Schiavo alive, the case was about respect for life, about human dignity. To those who wanted to let her die, the case was about the very same thing.
We’re also still divided about whether health care ought to be a basic human right in this country. Personally, I think the case is settled. Once you accept the innate dignity of human life, then morally you cannot decide to provide basic care to some but deny it to others on grounds of cost.
You can’t, in other words, apply the same value to a human being as to a pet.
Services »
Comments
By DB, Gwinnettian
December 18, 2008 7:16 AM | Link to this
My heartfelt sympathies for you and your family during this difficult time, Jay.
While this column could not have been easy to write, I appreciate your willingness to alight upon some worthwhile issues that, I hope, some will consider worthy of civilized discourse in this thread.
By AJC/DNC Management
December 18, 2008 7:22 AM | Link to this
“To somehow suggest that whatever some heart surgeon wants for a transplant in Los Angeles, and has to make $600,000 to $700,000 a year, as opposed to maybe they make $400,000 a year with Medicare fees, doesn’t get much sympathy from me,” he said.
Later in the call, he added: “I have been tussling with this for over 20 years, and I have yet to see a physician come into my office talking anything about their patients — the first thing they say is that they are going broke…That’s like my kid saying they’re going to hold their breath and turn blue if they don’t get their second dessert.”-AmSpec
Yep, that’s what I want, to have the government squeezing my doctor causing him to go “postal.”
O.K, Know It All liberals, name one case in the United States of America where a person died because of a lack of primary health care, and don’t be throwing any government 911 emergency phone call blow ups at me.
These same doctors that you label as greedy do more than enough pro bono work, without you having to force them to, and do they get any credit for it?
By Taxpayer
December 18, 2008 7:23 AM | Link to this
Good morning Jay. You have certainly opened up quite the can of worms with this topic, for all those willing to venture forth that is. A real quick thought before I take care of some chores: The medical/healthcare/insurance industry has its own analogue to the collateral damage that is utilized by the rationalizers of war. In this case, they’re simply referred to by different names such as uninsured, too lazy, illegals, etc., although collateral damage would probably still work as a proper descriptor for use by some such as those rationalizers of war. That’s enough for now though.
By ByteMe
December 18, 2008 7:29 AM | Link to this
Having had the very sick dog who needed expensive surgery, I found that the decision was made easier by having a very pregnant wife telling me “We have to do this because if we can’t keep the dog alive, how would we be able to keep a child alive?”
On the other hand, we gave away a couple of exotic birds because they weren’t compatible with little kids who have little fingers to poke at things.
Ayn Rand understood markets, but really didn’t understand psychology.
By Mrs. Godzilla
December 18, 2008 7:29 AM | Link to this
My brothers and sisters and I have made a promise to our dad, one we all hope we will never to have to fulfill.
In the end, though, we will respect his wishes about his life and death, and honor him all the days of our lives.
By Pat
December 18, 2008 7:37 AM | Link to this
Not that I expect AJC/DNC Management to accept, much less process new information in his firmly closed cerebral cortex - especially from a suspect “liberal” source - but can anyone direct him more accurately to the excellent “Frontline” piece PBS did this year that focused on this? As I recall, it told the story of 4 terminal individuals facing agonizing deaths due to conditions that had advanced beyond hope while they were without insurance. Acual functioning humans wept when they watched the episode. But no doubt, upon viewing it, social Darwinists’ only regret would be that they didn’t die before producing children and any requisite taxpayer burden.
By Mrs. Godzilla
December 18, 2008 7:38 AM | Link to this
Nearly three people die each day in North Carolina because they don’t have health insurance, says a new report by Families USA, the national organization for health care consumers.
AND
New Report Shows How Many People Are Likely To Die In Oregon Due To Lack Of Health Coverage
By Joey
December 18, 2008 7:51 AM | Link to this
Jay: My deepest sympathy to you and your family for the loss of Jackie. The difficult choice you made showed respect for Jackie and the life he enjoyed.
I disagree with you final statement that we can not, should not, apply similar values to human life. Extending a loved one’s life artifically frequently makes the end more difficult for the dying and for the living.
To often families become poor because of the cost invloved in extending life, but the money is usually not the larger cost.
Jay, you have written many times about quality of life. True, your quality of life commentaries were not about the loss of quality due to terminal illness. However, quality of life and dignity while dying are very important. Many people who are terminally ill have that dignity taken away.
The last days or weeks of their lives are low quality. Often they are in physical pain. Often they are aware of the emotional and financial burden that they are bringing to their loved ones, and this is even more painful to them.
You and you family demonstrated your love and respect for Jackie. Humans need to learn to show that same respect for other humans. Poeple that we love and for whom we are responsible.
In addition outsiders should respect the decisions of family, either way. This is a difficult and very personal matter. A decision made with the council of Doctors. Bring your sympathy to the family not your condemnation.
By DB, Gwinnettian
December 18, 2008 8:04 AM | Link to this
Joey, good post @ 7.51. I tend to side with that mindset myself; however, it does open the door to another issue—what about when the decision to withold “futile care” is imposed upon the family, as (just to pick an example that was brought up around the time of the Schaivo case) the TX “Advance Directives Act” permits?
I’m not saying there’s necessarily a good answer to these horrible choices, just interested in your take.
By Wyld Byll
December 18, 2008 8:12 AM | Link to this
Jay, G-d bless you, your family, and dog. You have my prayers for your comfort and healing.
By Paul
December 18, 2008 8:16 AM | Link to this
Jay
Those who have pets know they can be more than ‘just a pet.’ Deepest condolences to you and your family over your loss.
By DogBGone
December 18, 2008 8:34 AM | Link to this
Our dog required about 1500 dollars worth of surgery after a freak injury in 1998.
I wouldn’t spend that much on myself, but I did pay this for that dog.
By @@
December 18, 2008 8:46 AM | Link to this
But it’s a price we correctly choose to pay to protect the dignity of human life.
No kiddin’!
Planned Parenthood has sent a 50 page proposal to the Obama/Biden administration asking for a 1.5 billion dollar increase to protect the dignity of human life.
You can’t, in other words, apply the same value to a human being as to a pet.
Those on the left can and do, jay.
~~~~~~~~~OO~~~~~~~~~~
When it comes to pets, please remember to spay and neuter.
By Copyleft
December 18, 2008 8:50 AM | Link to this
The term “just a dog” is used only by the ignorant. He’s a family member, and he gets the same consideration as any family member should.
By Eric1
December 18, 2008 8:51 AM | Link to this
I love my dogs and I know you love Jackie. How deeply painful it is to lose a pet. Deepest sympathies.
By Eric1
December 18, 2008 8:51 AM | Link to this
I love my dogs and I know you love Jackie. How deeply painful it is to lose a pet. Deepest sympathies.
By Joey
December 18, 2008 8:52 AM | Link to this
DB,Gwinnett: Someone is legally responsible for each of us. That person must make the final decision. Yes, others may challenge the decision in our courts. But then they must abide by the decision of the court.
This is one of many issues where every door of conflict can not be closed. Someone may oppose the decision, and in their disagreement condemn those with whom they disagree. Such is life. And death.
By DogsRPeople2
December 18, 2008 9:05 AM | Link to this
Dogs know. Dogs anticipate. Dogs understand. All men have a psychic connection with all dogs. Even cartoon dogs. Even movie dogs. How many of you cried when Old Yeller died? How many of you go hungary when you’re broke but still manage to come up with the 3 dollars and 49 cents for a scooby snack for Fido?
They say a dog is man’s best friend. Well, he’s more than that: he’s man’s BFF! (A man can only have one BFF, you know).
I’ve owned three dogs at different times in my life. They were all the mangy mutts, but they knew me better than I knew myself. My wife would tell me that they could hear my car miles away and start scratching at the door fifteen minutes before I arrived home. They always knew when it was dinner time too. If I ever opened up a can of cat food for my wife’s cats, they’d hold a grudge for days. These dogs knew!
Well, a dog’s sudden departure can bring heartbreak, and there’s no fixin’ it. One dog ran away. The other fell in a well. The last one joined the Foreign K-9 Corp. I think he’s in the Sudan.
I’m thinking about buying a virtual dog on the internet. I cant decide between that and a pony.
A man can only have one BFF, you know.
By AJC/DNC Management
December 18, 2008 9:11 AM | Link to this
By Pat December 18, 2008 7:37 AM Not that I expect AJC/DNC Management to accept, much less process new information in his firmly closed cerebral cortex - especially from a suspect “liberal” source - but can anyone direct him more accurately to the excellent “Frontline” piece PBS did this year that focused on this? As I recall, it told the story of 4 terminal individuals facing agonizing deaths due to conditions that had advanced beyond hope while they were without insurance. Acual functioning humans wept when they watched the episode.
Oh yeah, so now the liberals have cornered the market on human suffering and presto, as usual, they have all the answers for “fixing” it.
None of those families you geniuses warehoused in the housing projects ever suffered, did they?
How about all of the millions upon millions of African children that died from malaria because you put the “suffering” of some bird as more important than their very lives?
How about the family of Rowland Barnes, you think they didn’t suffer?
When Wonder Boy pops up on the TV praising China for their good works and belittling America, how much compassion is there for the suffering of the millions of slave labors that died building the roads Oblahma gushes over?
For the 180 Billion dollars that the liberals propose spending on a hoax “global warming,” how many empty mouths of children could be filled with food?
So with all of the problems in the world that require real work and real dedication and real effort, here are the liberals again, pounding their chests about “saving” a few individuals from the natural suffering of life, by killing them no less.
Pardon me if I don’t get excited.
By The Corporal
December 18, 2008 9:13 AM | Link to this
Jay
You can’t, in other words, apply the same value to a human being as to a pet.
I know what you are trying to say here and I commend you for it. However, when it comes to the unborn in this country, they have less value than our pets. With that mindset, it won’t be long until the aged find themselves in the same category.
By The Corporal
December 18, 2008 9:16 AM | Link to this
P.S. to JAY
From one dog lover to another (yes, my boxer is named “Corporal”). Maybe this will help.
http://home.att.net/~hideaway_today/t125/pet.htm
By Citizen of the World
December 18, 2008 9:16 AM | Link to this
My 89-year-old father-in-law’s suffering was needlessly extended with numerous procedures and treatments that were designed to keep him alive but could in no way make him better after a stroke. He finally told them to take the feeding tube out, and even then we had to fend them off from constantly trying to take his blood pressure and “check his electrolytes,” etc. We had to wonder if they weren’t just trying to run up charges to the insurance company.
My 96-year-old grandmother is refusing blood transfusions because she knows it won’t make any difference in the long run.
That’s where patients and families should draw the line — is the medical intervention going to actually make the person better or just delay the inevitable and extend their suffering?
For us as a society to recognize the difference and act accordingly would not mean that we value life any less.
By Bosch
December 18, 2008 9:21 AM | Link to this
I have a cat, whom I refer to as “the Golden cat” because of a thousand dollar vet bill a couple years back, and because he’s the best cat on the planet. He’s the best exterminator, brings me presents all the time. Great companion, sitting here with me right now. I’d do it again in a minute for this cat. He’s a great cat. Best winter time foot warmer out there.
But anywho, I’ve written about this some here, but we are currently dealing with end of life dignity issues right now. We care for three older relatives, one with Alzheimer’s, and it’s really tough watching this woman go down, with her 90 year old brother doing everything he can to help her - to his own detrement. She screams, she’s mean, she’ll cuss you out while your fixing her meals, it’s really quite depressing. It’s been tough the past few months.
I stopped going to church for a few months because I was kind of mad at God, and I didn’t want to sit in the pews when all I could think about was flinging a rock through the stained glass window, but I went back a couple weeks ago.
It’s really easy for anyone to say we should do this or that in any given situation where life is concerned, but in the end, it is a family’s personal decision and should be respected. I know no one who takes decisions about life - in any case - lightly, and we should all remember to support each other instead of criticize decisions - which 9 times out of 10 are the most painful decisions we as humans will ever face.
And Jay, I’m really sorry about your dog. That’s tough.
By ByteMe
December 18, 2008 9:26 AM | Link to this
Bosch says: but in the end, it is a family’s personal decision and should be respected.
Bosch, meet Corporal who wants to make the unborn no longer a personal decision to be respected. (gratuitous bolding added)
By Bosch
December 18, 2008 9:28 AM | Link to this
Citizens of the World,
That’s the reason we decided to care for these relatives at home. Some people can’t, but we decided it was better to deal with this ourselves rather than having doctors poke and needlessly prolong the inevitable.
By Bosch
December 18, 2008 9:30 AM | Link to this
ByteMe,
You caught me, I phrased it that way on purpose. Covering all the bases.
By Midori
December 18, 2008 9:36 AM | Link to this
Bosch,
I shoulda known you were a cat person!! I have 4 myself.
I don’t know what I would do if something happened to them.
Those cats have it good!! And they are all spoiled brats :)
Back to today’s topic - have you noticed that some on the right found a way to use this topic as YET another targeted slur against liberals?
Amazing!!
By sunshine and thunder
December 18, 2008 9:39 AM | Link to this
JAY
You have my sympathy. I have had to put down several good, loving dogs in my lifetime and it isn’t a fun thing to do.
Socialized health care I disagree with. The rest of your post seems to be arguing that, for humans, Jackie’s operation should be free. That will only cause people to demand health services that they don’t need and subsequently those services will be rationed.
Also, the old and infirm will be tossed aside like used gauze while the young will be on waiting lists for their medical needs.
That’s a scary scenario.
By DB, Gwinnettian
December 18, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this
“have you noticed that some on the right…”
Midori, could we maybe just not feed the trolls this one time? Out of respect for Jay and Jackie?
Kthnxbye.
By Davo
December 18, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this
I’m a dog owner…my mutt is great, and I sympathize with your situation.
Now ask yourself what we as a society do with the ‘not-so-fortunate-dogs.’ We kill them because there is no bond and they are troublesome.
Also…dogs don’t smoke, drink or use drugs, which diminishes your long life. Dogs live in a state of perfect Zen.
You can’t rationalize universal health care with love for a pet. You’re asking me to have more concern for someones health than they have.
If your so concerned with helping the smoker get new lungs or the wino get a new liver than by all means fork out the money from your own wallet. To ask the rest of society to do so is just plain selfish.
By Bosch
December 18, 2008 9:48 AM | Link to this
Davo,
We all make bad choices, and the smokers and winos in the world deserve dignity just like anyone else.
At least, that’s what Jesus thought.
By RW-(the original)
December 18, 2008 9:48 AM | Link to this
Sometimes, though, the lines between right and wrong aren’t drawn so easily. A few years ago, Congress rushed into emergency session to try to ensure that artificial life supports weren’t removed from Terri Schiavo…
Jay B.,
I sympathize with you over Jackie, but would it be possible to ask for a little honesty from you? Terry Schiavo was being fed, there were no artificial life support systems.
The people that wanted to let her die had to starve her to death and no amount of false reporting like you have done here changes that.
By Bosch
December 18, 2008 9:48 AM | Link to this
Davo,
Forgot, dogs may not drink or smoke, but they lick their butts. Good choice?
By The Corporal
December 18, 2008 9:53 AM | Link to this
To ByteMe
… a personal decision to be respected? And what decision would that be? To take an innocent human life? And what decision will be next? To take an innocent elderly life.
Slippery slope.
Any nation that protects its animals more than it’s unborn children is in trouble ……..
By DB, Gwinnettian
December 18, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this
“The people that wanted to let her die”
She’d died already. A long time ago.
By Davo
December 18, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this
Bosch:
“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s”
When did Jesus ask the government for help? You argue for enforced compassion…I don’t think it works that way.
By Midori
December 18, 2008 10:01 AM | Link to this
A little off topic, but here goes: Paul Weyrich has died
By ByteMe
December 18, 2008 10:08 AM | Link to this
Corporal: the “slippery slope” argument is a falacious argument, since the slope runs in more than one direction and the exact opposite is just as likely to happen.
As to your specific point, isn’t that the whole point of what Bosch wrote? That the decision on extending elderly care beyond that which anyone wants is personal the same as extending care beyond which anyone wants to a lump of cells possibly destined to become the next Liberal President of the United States is personal. (gratuitous bolding and “Liberal” reference added)
By Bosch
December 18, 2008 10:12 AM | Link to this
Davo,
Enforced compassion? No. I don’t argue for that, I just wish that people instinctually had it on the inside to be compassionate for their fellow humans.
By RW-(the original)
December 18, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this
DB ragger,
A living will would have solved the whole thing, but the fact remains that she was only being fed. I tend to agree that she was basically dead, so why lie about what was keeping her alive?
By tcoach
December 18, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this
Bosch, Jesus would actually be hurt and disappointed in the smoker and the drinker.
Remember Jesus said that the body is a temple. A temple he gave to us. Therefor Jesus is calling it a sin, meaning it would hurt him that those people chose to sin.
Just playing devils advocate.
You brought up religion, wanted to have some fun with it.
If universal health care is provided, do you think those who drink/smoke use drugs regularly should have higher taxes or tariffs?
By ByteMe
December 18, 2008 10:20 AM | Link to this
RW: being fed, but at what cost and who was bearing that cost? Was it the Federal or State Governments that were trying to step in and take over or was it a private citizen bearing those costs?
(I really don’t know the answer to this, since I didn’t follow the details of the story close enough, so I encourage enlightment)
By Bosch
December 18, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this
tcoach,
I disagree with your Jesus assessment, he drank, remember? Seems he had a fondness for wine. Sins are all relative to the sinner, and none of us are without them, and there is no one sin that is worse than another.
What’s worse, thin and other wise fit drinker or smoker, or an obese person who does neither?
People who smoke DO pay higher taxes - on the cigarettes, and as we’ve discussed before, I don’t have a problem with drugs being legalized and taxed to the max.
By FamilyMatters
December 18, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this
Jay,
I am on my third dog — one during my childhood and the other two since I’ve been married. My first dog was a Cockapoo. He was black except for a little white on his face and he was a great dog that our entire family loved and played with. When he got older, he went blind first and then developed joint problems and he had a very hard time just walking around. I accidentally put him out of his misery one day when my dad asked me to move his truck from the driveway for him. The dog, blackie, had fallen asleep behind one of the tires and did not move out of the way even after I cranked up the truck. Of course, I did not spot him under the tire ahead of time either. Anyway, I backed over him and stopped as soon as I felt the “kerthump” but it was all over at that point. He was dead. I felt really bad for a long time because I kept thinking about how I had killed our family dog but I finally got past that stage and thought more about the good times we had together and about the fact that he did not suffer long.
By Bosch
December 18, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this
Since we are discussing life and death, I don’t think this is too off-topic, but rather super creepy:
Tumor in Colorado newborn’s brain contained foot
By @@
December 18, 2008 10:31 AM | Link to this
have you noticed that some on the right found a way to use this topic as YET another targeted slur against liberals?
And I noticed that jay utilized the circumstances of his pet to target conservatives.
Jay:
I didn’t realize you were talking about your family pet. Look at it this way, with your decision, you’ve given yourself, your family, and your Jackie the opportunity to express the appreciation and affection you may have neglected on a daily basis.
My life has been full of strays and injured animals….everything from dogs, cats, squirrels, rabbits, chipmunks. If I had a nickle for every?
Life is a gift. Regifting,(passing it on) I encourage.
By tcoach
December 18, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this
Bosch, The alcohol content of wine in the times of Jesus were not near the same percentage as today.
Also in the written accounts of Jesus(not just the bible) he was said to have drank the wine with meals. This is a practice many doctors and other medical professionals would recommend. It is a glass today, so with lower alcohol content it could be more.
We are most certainly in agreement with the drugs issue.
I am also in favor of non-thyroid obese people being charged more.
It is not easy finding time for exercise and planning balanced meals, but I get it done.
So in the interest of fairness, why should I be required to pay the same percentage, as those who show no concern for their body until something begins to go wrong?
By RW-(the original)
December 18, 2008 10:42 AM | Link to this
ByteMe,
I believe the costs were being handled privately. The court cases didn’t really involve whether she was alive or dead, just what her wishes were since she had no living will. Florida does allow for evidence of verbal wishes to be honored.
Jay B and ragger,
My apologies to you both. In researching that answer for ByteMe I discovered that under Florida law, as crazy as it seems, a feeding tube is considered an artificial life support system. Let’s hope they don’t consider spoons and forks to be the same thing.
By JAY BOOKMAN
December 18, 2008 10:44 AM | Link to this
If you have health insurance Tcoach, you already do pay for those people.
By tcoach
December 18, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this
I know Bookman, but I am only paying for those people who choose to be members of the same insurance broker.
It was my CHOICE to become part my insurance policy.
While a national health plan would eliminate my choice. Also those same people pay a higher premium currently under my provider as well.
So I am failing to see the link between the 2. Other than you are for National health care and want to tear down any valid point to the contrary.
But nice try though.
By Midori
December 18, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this
Bosch,
I watched a show on the Learning Channel about tumors.
You find the strangest stuff growing in them.
The doctors dissected a tumor after removing it from this woman, and they found all sorts of material in it — to include hair and teeth.
By ByteMe
December 18, 2008 10:52 AM | Link to this
RW: Thank you for the insight.
I’m pretty sure my Living Will contemplates removal of feeding tube and allows me the option to choose on that.
I also thought I read where there was some kind of insurance settlement to cover her costs. Might have read wrong.
One of my aunts contracted Alzheimers at a relatively young age. My uncle did what he could to care for her until she died, but it took 10 years of agony to get there. I think both of them would have preferred an easier way for her to let go of the earthy bonds, but Living Wills weren’t common then.
By DB, Gwinnettian
December 18, 2008 10:54 AM | Link to this
RW, accepted.
You think maybe you could just call me “DB” henceforth, or is that asking too much? I mean, I’m not trying to run away from my previous nym, heck, here’s a link to the crummy blog whence it came, but I have been making a real effort not to go off-track and engage in the same trolling that I decry in others. That’s why I changed the nym. You may not perceive a difference but I am trying.
Thought I’d continue to try by asking nicely.
And I’ll help you out a bit by mentioning one of the bones of contention in the Schiavo case was that the settlement money was being used to provide for Terri’s care. I’m pretty sure it was dwindling down and her parents felt her husband was selfishly looking to terminate just because he didn’t want to spend it on her.
I mean, I get why the parents weren’t happy with that. But it didn’t necessarily make them correct in maintaining the extraordinary care, above and beyond the husband’s wishes.
By The Corporal
December 18, 2008 10:55 AM | Link to this
To ByteMe
And don’t forget President Elect Aytch voted not to save the life of a full term child still struggling to live after a botched abortion.
Dispicable!
By ByteMe
December 18, 2008 10:59 AM | Link to this
tcoach: your insurance policy, whether you know it or not, also pays for care for people who don’t have insurance at all.
What happens is that those people make extensive use of emergency rooms. The emergency room must take them regardless of ability to pay (that’s the law). So the hospital doesn’t get paid, they have to raise the rates on everyone else to cover their costs and profit. And that cost is then negotiated into the contracts with the health insurance companies that you pay, which makes your rates go up.
It’s all connected. That’s why one of the goals of some kind of “universal health care” is to get those people out of emergency rooms and into a doctor’s office before it becomes an expensive emergency room visit.
By Bosch
December 18, 2008 10:59 AM | Link to this
tcoach,
Thyroid disease is an excuse for being fat. Every woman in my family has thyroid disease - the kind that makes you fat, and a couple are - they use that excuse, while the others just have to work a little harder, but are otherwise thin. One of my sisters who has hypothyroidism lost about 60 pounds after she stopped using the “I’ve got a gland problem” excuse.
And as I’ve said before, we all make bad choices, as we all sin - it’s all relative. Just because YOU think what someone else does to their body is bad is only relative to YOU, doesn’t mean they don’t deserve treatment or respect.
So, do you think that if anyone gets a disease related to something they did to themselves personally, they should have to pay a higher price for treatment? Where do you draw the line?
What about a factory worker who gets a disease from working in the factory? He didn’t have to work there.
To me, there is just no where to draw that line.
By Bosch
December 18, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this
Midori,
EW. Hair and teeth in tumors….I just got a case of the willies.
By The Corporal
December 18, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this
Sorry
Despicable ………..
By ByteMe
December 18, 2008 11:04 AM | Link to this
Corporal: your indignance drifted you off topic. And your information is incorrect. You accepted the ad at face value instead of researching Obama’s actual position on the subject. Go back to doing homework before getting indignant… and drifting this topic away from life and death to “Obama done me wrong!”
By @@
December 18, 2008 11:05 AM | Link to this
Two questions. Would it be conceivable, given the “choice” advocates, that the government may, in the event of universal healthcare, choose to relinquish addicts, alcoholics to their own demise due to the cost burden?
Also, I’m in the minority when it comes to legalizing drugs — even among my conservative cohorts. Here goes! What will we do with the children of addicts should their parents progress to harder narcotics? Could the government be held liable for the loss of the emotional support, not to mention the eventual death of their parent(s)?
What about the child abuse and neglect that may occur while the parent(s) are using and abusing the drugs?
By RW-(the original)
December 18, 2008 11:06 AM | Link to this
DB,
I’ll try, but since you haven’t changed your persona one iota from your ragger days it’s not easy.
ByteMe,
It was actually a malpractice settlement that set set aside the money for her care, as DB noted. That money was about gone by the time she was put on the no nourishment diet, but the parents had said they would be responsible for the ongoing costs. Had the case come down to life or death based on who was footing the bill that really would have opened up a messy can of worms.
By Bosch
December 18, 2008 11:07 AM | Link to this
Corporal@10:55,
Oh God, I’m going to regret this, but……
Why should legislators vote on such things? Doctors all take an oath to save any life, even with a botch abortion, so a vote by legislators on the matter is unneccessary.
It’s not like because that measure was voted down, that doctors can’t do that.
On the contrary, if they DON’T, they are breaking that oath, they won’t be arrested.
That’s a ridiculous right wing talking point.
By Midori
December 18, 2008 11:11 AM | Link to this
DB,
I sincerely hope that RW adheres to your wishes about the name.
I have politely asked that numerous times of another poster. Needless to say I’m not getting anywhere.
By DB, Gwinnettian
December 18, 2008 11:11 AM | Link to this
RW, thanks.
But…you hadn’t noticed that I don’t refer to you as “Reich Wing” any more? I’m hurt! Deeply!
Corporal, the author of the bill you’re referring to thinks your characterization is incorrect.
You wanna give it a rest?
By ByteMe
December 18, 2008 11:12 AM | Link to this
RW: Thanks again for clarifying.
@@: Your vision of “universal care” is not the same as “universal coverage”, which I think is where we’re going to end up, just because of the thorny questions about who can get what kind of treatment.
By Davo
December 18, 2008 11:12 AM | Link to this
Jesus drank wine for no other reason than the fact that it was better than the unsanitary water; same as british sailors.
You wish “that people instinctually had it on the inside to be compassionate for their fellow humans.” They do…otherwise we wouldn’t have civilization. But your arguement seems to be that self-determination is sinful. You would take away my liberty to serve what you percieve as the public good. I also have no problem with people who choose to use drugs or drink to excess; you however seem to think that the consequences of their choice is laid at my feet and that I am now responsible for them. Just because it is diluted amoung the taxpayers doesn’t forgive the fact that it is wrong.
You’re selfish. You would have others do what you cannot or will not. Does personal responsibility have no place in society anymore? Do you really think that gov’t can do a better job at running your life than you can? And why would you ever freely give up your liberty to a bureacracy? Insanity.
By gadem
December 18, 2008 11:13 AM | Link to this
I just lost my dog a couple of days ago…really is very hard. They are truly family…
By Morningstar
December 18, 2008 11:14 AM | Link to this
JAY, my condolences to you and the family.
We had a doggie for almost 18 years, and had to make a tough decision. She was not ‘just a dog.’ She was well fed, brushed daily, lived in a controlled environment with her very own plushy chair, and slept on the bed with her forever Mommie and Daddy every night.
When it became apparent that nothing could save her, we made what we felt was the right decision. I stayed with, and held her, right to the end. Then we took her home……
Apparently some are of the assumption that basic health care is available to everyone. So how do these nice people define basic health care?
Sure, if you break a leg and get transported to the emergency room, they will take care of you (I think). Have you ever been to the emergency room? Well, guess what they are asking you or a family member the minute you are in the door. It sure ain’t, “Are you wearing clean underware!” Nope, and you’d have to be an idiot not to know what they ask.
There are people dying in this country as we blog craziness, who cannot afford medication. If you know anything about blood pressure meds, and especially essentials for caring for diabetes for example, it don’t come cheap! Cancer treatment would be out of the question for the unensured.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but as of November the jobless rate for Georgia jumped to 7.5%. How many of these folks have no health care?
I believe in everyone paying SOMETHING for health care. If all you have is your SS check, or whatever you have, you pay a percentage or you don’t get care.
If you’re a raggedy homeless person, do you still get care? You betcha. Those of us who have insurance, are already paying for that.
Regardless of what the ‘don’t care’ types think, most people WANT TO WORK, and WILL WORK if work is available.
By The Corporal
December 18, 2008 11:22 AM | Link to this
DB, Gwinnettian
Nope. Never. Just like the abolitionists wouldn’t give the slavery issue a rest.
We have the moral high ground and the battle will continue until justice is done.
Bosch
Abortion doctors violate their oath everytime they do one. That child is just as alive in the womb as outside. The only difference is the manner of oxygen/nutrient intake and that does not determine whether or not one is alive (i.e., adults who are on oxygen and stomach tubes).
As for the viability argument, that doesn’t work either. That child can’t live outside the womb without human help and it can’t live inside the womb without its mother’s help. No difference !
May God have mercy on us ………….
By Paul
December 18, 2008 11:24 AM | Link to this
tcoach - Bosch
[[I am also in favor of non-thyroid obese people being charged more.]]
Read an medical article while I was gone (had access to lots of them). Latest info is people who exceed the ‘normal’ body fat mass index (I’m using my lay terms for this blog) but who score higher on cardivascular health, as well as a couple other indicators, are better candidates for long-term health than ‘normal’ or ‘skinny’ people who do not score well on the other assessments.
But we are not a society that generally penalizes people for lifestyles. Generally. Take the homeless vets issue - many have gov’t supplied funds - earned (disability) or other. Most have drug/alcohol problems. We do not make drug/alcohol treatment a condition of receiving gov’t funds.
Just another example (body size) where outward appearances are misleading.
By tcoach
December 18, 2008 11:27 AM | Link to this
Bosch at no time did I say anyone did not deserve treatment. Please do not put words into my mouth as I will respect you and not do the same.
Also i think you are reaching trying to equate the decision to work in a factory, with the decision to get drunk, a buzz,be sedimentary or get high.
With the constant PSA and other outlets to inform people of the danger of drug abuse, it is a risk, that those who choose, knowingly take.
There are many things that individuals deserve does that mean that it should come at no cost?
Should we all begin to receive rations of food from the government, our shelter, clothes?
Are you saying that as individuals anything we deserve we should not ever have to pay for?
I do not want to ever even try government cheese. Not even in a grilled cheese sandwich
By Bosch
December 18, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this
One more thought before I go out:
It’s a very dangerous thing when we start classifying one disease as taboo against another - i.e. alcoholism vs. diabetes or high blood pressure.
I ask those who think that people who do drugs, smoke, or drink too much should pay higher health benefits (which, let’s face it, they do) - or do not want to pay for homeless folks treatment - is it because you feel they should have better control over there lives or their illness is caused by something they do that you feel is wrong or goes against your religious beliefs?
Like I mentioned earlier, in my opinion, it’s a very dangerous line to cross when we start letting our societal taboos start dictating how we treat each other when someone is sick.
Later…………….
By The Corporal
December 18, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this
P.S.
I’m off to the mall to buy a present for my granddaughter.
Oh, by the way she’s not due to be born for another two months but she is my granddaugher NOW!
I have already seen her moving, making facial expressions and sucking her thumb. That was weeks ago !
And I say again, may God please forgive us our national sin.
By Bosch
December 18, 2008 11:35 AM | Link to this
tcoach,
Saw your post, so I’ll try my best to answer before I run out…I’m late for somthing.
Quick answer. Alcoholics sometimes CAN’T stop drinking - same with drug addicts. To me, it’s a disease just like diabetes, high blood pressure, or cancer, or hypothyroidism.
“Are you saying that as individuals anything we deserve we should not ever have to pay for?”
No, and sorry to answer a question with a question, but what do we deserve? Who makes that call? Okay, that’s two questions, sorry.
We can continue later.
Paul,
Hi ya! I hope everything is well with your family and your son’s surgery went well, and……are you a grandpa again?
What a great Christmas present!
By RW-(the original)
December 18, 2008 11:37 AM | Link to this
DB,
Certain words/phrases instantly activate my scroll reflex. Reich Wing and neocon are two that are on that list so I tend not to notice who wrote them or pay much attention to their opinions for that matter.
While there may be subtle changes that I’ve yet to notice, the one thing that irritates me about your name change is that you decided to use a b’terdized version of a conservative posters name. That sounds more like something the ragger version would do, thus the reluctance to recognize the new name.
Off to the forest! See y’all upstairs at happy hour.
By DB, Gwinnettian
December 18, 2008 11:40 AM | Link to this
Corporal, as you were surely aware I’m not asking you to give your opposition to legal abortion a rest. That’s between you and the man upstairs, although I think God probably isn’t real fond of being dragged into this.
I’m asking you to stop pushing this stupid business about Obama wanting to “let babies die.” That’s beyond the pale; frankly, at this point, it ought to be bannable, because you know that when you post this stuff it’s going to cause a scene and disrupt a comments thread that was bringing out some pretty good commentary from a wide group of folks.
You want to make a case to criminalize abortion, make it. that’s swell. That’s a public policy debate we can have. But stop making up stuff about Obama.
By ByteMe
December 18, 2008 11:44 AM | Link to this
DB: Not sure he can. Obama shot his dog with a banned handgun….
By AJC/DNC Management
December 18, 2008 11:46 AM | Link to this
By Morningstar December 18, 2008 11:14 AM There are people dying in this country as we blog craziness, who cannot afford medication.
It should be pretty easy to name one then, huh?
By tcoach
December 18, 2008 11:47 AM | Link to this
Morningstar, That could be because things like cigarette smoke tend to cause a person to be skinny, therefore reducing their ability to perform, cardiovascular exercises.
Did the study differentiate between Obese and above “normal” body fat.
It is possible for one to be charted as Obese and still be below the average fat percentage. While it is also easy to look thin while exceeding the fat percentage.
By tcoach
December 18, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this
Bosch, I disagree come from a dad who smoked and was an alcoholic. According to him he quit because he wanted to. No treatment, no counselors, just cold turkey. I was only 9 then but do remember him being cranky during that time, but he did it on his own.
He later had a stroke and was diagnosed with high blood pressure. Try as he might there was nothing he could do to rid himself of it.
Who forces the alcoholic to go buy more drink, or who forces the coke head to go by his dealers house. Those are thought out decisions they make. I have heard people say I want to get drunk tonight or I want an 8 ball.
Never have I ever heard anyone say I want liver failure, lung cancer or heart disease.
About your 2 questions apparently you make that call as you did it in your 10:59 post.
So the question is bounced back to you. You have set a precedent that there is at least one thing we deserve. So since you decide that kind of information start a list of those things we deserve.
I also have a question to add on.
Since you have stated everyone deserves treatment, do they also deserve food? I would think food is way more important than treatment. So that is now 2 things the government should pay for?
By Morningstar
December 18, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this
AJ/DNC Management 11:46 AM It should be pretty easy to name one then, huh?
Actually no, unless one lives in a dream world.
By trace
December 18, 2008 12:07 PM | Link to this
to the poster arguing on behalf of obama’s failure to support baipa. it’s the “when is life viable question.” did the doc that left the living, moving, breathing baby to die view it as less than viable? i salute the corporal on his commitment to the preservation of innocent life.
By AJC/DNC Management
December 18, 2008 12:14 PM | Link to this
Morningstar: You casually remark that there are “people dying in this country because of medication/insurance they can’t afford” but yet you are unable to name one victim of this scourge?
Hmmmmm.
Methinks America would be a better country if we had a lot less hysteria than we do.
By cubalibre
December 18, 2008 12:18 PM | Link to this
Jay, this brought a huge lump to my throat. Nearly 3 years ago, our beloved cat (a rescue baby whom we’d had for 13 years) was diagnosed with a malignant tumor in her abdomen. Although we were prepared to pay the costs of her surgery, she died before she could have it (she was actually in the verterinary overnight when she went). Still, I realize that this kind of decision is hard, however much someone loves their animal family members, so my heart aches for you. As for equating an animal’s life with a person’s— well, I’d have to say it depends on the animal, and the person. I’d spend half my annual salary on our two cats before I’d spend a penny of it on some of the human beings I know (including some in my own family).
By Morningstar
December 18, 2008 12:20 PM | Link to this
By The Corporal December 18, 2008 11:29 A
Corporal, you tend to bring up the abortion issue time and again, and as you well know, it could have been stopped in it’s tracks during that SIX years the Republicans controlled everything. I’m not going through that again, because this horse has already been beaten to death by me and thee, in fact. You and everyone else in the universe knows it’s merely a POLITICAL tool.
Correction, it may not be a political tool for you and me personally, but for POLITICAL parties, especially the R’s, it’s about the best, if not the only tool they have at this point.
(((Obama on partial birth abortion….”On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I’ve said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn’t have that.” …Lifenews.com and several other places you can look for the complete story on President Elect’s position on abortion.
By cubalibre
December 18, 2008 12:25 PM | Link to this
Hey, tcoach @ 11:27 am— I’ve had a grilled cheese sandwich made from government cheese, and it was pretty darned good! When our widowed mother’s meager salary as a bookkeeper was barely enough to keep a roof over our heads & shoes on our feet, she took help in any form she could get it to keep us fed. So when we were offered “government” cheese (along with powdered milk, generic tomato sauce, and dried beans), you better believe we were grateful to have something besides oatmeal and potatoes for dinner. Even though I’m what people call a “foodie” nowadays, I’ll never be able to be a true food snob— I know all too well what it’s like to be without it. Cheers!
By tcoach
December 18, 2008 12:36 PM | Link to this
Cuba, There was no implication of any disrespect of government cheese.
Just personally I have never had any nor do I want to ever eat any.
The point was at which point is there a cutoff for things the government will universally supply.
It shows that it is just the political topic of the day. I feel that hunger and starvation are issues that should be dealt with before treatment.
So however poorly made, my point was to show that if people feel we should have universal health care because everyone deserve it. Then I think they should be the same people fighting to ensure universal nutrition.
Therefor we should all have our food rationed and given to us by the government to make sure there is not anyone who deserves food and is not getting it.
By cubalibre
December 18, 2008 12:48 PM | Link to this
Coach, I truly wasn’t offended (you certainly have the right to your opinion)- just wanted to make the point that sometimes, people you wouldn’t otherwise suspect are the ones who benefit from government help. (And that government cheese really does make a good grilled cheese sandwich!) Cheers!
By tcoach
December 18, 2008 1:09 PM | Link to this
Cuba, I guarantee I know that one never knows who may have received help. I do not have any problem with people receiving help. I have issues with those who abuse the system.
I could imagine they would make good grilled cheeses. I guess I just do not trust our gov. that much to be the ones who give me the cheese.
Kinda the Halloween candy idea.
By Bosch
December 18, 2008 1:26 PM | Link to this
tcoach,
“So since you decide that kind of information start a list of those things we deserve”
I don’t decide those things, it’s only my opinion of what we deserve. I certainly do not play God.
“Since you have stated everyone deserves treatment, do they also deserve food? I would think food is way more important than treatment. So that is now 2 things the government should pay for?”
You asked me to not put words in your mouth, I’d expect the same favor from you.
That’s comparing apples to oranges - trying to put cause and effect to two things that aren’t related.
It’s not that easy to answer a question (or questions) when there are so many “ifs” involved.
By tcoach
December 18, 2008 1:46 PM | Link to this
Bosch, Just because YOU think what someone else does to their body is bad is only relative to YOU, doesn’t mean they don’t deserve treatment or respect.
That is what you said to me. By saying something doesn’t mean something, is that not implying that it does mean the opposite of whatever it doesn’t mean?
I did not put words into your mouth, notice the question mark at the end of the sentence. Maybe I was guilty of poor grammar, but not of putting words in your mouth.
Also what are the ifs you purpose I used in my question?
It is simple to me, that if we as a people should be responsible for others health care we should be responsible for their nutrition needs as well.
Thus if we are to have a universal health care plan it is only advantageous for us to also have a universal national nutritional care system. That means the government would then be in the position to a lot food to each family based on nutritional value only, or it would be a waste of taxpayer money.
If your argument is in your opinion we all deserve the same health care, then why do we not all deserve the same nutritional care?
By Bosch
December 18, 2008 2:04 PM | Link to this
tcoach,
“By saying something doesn’t mean something, is that not implying that it does mean the opposite of whatever it doesn’t mean?”
I have absolutely no idea what that even means.
But, sorry, it’s not a simple question to me.
And there isn’t enough server space on the ajc’s website for all the “ifs” involved in questions like those.
I don’t believe I wrote anything about how we all deserve the same health care, nor do I believe that the government should be responsible for food for all.
If you’d like to ask a specific question, please feel free and I’ll do my best to answer.
By The Corporal
December 18, 2008 2:10 PM | Link to this
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1207159750412&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
*In essence, these acts state that, whether wanted or not, once a baby is fully born, it is recognized as fully human and is entitled to equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment. Even pro-abortion Democrats supported the BAIPA because it contained explicit language that it would not infringe on any abortion rights. Democrat Barbara Boxer, arguably the Senate’s most zealous pro-choice advocate, agreed that, with this language, the “amendment certainly does not attack Roe v. Wade.”
But not Obama. In March of 2001, Obama’s Illinois Judiciary Committee considered a law substantially identical to the BAIPA. It passed the Committee, with Obama voting against. In front of the full Illinois Senate, Obama was the only senator to speak against the bill, arguing that life protection extended to any (!) preterm babies (ponder that) could jeopardize abortion rights. He voted “present,” tantamount to a “no” vote. In March of 2002, Obama’s Committee passed the Induced Birth Liability Act, requiring medical care for babies who survive induced labor abortions - Obama again voting “present,” arguing that the Act would “create one more burden on women, and I can’t support that.”
In 2003, the Democrats took control of the Illinois Senate, and Obama became Chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee. A Committee member sponsored an Amendment that would adopt the exact same language in Illinois’s proposed BAIPA that Senator Boxer was satisfied did not curtail any abortion rights in the federal BAIPA. But as Chairman, Obama unilaterally killed the bill by never allowing a Committee vote, thereby preventing it from being voted on by the full Senate and becoming law.
Obama’s position essentially boils down to this: a woman who contracts for an abortion is entitled, one way or another, to a dead baby. A dead baby must result, even if that baby had already been a distinct living being. The killing of some live babies is just part of the price we must pay in order to keep the sacred right to an abortion supreme and absolute, beyond any shadow of a doubt.
What kind of principle is this? What core value is Obama expressing? What extremist doctrine or interest is he defending? And how doctrinaire must one be to defend actual infanticide? This goes well beyond any reasonable advocacy of a woman’s “right to choose;” it attacks a living baby’s right to life. His position is not simply “pro-choice;” it is radically anti-life. It is, in fact, pro-death. Whatever one may make of the doctrines of his America-bashing, anti-Israel, Farrakhan-honoring pastor (or why a “uniter” would belong to his church for over 20 years), Obama professes to be a practicing Christian; so, what in the life-affirming Judeo-Christian value system could possibly give license to kill live babies?*
By dbm
December 18, 2008 2:16 PM | Link to this
Jay, you overlook the question of whether people should be forced to pay for other people’s needs.
By tcoach
December 18, 2008 2:20 PM | Link to this
Bosch, My specific question.
What are the “ifs” you are refferring to.
I asked if this is your argument in my previous post. That is not your argument then simply say that is not what I am arguing.
Otherwise I have not said or asked any “if” questions.
You claim to not understand the point about doesn’t.
I will try to explain better.
You wrote this- -Just because YOU think what someone else does to their body is bad is only relative to YOU, doesn’t mean they don’t deserve treatment or respect-
Correct?
Remember math and grammer lesons. 2 negatives combined makes a positive.
Therefor saying “doesn’t mean they don’t deserve…..” is the same as saying “does mean they do deserve……”
So how was I wrong in making the logical step that you were implying that they do deserve health care.
My other specific question.
Do you believe that all citizens of our country deserve health care?
By Bosch
December 18, 2008 2:31 PM | Link to this
tcoach,
I know what I wrote, and I think things have gotten a little out of context here.
“Do you believe that all citizens of our country deserve health care?”
In some BASIC form, yes.
By The Corporal
December 18, 2008 2:45 PM | Link to this
All citizens of our country deserve health care inclduing the elderly, the poor, the mentally impaired and the unborn.
Anyone feel diffently? Want to remove someone from that category?
If so why?
Is is o.k. to spend tons of money performing surgery (it’s done all the time now) on a baby in the womb and then later if the mother decides she doesn’t want it after all (she just got a big promotion) then kill it?
Does that give any of my liberal friends a problem?
By tcoach
December 18, 2008 3:05 PM | Link to this
Bosch, I agree too, that everyone deserves health care.
Don’t think we drifted away from the context that far. From the onset this was opened about health care. Nutrition is a form of health care. The only portion not about health care was a grammatical issue which depending upon how it was interpreted did have bearing on the topic. You were the one who said you were confused, by my 1st statement, I was merely clarifying.
Sounds like there are just questions you don’t want to answer or do not like the direction the answer would take you in.
The question is then who should foot the bill, and who should be in charge of the health care?
If you think it is citizens who should pay the bill by way of the government, then what grounds do you feel that it is not also those same people’s responsibility to handle nutrition needs.
I definitely feel that each person deserves food more than they do health care.
Not to mention it is going to cost more for the health care if the patients are malnutritioned.
What is your basic form of health care?
Anyone can go to a PUBLIC hospital’s emergency room and receive treatment. There will be a bill, but it doesn’t go against ones credit score so long as there is an attempt to make payments each month. That means you can pay $2 per month and it cannot go on your credit report, unless the medical bill becomes delinquent.
Is your version of basic health care different.
By The Corporal
December 18, 2008 3:07 PM | Link to this
Hey Bosch
You seem to be ignoring my 2:10 and 2:45 above …………… don’t quit in the middle!
“Obama’s position essentially boils down to this: a woman who contracts for an abortion is entitled, one way or another, to a dead baby”.
By Davo
December 18, 2008 3:25 PM | Link to this
Here’s just a taste of what the gov’t will do to you if universal health care is enacted
Commentary: Why we need an obesity tax http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/12/18/paterson.obesity/index.html?iref=hpmostpop
This country is going to hell on the guise of good intentions. This blind moron seems to think he knows what’s best for NYers.
I cheat on my taxes; you should also.
By The Corporal
December 18, 2008 3:26 PM | Link to this
To all of you Pet Lovers
Here is a great site in case you have never seen it …….. you will need it someday.
http://www.indigo.org/rainbowbridge_ver2.html
By Bosch
December 18, 2008 3:46 PM | Link to this
tcoach,
Sometimes when I don’t answer questions it’s because I have no answer - it’s not a concession, it’s just a simple fact that I don’t know or haven’t given it too much thought - or the topic or question is rather too complex to narrow it down into a simple blog post.
My basic form of health care? I like the basic healthcare models of every other civilized country other than the U.S. Those models seem to work for a majority of its citizens.
I’m not in the mood or have the time right now for the pros and cons of those models, maybe later. I’m about to run out for shopping - which, I’d rather ram bamboo shoots up my fingernails than do.
Corporal,
I’m not ignoring your posts - I didn’t read them.
Abortion is a topic I avoid like the plague.
I’ve been participating on this blog for a long time, and everytime that topics arises, people get crazy, because it’s a crazy topic that people feel very strong about.
No one is ever going to change my mind about how I feel about it, so even though I mentioned it early, and some may see that as a cowardly - a punch and run kind of thing - so be it. I don’t discuss abortion.
By The Corporal
December 18, 2008 3:59 PM | Link to this
To Bosch
I hear you and it’s a free country.
However, I believe you ignore discussing/debating it because in your heart (even if you won’t admit it on this blog) you know you can’t justify it.
Once I had a lady tell me, “I know it’s a human being just as much as I am but my rights come first”. Truly sad.
Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born.
By Hillbilly Deluxe
December 18, 2008 4:03 PM | Link to this
Sorry about your dog, Jay. If anybody ever reads my posts they would know that I lean to the right. I don’t think whether a person lives or dies should ever have to come down to a business decision. Call me idealistic, naive, or whatever, in the richest country in the world we should somehow be able to figure out a solution.
By cc
December 18, 2008 4:26 PM | Link to this
If it came between my dog or my husband I keep the dog.
By Atlanta RN
December 19, 2008 6:26 AM | Link to this
First, Jay, deepest sympathy for you, your family, and your old friend, in what I’m sure is a heart wrenching time. God bless you all.
Like it or not, we have no CHOICE but to allocate health care on the basis of cost. Health care — like everything else — has only so much CAPACITY. Through the ages and now — whether on battlefields, in hospitals, or at doctors’ offices — care can only be allocated based on available resources. I’m only one person — I can only care for so many people at one time. And it is frequently true that there are more sick or injured than there is staff, medicine, or equipment to treat them. Wish that it were different, but we do not have unlimited resources for treating all sick and injured. And it is unethical, unfair, and unwise to expend limited resources on the “unsaveable” at the expense of the “saveable”.
Now, what is cost but a tool for determining how resources should be allocated? And a very good tool at that. The real problem is not so much “cost”, per se, but how that cost is determined. Is it appropriate, for example, for a drug company to charge $1K for a certain drug? Maybe, maybe not — I have no real basis for saying. But therein lies the real question: Is it a TRUE cost, or a free market-derived cost? As you touch on, the latter is an inappropriate measure for allocating limited health care resources.
By Bill in NC
December 19, 2008 9:29 AM | Link to this
As to Schiavo, Florida law defines feeding tubes as a medical procedure that can be refused same as a ventilator.
Placing a feeding tube requires surgery, which will always carry a significant risk of complications like infection because you’re piercing the abdominal wall (much more risky than even using a ventilator)
The nutrient solution used comes from a pharmacy, not mom’s kitchen.
A feeding tube is best defined as a “stomach IV”
By J Oaks
December 20, 2008 12:47 PM | Link to this
Thank you for your honest assessment of human exceptionalism carried in this story of your pet. It’s good to know their are decent journalists left in the media.
By Balimom2000
January 3, 2009 11:03 PM | Link to this
Jay My 13 yr old lab is dying before my eyes. I sought your site for humane, non-partisan end of life human touch. I didn’t get it. the pain is undeniably bad; and the worst part is that none of the respondents can help, either. or that they choose not too. i’m sorry for your loss. i’m sorry too for the fact you and countless others could have helped thru a difficult time for me and alot of others, but political agendas and witticisms got in the way. pray for me, i will need the peace that only gOD and my Bali girl can give.