simple question

[4est_4est_Gump]

Grump does not have indoor plumbing. Why would you rub it in he face like that?


Cruel.

I have that and central A/C.

Your trailer has a holding tank and a window unit.

And trust me, , the neighbors can hear you blasting out the show tunes.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

If such a policy was under consideration:

First, I'd favor merciful euthanasia for every current, state-dependent worker...

...second, I'd favor compassionate euthanasia for every citizen who even might consider voting yes.

Then...

...perhaps a logical discussion about the issue could actually ensue.

Only if you leave the room.



ISIS yourself!

 

[GiggLeGasm]

Part of the difficulty here is the definition of terminal illness for the purpose of outside assistance. It's typically (in the US) not an entire year. Also, if a person could be healed by "giving up" a bad habit, such as drinking or recreational drugs, that is unlikely to be a terminal illness.

Bad lifestyle choices are already being addressed by third parties. For example, CMS has determined that patients should be able to manage congestive heart failure in the outpatient setting. If not managed, many of these patients could become devastatingly ill, costing employment and social support. Healthcare institutions are not fully reimbursed if these patients are unable to manage outside of the hospital, potentially leading to discharges that may be medically premature. It's a lose-lose scenario unless the patient is willing to change how he or she makes personal choices.

I do believe that care should be offered to every person; but I understand that it's a double-edged sword. Until people are willing to follow medical advice, it is unfair to mandate financial expectations of the community related to the cost of treatment.

 

[butters]

Please explain why you do not live in some remote spot, free of all humans, government, and money. I am honestly curious, because almost everything you post seems to indicate that your life should be exactly that.

you expected any better? you li'l optimist

 

[quietlylooking]

I do believe that universal health care is a good thing and should be available.

However, I am forced to vote no here. I think that implementation of this kind of a program for the terminally ill would be incredibly problematic. Who is going to be making the official diagnosis? It's not like these kinds of things are always clear-cut. Will the diagnosis need to be confirmed by a second opinion to minimize fraud? Will someone be required to explore all possible medical options first? And if you start talking about excluding people because of the POTENTIAL that something in their lifestyle may have contributed to their disease, it becomes downright ugly. So someone ate grilled hamburgers, and they get colon cancer, will that preclude someone from the program? The causes of disease are multifactorial and not always completely understood. Frankly, medicine is just not black and white to really make this work in a way that the government can manage.

I do think that friends, families, and communities can and often do come together to support those with terminal illnesses, and that is a beautiful and good thing.

 

[JohnnySavage]

If "terminal illness" implies an inability to work or any other financial means, we have SSI and Medicare. So, yes, in those cases.

If someone has money in the bank, or is otherwise able to provide for themselves, then no.

 

[bluebell]

I could tell you what I am saying but it appears that you have applied a basic template here so that I would be arguing with a wall. I apologize for being so abrupt, but you've clearly made up your mind that because I do not share your view of government, I must be an anarchist. It is shallow black-and-white thinking.

Mine was meant to be a very broad question, and I don't think that makes it shallow black-and-white thinking, it's an honest question about where you would be happiest in this world.
I understand your points, but in this particular case I think you're ascribing subtext that wasn't there. It might be extreme to ask about a remote place to live, but where else would you be able to have the freedom and control you desire, if not in a more remote location?

Grump does not have indoor plumbing. Why would you rub it in he face like that?


Cruel.

I was forcing his hand so he would spill your secret about the showtunes!
And now we know. We ALL know, Petey.

 

[Saint Peter]

Mine was meant to be a very broad question, and I don't think that makes it shallow black-and-white thinking, it's an honest question about where you would be happiest in this world.
I understand your points, but in this particular case I think you're ascribing subtext that wasn't there. It might be extreme to ask about a remote place to live, but where else would you be able to have the freedom and control you desire, if not in a more remote location?


I was forcing his hand so he would spill your secret about the showtunes!
And now we know. We ALL know, Petey.

tits and ass
had the bingo bongos done

 

[RobDownSouth]

Please explain why you do not live in some remote spot, free of all humans, government, and money. I am honestly curious, because almost everything you post seems to indicate that your life should be exactly that.

And therein lies the rub.

The Chief routinely promotes his hellish vision of Utopia for others: a "mud hut" glibertarian worldview, "rugged individualism" in teh name of "maximum freedom" (for himself, not others of course) and a "survival of the fittest" Darwinian mindset...

and yet, he cannot forego the accouterments of modern society...indoor flush toilets, purified drinking water, government roads. He'll use them, of course, but he'll do his best not to acknowledge his need, and will of course go out of his way towards paying for these necessities. Because freedom.

Hence, this is why his many detractors tend to respond to his double standard with a pithy "Somalia beckons".

 

[MaryanneB]

I have read most of the posts and there are very valid points in most. The only side of this is the one I went through.
My husband had his first heart attack in his late 40s. First open heart (a 5 way bypass) in 2000. From there it went down hill....slowly. He was exposed to one of the last above ground nuclear tests in the Nevada desert when he was just a child and it was decided that this probably had a part to play. He then had a mitral valve failure in 2007 and another OH surgery.
We had insurance but it only covered so much and we went through all our savings in a matter of a few years. The amount was in excess of $350K. We tried to get help and a Republican senator told us (still don't know if he was serious) to get a divorce and go on Medicaid. We ended our marriage of over 30 years and did just that.
I am not saying this for pity. It is just a fact that life is cheap to those who hold the reins.
I am an Operating Room nurse (retired now) and the reason he lived as long as he did was due to the ability to call in favors and the fact that I can be one hell of a bitch when it comes to talking back.
Bottom line? Life can suck big time. No matter how you plan, you don't have control over it all.

 

[bluebell]

tits and ass
had the bingo bongos done

Pussy. Pussier. Pussiest.

If you start playing your drums naked, we are going to have to ask Mona to get pics.

And therein lies the rub.

The Chief routinely promotes his hellish vision of Utopia for others: a "mud hut" glibertarian worldview, "rugged individualism" in the name of "maximum freedom" (for himself, not others of course) and a "survival of the fittest" Darwinian mindset...

and yet, he cannot forego the accouterments of modern society...indoor flush toilets, purified drinking water, government roads. He'll use them, of course, but he'll do his best not to acknowledge his need, and will of course go out of his way towards paying for these necessities. Because freedom.

Hence, this is why his many detractors tend to respond to his double standard with a pithy "Somalia beckons".

Ah. Was wondering.
Thanks, Rob.

 

[lovecraft68]

Yes in the form of SSDI....If they only have a year then its temporary, right?

And going further...if they are dying then they will not be around to collect all the SS they would be due upon retirement so its really using their money in advance(if they are younger)

This subject makes me consider the SO and familyas well. Think about it, your wife/husband maybe your child is dying, you have limited time with them and you still have to go to work every day?

Family medical leave act will allow time off, but you don't get paid.

 

[Saint Peter]

Pussy. Pussier. Pussiest.

If you start playing your drums naked, we are going to have to ask Mona to get pics.

Under the sea, under the sea
Darlin' it's better down where it's wetter
Take it from me.
Up on the shore they work all day
Out in the sun they slave away
While we devoting full time to floating
Under the sea

 

[Que]

No.



. .

 

[toubab]

if a person of limited means is given 12 months to live, should they have all their health, social care and basic income paid for by the state?

Simple question? More like a Gordian Knot, if you ask me. There is no good answer.

 

[Que]

If you have not lived a life that would make friends and family rally around you in your time of need, why should society care?

If Charles Manson were released from prison, and is now dying, do you wish to be taxed to ease his last days?

The entire premise of the question is not about compassion. It is about forcing your neighbors to do something with their resources so you can feel good about yourself. There are hospice facilities everywhere you could possibly live. If you, yourself actually care, and are overflowing with compassion for the terminally ill, go volunteer, ask at local churches and hospitals if there is a family you can bring meals to.

Government does compassion poorly, and is great at enabling.

 

[dolf]

If you have not lived a life that would make friends and family rally around you in your time of need, why should society care?

that's actually the most dumbarse thing i think I've ever seen you post.

 

[Que]

that's actually the most dumbarse thing i think I've ever seen you post.

So explain it to me. Someone who has worn out the patience of every human being in their immediate community needs to be supported by the national government with taxes collected at the threat of incarceration, exactly why?

I let a guy live in my house for 5 months after every one of his friends and family decided to stop enabling him. I fed and sheltered him. When it was clear that I was merely enabling him, I told him so. He slashed my tire on the way out.

When was the last time you personally sheltered another human to whom you have no familial obligation for such a length of time?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

We could argue that a great deal of chronic illness is prolonged or made worse because of lifestyle choices. It is not reasonable to presume that we understand how, or why, people choose the coping mechanisms that they do. It is also unrealistic to exclude mental health sufferers. There is too much overlap to be able to isolate the point in time when a person was presented with more than he or she could manage.

I had forgotten about the states that do permit assisted suicide in the presence of a terminal diagnosis. I have mixed feelings on this. I agree with the concept. I am not certain that I could administer the lethal dose.

Left outta all this bilge is this unpleasant reality: MDs fuck up a lot. I watched two men die of brain tumors, the brainiacs said they were schizophrenic. I've seen them kill plenty of people cuz they cant diagnose worth a shit. Kid goes in with pneumonia and gets ibuprofen for a cold, goes back when his situation deteriorates, gets a scolding and more ibuprofen, and dies. On the whole MDs are idgits.

 

[dolf]

if you cannot foresee a single one of the multiple circumstances in which a person would end up isolated and alone, you're an idiot. and no amount of my explaining can teach a grownarse man basic empathy.

 

[Que]

if you cannot foresee a single one of the multiple circumstances in which a person would end up isolated and alone, you're an idiot. and no amount of my explaining can teach a grownarse man basic empathy.

If you cannot see that designing yet another fraud-ridden government program to take care of the occasional deserving person is an incredibly poor use of society's compassion and resources, you are beyond reason.

If you care, and clearly you don't, you would be looking YOURSELF for opportunities to provide compassion. Even people with limited means can volunteer at a soup kitchen. I gave you several ideas on what you can do to help such people and you rejected those suggestions out of hand.

Voting for someone else to fulfill YOUR compassionate obligations to society is not empathy, it is lazy, entitled, self-delusion.

 

[dolf]

how many unpaid hours i put in is irrelevant. and I've not criticised anyone's choice on the thread over whether they support free care or not.

my criticism is entirely that you're too stupid to imagine that good, decent people might end up isolated and alone through no fault of their own.

 

[Que]

how many unpaid hours i put in is irrelevant. and I've not criticised anyone's choice on the thread over whether they support free care or not.

my criticism is entirely that you're too stupid to imagine that good, decent people might end up isolated and alone through no fault of their own.

Yeah, I'm stupid. "Good, decent people" frequently find themselves with no friends. Churches and charities regularly turn such people away, because of their obvious "goodness."

So this new entitlement you want to enact...

We do have to means test it right? So we don't hep the rich? Can't have a rich guy who is dying use the program until after he has exhausted his wealth right?

How much are we going to pay these people? A "living wage?" What if this person had a good paying job and lived in a McMansion, but cannot make the payments now? Shall we pay that?

Who administers the program? Got to have forms, right?

All that money spent on overhead, I wonder what that costs society by removing that capital from the marketplace?

How about if Bill Gates sets up a hospice foundation? That OK with you, or it is only "empathy" if you want to distribute this "charity" by forcible collection of taxes?

 

[GiggLeGasm]

Left outta all this bilge is this unpleasant reality: MDs fuck up a lot. I watched two men die of brain tumors, the brainiacs said they were schizophrenic. I've seen them kill plenty of people cuz they cant diagnose worth a shit. Kid goes in with pneumonia and gets ibuprofen for a cold, goes back when his situation deteriorates, gets a scolding and more ibuprofen, and dies. On the whole MDs are idgits.

I understand that you have very little respect for anyone other than yourself. I even question that second part of that statement. Your point is not missed, but has little to do with my comment. My point was that people need to take responsibility for personal contributions to their own health if society is expected to bridge the gaps. You have used my statement to jump on your soapbox; but it does not make my point less valid.

 

[dolf]

just keep arguing with points I've not made. *sigh*