Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry momonkey, your experience is not the medical textbook for everyone.
You do not have a understanding of medicine and therefore cannot make decisions for medical care. Your argument is exactly why these decisions should be made by doctors, not insurance companies and not the government.
OK, I'll play. If not insurance companies and not the government, then who? The hippie commune? Got a native American "healer" all set up for us?
No it isn't your money. Your money that you paid into SS has long ago been consumed by your predecessors. The money you receive now comes from current workers who are paying into the system. Your lifestyle is being subsidized by current workers. So cut the hypocrisy already....you are in fact a willing beneficiary of socialism.
Everyone needs some of whatever you're smoking.
So you criticize others for depending on the government, but you yourself are being subsidized by the same government and you are okay with that? You want to eliminate the benefits that others get but you want to hang on to yours? Socialism is bad unless it benefits you, in which case it's very good? This type of hypocrisy I see all the time from so called conservatives.
Face it: if all of today's workers were to stop working today, your SS checks will stop arriving in your mail box in short order. SS is being kept afloat by current workers. The mechanism is similar to a Ponzi scheme. You can call it a form of socialistic wealth transfer. But stop pretending to be opposed to socialism on one hand while cashing in the checks on the other.
I am a conservative and a physician. I do not know of any other physician, conservative or liberal, who feels as though patients with no hope for survival should have heroic measures performed upon them. Palliative care(which is usually cheap) for comfort is quite a different matter. No one would want to endure these heroic last minute treatments if they had the choice.
Rational decisions are being prevented from being made by fear of litigation. This is a problem with the democrats and the trial lawyers association- they are one in the same. Allowing patients to die without torturing them in the last few months of thier lives cannot occur unless there is solid tort reform. The democrats owe the trial lawyers association and it will never happen in this administration. I think that the "right to life" issue (Terry Shaivo) is overblown and is debated more often regarding the other extreme of life- i.e. late term abortions. I do not know of a single physician who thinks it is a good idea to keep a brain dead patient, or one with 99% mortality on a vent in the unit.
In the current legal climate, if a physician did not perform heroic pointless life extending measures on these patients, they could not only be sued, but risk criminal prosecution and action by their medical boards. We all know this it is insane, but are powerless to act. The current national healthcare proposals do not have tort limits as a part of the process. Therefore, the waste and expense will continue. There will just be longer lines to waste the same dollars.
Can you explain to me again why you insist on having hip replacement when you are already too sick from terminal cancer to be able to even walk without maximum assistance? Are you a masochist or something? Do you think hip replacement is a cakewalk? Do you really like being cut up, poked with needles, a catheter shoved into your penis, a tube shoved into your throat, just so you can claim to be a conservative who has an artificial hip that you will never be able to use because you will be dead in a week from terminal cancer?
How many times we gonna change the story here? First she was hopelessly bedridden until I pointed out that people who are not walking generally don't break their hips. Can we at least agree that this person was able to walk at least well enough without "maximum assistance" to suffer an broken hip?
As for your horror story, tell it to someone who hasn't been through the procedure twice. I got an IV, went to sleep and woke up with a new hip joint. The catheter wasn't all that great, but I definitely would have gone through it to walk the last weeks of my life vs. laying in a bed and waiting to die.
In any case, do you really trust this government that has proven repeatedly that they are completely incapable of doing anything except screwing us?
If it is a failure in Canada where they have a relatively competent government, what makes you think our retarded government has any chance at all?
I am a conservative and a physician. I do not know of any other physician, conservative or liberal, who feels as though patients with no hope for survival should have heroic measures performed upon them. Palliative care(which is usually cheap) for comfort is quite a different matter. No one would want to endure these heroic last minute treatments if they had the choice.
Rational decisions are being prevented from being made by fear of litigation. This is a problem with the democrats and the trial lawyers association- they are one in the same. Allowing patients to die without torturing them in the last few months of thier lives cannot occur unless there is solid tort reform. The democrats owe the trial lawyers association and it will never happen in this administration. I think that the "right to life" issue (Terry Shaivo) is overblown and is debated more often regarding the other extreme of life- i.e. late term abortions. I do not know of a single physician who thinks it is a good idea to keep a brain dead patient, or one with 99% mortality on a vent in the unit.
In the current legal climate, if a physician did not perform heroic pointless life extending measures on these patients, they could not only be sued, but risk criminal prosecution and action by their medical boards. We all know this it is insane, but are powerless to act. The current national healthcare proposals do not have tort limits as a part of the process. Therefore, the waste and expense will continue. There will just be longer lines to waste the same dollars.
Performing heroic but futile treatments are grounds for lawsuit and disciplining as well. If you knew that the treatment was futile but you did it anyway, you can be subject to disciplinary action by the state board. If a surgeon performed a liver transplant on a brain dead patient because the family wanted it done (believing the patient will experience a miracle and wake up one day), the surgeon deserves to have his license revoked.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
