Just Let him Die..!

And you use the Constitution when it suits your fancy.

Both right and left wingers do that....but right about now it seems the Tea Folks are doing it the most.

Were you for pulling the plug on Terrie Shiavo?

Was it legal in your mind?
Originally Posted by WTF

I didn't know enough about the details of the Schiavo (sp?) case to comment. I read a wiki on it. I do not agree with the Federal government being involved at all on that type of case Granted, there may have been some very narrow legal issue that pertained only to that case that may not pertain to any other case (yes this does happen and I can cite one easy example if you doubt me).

If the legal guardian (in this case, there seemed to be a dispute between the husband and the parents), is told by doctor's that she was vegetative with no chance of recovery, and the legal guardian filed the proper petitions to remove her from life support, I believe that should have been the end. From what little I read, it appears her parents fought her husband and kept filing appeals.

It seems like the best lesson for everyone is to make sure you have a living will and that it is well know what your intentions are.

I think this should have stopped at the state level and I think that each state has a right to make its own laws. But I also think the same about abortion laws. The difference is that abortion ceased to become a moral issue in the mid to late 80s. The wealth of the American middle class (then and now) overrides any moral debate. Even Pat Robertson (after 1992) admitted that anyone in the middle class who wanted an abortion could afford to get one either through private doctors here or abroad (Sweden used to be a destination for this pre-1974).

As a libertarian, I believe that unless the Constitution specifically provides for intrusion into personal choice, then the government should stay out.

LWF's of the world unite!!

Your assuming that preventive medicine is just about weight control and healthy habits? No, well woman care exams are needed because a woman cannot control (healthy diet/exercise or not) if she gets cervical or uterine cancer, or fibroids or pelvic infections that are not related to STDs. Having regular eye exams to ensure healthy eye sight is needed, and getting regualr dental exams helps with preventing serious mouth problems that ultimately lead to other problems such as heart disease etc.

Preventative care / medicine will save money in the long run to prevent serious health issues down the road which will be far more costly. It is not simply a matter of exercising and having a healthy diet. There are far too many poor people or even low middle class folks who cannot afford a gym membership let alone the time to do regular exercise, most work two jobs and extreme hours. Eating healthy means buying food that is very expensive, versus unhealthy food that is low cost. Grapes can easily cost up to 8 dollars for a bunch when a person of little means cannot afford that, and will buy 4-5 boxes of macaroni and cheese that will feed the family for 4-5 nights. See what I am saying?

This whole attitude of "every man for himself" and "tough luck" to the guy who doesn't buy health insurance, or cannot afford to buy health insurance is sickening to me. We all have an obligation to pool our resources and help these people. If that means getting a health care through government (public pay option) or whatever to give everyone health care and include preventative care we need to do it.

I do not agree with the "let him die" attitude. Originally Posted by Guilty Pleasures

Exercise and diet were simply examples of what people could do to make a difference. I disagree that people are in situations where that is beyond their control. You do not need a gym mebership to work out. Eating healthy is not necessarily more expensive.

I agree with you about there being many health issues that preventive care actually helps with. Dental care being a big one. Where I disagree is that a universal health coverage will bring the cost of health care down or in the long run provide better health care. The reason health care costs are so high is that insurance has changed peoples behavior so that the free market controls have been removed. There is no price shopping or motivation for medical providers to innovate low cost but effective health care solutions.

Like you most if not all conservatives believe in helping the less fortunate. The difference is in how we accomplish that objective. Those that have or can afford health care which is most of the population are fine. For those that can't free clinics should be an option. If people tried they could find ways to provide most of the health care needed at a fairly low cost. For the exceptions where a person needs more than basic care there are solutions available to them today. Where I live there is a property tax that funds the Bexar Metropolitan hospital district where anyone that needs health care gets it regardless of if they can afford it.

Bottom line is that before you make the assumption that consevatives are heartless tightwads please consider the option that we simply believe that there are better solutions to the problem than an expesive federal bureaucracy. Historically the federal government has not proven itself capable of doing things well.

So maybe someone should ask Ron Paul, at which point is it ok for "freedom" to interfere with "personal responsibility"? Originally Posted by Doove

As a libertarian Originally Posted by blue3122

As a Libertarian, perhaps you can answer my question. When someone's "freedom" to not buy health insurance interferes with their "personal responsibility" to make sure their bills get paid after they die, which tenet trumps the other?

As a Libertarian, perhaps you can answer my question. When someone's "freedom" to not buy health insurance interferes with their "personal responsibility" to make sure their bills get paid after they die, which tenet trumps the other? Originally Posted by Doove

What bills? If you mean their car payment, house payment, that is a different issue (its called life insurance or settling the estate).

if you mean medical bills, I would answer that only palliative care should be given to those without insurance who willfully neglect to by insurance when they can afford it.

Quite frankly before the New Deal, that was the way everyone was treated. Just because we have expensive medical treatments doesn't mean everyone has a RIGHT to them.

if you mean medical bills, I would answer that only palliative care should be given to those without insurance who willfully neglect to by insurance when they can afford it. Originally Posted by blue3122

So we should let them die, but we shouldn't let them suffer. Interesting.

Quite frankly before the New Deal, that was the way everyone was treated. Just because we have expensive medical treatments doesn't mean everyone has a RIGHT to them.

But everyone does have a right to them. At least as much of a right as they have to that quart of strawberries sitting in the produce section of the supermarket - provided they're willing to pay for it out of pocket.

Let's suppose i can afford insurance, but choose not to purchase it. Let's then assume that i now need what would be $25,000 in medical treatments to maybe save my life. I'm entirely willing and quite able to come up with the $25,000 if need be - but remember, i might live and i might die even with the treatment.

You're suggesting i should be denied the care. Or would you suggest i be required to pre-pay....and be denied the care for just the 6 months it would take me to secure the funds? At which point i'll be dead.

In other words, it sounds as though you think that if people are going to be deserving of health care, they'll be mandated to pay for it via purchasing insurance. Just another sort of mandate, if ya ask me.

So we should let them die, but we shouldn't let them suffer. Interesting.

But everyone does have a right to them. At least as much of a right as they have to that quart of strawberries sitting in the produce section of the supermarket - provided they're willing to pay for it out of pocket.

Let's suppose i can afford insurance, but choose not to purchase it. Let's then assume that i now need what would be $25,000 in medical treatments to maybe save my life. I'm entirely willing and quite able to come up with the $25,000 if need be - but remember, i might live and i might die even with the treatment.

You're suggesting i should be denied the care. Or would you suggest i be required to pre-pay....and be denied the care for just the 6 months it would take me to secure the funds? At which point i'll be dead.

In other words, it sounds as though you think that if people are going to be deserving of health care, they'll be mandated to pay for it via purchasing insurance. Just another sort of mandate, if ya ask me. Originally Posted by Doove

I'll state this to you, cause of the contents of your post. I don't care what anyone says in here. We all have a choice to purchase Health Care Ins. Although some people may not purchase Health Care. In no way shape or form is a doctor or Hospital going to deny a person treatment for a serious life threatening illness or injury. We actually do have a right for treatment. Thats why doctors took an oath. Their oath didn't say " Only if they have health Ins." Now an uninsured person would be responsible for his medical bills. But they are many private organizations out there to assist people who had extensive treatments without Health Ins. As it stands right now nobody would be left to die because of lack of Ins. and nobody should.

I didn't know enough about the details of the Schiavo (sp?) case to comment.!! Originally Posted by blue3122

Neither did Whirlaway but that didn't stop him from chiming in.

Glad to see you actually took time to read up.

Thanks.

As it stands right now nobody would be left to die because of lack of Ins. and nobody should. Originally Posted by acp5762

That is exactly wdhy people should be forced to get it!

People do not buy insurance because they can get it for free if they need it.

That puts a huge burden on hospitials and doctors.

All it is is another tax.

We make people go to school in this country....same concept.

So we should let them die, but we shouldn't let them suffer. Interesting.

But everyone does have a right to them. At least as much of a right as they have to that quart of strawberries sitting in the produce section of the supermarket - provided they're willing to pay for it out of pocket.

Let's suppose i can afford insurance, but choose not to purchase it. Let's then assume that i now need what would be $25,000 in medical treatments to maybe save my life. I'm entirely willing and quite able to come up with the $25,000 if need be - but remember, i might live and i might die even with the treatment.

You're suggesting i should be denied the care. Or would you suggest i be required to pre-pay....and be denied the care for just the 6 months it would take me to secure the funds? At which point i'll be dead.

In other words, it sounds as though you think that if people are going to be deserving of health care, they'll be mandated to pay for it via purchasing insurance. Just another sort of mandate, if ya ask me. Originally Posted by Doove

No, I was not suggesting if you can pay for the care that you be denied. I wasn't suggesting anything. I was stating that if you can pay for it, you can have it. Insurance is the most obvious way. If you want to self-insure, that's fine. As long as you don't expect the government to pay for your healthcare, I dont' care how you get it. Let's understand when I write "government" here, I mean everyone else. I don't think the rest of the taxpayers (all 49% of us) should be responsible for yours or anyone else's healthcare.

You are correct in saying you have as much right to healtcare as strawberries. You can buy all you can afford. No problem with that.

If you might live or die even with the treatment, that decision is up to you and your doctor.

if its going to take you longer to raise the money that you might live, I suggest you protect your credit rating, have some life insurance, and get to the bank quickly. The whole issue is about individual responsibility.

You can probably swap your Jag to the Dr. for his services. How you do it is irrelevant to me (or any libertarian) as long as YOU take responsibility and you do not harm others.(ie. no bank robberies to pay for your illness)

Neither did Whirlaway but that didn't stop him from chiming in.

Glad to see you actually took time to read up.

Thanks.




That is exactly wdhy people should be forced to get it!

People do not buy insurance because they can get it for free if they need it.

That puts a huge burden on hospitials and doctors.

All it is is another tax.

We make people go to school in this country....same concept. Originally Posted by WTF

I don't know why they don't. My Health Ins was paid through my job. Although I retired a few years ago I still maintain the same Health and Dental Benefits. Nothing has changed, gives me a piece of mind. Lets face it not all jobs offer benefits. It does complicate things for doctors and hospitals. Health Care is expensive. The thing is we seem to dwell on our Health being good, but what about injury. You can be Healthy as a horse but an injury such as a car wreck can change all that in seconds.

Those debts died with him. They would be written off by the medcal providers.

What is being ignored is that he was receiving the best medical care, but his pre-existing condition contributed to his death. Originally Posted by greenhorn1960

They didn't die with him, you stupid git!! As Doove pointed out, I'm paying for them through my insurance premiums for my employees, you fool. I pay about $850/employee/month for insurance for my employees. Part of that is to compensate for asshole employers who leave their employees uninsured.

As for him having a pre-existing condition, duh!!! That's why he couldn't buy individual health insurance coverage. All the more reason that immoral bastard Paul should have had insurance for his employees.

And Whirlaway, nobody lobbied to have the plug pulled on Terri Shaivo's live. She was dead as a doornail before the plug was pulled.

Terri should be haunting everyone who would not allow the plug pulled.

Terri should be haunting everyone who would not allow the plug pulled. Originally Posted by pyramider

The eyes have seen the light

And Whirlaway, nobody lobbied to have the plug pulled on Terri Shaivo's live. She was dead as a doornail before the plug was pulled. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

That is yet another example of science being discarded for a belief. Her family believed her brain ok....despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The thing is we seem to dwell on our Health being good, but what about injury. You can be Healthy as a horse but an injury such as a car wreck can change all that in seconds. Originally Posted by acp5762

Good point acp.

Healthcare should be like education in this country.

Everyone should be afforded a basic education.

You want a better education , you pay for it outta pocket. Same with health care

I am not trying to degrade you....but are we talking about the same Constitution that counted slaves as 3/5th human? Originally Posted by WTF

This is a complete misrepresentation of the Three-Fifths Compromise. The Three-Fifths Compromise reduced the influence of slave owners in the House of Representatives. To derisively argue against the compromise, is to argue you were for increasing the power and influence of slave owners and for the continuation of slavery. Had slaves been enumerated at a 1:1 ratio, it wouldn’t have mattered that Lincoln was elected in 1860, because the South would still have dominated Congress. Hence, there would have been no “cause” for the South to secede. There wouldn’t have been a Civil War nor would there have been a 13th, 14th nor a 15th Amendment. The issue of slavery would have remained an unsettled matter until some later date in U.S. history. It’s important to remember the Three-Fifths Compromise and the Constitution, per se, disenfranchised no one. Slaves, women and men with no property were equally disenfranchised by the states.

This is a complete misrepresentation of the Three-Fifths Compromise. The Three-Fifths Compromise reduced the influence of slave owners in the House of Representatives. To derisively argue against the compromise, is to argue you were for increasing the power and influence of slave owners and for the continuation of slavery. . Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Are you fucking Glenn Beck? That is exactly wtf that stupid SOB argued. Pure bunk.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201101100039


Experts Disagree With The Claim That Three-Fifths Clause Was Anti-Slavery

Beeman: "My Goodness -- Glenn Beck Got It Completely Wrong." In response to a Media Matters email about Beck's comments, Beeman wrote:

My goodness -- Glenn Beck got it completely wrong. They put [the three-fifths clause] there because delegates from the Southern states would never have agreed to the Constitution unless some weight was given to their slave populations in the apportionment of representation. They wanted slaves counted 100%, but when they saw that they could not get that, they settled for 3/5. The practical effect of that, far from making easier to abolish slavery, made it more difficult. It gave added weight to southern political power in Congress, it inflated Southern power in the apportioning of electoral votes, which led to a succession of Southern presidents. Ironically, the best thing that could have been done with respect to making it easier to abolish slavery would have been to have given slaves NO weight in the apportioning of representation.
Beck's comments are so depressingly typical of those who cite the Constitution to defend their views without having any understanding of the Constitution's history [emphasis added].

Beeman: Beck's Claim Is "Fundamentally Wrong." During a subsequent phone interview with Media Matters, Beeman also said of Beck's comment:

That was where Beck was fundamentally wrong. Going as far as giving slaves a status of three-fifths of a person gave the South far more power because slaves were not treated as full citizens. Slaves did not have any rights at all, including voting rights.

Law Professor Amar: Nineteenth Century Abolitionists Defended Three-Fifths Clause, But Their Argument Is Wrong. Yale University professor Akhil Reed Amar, who teaches constitutional law, wrote in his book, America's Constitution: A Biography:

In any event, the Constitution as drafted and ratified committed the new nation to perpetually credit slavery in the apportionment process. Confronting this harsh constitutional calculus, some antebellum antislavery leaders sought to construe three-fifths as a moral victory of sorts. On this view, anything less than five-fifths was an acknowledgment that slavery was constitutionally disfavored. The document's pointed refusal to use the S-word in the apportionment formula and elsewhere further evidenced the document's implicit antislavery stance, in the eyes of these apologists. Some theorists went so far as to claim that the Article I formula actually encouraged abolition: a state that freed its slaves could increase its share of the House by counting its blacks at five-fifths, thus avoiding the two-fifths slavery penalty.
This clever argument blinked the fact that states with large slave populations were hardly inclined to free slaves while encouraging freedmen to remain within the state as valued citizens. Dreams and schemes of colonization accompanied most serious proposals for widespread abolition. If emigration followed emancipation, a state would not rise from three to five-fifths, but rather would sink to zero-fifths as freedmen moved out. Contrary to apologists' rosy mathematics, a slave state would thus likely wield less congressional clout after emancipation. [Page 90, America's Constitution (2005), accessed 01/07/2011]

Yale Constitutional Expert: Three-Fifths Clause Gave South An Extra Incentive To Import Slaves

Amar: Because Of Three-Fifths Clause, "The More Slaves The Deep South Could Import ... The More Seats It Would Earn In The American Congress." From America's Constitution:

Once we envision the possibility of black bodies crossing borders, the extreme viciousness of the three-fifths clause comes violently into view. The more slaves the Deep South could import from the African continent -- innocents born in freedom and kidnapped across an ocean to be sold on auction blocks -- the more seats it would earn in the American Congress.
[...]
To make matters worse, despite the new Congress's general Article I, section 8 power over international commerce, section 9 barred Congress from ending the international slave trade before 1808. By that time, the Deep South hoped to have enough extra muscle in Congress, based on white migration and slave importation, to thwart any possible antislavery constitutional amendments and perhaps even to weaken any proposed ban on further slave importation. Unlike every other clause in the entire Constitution, the 1808 date itself was exempt from constitutional amendment under Article V. [Pages 90-91, America's Constitution (2005), accessed 01/07/2011]

I think it would be remiss of me not to point out that some of the greatest beneficiaries of the new health care law would be the ladies on this board or other sex workers. I might be wrong, but I suspect not many of them have comprehensive health insurance policies.

So, I guess the question I would throw out is: should we coldly let our ladies die? Or should we provide some system that cares for them?