Change Nobody Believes In

[JTM]

ah, okay. that's what i thought. in our current system, if you can't pay the electricity, your power gets shut off.

Under the Texas Futile Care Law, health care workers are allowed to remove expensive life support for terminally ill patients if the patient or family is unable to pay the medical bills.

that's pretty much what happened here. as much of an asshole that makes me sound, i would've gladly put some money toward it had someone asked me to, and encouraged others to do the same. however, if nobody is going to pay for it, it's not a matter of sympathy at that point, it has to be turned off.

the difference with government health care is that we'll presumably all have the same coverage. there will have to be panels who decide who gets what. and how do they decide?

the problem is magnified when people pay for varying levels of government health care.

 

[ljlinson1206]

What ever happened to "quality" of life? Are we in such a hurry to look at the negative aspect of something that we forget to review it from ALL aspects? I know my point of view is going to make me sound cold and callous, but again, as a lawman thats been a first responder I've seen terrible things that gives me a different perspective.

First of all in the Hudson case, was the mothers expectations reasonable? In her quote she stated that the Texas Childrens Hospital was supposed to be a "miracle" hospital. No one wants someone close to them to die. It is however a fact of life. The ONLY one thing that can be counted on in this life is that we WILL die. Another point that I find interesting is that she stated that she was "forced" to give up her rights. In the bill itself it stated that you are given 10 days to either find another facility or take legal action. No where does it say that you are forced to give up your rights. I understand that 10 days is not alot of time, but if you read a little case law you will find that people have obtained injunctions over and over and over again. I sympathise with Ms. Hudson on the loss of her child, but sounds to me like she's out for money. How is it that she couldn't find an attorney before the termination of the life support but could afterwards? Why would a greiving mother want to show her dead baby on TV? Doesn't sound like something a normal parent would do.

As far as the bill itself, a person has more "rights" now than they did before. Before, the care facility didn't have to give any prior notification that they were going to end treatment. Now a person is given 10 days after an ethics consultation. If the decision is not agreed upon then there are options and steps that can be taken. Again, noone wants to see a loved one pass, but this is far from a "death panel".

In each case I've read, many I didn't read because it would just take too long, the same things were present. Terminally ill patient, treatment only slightly prolonging life, and no other facility taking patient because nothing more could be done. We are not talking prolonging your life for a few months while you get your affairs in order or take a trip or do the one thing in life you wish you'de have done earlier. We're talking about laying in a bed, heavily sedated or comatose with tubes running throughout your body. who does this benefit? Your family that has to come in and see you this way? I have already signed a DNR at the age of 36. For those that don't know DNR is do not resesitate. I believe in the quality of my life, not how long I can live. But that's just me. We all have to face the reality of death at some point in our life.

 

[drapetomaniac]

Before, the care facility didn't have to give any prior notification that they were going to end treatment. Now a person is given 10 days after an ethics consultation. If the decision is not agreed upon then there are options and steps that can be taken. Again, noone wants to see a loved one pass, but this is far from a "death panel"....For those that don't know DNR is do not resesitate. I believe in the quality of my life, not how long I can live. But that's just me. We all have to face the reality of death at some point in our life.

You've signed a DNR. Is your definition of quality of life the only correct one? Enough to be imposed on others?

That ethics consideration includes a billing consideration. If there is enough wealth, the ethics board is never consulted because the finances are in place.

A person can't pay their bill.
They are terminally ill.
They have signed that they want to have every measure taken to keep them alive for as long as possible.
That signed statement of the person's will to live or DNR is ignored.
Their life status is determined by a panel and their finances.

 

[drapetomaniac]

ah, okay. that's what i thought. in our current system, if you can't pay the electricity, your power gets shut off.
..however, if nobody is going to pay for it, it's not a matter of sympathy at that point, it has to be turned off.

It's a matter of sympathy, it's just not present.

This same argument could be used to endorse abortion, since finances are the primary consideration.

Poverty has most certainly has been used as a reason to forcibly sterilize women in our country in the past. So, using it as a reason for voluntary abortions is a much bigger improvement. If we're going to force people to follow our ethics panels for living, we could at least encourage voluntary abortions unless people's budgets line up. And consistent with quality of life arguments.

Hunger is on the rise in the US after all.

 

[ljlinson1206]

You've signed a DNR. Is your definition of quality of life the only correct one? Enough to be imposed on others?

I'm pretty sure I indicated that this is MY belief, what's in MY heart. I am not imposing my will on anyone. But since you brought it up, isn't the family imposing THIER will on the person that can't speak for themselves? I understand that in the case of small children the parent have the underlying decision, but there are numerous cases of this happening with adults. And just for your understanding, the reason I have a DNR already is so that my family doesn't have to make that decision.

That ethics consideration includes a billing consideration. If there is enough wealth, the ethics board is never consulted because the finances are in place.

As far as wether the panel is consulted on the basis of finance, I can neither agree nor disagree. I am neither a doctor or on any of these panels. I cannot say that if you are rich they (the doctors) wouldn't tell the family the same thing. I simply do not know. However, I can assume that if you are rich and willing to spend your money frivolously, then someone will take your money and keep you alive, and I use that word loosly! In our country, if you have enough money you can get anything. The origan question though was about "DEATH PANEL"! I do not find this bill or course of action to be either one.

This same argument could be used to endorse abortion, since finances are the primary consideration.

I missed the part of the bill that stated that FINANCE was the MAJORconsideration. I have read it several times, but I will go back and read it again.

Nope, didn't find it. It is a consideration, but not the MAIN consideration. There are multitudes of people that go to the hospitals without money and recieve treatment. I think the main consideration is going to be TERMINAL ILLNESS. I could be wrong, but then we are not in a position to know that are we? Unless you happen to be on one of theses panels. I'm not.

Poverty has most certainly has been used as a reason to forcibly sterilize women in our country in the past.

Amazingly the three reasons listed for forcible sterilization are eugenic (concerned with heredity), therapeutic (part of an even-then obscure medical theory that sterilization would lead to vitality), or punitive (as a punishment for criminals). This came from the same sources that you have listed....Wikipedia. I found nothing stating that poverty had anything to do with it in this country.

Hunger is on the rise in the US after all.

This is because of a whole other set of Liberal rules that are nothing but a load of propiganda!!!!

 

[drapetomaniac]

I am not imposing my will on anyone. But since you brought it up, isn't the family imposing THIER will on the person that can't speak for themselves? I understand that in the case of small children the parent have the underlying decision, but there are numerous cases of this happening with adults. And just for your understanding, the reason I have a DNR already is so that my family doesn't have to make that decision.

Would you support a doctor ignoring it? This bill doesn't do that, because yours favors death. But it does override the directives of others.

The origan question though was about \"DEATH PANEL\"! I do not find this bill or course of action to be either one.

And there aren't any in the health care bill, yet a wide variety people have encouraged the idea. When I posted the linked the first time, it was to show that while people complained about fictional death panels in the federal bill to demonize it, we had our own in Texas.

A panel of doctors can override your directives or the directives of your family. Even if you can pay (as you seemed to clarify).
A panel of people who meet to determine if someone is going to die. That's what we have in Texas.

Would we support this if it were in the federal bill? What would people who hate the bill call that portion?

Either way, I guess I was off base bringing it up since people seem ok with having a panel override personal decisions on health.

Poverty has most certainly has been used as a reason to forcibly sterilize women in our country in the past.

Amazingly the three reasons listed for forcible sterilization are eugenic (concerned with heredity), therapeutic (part of an even-then obscure medical theory that sterilization would lead to vitality), or punitive (as a punishment for criminals). This came from the same sources that you have listed....Wikipedia. I found nothing stating that poverty had anything to do with it in this country.

Well, it's an issue I've followed for many years and have seen in a wide variety of research settings. Eugenics often seeks to "solve poverty" and "overpopulation," often linking the two and attacking that way.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell
"Her adopted family had committed her to the State Colony as "feeble-minded" (a catch-all term used at the time for not only the mentally disabled but also promiscuous women, poor women, uneducated women and anyone not deemed normal), no longer feeling capable of caring for her."

Even when I was going through school, our "current events" we debated and wrote papers on included *forcing* women on welfare to use new birth control. Which is at least temporary eugenics and with testing new forms of birth control, consistent with our use of poor women in the past which has been known to have sterilizing effects when they go wrong.
You can be hungry or take a test pill.

Something more modern: http://thinkprogress.org//09/24/louisiana-sterilize/

Judges ordering people not to have children: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/09/12/can-a-judge-order-a-woman-to-stop-having-childen/

Mention of the Virginia "apology" to 7000+ people, including a veteran sterilized earlier in life because he was a runaway: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/05/02/virginia-eugenics.htm

Poverty has a history of being seen as evil in this country.

In Puerto Rico, a third of women were forcibly sterilized at one time to fix "underemployment" and "stabilize" the island. Law 116 was instituted on the island in 1937 and finally repealed in the 1960s.

I remember watching the Virginia apology go through its legislation several years back. Their apology was phrases like "We apologize for exercising our legal authority and right to sterilize" - basically in a way not to show fault and open up to law suits.

Hunger is on the rise in the US after all.
This is because of a whole other set of Liberal rules that are nothing but a load of propiganda!!!!

Of course. Our secret cabal to ruin the world.

 

[Hippie19950]

Looks like another ongoing battle that NO ONE will win. Politicians are going to be blasted either way they go with their votes, the PEOPLE who speak out will be wrong, and those who sit and wait, will LOSE biggest. It's not going to be a "winnable" deal. It needs to be scrapped, and revert to what we have now. Either way, those of us who work, are the one's who will foot the bill for it. My plan has already been shot down, without any real research, and we have since reverted to a back and forth discussion of what history has shown, and who has wronged who by it. Time to get over it, and make something happen, and not keep gooing back to what CANNOT be changed. I have NOT apologized for ANYTHING, and have absolutley no intention of it. If I'm wrong, so be it. As for medical care, I no longer really care. I am a Veteran, and it has been noted NONE of my healthcare will be affected by this. Myabe I am a bit one sided, but that is who I am. I have tried to be reasonable at times, and all I get it shot down, for being who I am.

 

[drapetomaniac]

Illness and medical bills caused half of the 1,458,000 personal bankruptcies in 2001, according to a study published by the journal Health Affairs.

The study estimates that medical bankruptcies affect about 2 million Americans annually -- counting debtors and their dependents, including about 700,000 children.

Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by illness had health insurance. More than three-quarters were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness. However, 38 percent had lost coverage at least temporarily by the time they filed for bankruptcy.

Most of the medical bankruptcy filers were middle class; 56 percent owned a home and the same number had attended college.
..
\"Unless you're Bill Gates you're just one serious illness away from bankruptcy. Most of the medically bankrupt were average Americans who happened to get sick.\"

Read more: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html#ixzz0bsEVnDSi

Read more: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html#ixzz0bsD8p1Hh

That's the middle class outlook on health care. BTW - its also one of the reasons I didn't support Biden (being from my home state of Delaware, he helped push through making bankruptcies tougher much longer before he even considered health care - the two are linked)

 

[Hippie19950]

Guess I'm middle class then. But, when you look at statistics, I'm definitely NOT alone. Where do each of you fit???

 

[ljlinson1206]

I'm pretty sure I'm middle class, probably lower portion.

 

[drapetomaniac]

Middle class, largely due to the support system helping while I was poor.

 

[ljlinson1206]

Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by illness had health insurance. More than three-quarters were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness. However, 38 percent had lost coverage at least temporarily by the time they filed for bankruptcy

Wouldn't this fall under the catagory of an Insurance problem rather than a health care problem? Seems to me we should have insurance reform and not health care reform.

 

[drapetomaniac]

Wouldn't this fall under the catagory of an Insurance problem rather than a health care problem? Seems to me we should have insurance reform and not health care reform.

Our medical care is intertwined with the ability to pay. Most of our ability to pay is through insurance. If you can't pay, you don't get care. Or you go bankrupt. If you provide care to everyone - you're a commie.

Aren't a good portion of the complaints about the reform financial?

 

[Hippie19950]

I am in middle class, because that is where I am happy. I have everything paid for, have money left over each payday after paying bills, and have a 15 year old daughter still at home. My wants are few, and my needs are less. I learned a long time ago, the more you have, the more who want to take it, or don't like you because you have it. I prefer not to be a burden on those people. I feel that if they don't have to spend time envying me, maybe they can do something good to change the World. My daughter is planning her college. Since I am a Viet Nam Vet, there are some programs that will provide scholarships for her. I have also learned that any funds I did not use from my G.I. Bill of Rights can be transferred to her for her college education. We have a nice home, with a nice shop for me to work on my customs in. We have two vehicles and two motorcycles. We have a cat, not a dog, so that probably blows the whole ideal life out of the water, but we are probably happier than many others are. Bro. LJ is in good shape too. We have another Brother on here who has a daughter in the same grade and school as we do, and he's doing pretty good. I have retirement to draw from, but have not started that yet. My wife has not worked since my daughter was born. It was a little tough at times, but we both felt better knowing that if our daughter needed to be home due to illness, she would be available. This knocked some of the stats around too, because there were no lost days of work due to a child's illness. I can sit here, and bicker back and forth for many more years, but I am growing tired of it, and it really is cutting into my much needed party time before going to a nursing home (again, paid for by the V.A. Man don't you just LOVE this Government!), and I really do need to get a few other things done. I'm about to kick 60 right between the eyes real hard, so you should know I'm not much for contributing to society much longer. I have done my share, and then some over the years. I am enjoying some of this time looking into my mother's side of the family. Seems we hail from Jamestown in the 1700's, and then all the way back to the Normans. Now, if I could just get the German side of my family to come around, I might have a really unique heritage to brag about. Til then, I'll find you someplace else.............................

 

[Blake Bowden]

Amen.