A Duty To Die

[Moonbeam]

Are you saying that any person with a life threatening condition has the right to force other people to take care of him without paying them?

Are you stupid or did you just land? Emergency rooms are required to save people for free, you idiot, even a worthless scum ball like you, you God Damned immoral savage.

 

[daishi5]

Are you stupid or did you just land? Emergency rooms are required to save people for free, you idiot, even a worthless scum ball like you, you God Damned immoral savage.

I am well aware of this, and that requirement forces us to charge other people more to make up the revenue shortfall of a patient walking in the ER doors. The money to keep the lights on has to come from somewhere. The money from medicare is not enough to cover the government mandated shortfalls in places like the ER, so it has to come from someone else. If you expect that you can just take the ER model and expand it without paying for it, you may end up with some serious consequences you didn't intend.

The ER "required treatment" model only works because we can shift the cost to other patients, but that model only works as long as you have enough other people to shift the cost to. Right now, those ER costs are crushing some hospitals in urban areas that don't have the non-medicare patient volumes to cover the loss. I would have to check, but IIRC several hospitals have gone under, due in part to their large ER expenses they were mandated to provide. If we expand the mentality of the ER model, IE everyone should be treated regardless of ability to pay, you stand a good chance of driving many hospitals out of business.

 

[QuantumPion]

So you're saying that EVERYONE at ANY age who doesn't have the money to afford the treatment needed to save or extend their life has a duty to die?

They don't have a duty to do anything. It's called cause and effect. Also known as reality. You should try living in it some time.

 

[WHAMPOM]

I wanted to be put on an iceberg and float out to sea, but, alas, the icebergs are disappearing.

I also, however, have no idea what you are on about, PJ.

Never heard of melodrama?

 

[WHAMPOM]

Not so long ago, humanity was subject to a hand to mouth existence, subject to the whims of nature and subject to the unending competition for food. A few thousands of years ago we could be attacked by predators, fall ill and die from infections and diseases. We were strong bodied and strong willed but subject to famine, drought and pestilence.

Today, mankind has taken some huge leaps forward. We still live subject to the disruptions of weather and disease, but we seldom are concerned by predators, famine or drought, at least in the developed countries.

Life was cheap before. Unending wars as well as environmental conditions took many lives. But, in achieving the extraordinary comfort and security we now have, has life really become any more precious?

As a society we have institutionalized infanticide with abortion on demand simply by proclaiming that a child has to be born before it can be considered fully human. And hundred of millions have thus died in the course of only a few decades.

As a society we have institutionalized war, becoming impossibly efficient with weapons that no one can stand against, though we have not used them to full effect, yet.

As a society we have gained such an expectation of personal comfort that very little can be imagined that would have precedence over that comfort. In a way, we have become the most selfish manifestations of humanity yet.

This expectation is made manifest is through our attitudes toward those who are most dependent and those that require the greatest expenditure of time, effort and money to keep alive - the youngest and the oldest.

The youngest and most helpless, those that can't fight back in the slightest, we already know how to deal with them. But how will we now deal with the aged?

There is this myth of the "golden years," a time without the cares of wage earning and labor, a reward for a lifetime of effort. The myth can only be supported by the use of very expensive medical care to hold off inevitable death. And as all life ends anyway, when does the cost outweigh the benefit?

Oh, I doubt we will mandate pulling the plug on anyone over 60, 70, 80, 90, anytime soon. We will likely just institutionalize the idea that once someone is too old to work and contribute it would be a good idea that they voluntarily go somewhere and die quietly.

Maybe we will celebrate them choosing to die with (inexpensive) memorials and testimonies to the braveness they show in their self-sacrifice to our own comfort and convenience. Maybe we will disenfranchise them so that, should we need to make that kind of choice for them, we can do so with greater ease and efficiency. Maybe, with universal health care, a faceless bureaucracy can make the choice to prohibit (for the greater societal good, of course) the most expensive life prolonging treatments to those who are in their "golden years" for us.

Our society is still making choices. We have already chosen to abort the unwanted children that would make our lives inconveniently difficult. How far away are we from choosing to remove the unbearable inconvenience of our expensive aged?

How sad you make no mention of the people denied coverage for life saving procedures by their insurance providers. The existing Death Panels deserve no Peejabber Topic?

 

[Matthiasa]

I think I either watched or read that before...
I'm choosing no, that is a horrible idea.

However, feel free to volunteer yourself for it.

 

[shira]

They don't have a duty to do anything. It's called cause and effect. Also known as reality. You should try living in it some time.

Nice evasion.

 

[shira]

Are you saying that any person with a life threatening condition has the right to force other people to take care of him without paying them?

If by "other people" you mean society, and by "take care of" you mean bear the medical expense of via taxes paid by society, then obviously the answer is yes.

What do YOU propose: Letting them die on a street corner?

 

[CycloWizard]

im talking about eliminating positions that would not be needed under a single payer system. like all the bill collectors and insurance people.

So, you feel that eliminating private insurance companies will lower costs enough to extend end-of-life benefits to everyone? How many people do you think the government would need to hire to administer such a system? Can you name a single government takeover of any system in history which actually improved the overall efficiency of the system?

 

[hal2kilo]

It's official! Pajamas is the most polarizing troll poster and has a duty to die!

Do I win a prize?

 

[CycloWizard]

blah blah blah

In other words, you can't address any of the points I made and want to impose your will on everyone at the point of a gun, imposing duties which infringe on my rights using the government to achieve the opposite of its original purpose, which is, "to secure these rights." But that's only if you believe anything written in the Declaration of Independence.

 

[CycloWizard]

And now we have the slippery slope fallacy. Try harder.

edit: Not sure why I bother anymore, but I'll try to point out why your reasoning is absolutely insane. If person A gets sick but can't afford treatment, there are three options:
1. person A goes untreated and, for the sake of argument, dies a horrifying death due to spontaneous combustion
2. person A gets money from government to pay for treatment
3. person A gets money from a private source

If either 2 or 3 occurs, what happens the next time person A gets sick? The next time? The next time? What happens when a treatment will not save person A's life but will prolong it for X amount of time?

*cough*

 

[QuantumPion]

Nice evasion.

I think you either misunderstood the meaning of my post, or you have not an even rudimentary understanding of logic.

If I don't buy lunch, I go hungry. I don't "have a duty to go hungry". I am hungry because I didn't buy lunch.

If I spend all of my earnings now on cars and houses and don't save any for post-retirement health care, get cancer when I'm 70, and can't afford experimental treatment; I don't "have a duty to die". I do die as a consequence of my actions of not saving money. That is unless the government takes your money away from you and gives it to me.

 

[shira]

In other words, you can't address any of the points I made and want to impose your will on everyone at the point of a gun, imposing duties which infringe on my rights using the government to achieve the opposite of its original purpose, which is, "to secure these rights." But that's only if you believe anything written in the Declaration of Independence.

Listen, Junior, your irrational babbling doesn't constitute "points." And your "blah blah blah" quote just reinforces the fact that you're incapable of distinguishing between the vapid (the product of that echo-chamber occupying your skull) and the sublime (pretty much anything I toss your way).

And these so-called "infringed rights" you imagine: What might they be? A constitutional right to "keep more of my money"?

Why don't you explain to us how an unexplicated "right to keep more of my money" trumps the "right to life" actually stated as an inalienable and self-evident right in the Declaration of Independence?

 

[CycloWizard]

Listen, Junior, your irrational babbling doesn't constitute "points." And your "blah blah blah" quote just reinforces the fact that you're incapable of distinguishing between the vapid (the product of that echo-chamber occupying your skull) and the sublime (pretty much anything I toss your way).

And these so-called "infringed rights" you imagine: What might they be? A constitutional right to "keep more of my money"?

Why don't you explain to us how an unexplicated "right to keep more of my money" trumps the "right to life" actually stated as an inalienable and self-evident right in the Declaration of Independence?

I have a right to life. That means idiots like you aren't allowed to infringe on my right to life. That doesn't mean that idiots like you have a legal obligation to keep me alive at all costs. But, idiots like you aren't capable of much more than throwing around what they consider to be big words and palliatives, so it's hardly a surprise that you can't understand the difference between a right and an imposition. Am I speaking your language yet?

 

[daishi5]

If by "other people" you mean society, and by "take care of" you mean bear the medical expense of via taxes paid by society, then obviously the answer is yes.

What do YOU propose: Letting them die on a street corner?

Let me be a little more clear, we are running into a nursing shortage. Patient volumes are increasing, and experienced nurses want to retire. If we have a duty to the patients, how do you expect us to meet that duty? Should we force more people to go into nursing, force nurses out of retirement?

What do you do if we cannot come up with enough voluntary nurses to meet current patient care standards? Does a persons right to care allow us to violate another person's right to self determination?

Or if you don't believe that we don't have enough nurses, how about a very specialized surgery with a high failure rate? Hypothetically, 5 surgeons can perform the surgery, 4 have decided to retire, and the 5th is on vacation. None of them will accept any amount of money to perform the surgery, and the patient will die within the week without it. Whose rights win, the patients right to care, or the surgeons right to control his own life?

A right to healthcare is creating a "right" to the work of other people.

 

[JSt0rm]

So, you feel that eliminating private insurance companies will lower costs enough to extend end-of-life benefits to everyone? How many people do you think the government would need to hire to administer such a system? Can you name a single government takeover of any system in history which actually improved the overall efficiency of the system?

After the poop pipes I refuse to debate anything with you. Sorry.

 

[Red Dawn]

PJabbering, do you duty

 

[CycloWizard]

After the poop pipes I refuse to debate anything with you. Sorry.

Yes, as I recall, you also beat a hasty retreat in that thread when I called your bluff. Smart move on your part.

 

[JSt0rm]

Yes, as I recall, you also beat a hasty retreat in that thread when I called your bluff. Smart move on your part.

No it is impossible to debate with you, thats why I left. I grew tired of competition for poop in nyc. It was funny and then it wasn't so I stopped and with this topic well its not funny at all so why debate with you?

 

[shira]

I think you either misunderstood the meaning of my post, or you have not an even rudimentary understanding of logic.

If I don't buy lunch, I go hungry. I don't "have a duty to go hungry". I am hungry because I didn't buy lunch.

If I spend all of my earnings now on cars and houses and don't save any for post-retirement health care, get cancer when I'm 70, and can't afford experimental treatment; I don't "have a duty to die". I do die as a consequence of my actions of not saving money. That is unless the government takes your money away from you and gives it to me.

We use the term "straw man" on this forum when someone uses a worst-case example as being typical of the entire class being debated. Congratulations, you've erected a straw man.

Now, in the real world, there are lots of responsible, hard-working people who through little fault of their own are faced with health care costs they can't afford (by the way, notice that I didn't write "no fault of their own" - that would also be a straw man). A child of the poor who gets leukemia, for example. Or someone with a life-threatening, pre-existing condition whose employment doesn't provide health insurance. And, yes, there are those who smoke and overeat and don't save for a rainy day - and their dependents.

What are these people to do? Sounds like you expect them to just go away and die.

 

[QuantumPion]

palliatives

OK even I had to look that one up. :awe:

 

[CycloWizard]

No it is impossible to debate with you, thats why I left. I grew tired of competition for poop in nyc. It was funny and then it wasn't so I stopped and with this topic well its not funny at all so why debate with you?

The best way to win an argument is to be right in the first place. I'm sorry that you expend so much energy defending inane positions, but maybe you should consider not holding those positions in the first place if they're not worth defending. Just a thought.

 

[shira]

I have a right to life. That means idiots like you aren't allowed to infringe on my right to life. That doesn't mean that idiots like you have a legal obligation to keep me alive at all costs. But, idiots like you aren't capable of much more than throwing around what they consider to be big words and palliatives, so it's hardly a surprise that you can't understand the difference between a right and an imposition. Am I speaking your language yet?

"Big words?" Does that mean vocabulary your sandbox companions don't use? Or perhaps it's my perspicuity you find intimidating. Alas, it's almost impossible for me to condescend to your level; if I actually COULD stoop that low, you might indeed be able to speak my language.

But wait, hiding amid your confusion is . . . irony. You argue that your "right" to "keep more of my money" trumps others' rights to actually live by claiming that keeping more of your money is in fact YOUR "right to life," while others' rights to actually live are merely "impositions." And you say I don't know the difference?

Ha ha ha ha. If I'm an "idiot," you're an inanimate object.

 

[CycloWizard]

"Big words?" Does that mean vocabulary your sandbox companions don't use? Or perhaps it's my perspicuity you find intimidating. Alas, it's almost impossible for me to condescend to your level; if I actually COULD stoop that low, you might indeed be able to speak my language.

Ha ha ha ha. If I'm an "idiot," you're an inanimate object.

If you hadn't jumped the gun on tooting your own horn, you would have noticed what I actually said, which was, "what they consider to be big words." Your language is that of the pseudo-intellectual, who thinks he can intimidate others with what he perceives as a superior vocabulary. When your "victim" doesn't cower under your onslaught, you resort to insulting him directly in a condescending manner in an effort to impress everyone else with your casual use of a thesaurus. When your "victim" laughs at you, you fly off the handle and resort to cheap insults.

But wait, hiding amid your confusion is . . . irony. You argue that your "right" to "keep more of my money" trumps others' rights to actually live by claiming that keeping more of your money is in fact YOUR "right to life," while others' rights to actually live are merely "impositions." And you say I don't know the difference?

Government exists to protect my rights to life, liberty, and property. I have no duty to protect anyone else's rights, let alone give up my property to protect them. These are impositions which you want to force on me in direct contravention of my right to property. It's not a difficult concept, so someone of your towering intellect should surely be able to wrap his head around it.