Jan Brewer's GOP death panel gets another kill

[bfdd]

If you can't afford it, guess what? The taxpayers aren't going to pay for it. If you care so much about this one person, there is nothing stopping you from sending money to him or her to get the transplant done.

well besides the fact the dude is already dead, yeah there's nothing to stop him from sending money to the guy lol

 

[thegimp03]

That's what happens when you don't have any coverage. It is unconfirmed as to whether or not this person was on Medicaid.

Besides, your argument is empty. If that liver was given to this person instead of the person who received it, that person may have died instead and you would be complaining about the same thing. And then this person's Hep C likely would have destroyed the liver anyway, wasting the transplant. That would be quite the lose-lose situation, now wouldn't it?

Common sense is deficient in the modern liberal mind. Proven daily in ATP&N.

 

[Phokus]

If you can't afford it, guess what? The taxpayers aren't going to pay for it. If you care so much about this one person, there is nothing stopping you from sending money to him or her to get the transplant done.

Or maybe the Patient could take the HACP way out and steal the organ from his roommate or neighbor.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Generally people with Hep C are on the bottom of the list for liver transplants. Why? Because the new liver will eventually be fried and they will need another anyways. If the choice is between two dying people, one who only needs THIS LIVER and one who potentially might need another, giving it to the person who only needs 1 makes sense. There are only so many resources in the world senseamp, not everyone will have equal access to them and not everyone deserves equal access to them. Rationing sucks, but until we can clone body parts, turn energy into matter or get off this blue rock we're kind of stuck rationing.

Incorrect like usual.

 

[werepossum]

Under our new national health care plan, situations like this are going to become more and more common. A big part of the new plan is to shift costs to the states while also reducing Medicaid reimbursements. I don't recall any additional funding coming the way of the states to cover that additional costs, so...

Outrage? I guess. The new norm? Yes. Shuffling the burden and costs to another entity doesn't magically correct funding problems.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Everything desirable and limited is inherently rationed. Most sane people would agree that not placing people with incurable and aggressive liver disease on the list for liver transplants, never mind moving them to the top, makes complete sense given that neither suitable livers not funding is going to come anywhere near the potential need in the near future. However progressives have expanded and transmogrified their Magic Cupboard Theory of Economics into a new Magic Cupboard Theory of Health Care, so even government health care is merely more evidence of the need for government health care. As long as it is not run completely by all-powerful Marxists with absolute control of all resources, it's not real government health care - in much the way that progressives say communism has never really been tried.

In the real world, rich progressives could easily start a tax deductible charity to fund liver transplants etc. for these people. Of course, progressives are only generous with other people's money, so that won't happen, but if the problem is these people dying while not on a list that's easily solved. The budget was cut a measly $1.4 million. If progressives were truly concerned, this money could easily be raised privately, keeping the state solvent (well, less insolvent) and allowing these people the dignity of dying with their name on a list. That wouldn't increase the supply of suitable donor livers, but it would eliminate the horrors of not making the list.

 

[bfdd]

Incorrect like usual.

lol @ you not posting any links to back it up. Let me guess you think there's a cure for Hep C or that a transplant some how means they won't fry that liver lol. Obviously you don't know much about Hepatitis C.

 

[Craig234]

Everything desirable and limited is inherently rationed. Most sane people would agree that not placing people with incurable and aggressive liver disease on the list for liver transplants, never mind moving them to the top, makes complete sense given that neither suitable livers not funding is going to come anywhere near the potential need in the near future. However progressives have expanded and transmogrified their Magic Cupboard Theory of Economics into a new Magic Cupboard Theory of Health Care, so even government health care is merely more evidence of the need for government health care. As long as it is not run completely by all-powerful Marxists with absolute control of all resources, it's not real government health care - in much the way that progressives say communism has never really been tried.

In the real world, rich progressives could easily start a tax deductible charity to fund liver transplants etc. for these people. Of course, progressives are only generous with other people's money, so that won't happen, but if the problem is these people dying while not on a list that's easily solved. The budget was cut a measly $1.4 million. If progressives were truly concerned, this money could easily be raised privately, keeping the state solvent (well, less insolvent) and allowing these people the dignity of dying with their name on a list. That wouldn't increase the supply of suitable donor livers, but it would eliminate the horrors of not making the list.

And right on schedule.

They pay PR firms and think tanks who sell the public on the bad policies - ironically making them afraid of the BETTER plans, to prevent their being passed.

It's a complicated issue, that marketing and cliches can cover up the issues.

Any time something like this happens, it can be explained away with generalizations like how much we spend and how we can't afford every medical treatment.

Have to note the democracy-hating jerky recommendation.

'The solution to the rich gutting the government and preventing it from serving the public interest isn't to fix that, it's to create a totally unworkable 'donation system'.

The point of the donation system isn't to function, it's to tell people who want to fix a corrupted democracy to shut up instead of addressing the corruption.

It's to pretend that there is some other 'solution' that's better, and to imply that they're wrong for wanting government to serve the public interest.'

 

[bfdd]

Craig234, your post does nothing to describe what would be needed to magically make money appear to pay for this guys operation. The "system" is in place and we work within it. If we want to change it, we change it, but no one wants to because you guys all vote for idiots with Rs and Ds next to their name like anything will change after the last 100 years of doing so.

 

[werepossum]

Craig234, your post does nothing to describe what would be needed to magically make money appear to pay for this guys operation. The "system" is in place and we work within it. If we want to change it, we change it, but no one wants to because you guys all vote for idiots with Rs and Ds next to their name like anything will change after the last 100 years of doing so.

The beauty of Craigspeak is that he doesn't have to propose solutions because his end game is merely an all-powerful Marxist government. Each failure of government is merely evidence of "corporatism" and "obstructionism" and thus grounds for even more power for government. He knows the problems wouldn't be solved, but once government controls everything he'll have the revenge he could never earn on his own: living equally as well as the rest of us now-miserable bastards. Kind of like a super villein without any super powers. Or normal powers. Just tights and a cape and a funny hat.

 

[theeedude]

So what's the problem then? No money to pay for it, means it doesn't happen. That's how shit works.

Death solves all problems. No person, no problem. -Joseph Stalin

 

[Capt Caveman]

lol @ you not posting any links to back it up. Let me guess you think there's a cure for Hep C or that a transplant some how means they won't fry that liver lol. Obviously you don't know much about Hepatitis C.

LOL. I used to work for a pharma developing a Hepatitis C drug that will soon be approved by the FDA. So, yes, I know much more than you about the subject than you. As well as other's have already pointed out which you seem to want to ignore is that Hep C patients are placed higher on the transplant list.

Obviously, you don't know much about Hepatitis C. Kind of like your ignorant posts about Apple. Too funny.

 

[Amused]

Posted this in the last thread about this stupid fucking subject, and I'll post it here to:

What I want to know is when the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" became the obligation of others to provide the means to support it?

The "life" part of that simply means you have the right to live and no one may take it from you. Not that the government is obligated to keep you alive by making the labor of others your entitlement. It is not an obligation to GIVE you life, only to not take it away. Your right to life, just like all other rights, ends when it infringes on the rights of others.

It simply amazes me how people think their rights are the obligations of everyone else around them to the detriment of other's rights. Your "right to life" does NOT mean you get to force others to maintain it. Period.

 

[bfdd]

LOL. I used to work for a pharma developing a Hepatitis C drug that will soon be approved by the FDA. So, yes, I know much more than you about the subject than you. As well as other's have already pointed out which you seem to want to ignore is that Hep C patients are placed higher on the transplant list.

Obviously, you don't know much about Hepatitis C. Kind of like your ignorant posts about Apple. Too funny.

So right now there is a cure for Hep C? No there isn't. OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVEN'T READ MY POSTS as I even said that MOST liver transplants in the USA are for Hep C patients. That doesn't change the fact he would have fried the second liver he or the state couldn't have afforded. It's one thing to throw your money away, it's another to throw away money you don't even have.

Drugs that aren't out yet don't count, especially since this guy is ALREADY DEAD and said drug he didn't have access too(as far as we/I know).

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

LOL. I used to work for a pharma developing a Hepatitis C drug that will soon be approved by the FDA. So, yes, I know much more than you about the subject than you. As well as other's have already pointed out which you seem to want to ignore is that Hep C patients are placed higher on the transplant list.

Obviously, you don't know much about Hepatitis C. Kind of like your ignorant posts about Apple. Too funny.

You still have not addressed the question. Why is the person with Hep C more entitled to the organ than the people not afflicted? In this situation, there's 1 liver and multiple people. Someone is not going to get it, and that someone is probably going to die. IMO, the person who is able to pay for it and will benefit the most from it should get it.

 

[Steeplerot]

And this person was taken off because they weren't covered. Coverage gets you healthcare. That's how it works. I don't want my tax dollars paying for a liver that gets fried by Hep C - do you?

Amazing logic going on here:
Where do you draw the line at profit/lives? Why help a unprofitable segment that is about to die anyhow in the first place? Besides, it would cost some CEO that extra baggie of coke for the Lobbyist party coming up.

You guys are obviously lost without daily radio/foxnews talking points.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Amazing logic going on here:
Where do you draw the line at profit/lives? Why help a unprofitable segment that is about to die anyhow in the first place? Besides, it would cost some CEO that extra baggie of coke for the Lobbyist party coming up.

You guys are obviously lost without daily radio/foxnews talking points.

So you honestly think that every single person who gets sick is entitled to your taxes, and you are entitled to theirs, in order to stay well?

Sorry buddy, that's not how it works. You have to pay for services in a functioning economy.

And it's not profit when the state is still hemorrhaging money. It's called cutting costs - and keeping the nation's populace from becoming completely dependent on welfare is a good way to do it.

 

[Amused]

Amazing logic going on here:
Where do you draw the line at profit/lives? Why help a unprofitable segment that is about to die anyhow in the first place? Besides, it would cost some CEO that extra baggie of coke for the Lobbyist party coming up.

You guys are obviously lost without daily radio/foxnews talking points.

That's funny, but I don't see you rushing to Arizona to cover this guy's medical bills? Why not?

 

[Capt Caveman]

So right now there is a cure for Hep C? No there isn't. OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVEN'T READ MY POSTS as I even said that MOST liver transplants in the USA are for Hep C patients. That doesn't change the fact he would have fried the second liver he or the state couldn't have afforded. It's one thing to throw your money away, it's another to throw away money you don't even have.

Drugs that aren't out yet don't count, especially since this guy is ALREADY DEAD and said drug he didn't have access too(as far as we/I know).

You're the one that stated that Hep C transplant patients are placed lower on the transplant when it's actually the other way around. You're the one that questioned my Hep C knowledge and I informed you that I've worked for a Pharma developing a Hep C drug and have learned about Hep C, current treatments and future FDA approved treatments(not including ours).

So, even if it may take 20 years for their liver transplant to develop problems, they shouldn't be allowed to have one b/c they'll just fry it again? I know that our trials have alleviated and reduced symptoms and damage that Hep C can cause. Currently, a cocktail of many drugs(none developed specifically for Hep C) are used with relatively low % of success with numerous side-effects. Liver transplants can help Hep C patients to live a long time.

 

[bfdd]

Amazing logic going on here:
Where do you draw the line at profit/lives? Why help a unprofitable segment that is about to die anyhow in the first place? Besides, it would cost some CEO that extra baggie of coke for the Lobbyist party coming up.

You guys are obviously lost without daily radio/foxnews talking points.

Everyone has a value associated with their head, not everyones value is equal. If the $ to fix someone is more than they are worth, it is a bad investment. Sucks, but resources are limited so that will always be the truth with or without people skimming from the top.


Reality is a bitch.

 

[bfdd]

You're the one that stated that Hep C transplant patients are placed lower on the transplant when it's actually the other way around. You're the one that questioned my Hep C knowledge and I informed you that I've worked for a Pharma developing a Hep C drug and have learned about Hep C, current treatments and future FDA approved treatments(not including ours).

So, even if it may take 20 years for their liver transplant to develop problems, they shouldn't be allowed to have one b/c they'll just fry it again? I know that our trials have alleviated and reduced symptoms and damage that Hep C can cause. Currently, a cocktail of many drugs(none developed specifically for Hep C) are used with relatively low % of success with numerous side-effects. Liver transplants can help Hep C patients to live a long time.

And I corrected myself a few posts ago so why are you going off what I said before? Like I said you haven't read all of my posts. PS a link was already posted that says 30% of transplants with recurrent HCV fry their liver in like 5 years and the other 30% in 10. Lets not forget it couldn't be paid for anyways.

 

[Amused]

You're the one that stated that Hep C transplant patients are placed lower on the transplant when it's actually the other way around. You're the one that questioned my Hep C knowledge and I informed you that I've worked for a Pharma developing a Hep C drug and have learned about Hep C, current treatments and future FDA approved treatments(not including ours).

So, even if it may take 20 years for their liver transplant to develop problems, they shouldn't be allowed to have one b/c they'll just fry it again? I know that our trials have alleviated and reduced symptoms and damage that Hep C can cause. Currently, a cocktail of many drugs(none developed specifically for Hep C) are used with relatively low % of success with numerous side-effects. Liver transplants can help Hep C patients to live a long time.

http://www.thedoctorschannel.com/video/2354.html

It's not as simple as that. Nothing is. And as long as none of us know the details of his case, no one can say where on the list he should have been, or if he should have even been on the list at all.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Death solves all problems. No person, no problem. -Joseph Stalin

There is much irony here.

 

[theeedude]

There is much irony here.

Much of it lost on you.

 

[Craig234]

http://www.thedoctorschannel.com/video/2354.html

It's not as simple as that. Nothing is. And as long as none of us know the details of his case, no one can say where on the list he should have been, or if he should have even been on the list at all.

You are quickly earning the #2 worst poster on the board spot. I've taken to skipping your posts but saw this one.

We know he belonged on the list as he was on it, and taken off FOR THE MONEY, as the hospital said.

We know he would liekly moved UP the list because that's what the hospital said.

Bad ethics + idiocy is a bad combination you have.

 

[bfdd]

You are quickly earning the #2 worst poster on the board spot. I've taken to skipping your posts but saw this one.

We know he belonged on the list as he was on it, and taken off FOR THE MONEY, as the hospital said.

We know he would liekly moved UP the list because that's what the hospital said.

Bad ethics + idiocy is a bad combination you have.

But there was no money to pay for it. If something can't be paid for, it can't be done. That's how shit works. Not to mention like I said even if he was to get a new liver odds are he was going to fry it in little to no time at all. If there was enough money to give one person a new liver, spending it on someone who you know is going to destroy the liver seems like a poor investment.