Jan Brewer's GOP death panel gets another kill

[Amused]

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.

Well, I know you're not one for critical thought, but let's look at this critically, shall we?

Arizona reduced Medicaid coverage for transplants on Oct. 1 under cuts included to help close a shortfall in the state budget enacted last spring.

Officials at the Tucson, Ariz., hospital said the patient's death "most likely" resulted from Arizona's scaling back coverage for transplants, she said.

It's impossible to say with 100 percent certainty whether the patient would have died anyway, Gellerman said, "but we do know that his condition has gotten more severe since he was taken off the list."

The patient's worsening condition would have elevated his place on the list, she added.

1. He was taken off the list after Oct first and died three months later. Three months is FAR shorter than the average waiting period on the transplant waiting list. At the time, the average waiting time for a patient to receive a liver in our region, once a patient is placed on the UNOS waiting list, is 12-36 months.
http://www.cpmc.org/advanced/liver/patients/topics/MELD.html

2. The hospital is OF COURSE going to be biased. They want more funding, and profit from it. Hell, they are the one's who released this info in the first place. Care to guess why?

3. As I said before. 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.

Now, why weren't you rushing to Arizona to pay for this guy's liver? Oh, that's right. You want to force others to pay for it. You would be singing a far different tune were YOUR work product made the right of another. How about I come to your work, and take whatever it is you make for free as my right?

My ethics are fine, Craig. It is your ethics that are skewed. You have your hand firmly planted in the wallets of others and justify it with your brand of morality. You seek to enact your brand of morality into law. You are the very same thing as the religious right.

 

[Patranus]

the patient died Dec. 28 at another medical facility after earlier being removed from UMC's list for a liver transplant needed because of hepatitis C.

What am I missing?!?!

 

[nonlnear]

The article isn't clear about exactly what happened. Were there organs that went unused because of these decisions?

 

[feralkid]

http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/fitz/image_15c4cff2-19bd-11e0-98b6-001cc4c03286.html

 

[her209]

The article is scant on details. Was the transplant previously covered and now is no longer covered? The person who was on the transplant list, was it known they had Hep C prior to being put on the list or were they removed after it was discovered/known?

 

[Craig234]

The article is scant on details. Was the transplant previously covered and now is no longer covered? The person who was on the transplant list, was it known they had Hep C prior to being put on the list or were they removed after it was discovered/known?

It's easy to infer from the article - your questions, yes and yes it was known.

 

[dmcowen674]

Jan Brewer's GOP death panel gets another kill

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_transplant_coverage_death;_ylt=AsvEQxc7GH3uU3sLoKKa4NFzfNdF


Lazy bums are dying left and right, good times.

Where is Palin now?

She is the one that was saying it was the Dems that will enact Death Panels and it turned out to be the Republicans.

 

[dmcowen674]

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.

You are free to leave America still. I'm sure at some point they will make it illegal to leave once you are here but it hasn't gotten there yet.

In the meantime since you hate it so much why are you still here?

 

[Amused]

You are free to leave America still. I'm sure at some point they will make it illegal to leave once you are here but it hasn't gotten there yet.

In the meantime since you hate it so much why are you still here?

You have things backwards, Dave. Never in the history of America has the life of one man been the unwanted obligation of another. That's what your side is trying to change. I am protesting that change.

So, Dave...

You are free to leave America still. I'm sure at some point they will make it illegal to leave once you are here but it hasn't gotten there yet.

In the meantime since you hate it so much why are you still here?

 

[Bateluer]

Don't something like 2/3rds of people on the list waiting for a liver not get them?

Most people on transplant lists will not get the organs they need. Not because of a lack of coverage, insurance, coverage, or government money, but because there simply aren't enough organs.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Jan Brewer's GOP death panel gets another kill

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_transplant_coverage_death;_ylt=AsvEQxc7GH3uU3sLoKKa4NFzfNdF


Lazy bums are dying left and right, good times.

Where is Palin now?

She is the one that was saying it was the Dems that will enact Death Panels and it turned out to be the Republicans.

Two people want an life saving organ. Only one can get it and lives.
Who makes the decision and why is the key item.

Is is a death panel if it is based on logic vs emotion?
Senseamp feels so. McOwen also?

 

[werepossum]

You have things backwards, Dave. Never in the history of America has the life of one man been the unwanted obligation of another. That's what your side is trying to change. I am protesting that change.

So, Dave...

You are free to leave America still. I'm sure at some point they will make it illegal to leave once you are here but it hasn't gotten there yet.

In the meantime since you hate it so much why are you still here?

There was such a time in Europe's history though: serfdom. A man unwilling or unable to protect or provide for himself and/or his family would tie a rope around his neck and present himself to a stronger, wealthier man with a gift, traditionally a penny. He and his family were then property from then on; their welfare was the stronger man's responsibility, but likewise the fruits of their labor belonged to their new owner. Those who preferred security usually lived, at the cost of their freedom. Those who preferred freedom sometimes prospered, but sometimes died too, victims of starvation or bandits. Mankind seems to once again be dividing itself into those who prefer freedom, with all the rights and terrors of a free creature, and those who prefer security, having their needs met by others. In the USA we call them conservatives and progressives respectively, and the latter's preferred strong man is the federal government. Even the definition of freedom is diverging. Conservatives still consider freedom to be a lack of outside constraints on choices and actions. Progressives now consider freedom to be an absence of unmet needs that themselves act as constraints on choices and actions. Conservatives consider an artist to be free if he can choose to be an artist, regardless of whether or not he can make a living as an artist. Progressives think that same man is only free to be an artist if others (through government) provide for his food, housing, health care, transportation and sometimes even broadband Internet access.

Two people want an life saving organ. Only one can get it and lives.
Who makes the decision and why is the key item.

Is is a death panel if it is based on logic vs emotion?
Senseamp feels so. McOwen also?

Liberals feel that the person who cannot afford to pay for the transplant is oppressed and therefore more deserving of the transplant than is someone who can pay for it.

 

[halik]

Well, I know you're not one for critical thought, but let's look at this critically, shall we?



1. He was taken off the list after Oct first and died three months later. Three months is FAR shorter than the average waiting period on the transplant waiting list. At the time, the average waiting time for a patient to receive a liver in our region, once a patient is placed on the UNOS waiting list, is 12-36 months.
http://www.cpmc.org/advanced/liver/patients/topics/MELD.html

2. The hospital is OF COURSE going to be biased. They want more funding, and profit from it. Hell, they are the one's who released this info in the first place. Care to guess why?

3. As I said before. 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.

Now, why weren't you rushing to Arizona to pay for this guy's liver? Oh, that's right. You want to force others to pay for it. You would be singing a far different tune were YOUR work product made the right of another. How about I come to your work, and take whatever it is you make for free as my right?

My ethics are fine, Craig. It is your ethics that are skewed. You have your hand firmly planted in the wallets of others and justify it with your brand of morality. You seek to enact your brand of morality into law. You are the very same thing as the religious right.

Wow 2011 starts with some serious burn...

How do you allocate a scarce resource (say livers) to a much larger amount of people that need it and will die otherwise?

Regardless of funding, there will always be more people needing transplants than organs available... this is a philosophical question rather than economics.

And even with your presumption of gov't providing the "life" part of "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness", where do you draw the line for what's feasible? If I require $10K/mo to keep me live? $100K? $1M? $10M? As much as it takes?

 

[trenchfoot]

Very telling how, in defense of an ideology certain dispassionate rationalizations for strangers are made, but would be obviously different if it involved a husband, wife, child or others that are near and dear.

Shame.

 

[Amused]

Very telling how, in defense of an ideology certain dispassionate rationalizations for strangers are made, but would be obviously different if it involved a husband, wife, child or others that are near and dear.

Shame.

If everyone took care of themselves, and their families, no one else would have to do it for them.

There is no shame in respecting the rights of others and not make my rights become their obligation through force of law.