How will medicare pay for all those drugs and services?
Answer: They won’t have to
There ya go, fixed that for ya.
Posted on 01/06/2008 10:38:54 PM PST by FocusNexus
A Canadian judge is due to decide this week whether to renew a temporary injunction against Winnipeg's Grace General Hospital, whose doctors want to detach an 84-year-old Orthodox Jew from a respirator and hasten his death, against his family's wishes.
However, it was learned Sunday that the patient, Samuel Golubchuk, regained consciousness several days ago and appears to be improving.
Although a hospital doctor treating Golubchuk wrote "Awoke" on his chart, the hospital did not disclose this to the court. The family said the hospital had been trying to make the patient appear to be dying and with minimal brain function. Grace General Hospital has received the backing of the Canadian Medical Association in its efforts to bring about active euthanasia.
(Excerpt) Read more at jpost.com ...
This is INEVITABLE for the US, if a Dem, any Dem gets elected -- with the help of the Dem Congress, we will surely end up with socialized medicine and the only way to keep costs down, is to ration treatment and literally kill people off, instead of treating them.
Remember this, when voting. Consider the consequences of your actions. Electability needs to be a major consideration in deciding whom to vote for in the primary. (And no, I do not believe that McCain is electable)
Canada ping
ping
Let him live.
It’s scary.
“According to the chart, which the judge was apparently not shown, the supposedly “imminently dying” Golubchuk is not only awake but has interacted with people and made purposeful movements.
....
A Grace General Hospital lawyer told the court that doctors “have the sole right to make decisions about treatment - even if it goes against a patient’s religious beliefs.”
While the doctors are giving interviews, no doubt, saying "Pay no attention to that man!" and "He's really not well, it's all for the best..."
I wasn’t talking politics. I was just responding to the facts presented. Why do they want to kill this person?
How will SS pay for all those baby boomers?
How will medicare pay for all those drugs and services?
Answer: They won’t have to
The murders in Nazi Germany began with the terminally ill and mental patients.
Jocelyn Elders said that those old people were just gonna die anyway and that the young people will be paying her Social Security.
“Why do they want to kill this person?”
To save money.
This is the really scary part — the patients or their families desires mean nothing. They are saying, that since the government pays and basically controls the hospital, they have the right to decide who lives and dies. The guy is not in a coma and is conscious and they want to kill him anyway, because he is “old”.
A Grace General Hospital lawyer told the court that doctors “have the sole right to make decisions about treatment - even if it goes against a patient’s religious beliefs.”
“Grace” General Hospital. They should be sued for false advertising.
When social security was started, the life expectency of the US population was around 65 — SS was just another tax and very few people were expected to live long enough to collect. Now that people live longer, they will have to correct the situation — one approach is to stop treating anyone over 65, and let them die.
This articls just highlights the tip of the iceberg and just the start of that.
You are right.
Life, predicted by Monty Python...
:-(
Golubchuk:
I’m not dead!
Court:
‘Ere. He says he’s not dead!
Hospital:
Yes, he is.
Golubchuk:
I’m not!
Court:
He isn’t?
Hospital:
Well, he will be soon. He’s very ill.
Golubchuk:
I’m getting better!
Hospital:
No, you’re not. You’ll be stone dead in a moment.
Court:
Oh, I can’t take him like that. It’s against regulations.
Golubchuk:
I don’t want to go on the cart!
Hospital:
Oh, don’t be such a baby.
Court:
I can’t take him.
Golubchuk:
I feel fine!
Hospital:
Well, do us a favor.
Court:
I can’t.
Hospital:
Well, can you hang around a couple of minutes? He won’t be long.
Court:
No, I’ve got to go to the Robinsons’. They’ve lost nine today.
Hospital:
Well, when’s your next round?
Court:
Thursday.
Golubchuk:
I think I’ll go for a walk.
Hospital:
You’re not fooling anyone, you know. Look. Isn’t there something you can do?
Golubchuk: [singing]
I feel happy. I feel happy.
*WHACK!*
Hospital:
Ah, thanks very much.
Court:
Not at all. See you on Thursday.
You’re welcome fanfan.
Canada is a great place if you are young and terrible if you are old.
Socialized medicine at its best. And, this is what we can expect under Hillarycare, or any of the other socialized healthcare proposals being tossed around in the campaign.
Socialized medicine at its best. Really? Maybe it’s all about human emotions , a little media attention and a whole lot of profit.
Bland v. Cigna Healthplan of Texas, Inc., Bland, a terminally ill AIDS patient was dependent upon a ventilator. Both Bland and his family insisted that he remain on the ventilator. But apparently at the direction of the Cigna medical director and without consulting Bland, his family, or the primary care physician, the chair of the ethics committee secretly and unilaterally ordered the ventilator removed.
In late November, seventeen-year-old Nataline Sarkisyan underwent a bone marrow transplant at UCLA Medical Center. But Nataline suffered complications and was in the ICU for three weeks. UCLA physicians then put her on the liver transplant list. Nataline was covered under her mother’s Cigna health insurance policy.
But despite the pleadings of the UCLA physicians, Cigna denied coverage for the transplant, explaining that it would not be an “effective or appropriate treatment.” It looks like the famous Wickline case, also from California. There, because the payer refused further coverage, the physicians discharged the patient early contrary to their own medical recommendations.
Georgia Court of Appeals released its opinion in DeKalb Medical Center v. Hawkins, No. 07A1405 (Nov. 29, 2007). This case got a lot of media exposure over the past few years because of the rather extraordinary facts.
Back in 2003, 18-year-old Tara Hawkins was attacked by Stephen Davis. The attack left Tara, who was 12-weeks pregnant, with severe head trauma. Since Tara had no prospects of ever regaining consciousness, providers recommended that LSMT be withdrawn. Tara’s mother refused. In early 2004, Tara spontaneously delivered her baby. Two days later, DeKalb Medical Center removed Tara from LSMT.
The Court of Appeals observed that Tara was alive and that the withdrawal of LSMT was unilateral: “There is no evidence in the record that, prior to the discontinuation of life support, Hawkins was terminally ill or that her death was imminent,
16-year-old Javona Peters is in a PVS state at Montefiore Medical Center after an October 2007 brain operation went wrong. Javona was undergoing a ventriculostomy, a routine procedure that involves boring a hole in the brain to drain cerebral fluid into a cavity, but apparently had an allergic reaction to the anesthetic depriving her brain of oxygen.
Javona’s mother (Janet Joseph) wanted to remove the LSMT and let her go in peace. But, according to the NY Daily News, Javona’s father (Leonard Peters) was unwilling to do that: A hearing is scheduled in Bronx Superior Court for January 7th.
This statement flies in the face of your post. Why should this be the major consideration? By what you've posted, shouldn't standing against liberals (in both parties) be the marching order?
You would have a good point if this was happening in the US, but it’s in Canada. Social Security has nothing to do with it.
Yep, socialized medicine at its best. These decisions should be left to the family, and most importantly to the patient by means of pre-planning and living wills, last wishes documents, and so forth.
The government has no place in this discussion. The insurance carrier, if one is in play, may arguably have a say, but I’m not even wholly convinced of that.
Oh no, it never happens here. /s
Obviously you have no idea how Canada health care is structured . Canadian government has no say in medical decisions. Winnipeg's Grace General Hospital happens to be owned by the Salvation Army.
And, the Canadian government didn’t enable this system?
Canadian government enforces the Canada Health Act. That Act doesn't include making medical decisions. The hospital , in this case , would bill the Manitoba Government. Who is not empowered in any way to make medical decisions.
Ahh.. the joys of the single payer system.
I hate to break this to you, but it has nothing to do with DEMS or REPS... now that big corporations are changing their tune and want the government to provide health care so they don’t have to.. it won’t matter if the entire Gubment had all R’s elected... it’s coming.
Just like the BK law was attrociously bad law, but the CC companies wanted the gubment to act as their collection agents so they bought a law.. same will happen with health care.
In 1994 last time they tried to socialize the big corps were still against it.. now they aren’t.. its just a matter of time before Ford/GM/USX/GE et al buy themselves a gubment health care system.. and if you think for one minute that the elected will stand against it if thats what these people want you are utterly naive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.